RV-Archive.digest.vol-qu
April 24, 2005 - May 04, 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht(at)veribox.net> |
A couple general questions about QB kits.
1) Are there ever problems with getting enough access in the wings for
installing autopilot servos, lights, or anything else? I know they
come sans one skin only.. is that enough?
2) Any thoughts about the wash primer used? I know some ppl paint the
inside of the fuse in addition to that. Why? The wash primer is
deemed not sufficient for corrosion protection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts(at)yahoo.com> |
There is a product out there called Vikuiti which is made by 3m. If you
ask they will send you a sample anti-glare screen filter. These REALLY
work well.
Charles Heathco wrote:
>
>I tried the 2000 out in the sum and it is unreadable on highest setting even.
My 296 is readable in direct sunlight, but everything in the cockpit reflects
off the screen which is anoying and makes it harder to see than if sun is directly
on it. And of course, shortly after I bought it the price went down $200.
Charlie heathco
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Pete Howell
Fitting the aft skirts on a slider....What worked for me on a 6
slider........
1. Second person, leather gloves on, grips the lower edge of skirt with
slider in forward closed position.
2. Pull hard forward and down and twist while you drill and cleco. Takes a
lot of pull and twist to get a good fit so don't be timid.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <Jdaniel343(at)bresnan.net> |
I used a shrinker to pull down the aft edges, after getting them as
close possible by pulling them by hand.
By using the shrinker, I got a a really tight fit.
John L. Danielson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Howell
Subject: RV-List: Aft Skirts
<pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Hello,
Anybody have any neat tricks to get the proper curve in the aft slider
skirts? I have the tops nailed, but the twist along the bottom part is
vexing.
Cheers,
Pete Howell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
Several days ago I flew around SE Utah (Monumwent Valley,
Page AZ and Canyonlands/Moab UT) with another RV and one thing
that the astute pilot will note is that there are few landing areas.
If something looks smooth from 15500' it most likely is not.
There were times when the other plane was not visible and exact location
was unknown. So neither could have provided pinpoint directions to SAR
personnel. When I travel alone I always use Flight following. Never bother
with flight plans since constant contact with ATC provides immediate action
if a problem develops.
On the flight a few days ago, we were on 122.75 and no ATC. Never again.
In addition, I am probably going to get a 406 PLB. If you are not aware,
satellite coverage of 121.5 MHz will end in 2009 I believe, transitioning
to 406 MHz which is supported now by a few GEO satellites and some
LEO satellites as well. The advantage of 406 MHz is that it can include
info about the owner (unique beacon ID) and include GPS coordinates).
One example of a 406 MHz PLB can be seen here but I cannot state that
it is the best....just that I am leaning towards this one now:
http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/?Menu=17&Page=/Contents/ListProducts.asp&ID=1026
If I had to make an off-field landing I would activate it in-flight and it is
possible that SAR personnel would know of the activation before I made
contact with the ground...to include my exact location. A few weeks ago
two men were flying around and reported missing. A search was conducted
in the south part of the state then after it was found that they had refueled
in the north the search moved there. They have not been found and if they
survived a crash/off-field landing are now likely deceased. Whether a 406
PLB would have helped is unknown but when the ability to transmit your
exact location instantly is now possible and affordable, compared to hours
and a large search area for 121.5 Mhz ELTs, I will take advantage of improved
technology.
Any comments?
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Scud Running |
"When you're buzzing along at 175 kts at 1500 AGL under a deck and there's a row
1500 ft high towers in your path."
I am not recommending or rebuking, but those who do scud run have some rules.
To name a few:
Fly slower, may be as slow as 80-90mph with partial flaps as conditions dictate
Fly over know terrain that you have flown at low altitudes before in good weather
Have the ability to fly IFR legally, otherwise avoid it.
The point of the original e-mail is well taken, a GPS with an obstacle / terrain
warning feature can be a lifesaver. We had a local young freight pilot fly into
a 1700' town flying into the sun. Yes he should have been at the sectional
MSA-min safe altitude, but we all like to sight see. I think this feature would
be a real plus at night, however 2000' AGL towers are going up all the time.
There are no guarantees from Garmin or AWM you will have every obstacle in the
database. As a matter of fact a Garmin rep at Oshkosh 2 years ago told me they
would never have this feature due to liability and the difficulty in tracking
new obstacles. Even Jeppesen has disclaimers on their approach plates. So
it is an adjunct. Cheers George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
>Linn, the ELT has a G-sensor which the PLB's do not have (the "P" is for
>personal). Further you've got the whole TSO/holy water thing to contend
>with. And as Jerry noted, we don't need no steeenking 337's for
>experimentals. There ARE 406mhz ELT's currently available but they are big
>$$$. PLB's may be a good addition but can't replace ELT's. We hashed
>through this issue about 4-5 motnths ago.
>
>Greg Young
The PLB is in addition to the ELT and offers substantial improvements over
121.5 MHz ELTs in that it can take the "search" out of Search and Rescue.
Here is a link that will explain some of the issues. Additional links are
there
as well.
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
> >On the flight a few days ago, we were on 122.75 and no ATC. Never again.
> >
>Not sure why. When I fly, I want to concentrate on the scenery, and
>scan for other aircraft. True, flight following or ATC can give you
>some separation ..... but not always unless you've filed (from what I
>understand).
Use of flight following is easy and hardly detracts from enjoying the scenery.
I do not "file" anything. Just call up appropriate approach control or center
and ask for VFR flight following. Separation is one benefit but the other is
immediate help if a problem arises.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Scud Running |
>The point of the original e-mail is well taken, a GPS with an obstacle /
>terrain warning feature can be a lifesaver. ..... So it is an adjunct.
>Cheers George
Just as one software program "could" allow you to fly in the mountains in fog
and use the terrain portrayal to avoid hitting cumulus granitus. I would never
do that but in a situation where it was that option or certain impact, I would
go with the non-approved option.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paul.folbrecht(at)VERIBOX.NET> |
A couple general questions about QB kits.
1) Are there ever problems with getting enough access in the wings for
installing autopilot servos, lights, or anything else? I know they
come sans one skin only.. is that enough?
2) Any thoughts about the wash primer used? I know some ppl paint the
inside of the fuse in addition to that. Why? The wash primer is
deemed not sufficient for corrosion protection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <paul(at)kitlog.com> |
Good point. When I was doing helicopter training in southern Alabama, a new
tower would pop up alot, and would only be on a NOTAM, but not in the
charts/gps updates.
Again, my original post was NOT to put anyone's skills down, but to simply
enlighten those who may not be as cautious while staying under a cloud
layer. Personally, I LOVE flying in the clouds. Call it sick, but
something about it all working together, and getting to your destination
using good training is very rewarding. When the convection activity is low,
and all you have is bad visibility, it could be quite fun. Just please be
careful out there. We have a great system in place for us to fly actual
IFR, so use the tools available!
Paul Besing
RV-10 Soon
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charles Heathco
Subject: Re: RV-List: Scud Running
Scud running is one thing, trying to fly thru mountainous terrain in the
dark another. Nothing wrong with scud running at 1500agl provided you can
see all around you and keep an escape route availible. As for me, I keep a
current chart open and my finger on my location at all times no matter the
altitude. For sure I wouldnt trust any gps to warn me of a tower, for
example, a new very high tower has been put up SE of LZU that dosnt show up
on the 296. Trying to thread a way thru know towers in low visibility is
also not a good thing. charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andre Berthet" <aberthet(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
I'm planning a trip to Baja California next week and decided to buy a PLB. I
got the mcmurdo Fastfind Plus (with internal GPS) from Landfall Navigation
http://www.landfallnav.com/index.html for $540.00. It's seems to be a nice
and well built instrument. I already registered it online with NOAA SARSAT.
As someone eluded before, in case of a crash the Personal Locator Beacon
(PLB) will need to be activated manually by the person in distress if he or
she is able.
Andre Berthet
>
>
>
> >Linn, the ELT has a G-sensor which the PLB's do not have (the "P" is for
> >personal). Further you've got the whole TSO/holy water thing to contend
> >with. And as Jerry noted, we don't need no steeenking 337's for
> >experimentals. There ARE 406mhz ELT's currently available but they are
> big
> >$$$. PLB's may be a good addition but can't replace ELT's. We hashed
> >through this issue about 4-5 motnths ago.
> >
> >Greg Young
>
> The PLB is in addition to the ELT and offers substantial improvements over
> 121.5 MHz ELTs in that it can take the "search" out of Search and Rescue.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Marshall" <tony(at)lambros.com> |
| Subject: | Lyc 0360 w Hartzell Constant Speed |
My question has probably been addressed a 100 times, but I couldnt find it in the
archives, so here it is again....
RV6....What are the normal power/performance settings for my engine prop combo?
I realize MP is a function of altitude, but would be interested in approximate
expected settings (MP, RPM, Fuel Burn) at SL, 3000, 6000, 9000, 12000 for performance
cruise 75%, economy cruise 65%.
Thanks for your assistance.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GMC <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
a new tower would pop up and would only be on a NOTAM, but not in the
charts/gps updates.
------------------------------------------------
Question, - anyone on the list know how far towers have to be set back from
roads and highways. We don't have that many big towers around here and most
that I have noticed on my flights East seem to be set back enough that if
they toppled over they would not come down on an adjacent highway. Nice to
know for sure if following a highway in poor weather (150 'right of
centerline).
George in Langley BC
6A flying
7A fuse.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Bibb" <rebibb(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Questions |
Answer:
1) Yes
2) Yes but as you probably have discovered there are a myriad of opinions on
the subject.
>
> A couple general questions about QB kits.
>
> 1) Are there ever problems with getting enough access in the wings for
> installing autopilot servos, lights, or anything else? I know they
> come sans one skin only.. is that enough?
>
> 2) Any thoughts about the wash primer used? I know some ppl paint the
> inside of the fuse in addition to that. Why? The wash primer is
> deemed not sufficient for corrosion protection?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
Paul,
I built a QB -7 and there's plenty of access for servos, lights, etc. You
may have to get a Unibit extension (Avery sells them) to drill additional
wiring holes through the ribs. The problem you will encounter is only on
the inboard end of the wing where the ribs are spaced too close together for
drilling access.
As for the priming, too many variables here...check the archives and make
your own decision. My own opinion, the wash primer will be just fine unless
you live in a humid or salty area. If the airplane is to be hangared, I
wouldn't worry about it.
Hope this helps,
Pat Hatch
RV-6
RV-7
A couple general questions about QB kits.
1) Are there ever problems with getting enough access in the wings for
installing autopilot servos, lights, or anything else? I know they
come sans one skin only.. is that enough?
2) Any thoughts about the wash primer used? I know some ppl paint the
inside of the fuse in addition to that. Why? The wash primer is
deemed not sufficient for corrosion protection?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
Hi All-
Something that has been missing from this exchange on ELTs, as well as the
linked federal page, is that modern ELTs transmit on both the civil 121.5
AND military 243. Consequently, and although 121.5 is going away, any
recent (decades old?) ELT will most likely still be legal / useful until
the military comes up with both the motivation and spare cash to convert
their equipment to something better.
Of course, if good / fast SAR is a concern, one could have 121.5 tuned in
Com 2, or a memory slot of the only Com. This could facilitate a couple of
things, given that all FSS, ATCT, and I believe all ARTCC's listen in.
First, one could listen for other's distress call in order to relay info
and help localize another downed airplane. Second, instead of just turning
on your own ELT while airborne and announcing to everyone that someone
somewhere is in trouble, you could transmit your pan or mayday call to
include your present position. Poof, help is on the way. Subsequently, you
could turn the ELT on prior to the impact,
On the ergonomics side, I have chosen to put the remote head for my ELT
adjacent to my battery and IGN switches. This way, I have to look at it
each time I shut down. This forces me to check for false activations after
a normal arrival as well as reminding me to activate it manually when
killing the bats and IGN prior to a forced landing.
Soapbox mode off...
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glenn Rainey <nimbusaviation(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi RV people. I am a long-EZ (re)builder, and am
installing an RV ram air box (FAB) on my O-235 L2C
according to the configuration of one of our gurus
'over here' in the canard community. I'd be keen to
catch sight of the airbox configuration as it is
called out in the RV plans, by way of critique for
what we're trying to do here for the plastic airplane.
(as an aside, I found some of the holes
factory-drilled in the upper filter attach plate to be
out of position, so I've re-fabricated that part)
I would be very grateful if someone had the chance
maybe to scan in a page or 2 of the RV plans so I can
see this airbox. Perhaps contact me offlist.
Thanks, very much, in anticipation.
Glenn Rainey
Scotland
Long-EZ 'prefurb'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
Andre, if you go down in Mexico, no one is going to come looking for you.
John
Andre Berthet wrote:
>
>I'm planning a trip to Baja California next week and decided to buy a PLB. I
>got the mcmurdo Fastfind Plus (with internal GPS) from Landfall Navigation
>http://www.landfallnav.com/index.html for $540.00. It's seems to be a nice
>and well built instrument. I already registered it online with NOAA SARSAT.
>As someone eluded before, in case of a crash the Personal Locator Beacon
>(PLB) will need to be activated manually by the person in distress if he or
>she is able.
>
>Andre Berthet
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Linn, the ELT has a G-sensor which the PLB's do not have (the "P" is for
>>>personal). Further you've got the whole TSO/holy water thing to contend
>>>with. And as Jerry noted, we don't need no steeenking 337's for
>>>experimentals. There ARE 406mhz ELT's currently available but they are
>>>
>>>
>>big
>>
>>
>>>$$$. PLB's may be a good addition but can't replace ELT's. We hashed
>>>through this issue about 4-5 motnths ago.
>>>
>>>Greg Young
>>>
>>>
>>The PLB is in addition to the ELT and offers substantial improvements over
>>121.5 MHz ELTs in that it can take the "search" out of Search and Rescue.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Questions |
> Answer:
>
> 1) Yes
Yes, there are problems? What kinds have you run into? With all the people
using autopilots these days, I have to believe it's possible to get a servo in
there. I can deal with a little extra work. [As long as it doesn't end up
negating the time-savings of the QB wing entirely. ;-)]
>
> 2) Yes but as you probably have discovered there are a myriad of opinions on
> the subject.
>
>
> >
> > A couple general questions about QB kits.
> >
> > 1) Are there ever problems with getting enough access in the wings for
> > installing autopilot servos, lights, or anything else? I know they
> > come sans one skin only.. is that enough?
> >
> > 2) Any thoughts about the wash primer used? I know some ppl paint the
> > inside of the fuse in addition to that. Why? The wash primer is
> > deemed not sufficient for corrosion protection?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Emergency notification (Was: RV-6 Crash) |
>Andre, if you go down in Mexico, no one is going to come looking for you.
>
>John
At least with the PLB, SAR resources will know about you and call the contact
numbers they have on file.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Marshall" <tony(at)lambros.com> |
| Subject: | Performance Settings RV6 Lyc 0360 w Hartzell Constant Speed |
Repost...
My question has probably been addressed a 100 times, but I couldnt find it
in the archives, so here it is again....
RV6....What are the normal power/performance settings for my engine prop
combo? I realize MP is a function of altitude, but would be interested in
approximate expected settings (MP, RPM, Fuel Burn) at SL, 3000, 6000, 9000,
12000 for performance cruise 75%, economy cruise 65%.
Thanks for your assistance.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rocket vs RV revisited |
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
SNIP Now, there is no way I would take my plane to CAFE and expect to set any
records. From what little I know of John Harmon is that he took his
personal plane with no fan fare or special mods and set several CAFE
records.
Now, (I may get some of this wrong but it is what I heard), the RV-4 was
highly modified. It was build very light and not painted to save more
weight. Unlike most RVs, I would not want to be in it if acro was being
performed. The pilot even lost a lot of weight. I am sure there were many
more things done in search of the record book. Let me say, I see nothing
wrong in this. But comparing a "Stock" Rocket with a "Special" RV-4 is like
comparing apples to oranges. I don't take my car to the race track and
expect to compete with formula F-1 cars.
Tom Gummo SNIP
***************************************************************************
I would add that Bruce Bohannon is using a Rocket to set his altitude records,
albeit with a much larger wing. I don't understand why he calls it a "highly
modified RV-4." Maybe to cheese Van a bit, maybe he had a falling out with the
well-known Rocket builder who built it, I don't know. It is definitely "Rocketized."
Looking at this another way, hmmmm, maybe we're all just flying highly
modified Stits products??????
It would be VERY interesting if Dave Anders prepped a Rocket for the CAF competition.
Maybe it wouldn't do as well, but it would be VERY interesting nonetheless.
My apologies to those who thought my analogy about the supermodels wasn't accurate.
I confess, it's true.... I've never actually had 12 Victoria Secret models
fighting over me. OTOH, I'll wager that those who didn't understand my analogy
have never flown a Rocket, and those who do fly Rockets fully understand the
analogy and know that it's as close to the truth as can be explained in verbal
terms.
I strongly suspect that Spaceship One, the X-15, and a very few other aircraft,
none of which we mere mortals are likely to ever fly, can beat the Rocket for
sheer fun. That's the rub with the Rocket, and the RV's too, mere mortals can
build them, fly them, and still send the kids to college with what's left.
Please don't ever think that I'm knocking the RVs, just stating that there is
something else beyond "Total Performance."
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
Hi All,
Is anyone running a 70" dia. Hartzell 7666A4 propeller on their Lycoming
O-360-A1A engine? Preferably for three years, or more.
A friend with a RV-6 had a little mishap which shortened his 72" dia.
Hartzell to about a 70" dia.
BTW, I already know that 72" is the minimum acceptable length for this
propeller, so we don't need to start that thread. :-)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Airflow Performance fuel pump |
I feel a little stupid about admitting my situation , but hopefully this post will
save someone else some time. I am using the Airflow Performance fuel pump
(purchased from Van's) and it is all installed, plumbed and wired...
I tested the wires for continuity to the switch, everything was good until I put
power to the pump to momentarily test for function...then, NOTHING happened.
I rechecked voltage through the wires and through the switch, then with power
coming from the switch, I measured voltage across the pump terminals to verify
power was making it from the switch...yep.
I called Don at AFP and he said "send it in"...perfect...now just to stand on my
head, pull off the cover plates, enjoy the reverse plumbing job, undo the wiring,
box it up, drive to UPS, ship it, and wait...
Long story short... BENCH TEST THE PUMP BEFORE INSTALLING IT.
Bob Brown
RV-7A wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lyc. 360 - Hartzell vs. MT aluminum 2 blade |
Hi All,
This information is specifically applicable to the Lycoming 360
non-counterweighted crankshaft engines.
Van's Aircraft sells 72" and 74" diameter 2 blade CS Hartzell propellers.
The aluminum 2 blade CS MT propeller (MTV-15-B/183-402) has a 72" diameter.
In the case of blade damage, the Hartzell minimum blade diameter is 72".
(So don't damage your 72" dia. Hartzell.)
In the case of blade damage, the MTV-15-B/183-402 minimum blade diameter is
68".
On a stock Lyc. 360 engine;
The Hartzell /F766xxx propeller has a RPM restriction between 2000 to 2250
RPM for continuous operation.
The Hartzell /F7496( ) propeller does not have RPM restrictions for the 180
hp Lyc. On the 200 hp Lyc., this propeller has a RPM restriction between
2000 to 2250 RPM for continuous operation.
The MTV-15-B/183-402 does not have RPM restrictions.
On an aftermarket electronic ignition, LASAR system, or FADEC system
equipped Lyc. 360 engine;
The Hartzell /F766xxx propeller has a RPM restriction between 2000 to 2250
RPM for continuous operation and a maximum continuous operating limitation of
2600 RPM.
The Hartzell /F7496( ) propeller cannot be operate above 22" MP below 2350
RPM. There is a maximum continuous operating limitation of 2600 RPM. The
maximum takeoff RPM is limited to 2650 RPM for FADEC equipped engines.
The MTV-15-B/183-402 does not have RPM restrictions.
For a Lyc. 360 engine with high compression pistons and an aftermarket
electronic ignition, LASAR system, or FADEC system;
Hartzell recommends that you do not use their propeller.
The MTV-15-B/183-402 does not have RPM restrictions.
Van sells the aluminum 2 blade CS Hartzell 72" dia. /F766xxx propellers for
$5,420, and the /F7496( ) propellers for $5,650. The spinner costs extra,
the rear bulkhead has to be trimmed to fit the hub and the spinner dome has to
be fitted to the propeller blades.
Less Drag Products, Inc, MT Propeller USA, Inc. and MT Propeller sell the
aluminum 2 blade CS MT 72" dia. propeller for $6,399. The bulkheads are
mounted on the propeller hub with a painted (or primed) completed spinner dome.
Basically, the propeller/spinner assembly comes ready to bolt onto your engine
with a 1/4" spinner clearance to the cowl.
The bottom line:
If you are putting together an RV with a stock Lyc. 360 engine, the 72" dia.
2 blade Hartzell can make a great package.
If your RV Lyc. 360 engine is a stock 200 hp, or has a little extra
something, then consider the MTV-15-B/183-402 propeller.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com)
(805) 795-5377
Prices subject to change without notice.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Kugler" <donkugler(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV8/8As being built near KLOM? |
Anyone in the vicinity of Wings Field (KLOM) with an RV8 or -8A under
construction? I've got a friend who lives in that area that I recently took
for a ride in my -8 and he's hooked - no surprise. He would like to see one
in the construction phase.
Please respond off-list.
Thanks,
-Don
Don Kugler
donkugler(at)earthlink.net
RV8 @ N40
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Airflow Performance fuel pump |
On 04/25 10:58, Karen and Robert Brown wrote:
>
> I feel a little stupid about admitting my situation , but hopefully this post
will save someone else some time. I am using the Airflow Performance fuel pump
(purchased from Van's) and it is all installed, plumbed and wired...
>
> I tested the wires for continuity to the switch, everything was good until I
put power to the pump to momentarily test for function...then, NOTHING happened.
I rechecked voltage through the wires and through the switch, then with power
coming from the switch, I measured voltage across the pump terminals to verify
power was making it from the switch...yep.
>
> I called Don at AFP and he said "send it in"...perfect...now just to stand on
my head, pull off the cover plates, enjoy the reverse plumbing job, undo the
wiring, box it up, drive to UPS, ship it, and wait...
>
> Long story short... BENCH TEST THE PUMP BEFORE INSTALLING IT.
Even if you bench test it, there can be Gremlins. Mine didn't
work the first time I flipped the switch, it kept blowing 10A fuses.
Tested everything, wiring checked out perfectly. Put the pump on the
bench and it ran, put it back in and it didn't. Got confused as hell.
Sent the pump in to get diagnosed. It was fine.
Turns out one of my expensive switches was bad. Go figure.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Questions |
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Folbrecht
Subject: Re: RV-List: QB Questions
If the QB wing is not skinned on both sides by the aileron bell crank inspection
opening, then the auto-pilot servo is easy to install. In can also be installed
in a finished wing, but a much tougher process. I'm at that point right now,
and will probably go with an installation that puts the servo in the wing tip.
Very easy to do on a finished wing, but ends up slightly heavier due to a
pushrod that needs to be at least 3/4" diameter and around 57" long. I'll just
put it in the right wing (RV6A) to offset my own weight on solo flight. Inside
wing installations use pushrods that are only about 6-8" long.
IMO ---- Two very good A/Ps are the TruTrak and the Trio EZ Pilot. Both use a panel
mounted or newer handheld GPS for heading information. Altitude A/P's can
easily be installed anytime. Using the search function for either of these
A/P's, you can get diagrams. Other pics are also on the net.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
When I called Blue Mountain Avionics last week to inquire about their
EFIS Light, I was told 85 units had already been shipped. Does anyone
have any comments regarding installation / operation / reliability? What
about the autopilot option?
Paul Valovich
RV-8A QB Delivery Thursday
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and iQue3600a? |
Looking for a nice color GPS with terrain, obstacles & VNAV, capable of driving
a Trio A/P. I know the 296 fits the bill nicely, but I'm wondering what the
296 offers that makes it worth $400 more than the iQue 3600a Palm offering form
Garmin. They have the same screen resolution and size (one is portrait orientation,
the other landscape, I suppose) but the PDA doubles as, well, a PDA.
As a long time Handspringt and Palm user, I am trying to find the downside to
owning a nice Palm that does everything I want a handheld aviation GPS to do,
versus a dedicated aviation GPS for 400 bucks more that will not do much for
me outside the airplane. Am I missing something here? What are the Palm's shortcomings?
There must be something...
-Stormy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Scud Running |
GMC wrote:
>
>
>a new tower would pop up and would only be on a NOTAM, but not in the
>charts/gps updates.
>------------------------------------------------
>Question, - anyone on the list know how far towers have to be set back from
>roads and highways. We don't have that many big towers around here and most
>that I have noticed on my flights East seem to be set back enough that if
>they toppled over they would not come down on an adjacent highway. Nice to
>know for sure if following a highway in poor weather (150 'right of
>centerline).
>
>George in Langley BC
>6A flying
>7A fuse.
>
Around here there isn't enough 'wiggle room' to make me trust myself to
remain between them while trying to follow curves in the road,
communicate, read the chart, etc.
If it's a 600' tower & it's 700' off the road, that ain't much room.
In the US, cell towers are *everywhere*. A few years ago they tried to
put a 600' cell tower directly on the extended centerline of my home
strip (MS71) 3 miles from the numbers (about a thousand feet from the
highway).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and iQue3600a? |
----- Original Message -----
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and iQue3600a?
From everything I've heard/read, the iQue 3600 has "no" data output for the auto-pilot.
I was in the same dilemma & ended up with the 296 for my Trio.
The 296 will require a power/data cable which is about $30.00
Of course when I purchased my Garmin, it was $200.00 more!
Looking for a nice color GPS with terrain, obstacles & VNAV, capable of driving
a Trio A/P. I know the 296 fits the bill nicely, but I'm wondering what the
296 offers that makes it worth $400 more than the iQue 3600a Palm offering form
Garmin. They have the same screen resolution and size (one is portrait orientation,
the other landscape, I suppose) but the PDA doubles as, well, a PDA.
As a long time Handspringt and Palm user, I am trying to find the downside to
owning a nice Palm that does everything I want a handheld aviation GPS to do,
versus a dedicated aviation GPS for 400 bucks more that will not do much for
me outside the airplane. Am I missing something here? What are the Palm's shortcomings?
There must be something...
-Stormy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BMA EFIS Light |
I have one (the EFIS G3 Lite), I like it alot and use it in IMC,
however that is only because I have a backup eletric AI (I use the
blumountain in HSI mode while in IMC). It does have some drift that I
think the company will work out. The moving map is next to worthless
right now, but will be improved.
But the HSI is the best, brightest and most usefule you can get for
less than $10k, and it is only $2.7k
Dave Leonard
On 4/25/05, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
> When I called Blue Mountain Avionics last week to inquire about their
> EFIS Light, I was told 85 units had already been shipped. Does anyone
> have any comments regarding installation / operation / reliability? What
> about the autopilot option?
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> RV-8A QB Delivery Thursday
>
>
--
Wm. David Leonard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Questions |
Yeah, my panel is a ways away but if I did it today it would be a GRT 2-3
screen system and TruTrak 2-axis AP.
Do not achive.
> IMO ---- Two very good A/Ps are the TruTrak and the Trio EZ Pilot. Both use a
> panel mounted or newer handheld GPS for heading information. Altitude A/P's
> can easily be installed anytime. Using the search function for either of
> these A/P's, you can get diagrams. Other pics are also on the net.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BMA EFIS Light |
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. But if you call it a Beta version
it might sit easier. They are usually good about providing the
updates to the beta test recipients... like me in this case.
None the less I am glad to have it.... Its a great insturment even
without any future upgrades (brighter and more versitile than the
dynon.
Dave Leonard
> Dave,
>
> When you say the moving map is next to worthless and that BMA is still
> working on drift issues with the product, does this seem to be a
> continuation of BMA's fundamental problem - releasing product before it is
> fully developed?
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: BMA EFIS Light
>
> >
> > I have one (the EFIS G3 Lite), I like it alot and use it in IMC,
> > however that is only because I have a backup eletric AI (I use the
> > blumountain in HSI mode while in IMC). It does have some drift that I
> > think the company will work out. The moving map is next to worthless
> > right now, but will be improved.
> >
> > But the HSI is the best, brightest and most usefule you can get for
> > less than $10k, and it is only $2.7k
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On 4/25/05, Valovich, Paul wrote:
> >>
> >> When I called Blue Mountain Avionics last week to inquire about their
> >> EFIS Light, I was told 85 units had already been shipped. Does anyone
> >> have any comments regarding installation / operation / reliability? What
> >> about the autopilot option?
> >>
> >> Paul Valovich
> >>
> >> RV-8A QB Delivery Thursday
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wm. David Leonard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Wm. David Leonard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and iQue3600a? |
I haven't looked too close, but I thought the iQue lacked the output to
drive the AP. No?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sportav8r(at)aol.com [mailto:sportav8r(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 9:13 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and
> iQue3600a?
>
>
> Looking for a nice color GPS with terrain, obstacles & VNAV,
> capable of driving a Trio A/P. I know the 296 fits the bill
> nicely, but I'm wondering what the 296 offers that makes it
> worth $400 more than the iQue 3600a Palm offering form
> Garmin. They have the same screen resolution and size (one
> is portrait orientation, the other landscape, I suppose) but
> the PDA doubles as, well, a PDA. As a long time Handspringt
> and Palm user, I am trying to find the downside to owning a
> nice Palm that does everything I want a handheld aviation GPS
> to do, versus a dedicated aviation GPS for 400 bucks more
> that will not do much for me outside the airplane. Am I
> missing something here? What are the Palm's shortcomings?
> There must be something...
>
> -Stormy
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Hi folks
I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in my
practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
control. Is there a trick to this?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
I thought I was going to get the BMA EFIS Lite until I saw just how useless
the moving map was at Sun and Fun. The idea of having to pay to update that
useless database also didn't appeal to me. Now I am leaning towards the GRT
unit and a color handheld with a real moving map. As the GRT people also
pointed out, the moving map in the BMA unit can't be used while using the AI
which makes it even more useless in IFR.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> iQue3600a? |
| Subject: | Anyone have a comparison of Garmin 296 and |
iQue3600a?
>I haven't looked too close, but I thought the iQue lacked the output to
>drive the AP. No?
If you check the specs it mentions RS232 so it MAY have the right output but
should be checked first.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
The only reason that a rivet gun will jump on you is that the force pushing
it down onto the rivet head does not counteract the kickback. This can be
caused by either too much air pressure or your just being inattentive and
thereby slacking off.
Since you say that the gun jumps on your practice tests, therefore attention
not being an issue, I would presume that your pressure is way too high.
I mounted a small regulator (Avery) right on my 3X gun and adjust by feel -
less pressure for 3/32" rivets than for the 1/8" - don't ask me what the
pressure is - I don't know - and it is a moot issue - the real concern is
that it should be the right pressure to do the job.
Michle
RV8 - Fuselage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MLWynn(at)aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 5:01 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Advice on using an off-set rivet set
>
>
> Hi folks
>
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
> my
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible
> to
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
> Hi folks
>
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset
> set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use
> the thing in my
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally
> nearly impossible to
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
I NEVER found a way to make an offset rivet set work. Use a pop rivet or
bolt. I actually took a torch to mine and straightened it out, as I found
that a long set worked much better than trying to use the offset one. Some
of the repliers to your question may have missed the "offset" part.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 611 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
In a message dated 4/25/05 10:04:12 PM Central Daylight Time, MLWynn(at)aol.com
writes:
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
> my
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
>
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>>>
Taping the set/spring to the gun with aviation grade duct tape will keep the
set from rotating. I have even removed the spring and just wrapped tape
around the set to the gun barrel for them really tight spots & it worked well
enough. This proved very helpful for those pesky wing nose ribs. As others have
mentioned, pressure should be as low as needed to set the rivet. Many listers
have sung the merits of various cloth-based tapes used on the end of the set
(go to RV archives, search for "rivet & tape & hockey", grab a beer or two, and
enjoy the long read!) Plus, judicious use of concentration (focus, Luke- use
the force!) is occasionally required.
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
In a message dated 4/25/05 10:04:12 PM Central Daylight Time, MLWynn(at)aol.com
writes:
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
> my
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
>
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>>>
Taping the set/spring to the gun with aviation grade duct tape will keep the
set from rotating. I have even removed the spring and just wrapped tape
around the set to the gun barrel for them really tight spots & it worked well
enough. This proved very helpful for those pesky wing nose ribs. As others have
mentioned, pressure should be as low as needed to set the rivet. Many listers
have sung the merits of various cloth-based tapes used on the end of the set
(go to RV archives, search for "rivet & tape & hockey", grab a beer or two, and
enjoy the long read!) Plus, judicious use of concentration (focus, Luke- use
the force!) is occasionally required.
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6fly <rv6fly(at)bresnan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Hi folks
>
>I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
>much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in my
>practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
>control. Is there a trick to this?
>
>
You've received good advice so far. I'd think along the lines of too
much pressure, too light of a bucking bar. Swivel sets are a bit more
difficult to use but can be mastered. Make sure your work is secured.
If you have to spend energy and attention on trying to control your
practice piece, the end results won't be very good. Also, try some
masking tape in the cupped face of the set. Masking tape on the factory
head of the rivet would be a second choice. Let everyone know if any of
the suggestions work for you.
Bob Skinner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Performance Settings RV6 Lyc 0360 w Hartzell Constant |
Speed
Hi Tony,
For the Hartzell CS propeller on the Lyc. 360 engine at 7,500' and above,
2300 RPM and full throttle for maximum speed with best fuel economy.
Since the propeller pulls the aircraft through the air, and not the engine,
you asked a good question.
I have posted a chart of power settings, airspeeds and fuel flow at
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com) on the "Lycoming 360 Propeller" page.
You can see the performance trends on this chart taken on a RV-6A.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 04/26/2005 2:31:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tony Marshall"
Repost...
My question has probably been addressed a 100 times, but I couldnt find it
in the archives, so here it is again....
RV6....What are the normal power/performance settings for my engine prop
combo? I realize MP is a function of altitude, but would be interested in
approximate expected settings (MP, RPM, Fuel Burn) at SL, 3000, 6000, 9000,
12000 for performance cruise 75%, economy cruise 65%.
Thanks for your assistance.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
I disagree with Peterson's response on this. (sorry if this hurts your
feelings but it is the truth -- my apologies). The offset works just fine
if you know how to use it. You need to have good control of the piece you
are working with. Strap or vice grip it down if it is not enough mass to be
solid enough and steady to absorb the riveting when it occurs with out
moving. No one can rivet a moving target. Keep steady and solid pressure
on the rivet gun. It must be enough pressure that it will not bounce off
the rivet. Keep your angle perfect at 90 degrees. Keep the bucking bar on
it. You could start with lower pressure and adjust up if it is not setting
the rivet with a 1 second burst.
Summary: Most important is controlling the piece you are working on, then
keep your gun on the rivet. Works for me. Don't use pop rivets unless you
want to reduce the strength the plane designer had in mind.
By the time you realize that a parent was right, there is a child who
thinks you're wrong.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Advice on using an off-set rivet set
>
>
>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset
>> set gives me a
>> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use
>> the thing in my
>> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally
>> nearly impossible to
>> control. Is there a trick to this?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Wynn
>> RV-8, Empennage
>> San Ramon, California
>
> I NEVER found a way to make an offset rivet set work. Use a pop rivet or
> bolt. I actually took a torch to mine and straightened it out, as I found
> that a long set worked much better than trying to use the offset one.
> Some
> of the repliers to your question may have missed the "offset" part.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 611 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Michael,
I found it best to have a helper to buck the rivet, as I always needed my
other hand to hold the double offset.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Hi folks
>
>I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
>much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
>my
>practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
>control. Is there a trick to this?
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV-8, Empennage
>San Ramon, California
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Beg to differ - I have used the offset on 470 1/8" rivets near ribs - no
problem - trick is to push straight down on the gun, not towards the rivet.
Michle
RV8 - Fuselage
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex & Gerry Peterson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:42 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Advice on using an off-set rivet set
>
>
>
>
> > Hi folks
> >
> > I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset
> > set gives me a
> > much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use
> > the thing in my
> > practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally
> > nearly impossible to
> > control. Is there a trick to this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Wynn
> > RV-8, Empennage
> > San Ramon, California
>
> I NEVER found a way to make an offset rivet set work. Use a pop rivet or
> bolt. I actually took a torch to mine and straightened it out, as I found
> that a long set worked much better than trying to use the offset one.
> Some
> of the repliers to your question may have missed the "offset" part.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 611 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Hey Michael,
I'm in agreement with John Starn...gun control means using both hands...adjust
your air pressure correctly and, when you use the offset, hold the rivet set with
your "off" hand while riveting if possible. If it's not possible to steady
the set with your other hand, sometimes you can sort of push or pull the gun
sideways depending on which direction you want the set to be when you begin riveting.
Using the offset is kinda like a crosswind landing...you have to keep
track of lots of things at the same time.
Bob Brown
RV7A - wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Chapman" <bcrnfnps(at)swoi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Hi all,
It took me a while to find it, but I came across an old post on the RV-4
list (even shows photos):Sep 28 2003 Henry Hore Rivet-gun double
off-set holder for one hand opera... RV4
It looks like it would work/help.
Please let us know if you decide to build one and how it works.
Thanks
Barry Chapman
Just a wishin' and dreamin'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Advice on using an off-set rivet set
>> Hi folks
>>
>> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset
>> set gives me a
>> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use
>> the thing in my
>> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally
>> nearly impossible to
>> control. Is there a trick to this?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael Wynn
>> RV-8, Empennage
>> San Ramon, California
>
> I NEVER found a way to make an offset rivet set work. Use a pop rivet or
> bolt. I actually took a torch to mine and straightened it out, as I found
> that a long set worked much better than trying to use the offset one.
> Some
> of the repliers to your question may have missed the "offset" part.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 611 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
In a message dated 4/25/05 8:04:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MLWynn(at)aol.com
writes:
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
> my
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible to
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>
> Mike: Masking tape in the cup of the set helps, but the best solution is to
> have someone else buck so that you can stabilize the set with two hands.
> Good luck.
>
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 68 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re:Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Mike,
Offset rivet sets do try to rotate unless you duct tape them to the gun at
around 45 deg, and/or restrain them with your other hand. Unless you're
over-endowed with hands, this may mean an assistant on the bucking bar!
Is this an AN470AD6-x or an AN470AD4-6 ? If it's a 3/16 diameter rivet, you
need a lot of pressure and at least a 4X gun, so it will need a VERY firm
grip to control it. Try leaning on it as you squeeze the trigger, and get
your assistant to allow the bar to bounce a little on the shop head rather
than hold it immovably against it.
FWIW, I use 35 psi for 3/32 and 45 for 1/8 (measured at the compressor).
Haven't had to do any 3/16, but would try 55 for a start, or buy a big
squeezer.
Good Luck,
Bob (UK)
RV3B (still 'finishing' . . )
----- Original Message ----- >
> From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
> Subject: RV-List:
>
>
> Hi folks
>
> I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
> much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
my
>
> practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible
to
> control. Is there a trick to this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
The RV-ator has a trick. It talks about notching your first piece so you
can get an exact fit, then riveting a second thin piece to the first.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Subject: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
> Hello,
>
> Anybody have any neat tricks to get the proper curve in the aft slider
> skirts? I have the tops nailed, but the twist along the bottom part is
> vexing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete Howell
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
This is all good advice. Thanks to all for taking the time.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike D'Ambrogia" <miked(at)jamagination.com> |
| Subject: | Anybody in the 209 need help ? |
All,
Like to see what bucking rivets is all about before I get too deep into
fantasizing about a -7/-8. If somebody in the 209 area code needs a
warm body to help out let me know
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Scud Running |
For a crop duster close to home 200 and a mile might be perfectly safe. For
a flat-lander in the mountains 3000 and 10 might be suicide.
It all depends, and it is really about risk management. John and Martha
King have a good CD out about risk management. It is well worth watching
and might get you a discount on your insurance.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
---------------------------
Speaking as a crop duster... 200 and a mile from home is as safe as CAVU.
If anybody knows of an insurance company currently offering a discount for
taking the King thing, please point me in the direction.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration |
I know that I've read someplace that you can calibrate a tach using a 60hz fluorescent
light. Can anyone give me the two blade rpms that will stop the prop?
I need to calibrate a tach.
Thanks
Mike Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
And which issue might that be?
"Jeff Dowling"
The RV-ator has a trick. It talks about notching your first piece so you
can get an exact fit, then riveting a second thin piece to the first.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Howell"
Subject: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
> Hello,
>
> Anybody have any neat tricks to get the proper curve in the aft slider
> skirts? I have the tops nailed, but the twist along the bottom part is
> vexing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete Howell
>
>
>
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Osburn" <flyby41(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration |
I know a fluorescent light flashes 60 times a second or 3600 times a
minute or in other words 60 cycles as electricty is produced. Pointing an
optical tach at a flourescent light is a fair way to calibrate the tach at
3600 RPM's but I don't know how it would relate to a two bladed prop? Maybe
the blade would appear to stop in some division of 3600 RPM's, at 1800
RPM's perhaps or maybe at 900 R's?
> [Original Message]
> From: Mike Holland <hollandm(at)pacbell.net>
> To:
> Date: 4/26/2005 8:10:16 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration
>
>
> I know that I've read someplace that you can calibrate a tach using a
60hz fluorescent light. Can anyone give me the two blade rpms that will
stop the prop? I need to calibrate a tach.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Mike Holland
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration |
Unless I am mistaken the lowest is 3600 RPM.
Fluorescent lights flash at a 120 Hz rate (twice the line rate since
there are two peaks per cycle). This is 8.33 milliseconds between
peaks. For the propeller to go halfway around so the alternate blade is
in the same position in that time, it has to be rotating at 3600 RPM.
That is 60 RPS or 16.66 milliseconds all the way around or 8.33
milliseconds halfway around. It is also too fast.
You can also use 1800 RPM and the prop would look "stopped", but then
you would see four blades because the prop would rotate only 90 degrees
between peaks. This is a safer (and attainable) RPM.
Likewise you can use proportionally lower RPMs and "see" even more
blades. Basically, calculate how far around the prop will go in 8.33
milliseconds for any RPM and see if the blades would look "stopped".
For example at 1200 RPM it takes the prop 50 milliseconds for one
revolution of the prop. During that time, the lights will peak 50/8.33 =
6 times, which means that the prop rotates 60 per flash. That means
you will "see" six blades. At 2400 RPM it takes 25 milliseconds which
gives three times or 120 per flash. This will also look like 6 blades.
Hopefully this hasn't confused you more than helped. There are lots of
RPMs where the blades will look stopped - just depends on how many
"blades" you want to see. All of the above is applicable to two blade
props only, although the analysis is similar for other numbers.
Dick
Mike Holland wrote:
>
>I know that I've read someplace that you can calibrate a tach using a 60hz fluorescent
light. Can anyone give me the two blade rpms that will stop the prop?
I need to calibrate a tach.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Mike Holland
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris & Kellie Hand" <ckhand(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
I have had similar trouble with the offset rivet set, but turning the
pressure down a little, practicing, and being real careful with my grip on
the gun and bucking bar has usually worked for me. Still is easier with the
straight set....
Chris Hand
RV-6A, finishing kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Advice on using an off-set rivet set
>
>
> > Hi folks
> >
> > I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset
> > set gives me a
> > much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use
> > the thing in my
> > practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally
> > nearly impossible to
> > control. Is there a trick to this?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael Wynn
> > RV-8, Empennage
> > San Ramon, California
>
> I NEVER found a way to make an offset rivet set work. Use a pop rivet or
> bolt. I actually took a torch to mine and straightened it out, as I found
> that a long set worked much better than trying to use the offset one.
Some
> of the repliers to your question may have missed the "offset" part.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 611 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSamuelson(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Top Flange of Lower Cowl |
Any advice on triming off the top flange of the lower cowl for an O-360
engine. I think the same cowl is used on the RV-6, 7 and 8. Cutting off just the
flange leaves a rounded edge at the top of the lower cowl. Should I trim off a
little more to get a square edge?
Thanks for the help
Roy Samuelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
I saw it in the 21 years of rv-ator.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
> And which issue might that be?
>
> Jeff Dowling wrote:--> RV-List message
> posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
>
> The RV-ator has a trick. It talks about notching your first piece so you
> can get an exact fit, then riveting a second thin piece to the first.
>
> Shemp/Jeff Dowling
> RV-6A, N915JD
> 190 hours
> Chicago/Louisville
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Howell"
>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Anybody have any neat tricks to get the proper curve in the aft slider
>> skirts? I have the tops nailed, but the twist along the bottom part is
>> vexing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pete Howell
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Darrell Reiley
> Round Rock, Texas
> RV 7A #70125
> N622DR (reserved)
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Top Flange of Lower Cowl |
Roy,
I trimmed the upper cowl half first to get it flat and straight. Then put
the lower cowl on and the top so the top overlaps the bottom. Marked a line
on the bottom using the top as a guide. Cut it there. It was a little more
than the given joint in the cowl. Hope that makes sense.
Tim
RV-6 N616TB
-------Original Message-------
From: RSamuelson(at)aol.com
Date: 04/27/05 07:28:59
Subject: RV-List: Top Flange of Lower Cowl
Any advice on triming off the top flange of the lower cowl for an O-360
engine. I think the same cowl is used on the RV-6, 7 and 8. Cutting off just
the
flange leaves a rounded edge at the top of the lower cowl. Should I trim off
a
little more to get a square edge?
Thanks for the help
Roy Samuelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Replacement of nav. light lens |
bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote:
>
>
> Hi:
>
> I have the Aero Flash Nav lights system. After my first flight, the
> left side Strobe light, does not work.
>
> After I checked everything, I called the Mfg. Aero Flash, and they
> told me it must be the Power Unit.
>
> I do not have now any warranty, as have purchased this, more than two
> yrs. ago.
>
> So I have to buy a new power unit...2 questions,1- any other place I
> can buy this, at a better price...
>
> Wonder why only on one side..
>
> Finally, when checking, this light, I droped the red lens, that
> cover the light.
>
> Now I see that they want $15.0-0 for 2" red piece of glass.... Any
> suggestions on this also, as to where I can get this, for less than
> 15.00 plus shipping? plain robbery....
>
>
> Thanks for your suggestions.
>
>
> Bert
Bert, a couple of suggestions based on my experience with this flash system.
First, swap power supplies and strobes from side to side (not both at
the same time!) to identify for sure whether it is the strobe or power
supply that has the problem.
I had a strobe to fail very early and upon close inspection, found a
component of the strobe bulb inside the potting that was BARELY
protruding from the potting and arcing to the grounded shell. This
failed the strobe until I insulated the area and then the unit was again
operational. Give the failed strobe bulb assembly a very careful
inspection to make sure nothing is shorting to ground.
I also dropped the red lens (VERY easy to do as you disassemble the
unit!). I glued it back together with CA glue temporarily; 5 1/2 years
later and I still haven't gotten around to replacing the lens. :-)
Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 650 hrs)
http://thervjournal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Replacement of nav. light lens |
>
>
> I have the Aero Flash Nav lights system. After my first flight,
>the left side Strobe light, does not work.
>
> After I checked everything, I called the Mfg. Aero Flash, and they told
>me it must be the Power Unit.
Have you swapped the left and right strobe connections on the
power unit? By swapping the strobe connections on the power unit, you can
make sure that the power unit is bad, not the strobe head (or strobe wiring.)
> I do not have now any warranty, as have purchased this, more than
>two yrs. ago.
It may be just urban legend, but I have heard that you should not
let a strobe unit sit unused for years on the shelf.
Judging from your experience, I guess it would be a good idea to
fire up and test your lighting system as soon as it arrives, just to be
sure that everything works OK.
> So I have to buy a new power unit...2 questions,1- any other place I can
>buy this, at a better price...
You might be able to get a good deal on a strobe power unit from
Bill VonDane at CreativAir <http://www.creativair.com> I know Bill sells
complete strobe systems at a very good price, so I suspect he will sell you
the power unit alone for a good price as well. I also know that he is very
good about customer service and stands behind everything he sells.
Bill Dube'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <Garth(at)islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration |
I calibrated my two-bladed prop at night with the prop near the hangar door
where the ceiling flourescent lights were. If you are calibrating, use 1200
or 1800, whatever works. You can easily see the stroboscopic effect as you
go through various RPM's. Don't use a battery-operated flourescent light
for obvious reasons.
Cheers.
Garth Shearing
VariEze & 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
>
> I know that I've read someplace that you can calibrate a tach using a 60hz
> fluorescent light. Can anyone give me the two blade rpms that will stop
> the prop? I need to calibrate a tach.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Construction Videos available in DVD format |
Just wanted to let everyone know that we are now offering our construction
videos in DVD format. The prices are the same as for the VHS versions.
Please give us a call (940) 648-0841 or email us if we can help you with these.
Thanks to everyone for their patience and support!
Becki Orndorff
GeoBeck, Inc.
www.fly-gbi.com
940-648-0841
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks my friend!
Jeff Dowling wrote:
I saw it in the 21 years of rv-ator.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley"
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
> And which issue might that be?
>
> Jeff Dowling wrote:--> RV-List message
> posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
>
> The RV-ator has a trick. It talks about notching your first piece so you
> can get an exact fit, then riveting a second thin piece to the first.
>
> Shemp/Jeff Dowling
> RV-6A, N915JD
> 190 hours
> Chicago/Louisville
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Howell"
>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Aft Skirts
>
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Anybody have any neat tricks to get the proper curve in the aft slider
>> skirts? I have the tops nailed, but the twist along the bottom part is
>> vexing.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pete Howell
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Darrell Reiley
> Round Rock, Texas
> RV 7A #70125
> N622DR (reserved)
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Purge Line Question |
According to my memory of a conversation with Airflow Performance maybe a
year ago, the purge line serves two purposes. The primary reason is to
circulate hot fuel out of the system and back into the lines between the
tanks and the fuel pump to make hot starts easier. I have mine returning to
the right fuel tank line before the fuel valve. If I start with the fuel
valve set to feed from the left tank, the presumably hot fuel returns to the
right tank as the fuel pump pumps from the left tank. I was also told that
even if I started from the right tank, just running the hot fuel back
through the lines and the fuel pump would probably be sufficient cooling to
get things going.
The other reason for the purge valve is to shut down the engine. Apparently
the mixture doesn't reliably stop enough fuel going to the engine to stop
it.
Lots of stuff on this in the archives.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion protection |
I'm doing a QB RV-7A but still need to decide on a corrosion protected
mechanism for the tail.
I am really interestd in the AFS stuff for its non-toxic qualities. A search
of the archive provided few hits re: priming/corrosion protection with this
stuff.
Has anybody used the AFS stuff or know somebody that did? Did you use all
three of the products - cleaner, etch, primer? Is it possible to apply the
primer by dipping parts in a tub or does it need to be sprayed HVLP?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion |
protection
I have used the aluminum cleaner/etch and the primer. Both worked fine
as far as ease of use and ease of application.
The primer seems very rugged - you can dimple aluminum with the primer
applied and it stays put. I can't say how well it works over time since
I am still building.
I am sure you could dip parts if you wanted, but it would be a bit
expensive. It can be sprayed with any sprayer (not just HVLP) or can be
painted on to small pieces.
Dick Tasker
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
>I'm doing a QB RV-7A but still need to decide on a corrosion protected
>mechanism for the tail.
>
>I am really interestd in the AFS stuff for its non-toxic qualities. A search
>of the archive provided few hits re: priming/corrosion protection with this
>stuff.
>
>Has anybody used the AFS stuff or know somebody that did? Did you use all
>three of the products - cleaner, etch, primer? Is it possible to apply the
>primer by dipping parts in a tub or does it need to be sprayed HVLP?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
All, I have my SB wings and tail completed, and I am expecting my QB fuse in June.
I have been debating about whether or not it makes sense to go ahead and
order the finishing kit as well to ship with the fuse. Can anyone comment on
the amount of work left on the QB fuse (assuming you have no engine, avionics,
or finishing kit)? Will I find that I need the finishing kit (or other items)
very quickly? What would be the preferred order of purchase (finish, engine,
or panel stuff). I am planning avionics last, as it changes so quickly. Thanks,Scott7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Fuse Work |
tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com wrote:
>
> All, I have my SB wings and tail completed, and I am expecting my QB fuse in
June. I have been debating about whether or not it makes sense to go ahead and
order the finishing kit as well to ship with the fuse. Can anyone comment on
the amount of work left on the QB fuse (assuming you have no engine, avionics,
or finishing kit)? Will I find that I need the finishing kit (or other items)
very quickly? What would be the preferred order of purchase (finish, engine,
or panel stuff). I am planning avionics last, as it changes so quickly. Thanks,Scott7A
>
>
>
Finish kit then panel stuff and the engine last. Best not to have the
engine just sitting around for a long time. Also keep in mind that you
need warm weather when your doing the canopy work or at least a warm
place to do it, I did mine in the hanger so I had to plan it for the
warm weather. I did most of it last summer and will be finishing it up
sometime over the next couple months.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
I chose to tee into the line from the right tank to the valve because I
almost always take off on the left tank. I do this because the airplane
(- 6) is out of balance laterally with just me and full fuel, so
burning the left tank first tends to balance the load quicker. Doing it
this way means that the purged fuel is going to the un-selected tank.
I originally tee'd into the vent line but had to change it because it
tended to pump fuel out on the ground, probably because it was pumping
into a smaller line and the fuel went both directions in the vent line.
Just be sure that the totalizer is turned off when you start and you
won't have any errors due to the purged fuel - although, the amount of
fuel that is purged shouldn't even be noticeable in the total fuel burn
so I wouldn't worry about it.
Dave -6 So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Dwight Frye wrote:
>
>I have seen a number of approaches to handling the fuel return
>for the purge line in fuel injected setups. I have seen things
>arranged such that the line T's into the supply line of one tank
>(the one not currently being used, say, the left). I have also
>seen things arranged so that the fuel purges back all the way into
>the tank which is selected.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
I definitely would NOT tee the purge line into the vent line. I tee'd it to the
vent line on my first but will route it to the tank on the Phoenix. There is
a lot of discussion on it in the archives on approaches and the possible failure
modes. The concensus safest approach was to return the purge to the tank near
the bottom so that the line would always be immersed in fuel. This is to preclude
the possibility of injesting air if the purge valve leaks or works open
in flight. Remember the vent line is slightly pressurized in flight. It might
be a low probability event but the consequence could ruin your day.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Dwight,
I am using an Airflow Performance injection system. I simply routed the line from
the purge valve to a 'T' into the vent line on my right tank. If you put
the 'T' at the low (tank) side of the vertical loop of the vent line, the pump
will send fuel into the tank through the vent with the valve on the "purge" setting.
The vertical loop in the vent line will keep the fuel from being pumped
onto the ground. With the purge valve at the "run" setting the tank will vent
normally.
If your tanks are full, your fuel selector must be set on the tank the purge valve
will send the fuel to (in my case the right tank) or you will overflow the
opposite tank. This will create a closed loop with cool fuel being sucked from
the tank while the hot fuel is pumped in through the vent. If your tanks aren't
full it doesn't make any difference. It will just pump fuel from one tank
to the other. This has worked fine for me, but I have yet to do any hot starts
in temperatures above 80 degrees.
E-mail me off line if you'd like pictures.
Ted
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
How about a check valve just before the tee to prevent any air ingestion
via the purge?
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young
Subject: RV-List: Re: Fuel Purge Line Question
I definitely would NOT tee the purge line into the vent line. I tee'd it
to the vent line on my first but will route it to the tank on the
Phoenix. There is a lot of discussion on it in the archives on
approaches and the possible failure modes. The concensus safest approach
was to return the purge to the tank near the bottom so that the line
would always be immersed in fuel. This is to preclude the possibility of
injesting air if the purge valve leaks or works open in flight. Remember
the vent line is slightly pressurized in flight. It might be a low
probability event but the consequence could ruin your day.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
Dwight,
I am using an Airflow Performance injection system. I simply routed the
line from
the purge valve to a 'T' into the vent line on my right tank. If you
put
the 'T' at the low (tank) side of the vertical loop of the vent line,
the pump
will send fuel into the tank through the vent with the valve on the
"purge" setting.
The vertical loop in the vent line will keep the fuel from being pumped
onto the ground. With the purge valve at the "run" setting the tank
will vent
normally.
If your tanks are full, your fuel selector must be set on the tank the
purge valve
will send the fuel to (in my case the right tank) or you will overflow
the
opposite tank. This will create a closed loop with cool fuel being
sucked from
the tank while the hot fuel is pumped in through the vent. If your
tanks aren't
full it doesn't make any difference. It will just pump fuel from one
tank
to the other. This has worked fine for me, but I have yet to do any hot
starts
in temperatures above 80 degrees.
E-mail me off line if you'd like pictures.
Ted
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross S" <rv7maker(at)hotmail.com> |
Ladies and Gents,
If you know of anyone interesed in a 7, have them check out:
http://www.experimentalair.com/n703rv/forsale.html
Thanks,
Ross
Ross Schlotthauer
Experimental Air
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re:Advice on using an off-set rivet set |
Hmmmm....
I use as a starting point approx 25psi for 3/32, 40psi for 1/8 and I noted when
doing my '6
mainspars I used 75psi for the 3/16" rivets. Pressures are at the compressor.
No difficulty setting the large rivets with a gun but I did need eardefenders;
and before I was done
my neightbours kids had begun throwing rocks (small ones) at me. It was a tad
noisy.
For the record I wouldn't dream of using an offset set for the 3/16" rivets. It's
just too much
energy to keep under control.
Doug Gray
Bob Hodgson wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Offset rivet sets do try to rotate unless you duct tape them to the gun at
> around 45 deg, and/or restrain them with your other hand. Unless you're
> over-endowed with hands, this may mean an assistant on the bucking bar!
>
> Is this an AN470AD6-x or an AN470AD4-6 ? If it's a 3/16 diameter rivet, you
> need a lot of pressure and at least a 4X gun, so it will need a VERY firm
> grip to control it. Try leaning on it as you squeeze the trigger, and get
> your assistant to allow the bar to bounce a little on the shop head rather
> than hold it immovably against it.
>
> FWIW, I use 35 psi for 3/32 and 45 for 1/8 (measured at the compressor).
> Haven't had to do any 3/16, but would try 55 for a start, or buy a big
> squeezer.
>
> Good Luck,
> Bob (UK)
> RV3B (still 'finishing' . . )
>
> ----- Original Message ----- >
>
>>From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
>>Subject: RV-List:
>>
>>
>>Hi folks
>>
>>I have a single universal head -6 rivet to set. An offset set gives me a
>>much better angle to get to it. However, when I tried to use the thing in
>
> my
>
>>practice piece, it rotated and jumped and was generally nearly impossible
>
> to
>
>>control. Is there a trick to this?
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Michael Wynn
>>RV-8, Empennage
>>San Ramon, California
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Flluroescent Light Tach Calibration |
In a message dated 4/26/05 11:06:04 PM Central Daylight Time,
retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
> Can anyone give me the two blade rpms that will stop the prop? I need to
> calibrate a tach.
>
>>>>
From the Grand Rapids EIS4000 User's Manual, Section 6.2:
(for 60Hz)
2-blade prop:
600
720
1200
1440
1800
3600
3-blade prop:
240
300
480
600
1200
2400
Their procedure states: "A simple test to help verify the RPM readings are
accurate can be made by running the engine at night, and looking through the
propeller at a flourescent or mercury vapor light. The pulsation of the light
will make the propeller to appear to (be) stopped at various RPMs."
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
Scott,
We ordered our finish kit with our QB fuse together and were glad we did. It
help the work flow much smoother.
Good Building,
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: "" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: QB Fuse Work
>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:01:46 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
> All, I have my SB wings and tail completed, and I am expecting my QB fuse
>in June. I have been debating about whether or not it makes sense to go
>ahead and order the finishing kit as well to ship with the fuse. Can
>anyone comment on the amount of work left on the QB fuse (assuming you have
>no engine, avionics, or finishing kit)? Will I find that I need the
>finishing kit (or other items) very quickly? What would be the preferred
>order of purchase (finish, engine, or panel stuff). I am planning avionics
>last, as it changes so quickly. Thanks,Scott7A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSamuelson(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Trimming lower cowl top flange |
I'll answer my own question to get it in the archieves.
Don't trim the top of the cowl beyond the flange at least not until it is
fitted everywhere else. As received from Van's, mine had very little overlap
between the upper and lower cowl. Had I trimmed another quarter inch they might
not join together.
I'll try to mix up some epoxy microballons (or something) to fill in this
small area.
Roy Samuelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Top Flange of Lower Cowl |
Hi Roy,
I am at this exact point in mounting my cowl and will share my experience on the
O-320-6A pre-preg cowl...
The top cowl was not cut at all along the horizontal seams, just edge sanded &
fit at the firewall.
Then to the lower cowl: I cut the flange on the seam right to the line. It is
a little rough in spots with air bubbles, pinholes & rounding. When the lower
cowl was finally trimmed & fit this seam needed almost no more trimming. Only
spot sanding to get the seam tight. I will need to fill the edge bubbles and
pinholes to make it nice. Any further trimming would have been too much. It
is slightly rounded in spots.
You really need to take this cowl on and off at least a dozen times and trim 1/16"
here and there until it is good. It is good practice for the future when you
will be removing it for maintenance. And it will make you happy you didn't
build a plastic plane ;-)
Kelly Patterson
PHX, AZ N716K
RV-6A FWF
From: RSamuelson(at)aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Top Flange of Lower Cowl
Any advice on triming off the top flange of the lower cowl for an O-360
engine. I think the same cowl is used on the RV-6, 7 and 8. Cutting off just the
flange leaves a rounded edge at the top of the lower cowl. Should I trim off a
little more to get a square edge?
Thanks for the help
Roy Samuelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Lumpkin <tlump51(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
Greg,
Good points. Regarding failure modes, in my view if the purge valve works open
in flight the engine is going to quit regardless of where your return line is
plumbed (at least with the Airflow Performance system). Although the vent line
is slightly pressurized in flight, it's pressure is much lower than the 20
- 40 psi that the fuel system is running at. It's very unlikely that air from
the vent line would be "sucked" into a pressurized system.
I believe Mike Stewart mentioned that he had a problem with a cracked purge return
line allowing air into the system, but I believe his purge line was routed
back to the fuel supply line, not the vent.
Ted
Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
I definitely would NOT tee the purge line into the vent line. I tee'd it to the
vent line on my first but will route it to the tank on the Phoenix. There is
a lot of discussion on it in the archives on approaches and the possible failure
modes. The concensus safest approach was to return the purge to the tank near
the bottom so that the line would always be immersed in fuel. This is to preclude
the possibility of injesting air if the purge valve leaks or works open
in flight. Remember the vent line is slightly pressurized in flight. It might
be a low probability event but the consequence could ruin your day.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Dwight,
I am using an Airflow Performance injection system. I simply routed the line from
the purge valve to a 'T' into the vent line on my right tank. If you put
the 'T' at the low (tank) side of the vertical loop of the vent line, the pump
will send fuel into the tank through the vent with the valve on the "purge" setting.
The vertical loop in the vent line will keep the fuel from being pumped
onto the ground. With the purge valve at the "run" setting the tank will vent
normally.
If your tanks are full, your fuel selector must be set on the tank the purge valve
will send the fuel to (in my case the right tank) or you will overflow the
opposite tank. This will create a closed loop with cool fuel being sucked from
the tank while the hot fuel is pumped in through the vent. If your tanks aren't
full it doesn't make any difference. It will just pump fuel from one tank
to the other. This has worked fine for me, but I have yet to do any hot starts
in temperatures above 80 degrees.
E-mail me off line if you'd like pictures.
Ted
RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared3(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on opie.wvnet.edu
Just last night I was talking to Don Rivera of Airflow performance about
the purge system. If you use his system he gives you a plumbing diagram,
which states to run the purge line to a T in the right tank feed line
before the fuel selector and or fuel filter. Use left tank for purging and
shutdown.
As for fuel totalizer. The amount of fuel during a purge is very small,
measured in ounces. He told me that the during the purge process you will
be moving fuel at about 3 to 4 GPH. 3 GPH is about 6 oz per minute.
Also Don recommends flexible hose from purge valve to firewall and then
aluminum tubing inside cockpit. Cheaper and lighter than flex all the way,
and aluminum tube in front of firewall is subject to cracking.
If you use a gascolator, call Don. He did ask me if I used one, when I
told him I didn't we dropped the subject. I think there is more to the story!
For more what ifs and best practices call Don. He is a great guy to talk
to and he really knows all the answers.
For those who are true experimenters, experiment away and let us know the
results. If you only want to do it once and have confidence that it will
work right the first time, follow manufactures instructions.
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)YAHOO.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: QB Fuse Work |
Scott,
If the cash is not an issue, just the savings in freight will benefit you shipping
them together.
And yes... you will want to start playing with the canopy. Call Jeff and get his
opinion...
Darrell
wrote:
All, I have my SB wings and tail completed, and I am expecting my QB fuse in June.
I have been debating about whether or not it makes sense to go ahead and order
the finishing kit as well to ship with the fuse. Can anyone comment on the
amount of work left on the QB fuse (assuming you have no engine, avionics, or
finishing kit)? Will I find that I need the finishing kit (or other items) very
quickly? What would be the preferred order of purchase (finish, engine, or
panel stuff). I am planning avionics last, as it changes so quickly. Thanks,Scott7A
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
| Subject: | Belt Sander Question & Tool Resource |
I've been lurking here for a few months, but now I have a question, and a
resource that might help others.
I am in the tooling up phase, and I have a question about belt sanders. At
one of the last EAA chapter events I attended, a few people said a belt
sander was a highly useful tool, one member actually said he wish he had
bought his sooner. I took this as a recommendation to buy one. My question
is, in purchasing a belt sander, are their particular features I should look
for or stay away from? Craftsman has a 2x42" belt / 6" disc unit that looks
nice... will it do the job?
Ok, now for the resource I found...
In my tool research (grinders, drill presses, band saws, etc.) I came across
this site:
http://www.rd.com/americanwoodworker/article.do?siteId=2222&categoryId=7002&
contentId=244
They have reviews and specs for very many of the available tools made today.
The spec charts are very useful to compare tools, with speeds, capacities,
and prices all listed. It has helped me tremendously and maybe it can help
others.
Regards,
Brad Oliver
Livermore, CA
Tooling up... RV-7 Very Soon!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Purge Line Question |
Bob,
Thanks for passing on the info from AFP. I will, in fact, be using an AFP
FI system. There are things I do want to experiement with ... but the fuel
system isn't one of them. :) I think I'll just take AFP's advice here.
-- Dwight
On Thu Apr 28 14:19:27 2005, Bob wrote :
>
>
>Just last night I was talking to Don Rivera of Airflow performance about
>the purge system. If you use his system he gives you a plumbing diagram,
>which states to run the purge line to a T in the right tank feed line
>before the fuel selector and or fuel filter. Use left tank for purging and
>shutdown.
>
>As for fuel totalizer. The amount of fuel during a purge is very small,
>measured in ounces. He told me that the during the purge process you will
>be moving fuel at about 3 to 4 GPH. 3 GPH is about 6 oz per minute.
>
>Also Don recommends flexible hose from purge valve to firewall and then
>aluminum tubing inside cockpit. Cheaper and lighter than flex all the way,
>and aluminum tube in front of firewall is subject to cracking.
>
>If you use a gascolator, call Don. He did ask me if I used one, when I
>told him I didn't we dropped the subject. I think there is more to the story!
>
>For more what ifs and best practices call Don. He is a great guy to talk
>to and he really knows all the answers.
>
>For those who are true experimenters, experiment away and let us know the
>results. If you only want to do it once and have confidence that it will
>work right the first time, follow manufactures instructions.
>
>Bob
>RV6 NightFighter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Oily soot in lft tailpipe |
I noticed this on antenna which is sorta behind left pipe after last flight, and
today being first really nice flying day in a while, I took "tweety bird' (6a
with stock O-320) for a spin. Not as much but some soot on ant, and inside of
left pipe was very sooty, rt pipe clean as a whistle. Im getting good static
and power seems normal. Altho I cant see a relationship, i just installed OH'd
mags, and very recent OH'd carb. Cyls all tested in the mid high 70's about
40 hrs ago. Also since I had dynamic prop balance I cant run wide open without
going over prop redline. Oil usage is and has been normal, about 11-12hrs qt.
Again, she seems to be running like a top, but what should I be looking ofr
with this oily soot in the lft pipe? charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Belt Sander Question & Tool Resource |
On 04/28 12:58, Brad Oliver wrote:
>
> I've been lurking here for a few months, but now I have a question, and a
> resource that might help others.
>
> I am in the tooling up phase, and I have a question about belt sanders. At
> one of the last EAA chapter events I attended, a few people said a belt
> sander was a highly useful tool, one member actually said he wish he had
> bought his sooner. I took this as a recommendation to buy one. My question
> is, in purchasing a belt sander, are their particular features I should look
> for or stay away from? Craftsman has a 2x42" belt / 6" disc unit that looks
> nice... will it do the job?
I think you mean "bench" sander. I actually couldn't think of any
uses for a belt sander off hand. Harbor Freight has some nice
bench sanders for minimal cost.
This is the one I have and it kicks ass. I used it every day during
my build.
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=43468
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oily soot in lft tailpipe |
Charles Heathco wrote:
>
>I noticed this on antenna which is sorta behind left pipe after last flight, and
today being first really nice flying day in a while, I took "tweety bird' (6a
with stock O-320) for a spin. Not as much but some soot on ant, and inside
of left pipe was very sooty, rt pipe clean as a whistle. Im getting good static
and power seems normal. Altho I cant see a relationship, i just installed OH'd
mags, and very recent OH'd carb. Cyls all tested in the mid high 70's about
40 hrs ago. Also since I had dynamic prop balance I cant run wide open without
going over prop redline. Oil usage is and has been normal, about 11-12hrs qt.
Again, she seems to be running like a top, but what should I be looking ofr
with this oily soot in the lft pipe? charlie heathco
>
You've just discovered on of the down sides to having a carbureted
engine. They just don't get the same amount of fuel to the cylinders as
a FI system. So, you lean until it stumbles and richen it up a bit
......but you only got one (or maybe two) cylinders lean enough to run
well. The others are running rich. There is something you can check
though. Intake leaks. You'd be amazed at how many engines are out
there with leaky intake systems. Take a shop vac (clean it out real
good!) that you can switch the hose to exhaust and put the output into
your air intake. Seal it with some rags and spray soapy water
everywhere. Look for bubbles.
The other thought I had was that you may have a carb gasket that isn't
sealing ....... and you'll see the bubbles! The gasket that goes
between the carb body and the top may not be sealing well either,
allowing raw fuel to enter the vinturi directly from the float bowl.
This will unbalance the fuel delivery a lot, causing just what your
symptoms are. Sometimes that gasket will swell a little and seal off
the leak. Since you had the carb OH'd recently, I'd suspect something
with the carb too. Just a quick shot in the dark!!!
Best of luck .... and let us know what you find!
Linn
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D. Heath" <Alto_Q(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oily soot in lft tailpipe |
Charlie,
I would check the plugs on those two cylanders. If you find an oily one
look at the rocker box drain tube and valve guides. Even if you don't find
an oily plug, a worn exhaust valve guide can still pass oil and bypass the
combustion chamber.
John D. Heath
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Oily soot in lft tailpipe
>
> I noticed this on antenna which is sorta behind left pipe. Again, she
> seems to be running like a top, but what should I be looking ofr with this
> oily soot in the lft pipe? charlie heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
Two unrelated questions:
1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in them. I
want them cause they look much cooler than the straight sticks. Who makes
them?
2) It seems it's pretty customary to put the engine controls on the panel,
meaning used with right hand, which I assume means stick in left hand. Of
course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think that
using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
right-handed, like all good Americans*). The only time I have in
stick-controlled aircraft is my RV-10 demo ride and a couple flights in a
Challenger UL, and in both cases I used my right on the stick.
With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control arrangement
might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone make an aftermarket
side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just learn to fly with my left hand
on the stick like everybody else?
* Just kidding.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6fly <rv6fly(at)bresnan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Belt Sander Question & Tool Resource |
Brad Oliver wrote:
>I am in the tooling up phase, and I have a question about belt sanders. At
>one of the last EAA chapter events I attended, a few people said a belt
>sander was a highly useful tool, one member actually said he wish he had
>bought his sooner.
>
Brad,
I think a hand-held belt sander is a great tool. I used a "Sandcat"
by skill (2 1/2x 16 inch belt, I believe, and no longer made) on a
Glasair, RV6, Glastar and my friend's 6A project. It gave up the ghost
on the 6A. Got so hot I couldn't hold on to it. I think it ingested
too much fiberglass dust. I'm going to tear it apart and see if there
is anything that I can do to fix it and take it over to Larry in
Spearfish so he can use it on his cowl.
With various grits of paper, it's a very versitle tool and does a
great job of replacing a file. For removing material quickly down
to a line, whether aluminum or fiberglass, it can't be beat. Start with
coarse grit and change to fine as you get close to the line. I used the
fine grit and touched up all edges of both sheet stock and ribs &
bulkheads before using the double edge deburring tool which eleminates
"chatter" marks and results in a quicker and smoother job. The hand
held models were preferable to me because of portabililty. Buy the
lightest one you can find. Some of the bigger ones would get heavy
after not too much use I'd think.
Bob Skinner Buffalo, WY
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> quadrant |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle |
quadrant
>Of
>course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think that
>using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
>right-handed, like all good Americans*).
I am right handed and fly the RV-6A with my left hand with NO problem.
Actually I think flying with my right hand would be odd.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
On 15:26:38 2005-04-28 Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control
> arrangement might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone
> make an aftermarket side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just
> learn to fly with my left hand on the stick like everybody else?
All the flying I can remember doing before starting my pilot's license was
in the passenger seat of an airplane, which meant either right hand on a
yoke, left hand on throttle, or right hand on stick, left hand on throttle.
When I learned to fly, I was thrown into the left seat of a C-150, and had
absolutely no trouble flying left hand on yoke, right on throttle. After
getting my license, my only two choices were left seat in a C-150 (yoke),
or centerline seat in the club homebuilt (stick). No problems moving back
and forth.
Last year I was introduced to left hand stick, right hand throttle on a
formation flight in an RV. I flew for an hour, and for the life of me
couldn't get my hands to switch jobs. My brain seems locked into my left
hand controlling pitch if i'm holding a stick with either hand. I
eventually managed to get myself to pause before any corrective inputs, and
think first what I wanted to do.
So, my RV-7 will be flown from the right seat, with a single, center
console mounted throttle. I already have the throttle, and know where it
will go (in front of the spar, between the seats, pending relocation of the
fuel selector). That way it will be accessible to both pilots, but I can
fly how i'm comfortable.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
easy solution
fly from the right seat
all CFI do it daily
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
>
> Two unrelated questions:
>
> 1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in them.
I
> want them cause they look much cooler than the straight sticks. Who makes
> them?
>
> 2) It seems it's pretty customary to put the engine controls on the panel,
> meaning used with right hand, which I assume means stick in left hand. Of
> course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think
that
> using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
> right-handed, like all good Americans*). The only time I have in
> stick-controlled aircraft is my RV-10 demo ride and a couple flights in a
> Challenger UL, and in both cases I used my right on the stick.
>
> With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control
arrangement
> might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone make an
aftermarket
> side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just learn to fly with my left
hand
> on the stick like everybody else?
>
> * Just kidding.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
OK Stick right and throttle on left but where is everything else? If side
by side, 6, 7, 10, IFR or not, Which hand do you write with, which hand
would you normally work the radios and nav/coms, where is the AP, which hand
switches fuel tanks, which hand would you likely be drinking coffee with ;o)
Just something to think about?
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
Two unrelated questions:
1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in them.
I
want them cause they look much cooler than the straight sticks. Who makes
them?
2) It seems it's pretty customary to put the engine controls on the panel,
meaning used with right hand, which I assume means stick in left hand. Of
course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think that
using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
right-handed, like all good Americans*). The only time I have in
stick-controlled aircraft is my RV-10 demo ride and a couple flights in a
Challenger UL, and in both cases I used my right on the stick.
With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control
arrangement
might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone make an aftermarket
side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just learn to fly with my left
hand
on the stick like everybody else?
* Just kidding.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
Tracy Saylor used to (and maybe still does) sell a left hand throttle
quadrant for the RV-6. I have one in my airplane and really like it.
If Tracy no longer sells the unit, contact me off-list and I'll sketch it so
you can fabricate one yourself. My guess is that it would take under 5
hours...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
>
> Two unrelated questions:
>
> 1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in them.
> I
> want them cause they look much cooler than the straight sticks. Who makes
> them?
>
> 2) It seems it's pretty customary to put the engine controls on the panel,
> meaning used with right hand, which I assume means stick in left hand. Of
> course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think
> that
> using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
> right-handed, like all good Americans*). The only time I have in
> stick-controlled aircraft is my RV-10 demo ride and a couple flights in a
> Challenger UL, and in both cases I used my right on the stick.
>
> With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control
> arrangement
> might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone make an
> aftermarket
> side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just learn to fly with my left
> hand
> on the stick like everybody else?
>
> * Just kidding.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
No trouble initially, either? It didn't take getting used to?
It is funny that flying a yoke with my left is completely natural yet I know
(or think I know) that a stick in my left and will not feel that way. Maybe
that's just because my very, very limited "_stick_ time" has been with my
right. If that's the case, I should be used to the left in < 2 hours.
> I am right handed and fly the RV-6A with my left hand with NO problem.
> Actually I think flying with my right hand would be odd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
Have you flown right-seat before? The sight picture on landing is quite
different - it takes getting used to! You can't just jump into landing that
way. At least I couldn't.
> So, my RV-7 will be flown from the right seat, with a single, center
> console mounted throttle. I already have the throttle, and know where it
> will go (in front of the spar, between the seats, pending relocation of the
> fuel selector). That way it will be accessible to both pilots, but I can
> fly how i'm comfortable.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
They trained to do it too.
--- son hoang wrote:
>
> easy solution
> fly from the right seat
> all CFI do it daily
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
1) IFR, the AP is on. :-)
2) I've gotta write with the right hand. I can do better with a foot than with
the left.
3) Right now I do everything with the right hand except fly (yoke). The
cockpit/panel is designed for that anyway when you're in the left seat. Of
course.
I see your point. If I've got my RH on the stick I've got no hand to do all
that other stuff. Ain't gonna work at all.
I'm sure I can get used to the left.
> OK Stick right and throttle on left but where is everything else? If side
> by side, 6, 7, 10, IFR or not, Which hand do you write with, which hand
> would you normally work the radios and nav/coms, where is the AP, which hand
> switches fuel tanks, which hand would you likely be drinking coffee with ;o)
> Just something to think about?
>
> Bill S
> 7a Ark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
> >1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in them.
Nobody answered this part - does anybody know? Those sticks seriously looked
so good and the bend is quite functional as well! Perhaps they were custom
jobs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
don't worry...you'll get used to it in no time at all
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
>
> Have you flown right-seat before? The sight picture on landing is quite
> different - it takes getting used to! You can't just jump into landing
that
> way. At least I couldn't.
>
> > So, my RV-7 will be flown from the right seat, with a single, center
> > console mounted throttle. I already have the throttle, and know where
it
> > will go (in front of the spar, between the seats, pending relocation of
the
> > fuel selector). That way it will be accessible to both pilots, but I
can
> > fly how i'm comfortable.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
I'm technically left handed, but do precision metal snipping, shooting, bowling,
throwing, and more with my right. Eat, write, and drink coffee with my left.
Flew the Pitt's, R/C airplanes, and computer joysticks with my right, as it seems
the natural way. First time I flew a Cessna from the right seat, I pulled throttle
out instead of rotating during a second touch and go. Even a Cessna 172
likes to bee-line to the right when engine goes to idle just at rotation time!
That was just a case of thinking "left hand & plane with yoke rotation", but
I soon learned different!
I naturally wondered how I'd feel in the RV too. Rented a Diamond DA-40 just to
get some left hand stick time, along with differential brakes for taxi. As it
turned out, I didn't even think about it. My left hand seemed as natural on the
stick as it does with a yoke. But since this subject has come up, while sitting
in my (almost completed) RV6A's left seat, my left hand still feels the most
comfortable on the stick while my elbow is on the arm rest. I've also flown
the 6 & 9 from the right seat, where again, the right hand now seems to fit
the best. In so many words, it doesn't seem to matter , right or left.
I went out to the 6A again this evening. If I could put in an ill fitted and tight
throttle quadrant on the left (which is possible and has been done), I wouldn't.
It just no longer feels right, as strange as it may be.
Larry Adamson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> quadrant |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle |
quadrant
>No trouble initially, either? It didn't take getting used to?
I also flew Cessnas with left hand on the yoke so the transition was minimal
even as a low time pilot. Also keep in mind that if you do something really
unique you may limit resale. I looked at one plane that had the primary
instruments on the right side. That in addition to everything being red was
a deal breaker for me. But do whatever makes you happy.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
When I got out of a Cessna and into an RV-6a, speed control was the
issue I was concentrating on and the stick never felt funny for a
minute. It felt natural in my left hand from the start. Yokes and high
wings are just wrong. I'm building a six with a center quadrant.
Ed Holyoke
6a (built by another)
6 under construction
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: Re: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle
quadrant
No trouble initially, either? It didn't take getting used to?
It is funny that flying a yoke with my left is completely natural yet I
know
(or think I know) that a stick in my left and will not feel that way.
Maybe
that's just because my very, very limited "_stick_ time" has been with
my
right. If that's the case, I should be used to the left in < 2 hours.
> I am right handed and fly the RV-6A with my left hand with NO problem.
> Actually I think flying with my right hand would be odd.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun |
Hi all
I have been looking at the lone 3/16 (fixed a boo-boo) rivet that I have to
install in my forward HS spar. I have a 2X rivet gun. I have done a pile of
practice rivets. The 2X drives the rivet okay, if a little slow. Someone had
said that they wouldn't use less than a 4X gun for that size rivet. What
exactly is the difference? Is there a bigger weight being popped by the
pneumatics?
Besides being slower, is there an important disadvantage or problem
associated with using my gun? I would hate to buy another gun for one rivet.
Thanks
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
What type of center quadrant?
I've decided I'm sure I can be trained to fly LH stick. Which means a center
engine quadrant makes sense (I'd just rather not have the engine controls on
the panel).
--- Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
> When I got out of a Cessna and into an RV-6a, speed control was the
> issue I was concentrating on and the stick never felt funny for a
> minute. It felt natural in my left hand from the start. Yokes and high
> wings are just wrong. I'm building a six with a center quadrant.
>
> Ed Holyoke
> 6a (built by another)
> 6 under construction
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun |
Michael;
How long is the rivet in question? I managed OK driving shorter 3/16 AN
rivets with a lighter weight gun but was simply unable to drive the longer
ones in an RV-6 spar. I eventually used a C-frame riveter, a 470-6 set, and
a five pound hammer with good results. Just make sure everything is lined
up, lean on the spar to hold it in place and pound away.
Jim Oke
RV-6A
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun
>
> Hi all
>
> I have been looking at the lone 3/16 (fixed a boo-boo) rivet that I have
> to
> install in my forward HS spar. I have a 2X rivet gun. I have done a pile
> of
> practice rivets. The 2X drives the rivet okay, if a little slow. Someone
> had
> said that they wouldn't use less than a 4X gun for that size rivet. What
> exactly is the difference? Is there a bigger weight being popped by the
> pneumatics?
>
> Besides being slower, is there an important disadvantage or problem
> associated with using my gun? I would hate to buy another gun for one
> rivet.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
Paul,
It looks like (and is made by the same guy as) this:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1114751560-466-705
&browse=controls&product=10-quadrant
I'll post a picture of how I mounted it in a day or two.
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RE: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle
quadrant
What type of center quadrant?
I've decided I'm sure I can be trained to fly LH stick. Which means a
center
engine quadrant makes sense (I'd just rather not have the engine
controls on
the panel).
--- Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
> When I got out of a Cessna and into an RV-6a, speed control was the
> issue I was concentrating on and the stick never felt funny for a
> minute. It felt natural in my left hand from the start. Yokes and high
> wings are just wrong. I'm building a six with a center quadrant.
>
> Ed Holyoke
> 6a (built by another)
> 6 under construction
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
If you intend to do most of your flying from the right seat, why not put the
primary flight instruments on the right side of the panel? I did. See
http://www.vansairforce.org/projects/okej/onephoto.cgi?Picture_0630.jpg
The throttle mount in the centre of the panel keeps the throttle at your
left hand and is much simpler and lighter than trying to add a second
throttle on the left side of the cockpit.
Jim Oke
----- Original Message -----
From: "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
>
> easy solution
> fly from the right seat
> all CFI do it daily
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant
>
>
>>
>> Two unrelated questions:
>>
>> 1) I know I have seen RVs with control sticks with a forward bend in
>> them.
> I
>> want them cause they look much cooler than the straight sticks. Who
>> makes
>> them?
>>
>> 2) It seems it's pretty customary to put the engine controls on the
>> panel,
>> meaning used with right hand, which I assume means stick in left hand.
>> Of
>> course I fly yoke-equipped planes with my left on the yoke but I think
> that
>> using my right hand on a control stick might be far more natural (I am
>> right-handed, like all good Americans*). The only time I have in
>> stick-controlled aircraft is my RV-10 demo ride and a couple flights in a
>> Challenger UL, and in both cases I used my right on the stick.
>>
>> With those thoughts, I was thinking that a left-hand engine-control
> arrangement
>> might really be ideal. Thoughts on this?? Does anyone make an
> aftermarket
>> side-mounted throttle-quadrant. Should I just learn to fly with my left
> hand
>> on the stick like everybody else?
>>
>> * Just kidding.
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun |
Hi Michael,
You could drive the single rivet with a hammer. To do this an extra set of
hands and eyes and a carefully controlled set up should get good results.
You could avoid the issue of driving the "one rivet" by installing a
Cherry-Max structural pull rivet instead.
You can read about this kind of fastener and the aircraft industries many
others in a book called "Standard Aircraft Handbook" published by McGraw
Hill. I have the fifth edition #3634. If you don't have a copy get one , it
will be worth the price. It is full of descriptions of fasteners, the tools
needed for them, how to use the tools and lots of reference charts,
conversions tables etc.
It reads slightly better that the phone book until you need it, Then it gets
Quite interesting. I got my copy from Van's
Rivets are designed (alloyed) soft before being driven. The driving process
work hardens them. If over worked (driven too long or too much) they can
become too brittle. Rivets driven by under sized guns tend not to look
finished right and can be unsound in certain structural high load conditions
or locations.
From the book; "always select a rivet gun size and bucking bar weight that
drive the rivet with as few blows as possible".
The various rivet guns bores and or strokes increase as the gun # goes up.
The bigger guns hit harder and less often per minute. In actual use the
utility of the guns tends to overlap some of the rivet sizes. Generally a #2
gun will drive 3/32" and 1/8" rivets quite well. Driving 3/16" rivets with a
# 2 gun is near (if not) the limit. A #3 gun can be set up to drive #/32",
1/8" and 3/16" rivets. A # 4 gun will tend to be a bit too powerful to use
on 3/32" rivets (damage to surrounding stucture can result) but can drive
rivets bigger than 3/16" and so on.
At some point personal preference enters the scene. Some RV builders prefer
the # 2 guns and others will swear by #3 guns and so on. The #3 gun is
physically larger and a bit heavier but it reaches the range of rivet sizes
generally found in single and two place home builds quite well.
Keep on driving em,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun
>
> Hi all
>
> I have been looking at the lone 3/16 (fixed a boo-boo) rivet that I have
> to
> install in my forward HS spar. I have a 2X rivet gun. I have done a pile
> of
> practice rivets. The 2X drives the rivet okay, if a little slow. Someone
> had
> said that they wouldn't use less than a 4X gun for that size rivet. What
> exactly is the difference? Is there a bigger weight being popped by the
> pneumatics?
>
> Besides being slower, is there an important disadvantage or problem
> associated with using my gun? I would hate to buy another gun for one
> rivet.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Belt Sander Question & Tool Resource |
I'd go for at least the 4 inch wide belt model at a minimum, and bigger
if you can afford it. They are great for shaping parts (poor mans
mill.) You do still have to shape parts on the 7, don't you? ')
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>Craftsman has a 2x42" belt / 6" disc unit that looks
>nice... will it do the job?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
try www.rvwoody.com, he may not be doing iy anymore but he certainly does
excellent work.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Best website for posting builder log |
I'm gearing up to start my project and want to get my builder log / webpage
started. My ISP doesnt provide webspace. What other cheap / free sites
are out there that will let me post lots of pictures ect and be relatively
user friendly.
Kevin
Yellowknife, NT, Canada
RV-8 Wanna Be Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tpu2(at)juno.com" <tpu2(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | RV builders clinic |
An Indianapolis area builders assistance center is now conducting Basic RV construction
builders clinics. The first one is May 21-22. Details are available
at rv6grover(at)netzero.net or 317-919-6594.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Speed 3 Guy" <speed3guy(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Best website for posting builder log |
Kevin,
I really like www.expercraft.com. It's free and simple. Here's a link to
my site on expercraft: http://websites.expercraft.com/geprevo/
Guy
I'm gearing up to start my project and want to get my builder log / webpage
started. My ISP doesnt provide webspace. What other cheap / free sites
are out there that will let me post lots of pictures ect and be relatively
user friendly.
Kevin
Yellowknife, NT, Canada
RV-8 Wanna Be Builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 7(A) vs. 9(A) for XC flying |
I'm not asking a "decide-what-to-build" q here because my 7A quickbuild kit is
ordered and that's what I want. (I want the slightly better speed than the 9,
the ability to go 180hp, and, although I don't know if I'll ever actually want
to do "genleman's aerobatics" (I'm no gentleman, I've been told), I want to
retain that capability too.)
But, anyway, I see it thrown around a lot that the 9(A) is a "better" XC
machine than the 7(A), and I don't know if I buy that.
Stability is touted. I haven't flown in a 9, but it seems to me that the
shorter wing and slightly higher loading of the 6/7 might well offset any
inherently better pitch stability of the 9.
If the 6/7 holds pitch well when trimmed, which definitely seems to be the
case, that's what's really important. Any airplane needs attention to the roll
axis or it's going to wander into a spiral. Seems to me that what's more
important is stability in chop and turbulence and the 7 ought to do slightly
better there.
Thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lefties Flying Right Handed |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
I'm a lefty - can't seem to do anything right handed. However, the Navy
taught me to fly with the throttle in my left hand and the stick in my
right. No problems - at least in becoming accustomed to the feel and
function of right handed tasking.
There was a meaningless line going around when I was in flight training:
If upon entering the cockpit you find the throttle in your right hand
and the stick up your butt, you've climbed in backwards.
Paul Valovich
RV-8A QB fus & wings delivered last Wednesday
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Best website for posting builder log |
I have used both Geo-Cities and Tripod. I just googled free websites and
this is a good source. http://www.freewebsiteproviders.com
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Best website for posting builder log
>
> I'm gearing up to start my project and want to get my builder log /
> webpage
> started. My ISP doesnt provide webspace. What other cheap / free sites
> are out there that will let me post lots of pictures ect and be relatively
> user friendly.
>
>
> Kevin
>
> Yellowknife, NT, Canada
> RV-8 Wanna Be Builder
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
PSILeD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>try www.rvwoody.com, he may not be doing iy anymore but he certainly does
>excellent work.
>Paul
>
>
>
Here is the direct link to the bent stick: http://www.rvwoody.com/Stick.html
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Belt Sander Question & Tool Resource |
In a message dated 4/28/05 1:02:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brad(at)rv7factory.com writes:
> My question is, in purchasing a belt sander, are their particular features
> I should look for or stay away from? Craftsman has a 2x42" belt / 6" disc
> unit that looks
> nice... will it do the job?
>
I used a one inch Craftsman belt sander with the finest grit I could buy from
day one on my RV-6 and found it to be one of the most useful tools I had. I
never had a need for a wider belt and never used the disc sander part of the
tool, but that's just me.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 68 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control sticks with bend/left-hand throttle quadrant |
That stick looks nice but it's not the one I'd seen - that one had a very wide,
forward "C" bend, very similar to the sticks in an OMF Symphony, if you've ever
seen one of those.
The shape keeps your lap free with the stick out of the way.
--- Bobby Hester wrote:
>
> PSILeD(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >try www.rvwoody.com, he may not be doing iy anymore but he certainly does
> >excellent work.
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> Here is the direct link to the bent stick: http://www.rvwoody.com/Stick.html
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun |
| From: | "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter(at)jpainter.org> |
> I have been looking at the lone 3/16 (fixed a boo-boo) rivet that I have to
> install in my forward HS spar. I have a 2X rivet gun. I have done a pile of
> practice rivets. The 2X drives the rivet okay, if a little slow. Someone had
> said that they wouldn't use less than a 4X gun for that size rivet. What
> exactly is the difference? Is there a bigger weight being popped by the
> pneumatics?
Michael:
Riveting the 3/16 rivets with a 2x will work OK in certain materials, but for
example on the wing rib to spar rivets, where you have the relatively thick
spar web material, you may find it very difficult to set them (seems that the
thicker material absorbs some of the impact force from the gun). I had a lot
of trouble doing this with my 2x, so I bought a 3x. For me, it made a world
of difference. Other folks have said that they used the 2x without a problem.
I now switch back and forth between the 2x and 3x guns.
I generally use the 2x on 3/32nd rivets and the 3x on the 3/16. But on the
bottom skins for example, where you are holding the bucking bar with a
contorted wrist, I found the 3x to be better for the 3/32nds simply because it
didn't take as long to set the rivets. As always, your mileage will vary.
Hope that helps,
Jamie
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A fuselage N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Scott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com> |
| Subject: | 7(A) vs. 9(A) for XC flying |
All I know is that when I ordered my 9 tail kit, Tom Green told me that
whenever the company folks went X-C, if they had their choice, they ALL
took the 9. That was before the 10 was flying.
Richard Scott
9A Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 7(A) vs. 9(A) for XC flying |
Blah! I've been doing my homework and obviously the 9 is going to be an
easier-to-fly IFR bird, with 3x the stick force for one thing.
I sent my 7A QB order form in yesterday. Well, it's certainly not too late. I
can call them on Monday. I am waiting for 2 months for shipping for my house
to be done anyway. I will probably call them and ask them to hold off
altogether for a bit. "Easy" IFR flying means a lot more to me than 10mph and
aerobatic capability I will probably never use.
Funny thing is the 9A is the first kitplane I ever wanted. If I end up
building one, I have certainly come full circle.
--- Richard Scott wrote:
>
> All I know is that when I ordered my 9 tail kit, Tom Green told me that
> whenever the company folks went X-C, if they had their choice, they ALL
> took the 9. That was before the 10 was flying.
>
>
> Richard Scott
> 9A Wings
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion protection |
Hi Paul and list,
Check out Sanchem, http://www.sanchem.com I bought the 6100 product and seal
#2 and it is very easy to use, very easy to clean up and environmentally
friendly. It is a direct replacement for alodine, and seal #2 is a
replacement for primer. They have results from testing on their site that
compares it's performance to alodine and a couple of other products.
The seal #2 puts a fairly tough layer what looks like a hard, clear plastic
or enamel on top of the metal.
I bought the product and have tested it on some small scraps and it seems to
perform as advertised and give good surface for priming and a solid seal if
you are not priming.
Obviously I won't know what the corrosion performance is in my application
for a few years since I don't have a lab setup, but after spending some time
on the phone with them I feel confident that they know what they are doing.
If anyone has experience with the product, please let me know what you
thought of it as I am getting started shortly with my project ;)
If anyone is interested, I have the MSDS, instructions and pricing info so
just email me off-list and I can forward them to you.
James
#40400
Waiting on the emp. Kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
Subject: RV-List: AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion
protection
I'm doing a QB RV-7A but still need to decide on a corrosion protected
mechanism for the tail.
I am really interestd in the AFS stuff for its non-toxic qualities. A
search
of the archive provided few hits re: priming/corrosion protection with this
stuff.
Has anybody used the AFS stuff or know somebody that did? Did you use all
three of the products - cleaner, etch, primer? Is it possible to apply the
primer by dipping parts in a tub or does it need to be sprayed HVLP?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 9 vs 6 experience |
| From: | WALTER B KERR <jbker(at)juno.com> |
I have built both and flew the 6A 400 + hours mostly CC, no aerobatics.
Now have flown the 9A for 30 hours and it definitely is more stable( OK
,less responsive to you jet jock types). Tom Green and Van both concede
that it is more comfortable on long CC. I have not mastered getting it to
land as accurately as the 6. The thing just will not tolerate extra speed
or it will not quit flying compared to the 6A which bled speed rapidly on
the backside of the power curve.
Bernie Kerr, 13B Mazda in my 9A
Blah! I've been doing my homework and obviously the 9 is going to be an
easier-to-fly IFR bird, with 3x the stick force for one thing.
I sent my 7A QB order form in yesterday. Well, it's certainly not too
late. I
can call them on Monday. I am waiting for 2 months for shipping for my
house
to be done anyway. I will probably call them and ask them to hold off
altogether for a bit. "Easy" IFR flying means a lot more to me than
10mph and
aerobatic capability I will probably never use.
Funny thing is the 9A is the first kitplane I ever wanted. If I end up
building one, I have certainly come full circle.
--- Richard Scott wrote:
>
> All I know is that when I ordered my 9 tail kit, Tom Green told me that
> whenever the company folks went X-C, if they had their choice, they ALL
> took the 9. That was before the 10 was flying.
>
>
> Richard Scott
> 9A Wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: magneto's check on EIS |
Do you have two mags or one mag and an electronic ignition? How is the
switch wired? The EIS RPM input from the mag P lead requires a resister
between it and the mag. I managed to screw this up the first time I
wired mine,and putting a switch in there would make it more
complicated. I'd check that first. If you're using the same input for
both (through the switch) than the problem is obviously not with the EIS.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion protection |
Hi James
I have no experience with this system. However, having read through their
data, it looks like a really good substitution for Alodine. I have been
concerned about the toxicity of alodine and how to dispose of the leavings. If
this
stuff works as advertised, it would be an excellent substitution.
I am assuming from the website that one would do the standard steps of clean
with MEK or acetone, prep with Alumaprep or similar, follow with Safeguard CC
3000 or so and then prime as per usual.
Anyone with thoughts or experience?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion protection |
Actually, the 3000 system is designed to be applied hot and in tanks... the
6100 system is the one I am using and doesn't need any special treatment
other than mixing part a and part b and brushing or spraying it on.
As far as cleaning the 6100 process comes with part A, part B and part C.
The application process is to clean with part C (also non toxic and very
effective) using a scotchbrite pad, then rinse with deionized or distilled
water, dry, put on the part a part b mix (they mix 1:1) wait about 60
seconds until it turns gold, and then rinse again. If you don't get the
color change then it wasn't cleaned enough and you start over. If you want
to use the sealer, then you brush that on and hit it with a heat gun for
about a minute and it puts a nice solid clear coat of what almost looks like
plastic on top.
No need for MEK or acetone or any of that other fun stuff ;)
I'll send you the MSDS and instructions off list.
James
#40400
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MLWynn(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion
protection
Hi James
I have no experience with this system. However, having read through their
data, it looks like a really good substitution for Alodine. I have been
concerned about the toxicity of alodine and how to dispose of the leavings.
If this
stuff works as advertised, it would be an excellent substitution.
I am assuming from the website that one would do the standard steps of clean
with MEK or acetone, prep with Alumaprep or similar, follow with Safeguard
CC
3000 or so and then prime as per usual.
Anyone with thoughts or experience?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org> |
| Subject: | Aluminum Air Vents |
I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
Thanks,
Paul
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6fly <rv6fly(at)bresnan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Air Vents |
Paul Trotter wrote:
>
>I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
>would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
>advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
>these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
>
>
>
I agree, Paul. On my six, I used alum. eyball vents that I bought from
an a/c/ salvage yard as opposed to the much more costly vents that you
can buy at Spruce. I believe they were out of a Cessna 400. Be
carefull if you order from a salvage yard that you don't end up with
something smaller like what's used on passenger planes above the seat.
I don't think they'd flow as much air. To make an adapter for the hose
at the rear of the vent, I turned down a bit (tapered) and polished a
regular, 2" flanged duct, waxed it and layed up fiberglass on it
whenever I had some left over. You can then glue them on the back with
J-B weld, Proseal, etc.
Bob Skinner
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | magneto's check on EIS |
If you have the tach pickup wired to the P-lead of one mag you'll only
get a reading when that mag is on. When you turn it off during the mag
check the RPM will go to zero. It's OK to just do your mag check by
comparative sound. If you don't like that you can get a tach generator
to feed the EIS input instead of using the P-lead. Vans has them,
including one with an extended cable if you need clearance from a vacuum
pump.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
> Hi:
>
>
> Any one with the E.I.S. From Grand Rapids, might know the
> answer to my question.
>
> When I am doing the run-up, and check Mags, for drop..the
> Engine Monitor shows Zero...when switching from L to R.
>
> Of course I change the INdividual switch one has, up for
> the L and down for the R mag..
>
> Otherwise everything shows OK..
>
> Any answers to this ?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bertrv6a
>
> Starting my Flight Test...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwpetrus(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: magneto's check on EIS |
or get a switch to switch to either mag for mag check.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Air Vents |
B & B aircraft has some which are larger than the ones normally seen,
about 3 inches or so.
B&B AIRCRAFT SUPPLIES 913-884-5930 AN HARDWARE, AIRCRAFT SURPLUS AND
LEATHER SEAT SKINS
I got mine from Wicks, which are smaller than the Van's plastic ones,
but at RV speeds they allow plenty of airflow.
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=2839/index.html
Jeff Point
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Air Vents |
Paul
Local RV-9A builder Fabian Lefler owns AFFORDABLE PANELS.com Fabian
designed and is marketing a very nice aluminum vent the same size as Vans.
His price is better than most of the other aluminum vents I've seen. See
http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents.htm
Charlie Kuss
>
>I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
>would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
>advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
>these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul
>RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum Air Vents |
Ummm....not really - Sometimes people take credit for things that they
shouldn't....
Anyway, these vents are actually made by a company called "Airkit, LLC".
The same Vents are sold for the same price by a lot of people, including
Van's Aircraft
(http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1114912044-64-423&bro
wse=heatvent). I actually looked into stocking them, but with such a small
company like Airkit and not a lot of margin, I figured I'd just point people
to the companies website (http://www.airkitllc.com) and tell people to buy
them direct for only $5.00 more. I like to see small business like that
succeed so I throw as much business directly to them as I can!
Those are nice vents but pretty large. I use the standard sized Wemac
Aluminum vents in both my RV's and like them the best. I've used the large
ones, but IHMO, they aren't quite as nice overall as the smaller ones when
it comes to directing airflow. I like to direct a stream of air onto my
face, chest or forehead when I like, and the smaller 1.5+" ones work best
for me. You can get them for $50+ something at ACS or other places, but my
personal favorite place is just digging through an aircraft junkyard (like
Wentworth) until you find some you need. They usually sell them for much
less.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., no flames intended.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum Air Vents
Paul
Local RV-9A builder Fabian Lefler owns AFFORDABLE PANELS.com Fabian
designed and is marketing a very nice aluminum vent the same size as Vans.
His price is better than most of the other aluminum vents I've seen. See
http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents.htm
Charlie Kuss
>
>I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
>would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
>advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
>these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul
>RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel" <rv8ter(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum Air Vents |
I found the rear vent leak cold air in the winter even after putting the PRC
to seal the door and when Van's came out with these fancy expensive Aluminum
ones I had to replace my plastic cheapee. Well the rear vent air intake is
in the prop blast and particularly in the climb the looseness in the vent
valve makes such a rattling noise that it overpowers my Bose ANR. I have
just reinstalled the plastic unit after spending the winter with the under
wing vent taped up. Just a fair warning.
Michel
C-GERV 81117 470 hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum Air Vents
Paul
Local RV-9A builder Fabian Lefler owns AFFORDABLE PANELS.com Fabian
designed and is marketing a very nice aluminum vent the same size as Vans.
His price is better than most of the other aluminum vents I've seen. See
http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents.htm
Charlie Kuss
>
>I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
>would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
>advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
>these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul
>RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Grieve <mark(at)macomb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AFS (Aircraft Finishing Systems) stuff for corrosion |
protection
Paul,
The original builder of my empennage used AFS. I read up on the product
and it seems to have a lot going for it. I like the non-toxic aspect but
the warm water cleanup really appeals to me. Also, being one part, you
have the option of storing the unused primer for the next session. AFS
says you can dump it right back into the can but I'm not sure I would.
The possibility of contamination scares me just a little. The primer can
be applied in any manor you see fit, spray, brush, dip, squirt or
splatter. I would suggest spraying as it will produce the most even
coat. AFS suggests spraying, brushing or rolling. The pieces I have were
brushed and the coat is pretty uneven but a second coat would help that.
Dipping may be OK for applying the conversion coating but I wouldn't
apply the primer that way. The result will be a very thick coat that is
uneven as the part drains. There will also be drips at the lowest point
and you would waste a lot of product. This stuff isn't cheap!
It takes a few days for the primer to dry/cure and it isn't very durable
during this period. Very easy to scrape off. Once cured it seems pretty
durable and doesn't flake when you dimple. I have gone back to make sure
the spars are deburred and the primer doesn't flake off of the adjacent
surfaces.
For spraying, a touch up gun is what AFS suggests. I believe HVLP is
mandatory if you live in California. Here in Illinois we aren't so
enlightened so hold your breath Indiana! If you have never used a gun
before then get a quart of latex house paint off the shelf in the
basement, thin it down to be the same as the primer and practice till
you get the feel of it. A simple spray booth can be made using a large
cardboard box and some safety wire.
Regardless of application method you will need a good respirator because
this stuff smells horrible! You should be wearing a mask no matter what
kind of primer you apply so this isn't a bid deal.
There was a discussion of AFS on the RV-7 list last fall I believe. You
might find something in that archive if you haven't searched already.
Happy priming
Mark
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>I am really interestd in the AFS stuff for its non-toxic qualities. A search
>of the archive provided few hits re: priming/corrosion protection with this
>stuff.
>
>Has anybody used the AFS stuff or know somebody that did? Did you use all
>three of the products - cleaner, etch, primer? Is it possible to apply the
>primer by dipping parts in a tub or does it need to be sprayed HVLP?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin 196 Obstacle |
I installed the latest update for the Garmin 196, eager to check out the
obstacle functionality. It says "Obstacle data not present" or something to
that effect, on start-up. I have the 0412 database. I don't see reference
to a minimum database version on their website. Does anyone know?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hilger" <rvsixer(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 Obstacle |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: RV-List: Garmin 196 Obstacle
I installed the latest update for the Garmin 196, eager to check out the
obstacle functionality. It says "Obstacle data not present" or something to
that effect, on start-up. I have the 0412 database. I don't see reference
to a minimum database version on their website. Does anyone know?
Larry,
The obstacle database is a seperate download from the database updates
(not free, either, but worth it). You also have to update the operating
software, and that is free from Garmin (if you haven't already).
Mike Hilger
RV-6 N207AM 700 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun |
I have built my entire plane using only a 2X gun. It works and is lighter
in weight. A 3X gun will work also but be a bit heavier. The 2X gun works
but may take a two or three seconds when working on rivets surrounded by
heavy structure. You don't need a heavier gun with Van's RV8 kit.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Test
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: 3/16 rivets and a 2X gun
>
> Hi all
>
> I have been looking at the lone 3/16 (fixed a boo-boo) rivet that I have
> to
> install in my forward HS spar. I have a 2X rivet gun. I have done a pile
> of
> practice rivets. The 2X drives the rivet okay, if a little slow. Someone
> had
> said that they wouldn't use less than a 4X gun for that size rivet. What
> exactly is the difference? Is there a bigger weight being popped by the
> pneumatics?
>
> Besides being slower, is there an important disadvantage or problem
> associated with using my gun? I would hate to buy another gun for one
> rivet.
>
> Thanks
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Long glide to landing |
Last Thur we had a rare exelent flying day, I thought I would try to hit Jax county
from 10 miles out and 5000' strait in (I keep an anouncment going, no one
in the pattern)
I thought I was doing pretty good untill I got about mile and half out, looked
like overshoot so did some slow s's, then steep slip, but only got to pattern
altitude at about
short final, gave it up. I hadnt tried this since I got my coml long time ago.
Yhis was in my 6a. I think this would be good practice and wondered if any of
you do this, and what is your procedure? This might be of intrest to otheres as
well. Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Air Vents |
Jeff Mears (aka Airkit LLC) is a friend of mine and an RV-6A driver.
He supplies these to Van's, AC$, Affordable Panels, etc. and also
sells them directly. He has continually made improvements to the
vents, the latest generation work very smoothly and seal better than
the previous generations. He has also developed some new sizes of
vents, one of which is designed to work in a 2" hole with a screwed-on
piece behind the panel which accepts a 2" scat tube. The website
should be updated within the next few days showing these new models.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours F1 under const.
On 4/30/05, Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> Ummm....not really - Sometimes people take credit for things that they
> shouldn't....
>
> Anyway, these vents are actually made by a company called "Airkit, LLC".
> The same Vents are sold for the same price by a lot of people, including
> Van's Aircraft
> (http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1114912044-64-423&bro
> wse=heatvent). I actually looked into stocking them, but with such a small
> company like Airkit and not a lot of margin, I figured I'd just point people
> to the companies website (http://www.airkitllc.com) and tell people to buy
> them direct for only $5.00 more. I like to see small business like that
> succeed so I throw as much business directly to them as I can!
>
> Those are nice vents but pretty large. I use the standard sized Wemac
> Aluminum vents in both my RV's and like them the best. I've used the large
> ones, but IHMO, they aren't quite as nice overall as the smaller ones when
> it comes to directing airflow. I like to direct a stream of air onto my
> face, chest or forehead when I like, and the smaller 1.5+" ones work best
> for me. You can get them for $50+ something at ACS or other places, but my
> personal favorite place is just digging through an aircraft junkyard (like
> Wentworth) until you find some you need. They usually sell them for much
> less.
>
> Just my 2 cents as usual!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> P.S., no flames intended.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum Air Vents
>
>
> Paul
> Local RV-9A builder Fabian Lefler owns AFFORDABLE PANELS.com Fabian
> designed and is marketing a very nice aluminum vent the same size as Vans.
> His price is better than most of the other aluminum vents I've seen. See
>
> http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents.htm
>
> Charlie Kuss
>
> >
> >I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies and
> >would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
> >advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
> >these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul
> >RV-8
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
Depends on what you are trying to achieve, Charles
If I am practicing "engine out" then my procedure is to "save" every bit of
altitude I can and arrive over the airfield with as much altitude remaining
as possible. Then depending on altitude, I do a couple of tight 360 deg
turns combined with additional "S" turns if necessary to loose sufficient
altitude. I come in higher and a bit faster on final than normal. My
personal philosophy is I would rather go off the far end of the runway at 20
mph than find myself short on airspeed and altitude on the arrival end of
the runway.
If I am doing long straight-in approaches (which I do not normally do), I
mentally calculate from my desired descent airspeed how long it would take
me to get to the airport from my start descent position. Then I estimate
what rate of descent would get me to pattern altitude in the time I
calculated. And if I hold those parameters I find I generally arrive with
close approximation to the altitude I expected (with perhaps some
adjustments on the way down for wind, other factors, etc).
My Garmin 195 has a Vertical Nav mode whereby you can specify your desired
altitude at destination and desired rate of descent and then just fly the
descent bar when the system tells when you are at your start descent point -
quite accurate. It calculates where you need to start your descent based on
altitude, groundspeed and specified rate of descent and then notifies you
when you are approach your start descent point.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC 28104
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Long glide to landing
>
> Last Thur we had a rare exelent flying day, I thought I would try to hit
> Jax county from 10 miles out and 5000' strait in (I keep an anouncment
> going, no one in the pattern)
> I thought I was doing pretty good untill I got about mile and half out,
> looked like overshoot so did some slow s's, then steep slip, but only got
> to pattern altitude at about
> short final, gave it up. I hadnt tried this since I got my coml long time
> ago. Yhis was in my 6a. I think this would be good practice and wondered
> if any of you do this, and what is your procedure? This might be of
> intrest to otheres as well. Charlie heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum Air Vents |
If you are not in a hurry, the best deals for these vents are on eBay. I've
bought several there.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
>
>I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans
>supplies and would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall
>seeing several units advertised but can't seem to remember where.
>Does anybody know who has these at a better price than the
normal places like Spruce?
>Thanks,
>
>Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | Oil Cooler Block Fittings |
List,
Mounting a S&W 8432R oil cooler to the left side firewall of
my RV6-A, new 360-A1A and would like input on the following:
1) Do I need to purchase fittings to go in the block oil inlet and
outlets after the plugs are removed or do the oil hoses screw directly in the
block?
2) If fittings are required which ones and what is a good source
to acquire them from?
I have a 3 in. cooling hose running off the left baffle with a door to
a cooler which is sized for a 0-540! Been told oil temps should not be a problem.
All input appreciated.
Tom in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Long glide to landing
>
> I agree that this is good practice. I did find that the glide ratio
> varied greatly depending on idle speed of engine not to mention engine
> stopped. I was surprised that my engine out (fixed pitch prop stopped)
> sink rate was higher than with even a low idle. I'd always heard that it
> was the other way around.
>
> How were you guys testing?
>
> Tracy Crook
> Rotary powered RV-4
> Charles Heathco wrote:
Tracy and others...
Most fixed pitch RV's get a meaningful amount of thrust at idle, up to a
speed that equals the advance rate of the prop x RPM. That math is boring,
but here's a real-world example that might shed some light:
A simple For instance, my airplane trues out at 200 mph at 2700 rpm and at
1000' or less. Dividing that RPM by 4 gives 675 rpm, and dividing the speed
by 4 gives 50 mph. So, at 675 RPM, the prop will be giving some amount of
thrust up to 50 mph, beyond that, it is a drag producer.
However, in an idle throttle glide, my airplane idles at something like 1150
rpm at 80 miles an hour. If you ratio the RPM vs speed between glide and
ground idle, you get 1150rpm /675rpm = (X mph)/50mph. Solve for X and you
get 85 mph. So, my prop is more or less thrust neutral at 85 mph in a
glide, and is probably adding a little thrust below that speed. That creates
one of the minor challenges of landing a fixed pitch prop RV - once you
flare, the residual prop thrust adds a meaningful amount of distance as you
float down the runway in ground effect.
All of which wraps around to your observation that that a fixed pitch RV
doesn't glide as well with the prop stopped as with the engine at idle.
KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Long glide to landing
>
> I agree that this is good practice. I did find that the glide ratio
> varied greatly depending on idle speed of engine not to mention engine
> stopped. I was surprised that my engine out (fixed pitch prop stopped)
> sink rate was higher than with even a low idle. I'd always heard that it
> was the other way around.
>
> How were you guys testing?
>
> Tracy Crook
> Rotary powered RV-4
> Charles Heathco wrote:
Tracy and others...
Most fixed pitch RV's get a meaningful amount of thrust at idle, up to a
speed that equals the advance rate of the prop x RPM. That math is boring,
but here's a real-world example that might shed some light:
A simple For instance, my airplane trues out at 200 mph at 2700 rpm and at
1000' or less. Dividing that RPM by 4 gives 675 rpm, and dividing the speed
by 4 gives 50 mph. So, at 675 RPM, the prop will be giving some amount of
thrust up to 50 mph, beyond that, it is a drag producer.
However, in an idle throttle glide, my airplane idles at something like 1150
rpm at 80 miles an hour. If you ratio the RPM vs speed between glide and
ground idle, you get 1150rpm /675rpm = (X mph)/50mph. Solve for X and you
get 85 mph. So, my prop is more or less thrust neutral at 85 mph in a
glide, and is probably adding a little thrust below that speed. That creates
one of the minor challenges of landing a fixed pitch prop RV - once you
flare, the residual prop thrust adds a meaningful amount of distance as you
float down the runway in ground effect.
All of which wraps around to your observation that that a fixed pitch RV
doesn't glide as well with the prop stopped as with the engine at idle.
KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
Here's how we used to set up forced landings in the Canadian air force.
Start by knowing how much altitude you lose in a comfortable 360-degree turn.
We used 30 degrees of bank, but you can use whatever bank angle feels most
comfortable at best-glide speed. Add a little to that for a margin of error
(we added 500 feet for training jets, but less would probably be appropriate
for an RV). That number is the altitude for high key, the starting point of
the forced landing.
Ideally, in a forced landing situation, you arrive over the button of the
runwat at high key, execute a 360 turn, and land. Once you know high key, it's
easy to calculate what low key (the 180-degree point) and final key (the
270-degree point) should be.
Inevitabley, you'll find yourself arriving at the runway above or below high
key altitude.
If it looks like you're going to be a bit above high key, then S-turn or slip
to kill the extra altitude. If you still arrive at high key a bit high, then
fly an oval pattern instead of a 360-degree turn. For example, if you arrive
at high key 500 feet high, then do a 180-degree turn followed by a short
downwind leg (losing about 250 feet, plus or minus a bit depending on wind)
followed by a final turn to the runway. If you arrivce at double the high key
altitude, simply do two 360-degree turns.
If it looks like you're going to arrive below high key altitude you need to
modify the approach. In a real-world situation you're unlikely to be
approaching from the extended runway centerline. So you'll be joining the
360-degree pattern at a tangent point. Imagine that the pattern is a giant
roll of tape, with the free end over the button of the runway. In your mind's
eye, unwind the tape until it's coincident with your approach path. That gives
you a de facto "high key" at some point along your track. Aim to arrive over
that point at high key altitude.
If you practice forced landings that way (which, admittedly, requires access to
an airfield with very little traffic), you'll find that you can do them very
reliably, with as much confidence as a glider pilot has on any normal landing.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
Tracy Crook wrote:
>
>I agree that this is good practice. I did find that the glide ratio varied greatly
depending on idle speed of engine not to mention engine stopped. I was
surprised that my engine out (fixed pitch prop stopped) sink rate was higher than
with even a low idle. I'd always heard that it was the other way around.
>
>How were you guys testing?
>
>
I recently did some testing in the RV7 for FS 2004 just for fun. I
started at 10,000 ft which was 8,800 ft AGL. First I killed the engine,
glided down and landed in a field with the prop windmilling. The glide
lasted 14 nautical miles that time. The second time I stopped the
prop. The trick to that in the simulator, is you have to pull the nose
up to about 60 degrees, wait for it to fall and then recover. A full
flaps stall will not stop the prop in the simulator. That time I made
it 19 nautical miles. Both times I held 95 +/- 3 knots. I have not
tried it with the engine at idle. Just for the record, the simulated
RV7 has a 200hp IO360 with 2 blade constant speed prop at the time of
the 2 glides there were about 35 gallons of fuel, a 170lbs pilot and 170
lbs passenger. I was curious if this comes close to any real RV7s out
there. If someone wants me to try a different scenario to compare to
something they did, let me know. I did do one test to compare idle with
engine out windmilling, I was flying a WOT about 5 feet off the ground
heading toward a 3 mile runway (Edwards Air Force Base). As soon as I
crossed the runway threshold, I either killed the engine or took it to
idle. The idle took me almost exactly the full 3 miles of the runway
before I had to touchdown. With the engine out, it went about 2 miles
before touch down. No flaps either time of course.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Lower cowl movement estimate |
Does anybody have an estimate for how far up the lower cowl on an RV8A would move
in flight? I have the epoxy honeycomb sandwich type cowl shipped about 5 years
ago. I'm wondering how much alternator pulley clearance I need to provide
& why we don't align our filtered air box and cowl air inlets with the cowl
displaced upwards.
Upon researching the archives, engine sag when pulling G's rather than cowl movement
due to aerodynamic pressure may be the problem. But the need is still the
same. Virtually nobody gives actual clearances static or otherwise, nor do
they mention the direction of movement. I know that many have experienced alternator
pulley contact problems & feel whatever hard numbers or even estimated
numbers anyone could provide would be very helpful. Imagine if someone noted
that they had 1/4" vertical clearance & experienced chafing, increased it to
3/4" & had no further problem. Even a few people reporting how much clearance
they had & that there was no problem would be great. Next time your top cowl
is off, how about sticking a drill or a small piece of wood in between whatever
is closest and your cowl & let us all know your actual clearance & whether
there has been contact?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
| Subject: | compression checking an engine |
I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't know how
to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or instructions regarding
tools and procedure for doing that.
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV3 PILOT" <RMCKEE(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
0.38 FROM_NO_LOWER From address has no lower-case characters
I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders do around
the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair amount of air
around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can help me out with this
please e-mail me.
Robin
RV3B Kit 11356
Minnesota
RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
Robin,
The tip up comes down on the side rails and have a "P" channel running the
length of the each side of the canopy. I find it really seals quite
effectively. Never flown in a slider, so don't know how the two compare.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC 28104
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV3 PILOT" <RMCKEE(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
> I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders
> do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair
> amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
> help me out with this please e-mail me.
>
> Robin
> RV3B Kit 11356
> Minnesota
> RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris W
Subject: Re: RV-List: Long glide to landing
Something that the simulated RV doesn't do to well, is the braking effect of the
C/S prop in fine pitch. It's more like approaching with a fixed pitch.
How this will effect the rest of the simulated scenario, I have no idea.
< The trick to that in the simulator, is you have to pull the nose
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: compression checking an engine |
AV 43-13.1B has a section on differential compression checking.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net>
Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>
> I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
> know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
> instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com> |
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
I made this suggestion once before. There was little interest, but it might
be worth suggesting again. .
It would be a good thing for everyone to actually try a couple real engine
off landings in their own plane. See for yourself what happens when the fan
stops. But do it in a safe way with lots of room and lots of options.
So lets all have a summer fly-in at some huge, empty, ex-military airport in
the middle of the plains. Someplace with no obstructions, no traffic, and
no-brainer approaches. A place we can, one at a time, set up a couple
thousand feet over the runway and pull out the mixture - all the way.
If enough of us were interested we can bring in some instructors, perhaps
from Vans. And then once we're more comfortable, perhaps have spot landing
constests with some real nice prizes. For sure we'd all have a lot of fun
and it would make better and safer pilots of everyone.
Let me know if you're interested. If a couple dozen people say they are,
I'll help set it up.
Andy
Builder's Bookstore
970 887-2207
www.buildersbooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Langley (BC) Fly-in 2005 |
Just a reminder that the Langley, BC fly-in is Saturday, June 4, 2005. This is
the annual fly-in of the Western Canada Wing. Langley, BC, is about 20 nm
north of Bellingham, WA.
We generally have a good turnout of RVs from all over BC, and a good contingent
from the U.S., too.
Details are on our web page,
http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/
For U.S. visitors, the Home Wing web page has all the information you need on
border crossing procedures.
http://www.edt.com/homewing/international/
I hope to see lots of RV-Listers there.
---
Tedd McHenry
Van's Air Force Western Canada Wing
www.vansairforce.org
tedd(at)vansairforce.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fabian Lefler" <fablef(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum Air Vents |
Stein,
... and maybe some people shouldn't be knocking other people's products
without having all of the information.
Two years ago, I sold the Airkit vents, however, I decided to start making
them myself to duplicate Van's size and improve in some other areas.
Additionally, my vents are much cheaper. Airkits are $298.0 a pair, and
mine are $225/pair for the black ones and $245/air for the clear ones. What
$5.00 dollars difference are you talking about?
In the future, sitck to what you know best and let others do their thing.
For those who want to see a photo of the vents, here it is:
http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents_files/IM001220.JPG
Fabian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Aluminum Air Vents
>
> Ummm....not really - Sometimes people take credit for things that they
> shouldn't....
>
> Anyway, these vents are actually made by a company called "Airkit, LLC".
> The same Vents are sold for the same price by a lot of people, including
> Van's Aircraft
>
(http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1114912044-64-423&bro
> wse=heatvent). I actually looked into stocking them, but with such a
small
> company like Airkit and not a lot of margin, I figured I'd just point
people
> to the companies website (http://www.airkitllc.com) and tell people to buy
> them direct for only $5.00 more. I like to see small business like that
> succeed so I throw as much business directly to them as I can!
>
> Those are nice vents but pretty large. I use the standard sized Wemac
> Aluminum vents in both my RV's and like them the best. I've used the
large
> ones, but IHMO, they aren't quite as nice overall as the smaller ones when
> it comes to directing airflow. I like to direct a stream of air onto my
> face, chest or forehead when I like, and the smaller 1.5+" ones work best
> for me. You can get them for $50+ something at ACS or other places, but
my
> personal favorite place is just digging through an aircraft junkyard (like
> Wentworth) until you find some you need. They usually sell them for much
> less.
>
> Just my 2 cents as usual!
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> P.S., no flames intended.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum Air Vents
>
>
> Paul
> Local RV-9A builder Fabian Lefler owns AFFORDABLE PANELS.com Fabian
> designed and is marketing a very nice aluminum vent the same size as Vans.
> His price is better than most of the other aluminum vents I've seen. See
>
> http://www.affordablepanels.com/aluminum_vents.htm
>
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
> >
> >I don't particularly like the plastic eyeball vents that Vans supplies
and
> >would like to use aluminum vents instead. I recall seeing several units
> >advertised but can't seem to remember where. Does anybody know who has
> >these at a better price than the normal places like Spruce?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul
> >RV-8
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Hinge pin on fiberglass 6a gear |
In a message dated 05/01/2005 1:33:48 PM Central Standard Time, don(at)dmack.net
writes:
They are Rocket
fiberglass fairings. Since they are on a 6A they will be under the wing. How
do I install the hinge pin?
>>>
Hi Don-
I also used the Rocket fairings on my 6A and the pins can easily be inserted
from the bottom- install the pin before you attach the upper ends of the
fairings as you can rotate the fairing (outboard at the rear) to get a better angle
to shove the pin in. You are using the smaller hinges (don't have the # or
size handy, but smaller than the cowl halves) with the thin pins? They flex
quite easily. I've never seen any split in the middle...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net> |
I am having high egts and chts at different times on my #2 cylinder relative to
other cylinders. Even at an idle #2 can be 200 deg higher than the rest, is
into yellow during climb, getting into red at 1500 deg. Sometimes during a decent
it will go above 1450 when all other cylinders are in 1200s. #2 is also
my hottest cht though usually in the green below 400deg.
I have changed injectors between 1 and 2 with no change, have heard to check air
tube into lower case but don't know about that one--could intake valve be leaking?
Have yet to confirm egt probe. Any suggestions?
Dave Ford
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
dave wrote:
>
>I am having high egts and chts at different times on my #2 cylinder relative to
other cylinders. Even at an idle #2 can be 200 deg higher than the rest, is
into yellow during climb, getting into red at 1500 deg. Sometimes during a decent
it will go above 1450 when all other cylinders are in 1200s. #2 is also
my hottest cht though usually in the green below 400deg.
>I have changed injectors between 1 and 2 with no change, have heard to check air
tube into lower case but don't know about that one--could intake valve be leaking?
Have yet to confirm egt probe. Any suggestions?
>
>Dave Ford
>RV6
>
Don't know about high cht's (didn't have multiprobe cht) but I had
intermittant rough running & found a stubb intake tube loose in the oil
pan. (love that aircraft quality)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
In a message dated 5/1/2005 1:14:41 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
RMCKEE(at)mn.rr.com writes:
I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders do
around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair amount
of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can help me out
with this please e-mail me.
========================================
If you block up the slider during fitting and assembly of the aft skirts,
they will then fit quite nice and snug when you remove the blocks. The only
air/rain we have that leaks into the slider is the very tiny bit that comes in
around the sliding rail cap at the top due to the low pressure in this area.
One of these days I'll fashion a way to plug this area.
IMO the slider is a pretty tight fit if done well.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 742hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around 500
fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and find
out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
If anyone is concerned in the least about an engine failure at 3000 AGL
directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying single engine
airplanes.
We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm. We
found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we practiced
deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the runway,
without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find a
flight instructor and go do it ASAP.
Unfortunately most flight instructors are teaching to gain experience rather
than share it. If your flight instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
different flight instructor.
A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically trained
for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will have
a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or was it still
windmilling? If the propellor was still windmilling, then you may not
have simulated a realistic condition.
A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate the
diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the drag on your
aircraft will decrease significantly, and your descent rate will
decrease as well.
-Rob
Doug Rozendaal wrote:
>
> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around 500
> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and find
> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm. We
> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we practiced
> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the runway,
> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
In flight testing my RV-6, I did some glide tests at various airspeeds and
plotted the results. I show a maximum glide ratio of 10.4 with the engine
idling and 8.7 with the engine off, prop windmilling. That was at a mean
altitude of 4000 feet and 84 knots indicated in both cases. I have a fixed
pitch wood "climb" prop.
I have stopped the prop in a glide, by slowing to <60 knots, but I haven't
measuring the glide characteristics in that condition. Stopping the prop -
and keeping it from spinning up again - is a rather distracting procedure
and in a real engine-out situation I'd probably be far too busy to bother
with all that unless I had a lot of altitude/time to spare.
With it's slightly higher aspect ratio, I'd expect an RV-7 to do a bit
better than a -6 but in the same ballpark.
Curt
> I recently did some testing in the RV7 for FS 2004 just for fun. I
> started at 10,000 ft which was 8,800 ft AGL. First I killed the engine,
> glided down and landed in a field with the prop windmilling. The glide
> lasted 14 nautical miles that time. The second time I stopped the
> prop. The trick to that in the simulator, is you have to pull the nose
> up to about 60 degrees, wait for it to fall and then recover. A full
> flaps stall will not stop the prop in the simulator. That time I made
> it 19 nautical miles. Both times I held 95 +/- 3 knots. I have not
> tried it with the engine at idle. Just for the record, the simulated
> RV7 has a 200hp IO360 with 2 blade constant speed prop at the time of
> the 2 glides there were about 35 gallons of fuel, a 170lbs pilot and 170
> lbs passenger. I was curious if this comes close to any real RV7s out
> there. If someone wants me to try a different scenario to compare to
> something they did, let me know. I did do one test to compare idle with
> engine out windmilling, I was flying a WOT about 5 feet off the ground
> heading toward a 3 mile runway (Edwards Air Force Base). As soon as I
> crossed the runway threshold, I either killed the engine or took it to
> idle. The idle took me almost exactly the full 3 miles of the runway
> before I had to touchdown. With the engine out, it went about 2 miles
> before touch down. No flaps either time of course.
>
> --
> Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
> Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or
> was it still windmilling? If the propellor was still
> windmilling, then you may not have simulated a realistic condition.
>
> A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate
> the diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the
> drag on your aircraft will decrease significantly, and your
> descent rate will decrease as well.
>
> -Rob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
In a message dated 5/1/05 3:58:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com writes:
> Let me know if you're interested. If a couple dozen people say they are,
> I'll help set it up.
>
> Andy: Sounds like a good idea. You can count me in except for the
> last two weeks of July and the first week in August ( shouldn't be a problem
> since those dates coincide with Oshkosh).
>
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 69 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
> Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or
> was it still windmilling? If the propellor was still
> windmilling, then you may not have simulated a realistic condition.
>
> A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate
> the diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the
> drag on your aircraft will decrease significantly, and your
> descent rate will decrease as well.
>
> -Rob
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <Garth(at)islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
realistic and best condition.
Don't ask me how I know.
Garth Shearing
VariEze & 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>
> I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
> stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
> windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
> simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
> RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
> Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
>>
>> Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or
>> was it still windmilling? If the propellor was still
>> windmilling, then you may not have simulated a realistic condition.
>>
>> A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate
>> the diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the
>> drag on your aircraft will decrease significantly, and your
>> descent rate will decrease as well.
>>
>> -Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Lower cowl movement estimate |
I'd think the thing to do is go look at the cowls of similar aerobatic
airplanes and measure the gap - CAP 10, any other airplane which has an
IO360 + CS + dynafocal 1. I have access to a CAP 10 (C/S excepted) and shall
report what I find.
Michle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID REEL
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: rvlist
> Subject: RV-List: Lower cowl movement estimate
>
>
> Does anybody have an estimate for how far up the lower cowl on an RV8A
> would move in flight? I have the epoxy honeycomb sandwich type cowl
> shipped about 5 years ago. I'm wondering how much alternator pulley
> clearance I need to provide & why we don't align our filtered air box and
> cowl air inlets with the cowl displaced upwards.
>
> Upon researching the archives, engine sag when pulling G's rather than
> cowl movement due to aerodynamic pressure may be the problem. But the
> need is still the same. Virtually nobody gives actual clearances static
> or otherwise, nor do they mention the direction of movement. I know that
> many have experienced alternator pulley contact problems & feel whatever
> hard numbers or even estimated numbers anyone could provide would be very
> helpful. Imagine if someone noted that they had 1/4" vertical clearance &
> experienced chafing, increased it to 3/4" & had no further problem. Even
> a few people reporting how much clearance they had & that there was no
> problem would be great. Next time your top cowl is off, how about
> sticking a drill or a small piece of wood in between whatever is closest
> and your cowl & let us all know your actual clearance & whether there has
> been contact?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Excellent advice, Doug
Having made two dead stick landings and one partial power landing, I can
vouch that even a small amount of practice can change an engine-out event
from an almost mind-numbing experience to one of heighten concentration and
awareness. I haven't had to replace the seat cushion since the first one.
Although I understand that power-on landings is becoming the "recommended"
best way of landing an RV, I still make every landing from the pattern an
"engine-out" approach - its good practice in my opinion. The RV is not a
glider, but it really does not become a brick either if you pay attention to
your airspeed. The 10:1 glide ratio advertise is fairly close to what I
have experienced with a stopped prop. But, you really need to know your best
air speeds for max distance and minimum altitude lost BEFORE it happens.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>
> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
> 500
> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
> find
> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
>
> If anyone is concerned in the least about an engine failure at 3000 AGL
> directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying single
> engine
> airplanes.
>
> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
> We
> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
> practiced
> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
> runway,
> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
> If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find
> a
> flight instructor and go do it ASAP.
>
> Unfortunately most flight instructors are teaching to gain experience
> rather
> than share it. If your flight instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> different flight instructor.
>
> A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
> confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically
> trained
> for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will
> have
> a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
> likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
>
> Tailwinds,
> Doug Rozendaal
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | compression checking an engine |
Dave,
If you buy a compression tester from ACS or one of the other fine retail
outlets, there are instructions included with each one. Basically, you
bring the cylinder you are testing to top dead center, connect the tester,
and apply 80 ps to the cylinder (keeping a good hold on the prop). The one
gauge on the tester will show you the 80 psi and the other will show you the
cylinder pressure. Thats it!
Mike Robertson
>From: "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 14:34:16 -0500
>
>
>I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
>know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
>instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
>
>Dave Ford
>RV6
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then keep the
throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce the pumping
losses.
If you pull the mixture to full lean the throttle can be opened all the way.
If you were to test the difference between closed throttle or wide open I
think you will find open is better.
Otherwise with the prop turning you have a big air compressor sucking at the
throttle plate with it closed.
IMHO!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>
> Did you stop the propellor when you pulled the mixture, or was it still
> windmilling? If the propellor was still windmilling, then you may not
> have simulated a realistic condition.
>
> A windmilling propellor creates as much drag as a flat plate the
> diameter of your propellor... If you stop the prop, the drag on your
> aircraft will decrease significantly, and your descent rate will
> decrease as well.
>
> -Rob
>
> Doug Rozendaal wrote:
>>
>> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of
>> decent
>> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
>> 500
>> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
>> find
>> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
>> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied.
>
>> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came
>> down
>> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
>> We
>> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
>> practiced
>> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
>> runway,
>> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
>> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Elastic Insert platenuts |
Does anybody know what elastic insert platenuts are
used for? Do they work better than than the all-metal
nuts provided with the kits?
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
3 questions.
1. I remember reading something about shutting your engine down a certain
way to prevent damage when practicing engine out. What is it?
2. How do you prevent shock cooling? It sure seems like it would take a
while at 5000' for it to cool enough before shutting down but I guess thats
what you do.
3. Whats a typical glide ratio for a constant speed prop? I doubt there's
much difference between models.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Long glide to landing
>
> In flight testing my RV-6, I did some glide tests at various airspeeds and
> plotted the results. I show a maximum glide ratio of 10.4 with the engine
> idling and 8.7 with the engine off, prop windmilling. That was at a mean
> altitude of 4000 feet and 84 knots indicated in both cases. I have a fixed
> pitch wood "climb" prop.
>
> I have stopped the prop in a glide, by slowing to <60 knots, but I haven't
> measuring the glide characteristics in that condition. Stopping the prop -
> and keeping it from spinning up again - is a rather distracting procedure
> and in a real engine-out situation I'd probably be far too busy to bother
> with all that unless I had a lot of altitude/time to spare.
>
> With it's slightly higher aspect ratio, I'd expect an RV-7 to do a bit
> better than a -6 but in the same ballpark.
>
> Curt
>
>
>> I recently did some testing in the RV7 for FS 2004 just for fun. I
>> started at 10,000 ft which was 8,800 ft AGL. First I killed the engine,
>> glided down and landed in a field with the prop windmilling. The glide
>> lasted 14 nautical miles that time. The second time I stopped the
>> prop. The trick to that in the simulator, is you have to pull the nose
>> up to about 60 degrees, wait for it to fall and then recover. A full
>> flaps stall will not stop the prop in the simulator. That time I made
>> it 19 nautical miles. Both times I held 95 +/- 3 knots. I have not
>> tried it with the engine at idle. Just for the record, the simulated
>> RV7 has a 200hp IO360 with 2 blade constant speed prop at the time of
>> the 2 glides there were about 35 gallons of fuel, a 170lbs pilot and 170
>> lbs passenger. I was curious if this comes close to any real RV7s out
>> there. If someone wants me to try a different scenario to compare to
>> something they did, let me know. I did do one test to compare idle with
>> engine out windmilling, I was flying a WOT about 5 feet off the ground
>> heading toward a 3 mile runway (Edwards Air Force Base). As soon as I
>> crossed the runway threshold, I either killed the engine or took it to
>> idle. The idle took me almost exactly the full 3 miles of the runway
>> before I had to touchdown. With the engine out, it went about 2 miles
>> before touch down. No flaps either time of course.
>>
>> --
>> Chris W
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compression checking an engine |
Its a 2 man job. 80 psi is tough to hold if the prop gets off tdc.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>
> Dave,
>
> If you buy a compression tester from ACS or one of the other fine retail
> outlets, there are instructions included with each one. Basically, you
> bring the cylinder you are testing to top dead center, connect the tester,
> and apply 80 ps to the cylinder (keeping a good hold on the prop). The
> one
> gauge on the tester will show you the 80 psi and the other will show you
> the
> cylinder pressure. Thats it!
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>>From: "dave" <dford(at)michweb.net>
>>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: RV-List: compression checking an engine
>>Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 14:34:16 -0500
>>
>>
>>I'd like to check compressions on my engine and since I currently don't
>>know how to do that, wondering if someone could forward a link or
>>instructions regarding tools and procedure for doing that.
>>
>>Dave Ford
>>RV6
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
>
>I think it would be a great exercise to see
> just how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped
> ..... and then see what the real-world differences there are.
When I fiddled around with this on my airplane I found it took about 120
knots to start the prop turning.
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=124394593?KEYS=larry_pardue?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=180?SERIAL=08295813183?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
The speed to stop the prop seemed to vary from 60 to 70 knots depending on
engine temperature.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
The effort and experimentation in glide ratio flight test is excellent, but how
will that work in an emergency. Tedd nice explanation of hi-key/ 360 overhead
approach.
I guess what is important to me is how can I use this info in a real engine failure
scenario.
"100 and 1.4" (speed 100mph and 1.4 kt mile/per thousand altitude- or 600 ft/ NM)
So my first job after an engine failure/ loss of power would be get to best glide
speed (initial target speed 100mph than adjust for weight, wind). Trim to that,
while simultaneously trouble shooting engine (boost pump, switch tanks,
mixture, carb heat, ignition etc... as required) and look for a landing spot
within 1.4 kt miles per thousand feet agl. Fly the airplane.
From what I got from all this that an RV will glide somewhere *10.5 to 1 thru 8.7
to 1 ratio
(*idle power). (Realistic engine out glide will be closer to the 8.7 to 1. Numbers
above 9 or 10 seem to be affected by partial idle power or tail winds. A real
light RV flown perfectly could do better than 8.7 to 1 but again I am looking
for something conservative I can remember and use in an emergency, with a
little margin for less than perfect speed control.)
Also I got best glide (max distance) is some where in the 81kt - 95 kt range (varies
with weight, altitude and head wind). Therefore I remember 100mph (bigger
mark on a/s indicator) and adjust as needed for weight. Typical glide speed
for RV best glide 84 kts = 96 mph. Min sink is under slower.
Assuming engine is ka-put and I am making an emergency engine-out glide/landing,
I would assume glide ratio closer to 8. 7 to 1 than 10.5 to 1, which sounds
a little high. Therefore for every 1000 ft altitude I can glide 1.4 kt miles (sink
approx 950 ft/min or 600 ft/NM).
As far as windmilling prop or not, I assume the worst case, windmilling. The most
critical condition is when you have little altitude, so I would not personally
mess with trying to stop the prop. If I was at 12,000 agl and had time I might
consider it, but I would try to get the engine running at first and keep
the prop windmilling. I can't recall ever seeing this in a POH or in training.
If you think you would attempt or consider trying to stop the prop (windmilling)
in a real emergency, I would suggest you practice it first under controlled
conditions. I have not, from what I hear is it takes near stall speed and may
be even a touch of flaps? In the time messing with all that, how much altitude
do you loose vs. just going to best glide and time lost making headway towards
your intended landing site? Also no one has real good windmill vs stopped
prop numbers. There has to be a trade off. Again unless I am real high and no
chance of getting the engine started such as catastro
phic
failure vs carb ice that might melt and allow engine to start at lower (warmer)
altitudes, than I am dubious at how practical it is. No argument stopped is
less drag.
Cheers George
Glide ratio , glide distance , power off landing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
I would not venture into making a statement like Yes to your question. But
I will venture out onto the limb of no return and suggest that tip ups are
easier to get airtight than sliders. I have a tip up and the canopy is very
tight at the back and most slider folks have to work at for some time to
make that claim. The tip up sides are very tight IF the canopy frame is
built and installed correctly.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV3 PILOT" <RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM>
Subject: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
> I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders
> do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair
> amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
> help me out with this please e-mail me.
>
> Robin
> RV3B Kit 11356
> Minnesota
> RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
On 22:25:34 2005-05-01 "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
> I beg to differ - windmilling IS the realistic condition. If the power
> stops either because of lack of fuel or ignition and the prop keeps
> windmilling at glide speed then that's what you should
> simulate/practice. At low altitude you have to take what you get.
There are more factors to consider than just whether the prop is
windmilling. Is the engine running at all, ie. idling? Then it's
producing *some* power. If the engine isn't running, and the drag in the
system is just the pistons moving around, then the prop is creating drag
that can be removed by stopping the prop. If the crankshaft has failed and
the prop is windmilling in its front bearing, then the prop is *really*
windmilling, and that creates a *lot* of drag (but I don't know off the top
of my head if it's more or less than with an idling engine... It may depend
on the airframe).
Anyone who doubts that a windmilling prop creates more drag than a stopped
one, go buy one of those styrofoam punch-out airplanes that has just a
windmilling prop on it. Fly it once with the prop windmilling, and fly it
agan with the prop taped in place. You'll consistently get more distance
out of it with the prop stopped. The result is even more dramatic if you
try this with one of those balsa stick-models. Fly it once with the rubber
band removed, and fly it again with the prop taped in place.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
On 6:42:30 2005-05-02 linn walters wrote:
> I think it would be a great exercise to see just
> how easy/hard it is to stop the prop ..... and keep it stopped .....
> and then see what the real-world differences there are. Linn
That's an excellent point, Linn, and I forgot to mention that. It's worth
noting that a wood prop has a lot less momentum, and is a lot easier to
stop, than a metal one.
When we tried this while I was learning to fly, it was in a Cessna 152 with
a metal prop. We did have to pull the nose up about 30 degrees and hold it
there for a moment to get the blades to stop turning. Once it was stopped,
we could establish best glide (and even a bit faster) without it starting
again, although it did rotate about 1/8 turn until it hit the compression
stroke. My recollection was that we had to get it up to about 90mph before
it would turn over on it's own.
In contrast, I tried the same thing on a wood-propped homebuilt, and the
prop stopped dead the second I pulled the mixture, without me even lifting
the nose. The silence was even more deafening because I wasn't expecting
it... I thought I would have to raise the nose at least a bit to get it to
stop. In this case, I couldn't get the prop to start turning again without
using the starter, although I dove to 110mph first to try it.
In a wood propped homebuilt, I would have no second thoughts about stopping
the prop. In a metal propped one, I would probably only bother trying if I
were (a) behind a constant speed prop or (b) at a sufficiently high
altitude when it quit.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | CARSON CITY, NV. FLY-IN |
Hello Everyone,
Just wanted to send out a quick e-mail to everyone in the
RV community that the Carson City, NV. Chapter 403 is hosting its 2nd Annual
RV Fly-in. We have factory support and weather permitting will have Ken
Scott there with a Demo aircraft for potential builders to get a taste.
You can find more info. on the Chapter web sight at
www.eaa403.org. The airport identifier is CXP. We hope you can make it out
to this fly-in and make this a growing event. Last year we counted 31 RV
aircraft which included the "EXXON FLYING TIGER" and the 1st Factory built
RV10.
If you are not able to make it please spread the word for the
ones that could and didn't get the word.
Thank You,
Bruce Gray
RV8 Fuselage coming soon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Airport Identifiers |
Try AirNav http://www.airnav.com/
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore(at)tidelandsoil.com> |
| Subject: | Joe Banos - Transition Training |
I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Garth Shearing wrote:
>
>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>realistic and best condition.
>
>Don't ask me how I know.
>
>
>
How slow did you have to go to get the prop to stop? While I agree that
it would be best to stop the prop and then go to best glide speed, if
you are say less than 3000 ft AGL, don't you think there would be too
little time to do that? Once I get my ticket and build my -7, I don't
ever plan on being much less than 8,000 ft AGL except for takeoff &
landing, very short trips and when crossing mountain peaks. In my part
of the country 8,000 ft AGL isn't hard to do and with that much room, if
the engine quits, you generally have at least 2 airports with in gliding
range.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lower cowl movement estimate |
If you do aerobatics, you'll need 1" clearance minimum. I had to
change the alternator arm and go to a shorter belt, obviously that
involved taking the prop off. What a pain in the butt that was. This
was after my alternator pulley started wearing into the cowl, and of
course long after reading in the archives that 1/2" clearance was
plenty. Doing point rolls are what started my cowl rubbing...I
suspect the mounts aren't as stiff along that axis of engine movement.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours F1 under const.
On 5/1/05, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> Does anybody have an estimate for how far up the lower cowl on an RV8A would
move in flight? I have the epoxy honeycomb sandwich type cowl shipped about 5
years ago. I'm wondering how much alternator pulley clearance I need to provide
& why we don't align our filtered air box and cowl air inlets with the cowl
displaced upwards.
>
> Upon researching the archives, engine sag when pulling G's rather than cowl movement
due to aerodynamic pressure may be the problem. But the need is still
the same. Virtually nobody gives actual clearances static or otherwise, nor
do they mention the direction of movement. I know that many have experienced
alternator pulley contact problems & feel whatever hard numbers or even estimated
numbers anyone could provide would be very helpful. Imagine if someone noted
that they had 1/4" vertical clearance & experienced chafing, increased it
to 3/4" & had no further problem. Even a few people reporting how much clearance
they had & that there was no problem would be great. Next time your top cowl
is off, how about sticking a drill or a small piece of wood in between whatever
is closest and your cowl & let us all know your actual clearance & whether
there has been contact?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with the
9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I got
a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
everything.
(It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did -
but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
increase the workload.)
Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I ever
wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
together my QB kit.)
Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
scoop?
2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive reports.
I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
Sensenich that Van's recommends.
TIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
>
>3. Whats a typical glide ratio for a constant speed prop? I doubt there's
>much difference between models.
>
There actually might be a fair difference in windmilling drag between
different constant-speed prop setups. The following items may be
significant:
1. If there is no oil pressure: Which way the prop pitch goes when it
losses oil pressure. Some props are designed to go to high pitch
with low oil pressure, some go to low pitch. In particular, the
Hartzells that most people use go to low pitch.
2. If there is oil pressure: What is the rpm selected by the prop
control, and how does that compare to the windmilling rpm? If the
prop is windmilling at a lower rpm than that which is selected by the
prop control, then the prop will be at the pitch defined by its low
pitch stop (i.e. lots of drag).
3. If there is oil pressure: Has the pilot pulled the prop control
full aft, and if so, is the minimum selectable rpm less than the
windmilling rpm? If so, the prop will go to high pitch (i.e. less
drag).
4. If the prop is sitting on the low pitch stop, has the owner
adjusted the low pitch stop to be at as high a pitch as possible? If
you want minimum drag when the prop is windmilling, the low pitch
stop should be adjusted as high as possible. Ideally, the low pitch
stop should be adjusted high enough so the prop doesn't come up to
full rpm until the aircraft has some airspeed. The rpm during the
first part of the take-off roll should be less than the governing
rpm, as the prop would be limited by the low pitch stop. The rpm
would increase as the speed increased, and reach governing rpm late
in the take-off roll.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
>
> Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
>
> If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then
> keep the
> throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce
> the pumping
> losses.
Vic, I believe least drag would be with the throttle closed. Consider the
intake stroke - yes, there would be power needed to pull the piston down
against the lower manifold pressure. However, most of that would be
recovered during the "compression" stroke, when this same lower pressure in
the cylinder "pulls" the piston back up. With the throttle open, a full
charge of air approximately at ambient pressure needs to be compressed to
around 125 psi on the compression stroke, being released suddenly into the
exhaust pipe when the exhaust valve opens.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 612 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed information
but never got a reponse?
Folbrecht
First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with the
9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I got
a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
everything.
(It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did -
but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
increase the workload.)
Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I ever
wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
together my QB kit.)
Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
scoop?
2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive reports.
I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
Sensenich that Van's recommends.
TIA.
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Joe Banos - Transition Training |
From the SoCAL Group
"Joe Banos"
"Not sure who to direct this to. I am a Certified Flight Instructor
(30 years), former military pilot and RV-6 owner in the San Diego
area. I have the FAA excemption for transition training and would
like to make myself available for RV training of builders or buyers in
the So Cal area. Is it proper to disseminate this info or notify the
group via this means?"
JoeB
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
---
-Original Message Follows----
From: "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore(at)TidelandsOil.com>
Subject: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:57:04 -0700
I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
If there is NO oil pressure, you really don't have to worry about it,
since it's probably going to stop turning pretty soon anyway.
8 >)
Dave
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
>There actually might be a fair difference in windmilling drag between
>different constant-speed prop setups. The following items may be
>significant:
>
>1. If there is no oil pressure: Which way the prop pitch goes when it
>losses oil pressure. Some props are designed to go to high pitch
>with low oil pressure, some go to low pitch. In particular, the
>Hartzells that most people use go to low pitch.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
Darrell:
Craig Catto is a very busy guy lately, with all us RV guys sending business
his way. Hopefully he has not responded to your email because he is busy
working on my prop!! ;
)
Best way to contact him is to give him a call.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
moving to the airport on 5/11
Peshtigo, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Mike Holland ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Mike Holland
Lists: RV-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List
Subject: Quickbuild Fuel Pickup Issue
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/hollandm@pacbell.net.05.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Rob Ray ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Rob Ray
Lists: RV-List,RV4-List
Subject: RV4 canopy hold-open latch
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/smokyray@yahoo.com.05.02.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
Same here. Probably just doesn't check email often. Seems to be a very small
operation. I'll give him a call in a week or two if he doesn't write back.
One concern I would have would be regarding vibration testing. Has it been
done with his props? With what engines? Have you ever read the RVator article
about the necessity for real vibration testing for every prop/engine
combination? It is indeed a necessity.
Another (minor) area would be concerning the flyoff period - no 25 hour period
with that prop. Then again I don't think the experimental Lycs could ever
qualify for that anyway?
--- Darrell Reiley wrote:
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
>
> Paul Folbrecht
>
>
> First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go with
> the
> 9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until I
> got
> a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
> private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going to
> get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
> possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
> suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
> everything.
>
> (It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I did
> -
> but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s, I
> could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
> Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
> increase the workload.)
>
> Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH 2000
> was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I
> ever
> wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed to
> call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the girl
> laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started putting
> together my QB kit.)
>
> Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm trying
> to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like the
> simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for the
> IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a pain
> was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with the
> scoop?
>
> 2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me like
> they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive
> reports.
> I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
> Sensenich that Van's recommends.
>
> TIA.
>
>
> Darrell Reiley
> Round Rock, Texas
> RV 7A #70125
> N622DR (reserved)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "randall" <rv6n6r(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
The slider is indeed difficult to seal on the sides. Mine fits as tight as
any I've seen, but even if done perfectly there're still gaps that are hard
to completely seal with any kind of seal material, due to the geometry when
it opens and closes. In fact I wouldn't mind hearing from others as to how
they did that. No water comes in and I fly in the rain a fair amount, and I
don't notice the cold air except on really cold days. But there's a fair
amount of wind noise from the gaps at the back that I just can't seam to
seal, and I'd like to get it as quiet as I can.
Randall Henderson, RV-6
Portland, OR
>>
> > I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the sliders
> > do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a fair
> > amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
> > help me out with this please e-mail me.
> >
> > Robin
> > RV3B Kit 11356
> > Minnesota
> > RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Alison and Neil <alisonandneil(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joe Banos - Transition Training |
Joe,
Yes, absolutely. In fact I've been looking for someone closer than TX or WA.
I'll be in touch.
Neil McLeod
7 QB Finishing
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
>
> From the SoCAL Group
>
> "Joe Banos"
>
> "Not sure who to direct this to. I am a Certified Flight Instructor
> (30 years), former military pilot and RV-6 owner in the San Diego
> area. I have the FAA excemption for transition training and would
> like to make myself available for RV training of builders or buyers in
> the So Cal area. Is it proper to disseminate this info or notify the
> group via this means?"
>
> JoeB
>
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
> ---
> -Original Message Follows----
> From: "Moore, Warren" <Warren.Moore(at)TidelandsOil.com>
> To: "'RV List'"
> Subject: RV-List: Joe Banos - Transition Training
> Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:57:04 -0700
>
>
>
> I understand Joe Banos is giving transition training in the San Diego area
> in his RV-6....does anyone have his contact information?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
It seems we're really arguing the definition of "realistic." I will
agree that a stopped prop represents the lowest drag configuration which
in turn nets better sink and glide ratio. What I don't agree with is
whether it is "realistic" (or wise) to do what it takes to get the prop
stopped in any given engine out. If it occurs at 400 AGL and 80 mph I
would assert that it is decidedly unwise as you'll be on the ground in
10-15 seconds. At 10,000 AGL and 170 kts you have more freedom to
optimize things. Somewhere in between there's a transition point from
unwise to possible to desireable. Slowing the aircraft below best glide
speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed to best glide
involves some loss of gliding range. How much and whether you can
recover it with the lower drag (and how long it takes) is anyones guess.
There are 4000 RVs flying and over a thousand folks on this list and
I've still not seen any performance data solid enough to do that kind of
trade-off study with any confidence. So we're left with our judgement to
decide. My reasoning is that at low altitude (pick your own definition,
0-3K AGL?) your options are most limited and fast and correct decisions
are most critical. It's not the time to approach stall in an emergency
and you've got enough other things to do in the time remaining. At high
altitude you may have many more options so the ability to eek out the
last bit of glide range may not be that valuable. You're likely to gain
more by correctly judging the effect of the wind on your range and
available airports. At any event I would leave stopping the prop until
after all the essentials are completed and all restart attempts are
done. At that point you've lost more altitude and marginalized the
benefits somewhat.
My view of "realistic" is what is conservatively attainable in real
world conditions. For the reasons above I don't think stopping the prop
is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore objected to
calling it THE realistic condition. It's certainly subjective so YMMV.
Regardless of your view, it's important to periodically evaluate your
views and practices.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
> And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink
> rate, low drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to
> reduce speed to stop the prop, and then increase speed to
> best glide ratio. In the unlikely event that the best glide
> ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a slightly
> lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
> realistic and best condition.
>
> Don't ask me how I know.
>
> Garth Shearing
> VariEze & 90% RV6A
> Victoria BC Canada
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
I'll second what others have written about communicating with Craig. I
just bought a prop from him (took delivery three days before leaving for
SnF) and had a lot of communication back and forth. He had computer
problems so email was out. He always answers the phone or returns calls
quickly. Very good guy to deal with. He did tell me that about 90% of
his business nowadays is making 3 blade props for RVs.
My prop is a 3 blade Catto, 66 inch pitch and 76 inch pitch. It is on
an Aerosport Power/ Superior O-360, carb, 8.5 pistons, one mag and one
Lightspeed II ignition. Pretty stock engine. I talked with Craig at
some length about the prop pitch. I explained that I wanted a prop
which was not quite a cruise, but closer to a cruise than a climb prop.
The Sterba wood prop which it replaced (and is now on Ebay if anyone is
interested- shameless plug) was just such a prop. I was willing to
sacrifice a couple knots of top end for better short field performance.
Craig assured me that I would see an increase in top end with no loss of
acceleration or short field performance.
Well, the proof is in the pudding. I saw about a 5 kt increase in
cruise (75%, 8K ft standard) from 172 to 177 ktas. I hit 180 ktas at
4500 ft racing a 200HP/ Hartzell blended airfoil RV-8 (I was nose to
nose with him at full throttle for several minutes, until he pushed the
RPM up past 2400!) I saw a pretty substantial decrease in static RPM
(around 180 or so) but seem to have no loss of acceleration or takeoff
distance. I guess the prop produces more thrust at lower RPM than the
old one. As for real world cruise- around 2500 RPM gives TAS in the low
160s with burns around 8.5-9 GPH, depending on altitude. A fixed pitch
prop just has to turn too damn fast to get real power out of the engine,
but gas is expensive and I like to baby the engine anyway.
The prop changed the feel of the engine a lot. It now feels and sounds
more like a 6 cylinder engine than a 4 banger. I can't say it's
quieter, but it's a different, higher frequency type of noise. There
are a couple rough RPM ranges down low. Not any more so than with my
old prop, but it seems more noticable in comparison. I have yet to get
it dynamically balanced but that is in the works.
One more thing- my wheel landings seem to have gotten better. I think
that subconsciously I am no longer worried about a prop strike with the
small diameter prop;)
Oh, one more thing- it looks cool as hell!
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
> If you block up the slider during fitting and assembly of the aft skirts,
> they will then fit quite nice and snug when you remove the blocks. The only
> air/rain we have that leaks into the slider is the very tiny bit that comes
in
> around the sliding rail cap at the top due to the low pressure in this area.
> One of these days I'll fashion a way to plug this area.
>
> IMO the slider is a pretty tight fit if done well.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 742hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
How high did you block the slider for this method?
Also, how did you seal the side skirts?
Doug Gray
On approach to slider anxiety...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
Will do... I just know how phone calls all day can pull people off task. Emails
can be answered at their convenience... You would think it would help?
Darrell
Jeff Orear wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley"
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
>
> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
> information but never got a reponse?
Darrell:
Craig Catto is a very busy guy lately, with all us RV guys sending business
his way. Hopefully he has not responded to your email because he is busy
working on my prop!! ;
)
Best way to contact him is to give him a call.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
moving to the airport on 5/11
Peshtigo, WI
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
Vibration is generally not an issue with non-metallic props as they are self
dampening.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props
>
> Same here. Probably just doesn't check email often. Seems to be a very
> small
> operation. I'll give him a call in a week or two if he doesn't write
> back.
>
> One concern I would have would be regarding vibration testing. Has it
> been
> done with his props? With what engines? Have you ever read the RVator
> article
> about the necessity for real vibration testing for every prop/engine
> combination? It is indeed a necessity.
>
> Another (minor) area would be concerning the flyoff period - no 25 hour
> period
> with that prop. Then again I don't think the experimental Lycs could ever
> qualify for that anyway?
>
> --- Darrell Reiley wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think the Catto Prop is a great product. I emailed them for detailed
>> information but never got a reponse?
>>
>> Paul Folbrecht wrote:--> RV-List message posted
>> by:
>> Paul Folbrecht
>>
>>
>> First of all, for anybody who followed the thread, I did decide to go
>> with
>> the
>> 9A over the 7. I was originally going to just put my order on hold until
>> I
>> got
>> a chance to fly both the 7A and 9A but did enough research and got enough
>> private mails from people on the list to convince me. And I'm never going
>> to
>> get the chance to fly either in IMC as a demo anyway. I sort of liked the
>> possibility of sport aerobatics at some point but XC and especially IFR
>> suitability and stability are much more important to me. Can't have
>> everything.
>>
>> (It wasn't that I didn't know the differences between the 9 and the 7 - I
>> did
>> -
>> but I guess I had convinced myself that since many ppl fly IFR in 6s/7s,
>> I
>> could too. And maybe I could, but I'd rather have the stable ride.
>> Single-pilot IMC in my C-152 is demanding enough for me - I'd rather not
>> increase the workload.)
>>
>> Going to the 9 is fitting, though, since seeing the 9A prototype at OSH
>> 2000
>> was what initially inspired me to get my PPL. It was the first kitplane I
>> ever
>> wanted, and now I've come full-circle indeed. (I was almost embarrassed
>> to
>> call Van's again after just changing my order from a 10 to a 7A, but the
>> girl
>> laughed and said this is not terribly uncommon. They hadn't started
>> putting
>> together my QB kit.)
>>
>> Question regarding engines. I'm not at all sure I'd want to go FI (I'm
>> trying
>> to keep the costs down, since my panel is gonna cost a bundle, and I like
>> the
>> simplicity of the carb), but I noticed that Van's offers no FWF kit for
>> the
>> IO-320. I am sure there are those out there with FI 320s - how much of a
>> pain
>> was it? Where is your servo mounted? Are you using the stock cowl with
>> the
>> scoop?
>>
>> 2nd question: Experiences with the 3-bladed Catto prop? It looks to me
>> like
>> they make great stuff. I did search the archive and see some positive
>> reports.
>> I would be really interested in seeing numbers to compare to the 79 pitch
>> Sensenich that Van's recommends.
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>> Darrell Reiley
>> Round Rock, Texas
>> RV 7A #70125
>> N622DR (reserved)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Alex, I believe you may be correct. I would be good if someone had a
chance to test the drag in both configurations.
Thanks for you insight.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
>
>
>
>>
>> Just one more thought to unfuel the fire (pun intended)
>>
>> If you want to extend your glide with a windmilling prop then
>> keep the
>> throttle wide open (assuming it is not running) to reduce
>> the pumping
>> losses.
>
> Vic, I believe least drag would be with the throttle closed. Consider the
> intake stroke - yes, there would be power needed to pull the piston down
> against the lower manifold pressure. However, most of that would be
> recovered during the "compression" stroke, when this same lower pressure
> in
> the cylinder "pulls" the piston back up. With the throttle open, a full
> charge of air approximately at ambient pressure needs to be compressed to
> around 125 psi on the compression stroke, being released suddenly into the
> exhaust pipe when the exhaust valve opens.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A 612 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Gentlemen,
I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats are
sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
by
hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way to
free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
follow the level.
Any ideas?
Vince
RV-8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Awesome Missouri flyin this weekend |
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
"Flash"!
THIRD ANNUAL REBEL'S BLUFF FLYIN Now that Sun n Fun is over, it's time
to fly to the Third Annual Rebel's Bluff FlyIn for Rocket's and Van's RV
Aircraft on May 7th, 2005. Come in about 10:00AM for an Ozarks Style
Bar-B-Que lunch with all the fixin's (catered by the First Baptist
Ladies Group), and some great comaradrie.
Rebel's Bluff (N37 06.1 W93 52.2) is located two miles north of Mt
Vernon Municipal Airport (2MO), and just west of Mt Vernon, Missouri.
About 150 miles SSE of Kansas City, MO, and 140 east of Tulsa, OK. The
runway 14/32 is 2,200' of very smooth sod by 60' wide. Use 122.9 (Mt
Vernon's) UNICOM frequency and announce "landing at Rebel's Bluff." AV
Gas 100LL will be available for approximately $2.50/gallon.
Rain date is May 14th if it is a complete washout. RSVP would be greatly
appreciated to your host Les Featherston at lwfeatherston(at)aol.com or
call 417-466-4663 at home, or 417-425-3595 cell.
Overnighters can stay at the Super 8 for $53, or camping by the creek
(with flush toilet) is available. Looking forward to seeing all of you
again. Les
************************************************************************
Les has a gorgeous Harmon. Pics on my pireps page if you're interested.
http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/Pilot%20reports.html I
plan to go to the flyin. I've been to Les's flyin previously and it was
very nice. If anyone wants more info and can't reach Les, feel free to
call me... 812-464-1839 M-F Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO-320 in 9(A)/Catto props |
Thanks for the comments, Jeff. (If you didn't recognize the name, I'm a new Ch
18 member & we chatted a bit (with Glenn) at last Tuesday's meeting.)
I'd have to say that testimony goes a long way towards me buying a Catto.
Since RVs are his speciality I'd be surprised if he's not at least matching
Sensenich numbers. And he's even cheaper than they are.
And you're right about the looks, that's for sure! I've long lusted after a
three-bladed prop but thought the CS MT was about the only choice. $$$.
~Paul Folbrecht, PP-SEL-IA
~C-152 N89795, MWC
~RV-9A QB ordered
> I'll second what others have written about communicating with Craig. I
> just bought a prop from him (took delivery three days before leaving for
> SnF) and had a lot of communication back and forth. He had computer
> problems so email was out. He always answers the phone or returns calls
> quickly. Very good guy to deal with. He did tell me that about 90% of
> his business nowadays is making 3 blade props for RVs.
>
> My prop is a 3 blade Catto, 66 inch pitch and 76 inch pitch. It is on
> an Aerosport Power/ Superior O-360, carb, 8.5 pistons, one mag and one
> Lightspeed II ignition. Pretty stock engine. I talked with Craig at
> some length about the prop pitch. I explained that I wanted a prop
> which was not quite a cruise, but closer to a cruise than a climb prop.
> The Sterba wood prop which it replaced (and is now on Ebay if anyone is
> interested- shameless plug) was just such a prop. I was willing to
> sacrifice a couple knots of top end for better short field performance.
> Craig assured me that I would see an increase in top end with no loss of
> acceleration or short field performance.
>
> Well, the proof is in the pudding. I saw about a 5 kt increase in
> cruise (75%, 8K ft standard) from 172 to 177 ktas. I hit 180 ktas at
> 4500 ft racing a 200HP/ Hartzell blended airfoil RV-8 (I was nose to
> nose with him at full throttle for several minutes, until he pushed the
> RPM up past 2400!) I saw a pretty substantial decrease in static RPM
> (around 180 or so) but seem to have no loss of acceleration or takeoff
> distance. I guess the prop produces more thrust at lower RPM than the
> old one. As for real world cruise- around 2500 RPM gives TAS in the low
> 160s with burns around 8.5-9 GPH, depending on altitude. A fixed pitch
> prop just has to turn too damn fast to get real power out of the engine,
> but gas is expensive and I like to baby the engine anyway.
>
> The prop changed the feel of the engine a lot. It now feels and sounds
> more like a 6 cylinder engine than a 4 banger. I can't say it's
> quieter, but it's a different, higher frequency type of noise. There
> are a couple rough RPM ranges down low. Not any more so than with my
> old prop, but it seems more noticable in comparison. I have yet to get
> it dynamically balanced but that is in the works.
>
> One more thing- my wheel landings seem to have gotten better. I think
> that subconsciously I am no longer worried about a prop strike with the
> small diameter prop;)
>
> Oh, one more thing- it looks cool as hell!
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee WI
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Condon" <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | FAA FSDO website and FAA Aircraft Certification website |
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsdo/index.cfm
&
http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/av-info/dst/amateur/ambuilt_aif.ht
m
Flight Standards Region and Field Offices
* Includes International Field Offices
&&
You can find additional amateur-built aircraft related information by
visiting the links provided above:
FAA Order 8130.2, "Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related
Products".
FAA Order 8130.33, "Designated Airworthiness Representatives: Amateur-Built
and Light-Sport Aircraft Certification Functions".
Advisory Circular 20-27, "Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built
Aircraft".
Advisory Circular 20-139, "Commercial Assistance During Construction of
Amateur-Built Aircraft".
Advisory Circular 21-12, "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate,
Form 8130-6".
Advisory Circular 90-89, "Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight
Testing Handbook".
Advisory Circular 65-23, "Certification of Repairpersons (Experimental
Aircraft Builders)".
Advisory Circular 39-7, "Airworthiness Directives".
Special Airworthiness Information Bulletins (SAIB) which may be applicable
to amateur-built aircraft or to products installed on them.
Related Amateur-built Aircraft Forms:
AC Form 8050-88 (PDF) "Affidavit of Ownership for Amateur-Built Aircraft".
FAA Form 8000-38, "Fabrication/Assembly Operation Checklist". (See Fig. 4-15
in Order 8130.2 linked above)
FAA Form 8130-12 "Eligibility Statement: Amateur-Built Aircraft".
FAA Form 8130-6 "Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate".
FAA Form 8610-2, "Airman Certification and/or Rating Application".
We provide an amateur-built aircraft overview page and an amateur-built
registration, marking and inspection technical content page as well.
The Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) web site contains additional
amateur-built information that you may find useful.
As always, contact your local FAA Flight Standards District Office or
Manufacturing and Inspection District Office for direct assistance in
meeting your amateur-built aircraft airworthiness needs.
----
Questions about this page? Accessibility Privacy Policy
For Further Information, please contact:
Federal Aviation Administration
Production and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, Suite 815
800 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20591
Office: 202-267-8361 FAX: 202-267-5580
Page Last Updated: March 11, 2005
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
List readers ...
Is the problem, of a leaking canopy, due to vent air (heated or cooling)
coming in and slightly pressurizing and billowing out through the
cockpit/canopy cracks?
Opinions.
When the ram air enters but has no outlet in the airframe, it would seem
that engineering an outlet would help to keep the cockpit/canopy junctions
tighter.
Is there a known low pressure area on the airframe that will promote "flow
through" ventilation without generating noise or allowing exhaust gases in?
It seems that an engineered flow through vent system would help with the
noise of escaping air around the canopy.
Has anyone tried a flow through venting system?
Jerry Grimmonpre
Huntley IL 7a building my shop
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
> The slider is indeed difficult to seal on the sides. Mine fits as tight as
> any I've seen, but even if done perfectly there're still gaps that are
> hard
> to completely seal with any kind of seal material, due to the geometry
> when
> it opens and closes. In fact I wouldn't mind hearing from others as to how
> they did that. No water comes in and I fly in the rain a fair amount, and
> I
> don't notice the cold air except on really cold days. But there's a fair
> amount of wind noise from the gaps at the back that I just can't seam to
> seal, and I'd like to get it as quiet as I can.
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6
> Portland, OR
>
>>>
>> > I would like to know if the tip up canopies seal better than the
>> > sliders
>> > do around the fuselage sides? I have heard that the sliders leak a
>> > fair
>> > amount of air around the sides of the canopy in flight. If anyone can
>> > help me out with this please e-mail me.
>> >
>> > Robin
>> > RV3B Kit 11356
>> > Minnesota
>> > RMCKEE(at)MN.RR.COM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
People, just a back to basics word. IMHO, correct me if I am wrong. Here
goes:
Best glide rate is a function of incidence, not of speed. Best glide speed
is an average. A heavily loaded plane will have a best glide speed faster
than a lightly loaded plane, but the incidence will be the same. Same thing
for stall - a heavily loaded plane will stall at a faster speed than a
lightly loaded plane, but in both cases at an identical incidence.
Air density, i.e. temperature, altitude, will also affect the best glide
speed value. That is another reason for getting an AOA, which I happily have
installed on my left wing. If you suddenly become a glider, get your AOA
onto your best glide incidence; keep it there and forget the speed, you
might gain a few hundred feet or a couple of miles.
I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best glide
incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it will not
change the best glide incidence. This means that with an AOA, you can
maximize your distance whatever the conditions. If, once you got onto your
bets glide incidence you managed to time the ft/min drop and observed your
speed, you'll quickly know just how far you can go before touchdown.
Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am correct,
the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
Michle
RV8 Fuselage
> -----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
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 6:52 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
>
>
>
> The effort and experimentation in glide ratio flight test is excellent,
> but how will that work in an emergency. Tedd nice explanation of hi-key/
> 360 overhead approach.
>
>
> I guess what is important to me is how can I use this info in a real
> engine failure scenario.
>
>
> "100 and 1.4" (speed 100mph and 1.4 kt mile/per thousand altitude- or 600
> ft/ NM)
>
>
> So my first job after an engine failure/ loss of power would be get to
> best glide speed (initial target speed 100mph than adjust for weight,
> wind). Trim to that, while simultaneously trouble shooting engine (boost
> pump, switch tanks, mixture, carb heat, ignition etc... as required) and
> look for a landing spot within 1.4 kt miles per thousand feet agl. Fly the
> airplane.
>
>
> From what I got from all this that an RV will glide somewhere *10.5 to 1
> thru 8.7 to 1 ratio
>
> (*idle power). (Realistic engine out glide will be closer to the 8.7 to 1.
> Numbers above 9 or 10 seem to be affected by partial idle power or tail
> winds. A real light RV flown perfectly could do better than 8.7 to 1 but
> again I am looking for something conservative I can remember and use in an
> emergency, with a little margin for less than perfect speed control.)
>
>
> Also I got best glide (max distance) is some where in the 81kt - 95 kt
> range (varies with weight, altitude and head wind). Therefore I remember
> 100mph (bigger mark on a/s indicator) and adjust as needed for weight.
> Typical glide speed for RV best glide 84 kts = 96 mph. Min sink is under
> slower.
>
>
> Assuming engine is ka-put and I am making an emergency engine-out
> glide/landing, I would assume glide ratio closer to 8. 7 to 1 than 10.5 to
> 1, which sounds a little high. Therefore for every 1000 ft altitude I can
> glide 1.4 kt miles (sink approx 950 ft/min or 600 ft/NM).
>
>
> As far as windmilling prop or not, I assume the worst case, windmilling.
> The most critical condition is when you have little altitude, so I would
> not personally mess with trying to stop the prop. If I was at 12,000 agl
> and had time I might consider it, but I would try to get the engine
> running at first and keep the prop windmilling. I can't recall ever seeing
> this in a POH or in training. If you think you would attempt or consider
> trying to stop the prop (windmilling) in a real emergency, I would suggest
> you practice it first under controlled conditions. I have not, from what I
> hear is it takes near stall speed and may be even a touch of flaps? In the
> time messing with all that, how much altitude do you loose vs. just going
> to best glide and time lost making headway towards your intended landing
> site? Also no one has real good windmill vs stopped prop numbers. There
> has to be a trade off. Again unless I am real high and no chance of
> getting the engine started such as catastro
> phic
> failure vs carb ice that might melt and allow engine to start at lower
> (warmer) altitudes, than I am dubious at how practical it is. No argument
> stopped is less drag.
>
>
> Cheers George
>
>
> Glide ratio , glide distance , power off landing
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
| Subject: | compression testing |
I guess it must depend on the size/strength of the person. I have been
doing them single person for over 20 years and have never had on get away
from me yet. But then again I am 250 lbs and admit that I was taught from
the very beginning on how to do it by myself.
Mike Robertson
I have a friend who has been in the industry for 30+ years. Was doing an
annual on an Piper a few hangars down. He came by looking kinda shaken, with
his armpit very bruised. The only two things he had to say were, "Sure glad
there was a rubber boat in the hangar" and "You can see the marks of my toes
dragging up the lower cowl as I went over the engine"
Still does it by himself, as do I, but he pays more attention these days...
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Condon" <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | Online FAA Forms and paperwork web site |
http://forms.faa.gov/forms
I needed form 8610-2 and got it here.
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8610-2.pdf
Thanks to EAA and DAS FED Mike Robertson
Keywords for future electronic searching
FAA paperwork forms application certificate rating applicant form online
forms faa website documents
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
On 22:47:16 2005-05-02 "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com> wrote:
> Slowing the aircraft
> below best glide speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed
> to best glide involves some loss of gliding range.
Actually that isn't a given. I worked this out once, it seems that the
break point is how high you are when you make the decision that you're
landing. If you're still above your normal circuit height, there will be a
net gain in gliding distance realised by stopping the prop. The reason is
that when you raise the nose to stop the prop, you climb a bit above your
(windmilling) ideal glide path. Once it's stopped, you may dip below the
ideal (windmilling) glide path briefly while you get your airspeed up to
best glide again, but the resulting new (prop stopped) glidepath will be
shallower and will end up crossing the previous path well before touchdown.
Now, this was worked out for a Cessna 150, and that only required slowing
to 55mph or so to stop the metal prop... Which isn't much below best glide.
If you've got a wooden prop, it's likely you won't need to raise the nose
much to stop the prop, so you won't lose much by doing so.
Still, I probably wouldn't try it unless I was over 2000' AGL, or unless I
knew the second it happened that I needed every inch of gliding distance to
make it to a field.
> For the reasons above I don't think stopping the
> prop is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore
> objected to calling it THE realistic condition.
I agree. There is never *one* answer to any situation.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
On 7:43:39 2005-05-03 owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com wrote:
> I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best
> glide incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it
> will not change the best glide incidence.
AOA is a very nice insrument to have, i'm surprised that generally it's
just the military that has them. They aren't particularly expensive, is
there some downside to them that people don't generally talk about?
And yes, you are correct. The AOA shouldn't change for best glide, but you
can be sure that with the reduced drag of the windmilling prop, that you
will have an increased *range* at that best glide incidence. Which means
you might make it over that last farmer's fence or powerline before hitting
your ideal landing spot.
> Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
> knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am
> correct, the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
Well, I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night... (just kidding, I
did take Aeronautical Engineering as a minor in university).
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
> Guys,
>
> I just returned from Piqua, OH, home of Hartzell Propeller. It was a
> fabulous trip. No, I don't get anything to say this stuff.... to say
> that I was impressed would be a gross understatement.
>
> A little background first, I bought a new Hartzell two blade from Mark
> for my bird. Oddly, after 22 hours it developed a minor grease leak.
> Since it was still leaking 10 hours later, I thought I should check on
> it.
>
> I called Hartzell and they said "Bring it over and we'll fix it." No
> hassles, no grilling questions, no evading, no delays. They were very
> accommodating of my schedule even though I told them that it was not
> an emergency since I fly for fun and have no set schedule.
>
> I asked if we (John Crabtree went with me) could see the repair
> process since we were curious (clueless, really) about what is inside
> of one of these props. Not only did we get to see the overhaul
> facility, we got a tour of the manufacturing facility too. More about
> those later.
>
> I also wanted to get a dynamic balancing while I was there. WOW!
> Does that make a huge difference! I didn't think my vibration level
> was bad, but now it is very smooth. To say that I am pleased would
> also be a gross understatement. It's worth every penny of the
> approximately $180 cost.... chump change in aviation dollars. HIGHLY
> RECOMMENDED regardless of what you're swinging up front.
>
> John and I had arranged to arrive on Sunday morning. Even though
> those are not regular business hours, there were several people
> around. We were greeted like we were the most important people on
> earth, not like we were interrupting their weekend... which we were!
> After we put the planes in the Hartzell hangar, John and I hopped in
> the airport car and spent the rest of the day at the Wright-Patterson
> AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
> the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
>
> The next morning we arrived back at the Hartzell hangar. My prop was
> already well along in the repair process so after checking on it, we
> hopped back into the company car and went to see one of the four
> Hartzell facilities in Piqua. We went to the facility that
> manufactures metal props. On the way to the facility, I got into the
> wrong lane, a turn lane. A Hartzell employee on her way to work
> spotted the airport car and knowing where we were supposed to be
> going, motioned for us to follow her. Now, that's customer service!
>
> We arrived at the metal prop production facility, a state of the art
> operation to say the least, and met John Popel, a tech rep. John gave
> us some safety glasses and off we went. We saw everything. It was
> amazing. It's simply beyond my ability to type it all. If you are
> impressed by industrial equipment and appreciate the art that goes
> into producing a product, this is a must-see facility. John Popel had
> an amazing grasp of the minutest details and you could tell he is the
> kind of guy who is excited to go to work every day. John said that
> cameras were allowed in almost all areas... and wouldn't you know it,
> I didn't bring one along!! DOH! John said that a facility tour can
> be arranged for small groups easily. This would make a stupendous EAA
> chapter event. I learned more about props in 2 hours than I have in
> the last 20 years.
>
> While at the production facility, we also got to talk to Les Doud, a
> propeller integration engineer. Les also was a wealth of useful
> information. John and I asked him 500 questions. I asked if Hartzell
> had a job opening for me. LOL.
>
> Les explained to us what to look for in a prop, what was good, and
> what was bad. We tried to get some info on what products were in the
> pipeline and told them that we wanted a 25# prop with better
> performance... and it needed to cost less than $1000... and last
> forever. Les and John had every reason to whack us on the head, but
> instead simply said that they were working on it. LOL! Seriously,
> after seeing the effort that they put into their prop design,
> production, and service I almost felt guilty for paying as little as I
> did for mine.
>
> Crabtree and I headed back to the airport to see how my grease leak
> repair was coming along. When we arrived my prop was being rolled out
> to the Rocket. We inquired what, if any, problems were found.
> Everything looked OK was the reply. Mark, the lead mechanic,
> explained that occasionally a grease zerk check ball will dribble a
> little bit, or some of the petroleum distillates will escape from the
> grease with weather changes, age, etc., or it might have simply had a
> bit of stray grease get past the O-ring. I was happy to hear that
> nothing was wrong. It's very comforting to have THE experts look over
> your installation and say "Looks fine."
>
> While Mark was putting the prop back on the Rocket, John and I took
> the full tour of the overhaul facility. Steve Reindel showed us
> around the overhaul shop, which was a miniaturized version of the
> factory, with many of the same capabilities. Steve explained that
> Hartzell had overhauled their overhaul procedures, so to speak, so
> that they could beat the overhaul business competition is all
> categories: price, quality, and turnaround time. Seeing as how they
> got my prop in and turned around in just a few hours... I believe him!
> Although my prop was covered under warranty, the price Steve said I
> would have paid otherwise was quite reasonable... on the order of a
> few hundred dollars for the entire inspection, repair, and
> reinstallation. Wow!
>
> In summary:
> 1) Hartzell service rocks! (No, they didn't pay, coerce, or bribe me
> to say it.)
> 2) My teeny-weeny problem was given more attention than Air Force One
> probably gets.
> 3) Hartzell gives a great tour. Unbelievably informative. Highly
> recommended.
> 4) The cost was minimal. In airplane dollars, it was chump change for
> the entire trip.
> 5) My prop was inspected and installed by experts.... Priceless.
>
> Other trivia:
> 6) Never put more than 6 pumps of grease (1 ounce) into your prop
> during service, usually at annual. Use the proper grease. Make sure
> you take the opposite zerk out so you don't push grease past the seal.
> I didn't do any of these things since I haven't had to service my prop
> yet, but it must be a common user error because we heard it mentioned
> several times.
> 7) We also got to go to the air force museum... too cool. If you've
> never been there... why the heck not?
>
If you feel compelled to reply to this long message.... please SNIP out
the excess!
> Vince Frazier
> 3965 Caborn Road
> Mount Vernon, IN 47620
> 812-464-1839 work
> 812-985-7309 home
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF
> http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
Michle,
I absolutely agree with you on purchasing and installing an AOA. It should
be the number one item on one's installation agenda.
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 16:43:39 +0200
>
>
>People, just a back to basics word. IMHO, correct me if I am wrong. Here
>goes:
>
>Best glide rate is a function of incidence, not of speed. Best glide speed
>is an average. A heavily loaded plane will have a best glide speed faster
>than a lightly loaded plane, but the incidence will be the same. Same thing
>for stall - a heavily loaded plane will stall at a faster speed than a
>lightly loaded plane, but in both cases at an identical incidence.
>
>Air density, i.e. temperature, altitude, will also affect the best glide
>speed value. That is another reason for getting an AOA, which I happily
>have
>installed on my left wing. If you suddenly become a glider, get your AOA
>onto your best glide incidence; keep it there and forget the speed, you
>might gain a few hundred feet or a couple of miles.
>
>I would tend to think that the prop will have no effect on the best glide
>incidence. Added drag will decrease the best glide slope but it will not
>change the best glide incidence. This means that with an AOA, you can
>maximize your distance whatever the conditions. If, once you got onto your
>bets glide incidence you managed to time the ft/min drop and observed your
>speed, you'll quickly know just how far you can go before touchdown.
>
>Hope that I have not made some gross mistake - would appreciate some
>knowledgeable aerodynamicists to confirm this issue. And if I am correct,
>the above would be a compelling reason to install an AOA.
>
>Michle
>RV8 Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVer273sb(at)aol.com |
Any one have a proven breakin for an overhauled engine?
New bearings, new cylinders ect.
Stewart RV-4 Co.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Subject: RE: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
It seems we're really arguing the definition of "realistic." I will
agree that a stopped prop represents the lowest drag configuration which
in turn nets better sink and glide ratio. What I don't agree with is
whether it is "realistic" (or wise) to do what it takes to get the prop
stopped in any given engine out. If it occurs at 400 AGL and 80 mph I
would assert that it is decidedly unwise as you'll be on the ground in
10-15 seconds. At 10,000 AGL and 170 kts you have more freedom to
optimize things. Somewhere in between there's a transition point from
unwise to possible to desireable. Slowing the aircraft below best glide
speed to stop the prop and then regaining airspeed to best glide
involves some loss of gliding range. How much and whether you can
recover it with the lower drag (and how long it takes) is anyones guess.
There are 4000 RVs flying and over a thousand folks on this list and
I've still not seen any performance data solid enough to do that kind of
trade-off study with any confidence. So we're left with our judgement to
decide. My reasoning is that at low altitude (pick your own definition,
0-3K AGL?) your options are most limited and fast and correct decisions
are most critical. It's not the time to approach stall in an emergency
and you've got enough other things to do in the time remaining. At high
altitude you may have many more options so the ability to eek out the
last bit of glide range may not be that valuable. You're likely to gain
more by correctly judging the effect of the wind on your range and
available airports. At any event I would leave stopping the prop until
after all the essentials are completed and all restart attempts are
done. At that point you've lost more altitude and marginalized the
benefits somewhat.
My view of "realistic" is what is conservatively attainable in real
world conditions. For the reasons above I don't think stopping the prop
is reasonable or even possible in many cases and therefore objected to
calling it THE realistic condition. It's certainly subjective so YMMV.
Regardless of your view, it's important to periodically evaluate your
views and practices.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Greg: Good post. I have not tried to establish my RV-4's performance
with the prop either stopped or windmilling but do have some anecdotes
that may shed some light on what happens (or not). The first involves a
260hp Cherokee Six and its owner, my instructor. A discussion of the
time required to regain power after running a tank dry resulted in a
demonstration. While I was flying he moved the fuel selector to an
empty tank. Presently the engine stopped producing power. The change
in sound was not dramatic but was certainly perceptable. He then
switched to a tank with fuel and we timed the interval until restart. My
recollection is that it took 13 seconds. Seemed a long time. The
engine continued to turn at governed speed and most of the 13 seconds
were spent slowing down. Only a little altitude was lost near the end
of the 13 seconds. The second was a forced landing exercise in my -4.
We were at cruise at about 1500' AGL when the throttle (not the mixture)
was pulled. Since I was busy picking a spot and setting up for an
approach I did not time it but there was a lot of time available in
level flight before getting down to glide speed. The third was an
occasion when I was running prop performance tests. I had set up a two
way course between the Davis Besse and Enrico Fermi power plants over
the western end of Lake Erie. It was early in the morning and the air
was as stable as it gets around here during warm weather and I was at
full throttle and concentrating on holding altitude to plus or minus 10
feet when I ran a tank dry. Not very bright, I'll admit, but it
happened. It took perhaps 1 second to recognize what had happened, a
couple more to switch tanks and only 5 or 6 more to get power back. The
throttle was not moved, no altitude was lost though there may have been
a bobble when I reached for the fuel selector, and not more than 15
knots of speed were lost. Now a fourth incided occurs to me. At about
150' while climbing out of the airport in a 65 horse Aeronca Champ the
instructor pulled the throttle and said "where're you gonna put it?' I
dumped the stick and pointed at the biggest open space I could see.
Some thoughts:
If I set up speed reciprocals between those two nuclear power plants
today I would expect F16's with armed missiles pretty soon. Proper
response to power failure is totally dependent on height and flight
conditions at the time. A fast, clean airplane at high speed provides
more time to establish a course of action. If low and slow whether the
prop is turning or not, while not without consequence, likely must be
accepted as it is. Likewise, a slow, high drag bird like my neighbors
UPF7 requires a response different from that of an RV. If you have time
to experiment with stopping the prop without jeopardizing the outcome,
it's your hide you're playing with. If you are high and fast and can
zoom to a speed that stops the prop perhaps a better chance to succeed
can be found. If you screw it up, all bets are off.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
On the other hand, I raised the rear pin blocks by 2 washers before I
did my skirts. I removed the washers and the rear skirts were so tight
that the pins wouldn't fully engage. I ended up putting the washers back
under there and I'm hoping that maybe someday it'll settle enough to
remove one or both of them. The skirts were fitted by the work the twist
into them across a thigh method and then pulled down hard by a helper
while they were drilled and clecoed. The biggest deal is having the rear
of the canopy frame match the fuselage skin before hand. If it lines up
right, you can make the skirts fit. If not, you'll fight it.
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
> If you block up the slider during fitting and assembly of the aft
skirts,
> they will then fit quite nice and snug when you remove the blocks.
The only
> air/rain we have that leaks into the slider is the very tiny bit that
comes in
> around the sliding rail cap at the top due to the low pressure in
this area.
> One of these days I'll fashion a way to plug this area.
>
> IMO the slider is a pretty tight fit if done well.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 742hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
How high did you block the slider for this method?
Also, how did you seal the side skirts?
Doug Gray
On approach to slider anxiety...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
>>AF museum. WPAFM is a great museum. And it's free! Where else does
>>the government give you anything worthwhile for FREE?
>>
Hi Vince, I know this was "tongue-in-cheek", but if you
come fly in Europe for a while, you'll be reminded of
all the great stuff the government in the US is giving you
for "free"!
Just in case you don't have time to do this, here are a
couple of items:
o) Free landings at public airports (Here in Switzerland
mine charges 25 USD, and each touch and go is counted!)
o) Free IFR ATC services (the charging scheme in Europe
is too complicated to describe, but trust me, it makes
the landing fees seem cheap)
So, when you read those "scare" articles from AOPA about how
they are working to save us from a fee-based system, pay attention!
Just about every pilot I've met is a Libertarian, but keep in
mind what privatization means for your favorite pastime. Those
of us flying in Europe are living it, and it ain't pretty.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
That will depend mostly on the cylinders you are using... steel, nickel, chrome
etc...
Any one have a proven breakin for an overhauled engine?
New bearings, new cylinders ect.
Stewart RV-4 Co.
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <Garth(at)islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Another lister gave his data on the stop prop and restart speeds for an RV.
Since I haven't completed the RV6A, I haven't tried to get the data myself.
Burt Rutan published the glide performance for my VariEze in the Owner's
Manual showing two scenarios: 1. The engine out with prop windmilling; and
2. the engine idling. The glide ratios for these are about 10 to 1 and 17
to 1 respectively. Later on, he tested the VariEze to obtain the speeds
necessary to stop the prop and to get it going again with a Continental
0-200 engine installed. These speeds were about 70 Knots and 110 Knots if I
recall correctly. If your engine stops when you are close to the ground,
stopping the prop is probably not an option as others have pointed out. But
at 8,000 feet altitude it's a slam dunk IMHO. BTW these start and stop
speeds will vary depending on actual aircraft model, engine, and propeller.
When I had my Continental engine failure in my VariEze due to a seized
exhaust valve, I obviously didn't have to consciously stop the prop. This
occurred at about 4.5 miles from the threshold of the airport runway I just
left at Victoria Intenational and I had just leveled out at 2,500 feet
(airport is at 63 feet AMSL). I was still at climb speed of 120 mph. I
declared an emergency and had to turn about 210 degrees to my left to
establish the glide directly to the button of runway 090. The wind was about
5-10 Knots coming from my left. I immediately started looking for a place
to land but soon determined that the runway was within gliding distance.
When I got near the airport I actually had to purposely lose altitude. I
could have used a closer runway. I landed about half way down the main
active 7,000 foot runway, where I could turn off onto a taxiway to get out
of the way. It turns out the gliding speed I used, about 100 mph, was about
15 mph above actual best gliding speed.
Since I know pretty accurately where I was when the engine failed, I can
calculate my actual gliding ratio which turns out to be something better
than 10 to 1 (worst case). So optimally the engine stopped gliding ratio
for the VariEze is probably about 12 to 1, or somewhat better than the prop
windmilling value.
An interesting side note. To be honest I can worry about a lot of things
when I'm flying but when this incident occurred I had no panic at all. I
just had a job to get done. I even thought I would lose it some time after
I landed. That didn't happen either. The guys in the firetrucks were a lot
more concerned than me. It's funny how your brain works.
Some of this is off topic, but I hope it's informative.
Garth Shearing
VariEze & 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris W" <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
>
> Garth Shearing wrote:
>
>>
>>And I beg to differ with you, Greg. If you want minimum sink rate, low
>>drag, and maximum distance to glide, you have to reduce speed to stop the
>>prop, and then increase speed to best glide ratio. In the unlikely event
>>that the best glide ratio speed restarts the windmilling, then use a
>>slightly lower glide speed. In an engine out emergency, that is the
>>realistic and best condition.
>>
>>Don't ask me how I know.
>>
>>
>>
> How slow did you have to go to get the prop to stop? While I agree that
> it would be best to stop the prop and then go to best glide speed, if
> you are say less than 3000 ft AGL, don't you think there would be too
> little time to do that? Once I get my ticket and build my -7, I don't
> ever plan on being much less than 8,000 ft AGL except for takeoff &
> landing, very short trips and when crossing mountain peaks. In my part
> of the country 8,000 ft AGL isn't hard to do and with that much room, if
> the engine quits, you generally have at least 2 airports with in gliding
> range.
>
> --
> Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
>Doug wrote:
>I asked the pilot what the rate of decent was power off in his airplane. He said,
"I don't >know, I suppose around 500 fpm." I said we would go up over the
airport and pull the >mixture and find out. He was concerned about that. I
asked him why? He said "What if >it doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If
anyone is concerned in the least about an engine >failure at 3000 AGL directly
over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying single >engine airplanes.
>If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find a
>flight instructor and go do it ASAP. Unfortunately most flight instructors are
teaching to >gain experience rather than share it. If your flight instructor
is unwilling to do it, find a
>different flight instructor.
Doug:
The pilot in command is the pilot getting the BFR. The instructor giving a BFR
to a current pilot is not the PIC. When he said to you, "What if the engine does
not start?" that was a very valid question.
What if cut-off is used in training and the engine does not come back in time or
at all? The FAA would rightly blame the CFI. I think CFIs should provide realistic
training with out undue risk to the student or yourself. Doug if you feel
it is safe, that is your judgment call, but I respectively disagree with your
suggestion that a CFI who does not use idle cutoff is unworthy some how to
teach.
You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency. Regardless what
is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional or not, in a single engine
airplane is always an emergency. Pulling mixture in flight has risks. Not sure
what you are advocating, but if you are suggesting dead stick landing practice
with the mixture in cut-off, I would say that is unnecessarily risky, and
I know if an accident resulted the FAA would agree. I agree at 3000 feet over
a long runway and engine failure should be no problem. However what if? Vehicle
on runway, you miss judge and the engine wont fire up? It has happened.
If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single engine airplane,
with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea. However you demonstrated
glide performance by actually using idle cutoff? Why? Could you not just tell
the pilot what the best glide ROD-rate of decent is and appropriate speed, without
shutting the engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96 kts is a good number for
most RVs (1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
I know it is not as macho, and the law of INTENSITY says making it "real" enhances
learning but not if the student is scared. It sounds like you took that into
consideration and explained this. I would say just tell the student what to
expect from experience without demonstrating it with idle cutoff, and simulate
using partial flaps at idle power as you apparently did. Again great idea.
I would say anyone who has a CFI that says you must practice with idle cut-off,
whether at high altitude or low, go find another CFI, If you are not comfortable
with it. Even going to idle power has some risks, like carb ice, thus CFIs
check or clear the engine occasionally.
In defense of Doug he apparently he has supreme confidence in making a dead stick
landing and limits the risk by practice over a runway, but is that extra risk
for realistic training needed? It is not common to use idle cutoff and some
would say, including the FAA, not necessary. In the early days of multi-engine
training, engine failures were simulated with with idle cutoff mixture. Many
accidents resulted from this practice. Engine failures on takoff and landing
for multi-engine airplanes are now simulated with idle power (per the FAA PTS-practical
test standards). Feathering the engine is done by using simulated with
"zero thrust and partial power. I would say that is a good conservative approach
to carry over the SE airplanes.
Regards George CFI(CFII)(MEI), ATP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> Subject: Re: try-it-yourself fly-in
- was Long glide to landing Date: May 01, 2005
I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around 500
fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and find
out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If anyone is concerned in the least about
an engine failure at 3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should
not be flying single engineairplanes.
We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm. We
found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we practiced
deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the runway,
without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find a
flight instructor and go do it ASAP.Unfortunately most flight instructors are teaching
to gain experience ratherbthan share it. If your flight instructor is
unwilling to do it, find a
different flight instructor.
A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically trained
for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will have
a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
Tailwinds,Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is hanging
on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
> are
> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
> by
> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
> to
> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
> follow the level.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compression checking an engine |
Yeah. Area on top of piston is about 20 sqin, length of stroke about 6
80 * 20 * 6 = 9600 lbs/in torque on crankshaft
36 inches to the tip of the prop
9600 / 36 = 270 in lbs at the tip = 22 ft lbs.
Easy to hold but if your grip slips and the force can change from static to dynamic
then run!
You might be able to stand on the flap (static) but don't jump up and down (dynamic).
I like to have a helper.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compression checking an engine |
Hal
Your numbers are a bit off. The stroke of an O-320 is 3.875". The 360 has a stroke
of 4.375" (not 6")
Charlie Kuss
---- Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
> Yeah. Area on top of piston is about 20 sqin, length of stroke about 6
>
> 80 * 20 * 6 = 9600 lbs/in torque on crankshaft
>
> 36 inches to the tip of the prop
>
> 9600 / 36 = 270 in lbs at the tip = 22 ft lbs.
>
> Easy to hold but if your grip slips and the force can change from static to dynamic
then run!
>
> You might be able to stand on the flap (static) but don't jump up and down (dynamic).
>
> I like to have a helper.
>
> hal
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
>
>You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency.
>Regardless what is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional
>or not, in a single engine airplane is always an emergency. Pulling
>mixture in flight has risks. Not sure what you are advocating, but
>if you are suggesting dead stick landing practice with the mixture
>in cut-off, I would say that is unnecessarily risky, and I know if
>an accident resulted the FAA would agree. I agree at 3000 feet over
>a long runway and engine failure should be no problem. However what
>if? Vehicle on runway, you miss judge and the engine wont fire up?
>It has happened.
>
>If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single
>engine airplane, with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea.
>However you demonstrated glide performance by actually using idle
>cutoff? Why? Could you not just tell the pilot what the best glide
>ROD-rate of decent is and appropriate speed, without shutting the
>engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96 kts is a good number for most RVs
>(1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
Given that every RV is a bit different (different ASI errors,
different VSI errors, different prop pitch, or low pitch stop setting
for a CS prop), how is one to determine what partial power and flap
combination properly simulates engine out unless you perform an
actual engine-out glide first? The parametres that properly simulate
an engine-out glide in one RV may be completely out to lunch in
another one.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> |
Earlier this year either as a result of a list entry or reviewing a lister's site,
I reviewed a well thought out wiring diagram. I have misplaced my copy.
Anyone remember the site etc.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider |
On the RV-6, there is a low pressure area along the side canopy skirts. This
is because the fuselage begins to narrow about 1/2 way back along the
skirts, and because that area also coincides with the low pressure area
above the wing. Flow through ventilation is the problem - air is sucked
into the cockpit through every other orifice in the airplane and exhausts
around the side skirts. You can cut a piece of foam pipe insulation in half
and place it between the slider tracks and the slider skirt to seal the area
in flight. I carry a couple of pieces of this stuff with me during cool
weather, and it makes a huge difference in the amount of cold air blowing
through the cockpit.
Adding more "exit" air ventilation would only make the problem worse.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
> List readers ...
> Is the problem, of a leaking canopy, due to vent air (heated or cooling)
> coming in and slightly pressurizing and billowing out through the
> cockpit/canopy cracks?
>
> Opinions.
>
> When the ram air enters but has no outlet in the airframe, it would seem
> that engineering an outlet would help to keep the cockpit/canopy junctions
> tighter.
>
> Is there a known low pressure area on the airframe that will promote "flow
> through" ventilation without generating noise or allowing exhaust gases
> in?
> It seems that an engineered flow through vent system would help with the
> noise of escaping air around the canopy.
>
> Has anyone tried a flow through venting system?
> Jerry Grimmonpre
> Huntley IL 7a building my shop
>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Tip up Canopy Vs. Slider
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
> Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is
> hanging
> on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>> are
>> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the
>> floats
>> by
>> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>> to
>> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>> follow the level.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Vince
>> RV-8A
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
I will wager the sloshing of the fuel will do what you are doing when you
shake or jiggle it!
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
> Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is
> hanging
> on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>> are
>> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the
>> floats
>> by
>> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>> to
>> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>> follow the level.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Vince
>> RV-8A
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Andair fuel valve/Gascolator FS |
Hi All,
I have a NIB Andair gascolator with 3/8" female fittings and quick drain valve
for sale. $185 (Spruce price $189.95 + 29.95)
Also, New mounted but never used Andair FS20-20-D2 fuel selector valve. This has
female fittings, 3/8" feed, 1/4" return. $380.
$550 for both + shipping
I'm changing directions and don't need these for my set up.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVer273sb(at)aol.com |
That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
Nitrided steel I believe.
Thanks,
Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Huether" <huether(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Hangar space needed (wanted?) June 16-23 at KBRD |
Anyone have space for an RV6 at KBRD or nearby from June 16-23 for rent?
DNA
Jerry Huether
RV-6
Tualatin, OR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
If you fly a Lyc, you've got nothing to worry about...
Charlie
;-)
cgalley wrote:
>
>Sounds like you are going beyond the full position and the wiper is hanging
>on the edge of the resistor. Probably will not happen in the wing.
>
>Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Gentlemen,
>>
>>I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
>>are
>>sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
>>by
>>hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
>>remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
>>to
>>free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
>>follow the level.
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>>Vince
>>RV-8A
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Search this off of yahoo... http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182895-1.html
Should help...
Darrell
RVer273sb(at)aol.com wrote:
That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
Nitrided steel I believe.
Thanks,
Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com> |
Hey All,
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
the strobe and the nav. light.
Thanks.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Lights |
In a message dated 05/03/2005 7:31:31 PM Central Standard Time,
rice737(at)msn.com writes:
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips.
>>>
Hi Paul-
These are the ones I used-
http://www.autobarn.net/helopperdriv.html
55w each, which after a number of night landings I would say are "adequate"
just not outstanding. (sure wish I could find some 75w bulbs!) They offer a
really nice beam, fairly tight with enough to the sides to see the runway edges
well. The oval shape nests nicely into the outer curve of the newer style
tips. Got mine at the AutoZone or Advance Auto Parts, don't remember which, but
do a Google on "Optilux 1500" and you'll get a bunch of hits...
I also recessed my nav/strobe fixtures the depth of the baseplate for less
blanking of the main lights- I'll send a foto.
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Senders |
If they are not new you may have some sticky units....I have handled a lot
of these and the older the units (even if they have never been installed)
the stickier they tend to be. If they are really hanging up just chuck them
in favor of some new units. The wise on the list will remind you that you
should never count on the sender/instrument being accurate anyway.....I
agree, but why not at least try to have them close. My 2 cents....
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Senders
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am having a problem with my SW fuel senders. It seems that the floats
are
> sticking at the pivot point. I removed the units and I can move the floats
> by
> hand but when I lift the float to the full position and release it, it
> remains. If I shake or jiggle it, the float will drop. Is there some way
to
> free up the mechanism? I am afraid that as I burn fuel, the sender won't
> follow the level.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Vince
> RV-8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Inman" <ghinman(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Manifold pressure to primer port |
What did others use to connect
Manifold press. to primer port
Primer fittings are 5/16 32
but some say to use AN816-4
Whch is 1/4 inch
The primer port on my
#4 cyl. seems a bit larger than 1/4"
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)mts.net
CELL 204 799 7062
HOME 204 287 8334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
Suggest you use Google to search for "Lycoming break in"
That will find you several hits including this one
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyReprints/operation/engineBreakIn.html
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing 1 hr done, 39 to go.
Much Fun, what work.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: break in
>
> Search this off of yahoo... http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/182895-1.html
>
> Should help...
>
> Darrell
>
> RVer273sb(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> That would be mellenium for the cylinders.
> Nitrided steel I believe.
> Thanks,
> Stewart
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Lights |
This is probably what you saw (although I wasn't at SnF this year).
http://www.creativair.com/cva/index.php?cPath=21
Dick Tasker
Paul Rice wrote:
>
>Hey All,
>
>I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
>lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
>but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
>said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
>in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
>the strobe and the nav. light.
>Thanks.
>Paul
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
George,
Thank you for your well thought out post. You make several good points and
it is clear we disagree. I do not want to argue your post point by point.
My thesis is this. I believe we have dumbed down training to accommodate
the low experience level of the instructors doing the training and the
result is dumber pilots.
I take a FAR 61.58 checkride every year in something, sometimes twice a
year, and the FAA requires (Per the ATP PTS) we do a shutdown, feather, and
restart, every time. I guess the FAA assumes that if you fly a large
(read over 12,500#) airplane you need more "realistic" training. I can
assure you that I am much better for that training/checking.
The airplane I was flying for the BFR in my post was a homebuilt and the
pilot had no idea of the sink rate and there was no book to look in.
I have done this with several pilots and based on my experience, the
learning that occurs far outweighs the risk. And you are absolutely
correct, the risk is mine! With regard to the risk the mixture cable is
exactly the same type of cable that controls the throttle and if it failing
is the concern it is exactly the same risk as the throttle. If the carb is
the concern, the chances of a throttle butterfly getting jammed are far
greater than the mixture needle valve getting jammed. I fly 60 year old
airplanes every weekend. Pulling the mixture over a 3000 feet over 6500
foot runway is a risk I can live with.
I see pilots who have learned to fly and successfully passed FAA checkrides,
and yet have no concept of how fast an airplane comes down and I continue to
see pilots who think they can turn back from an engine failure at 500 feet
and land on the runway they departed from.
I am also a FAR 135 check airmen for the local Charter service. Recently we
had a Seneca that had runout engines. We lined up all the Charter pilots,
some are long in the tooth, gray haired, or no haired types. We went up
high over the airport and shut one down and flew around on it. I do quite
a bit of training, and I can recognize when learning occurs. Learning
occurred. These guys got to see for real what single engine performance was
really like. Not simulated, not numbers on a page, but numbers on a barely
climbing altimeter in a lightly loaded Seneca. They got to see the
importance of raising the dead and splitting the ball. Learning occurred.
The restarts were a real eye-opener. One of the pilots had recently had a
precautionary shutdown for an oil pressure problem and he considered a
restart for landing. After a real restart, he said, "if I had tried to
restart when I planned, I would have never made the airport." Learning
occurred.
Is there risk associated with that type of training? You bet. Is there
reward? Absolutely. Can the risk be mitigated? I think so. Many ways. A
through briefing. Flying at altitudes that if the other engines quits we
still would have landed on the airport. The risk associated with a
shutdown, feather, and restart in a B-25 is probably 100 fold greater than
pulling the mixture in a light single engine airplane over a runway.
I believe the current state of flight training is terrible. I believe
flight instructors should be required to have 1000's of hours not a few
hundred. I believe instructors should be paid similar to other corporate or
airline pilots. (I am not, and do not want to be a full time flight
instructor, even if the pay was better) In short I believe there are lots
and lots of pilots out there who do not have a clue about the airplanes they
are flying, on several subjects, engine failures are one, but there is one
pilot in Iowa who has a better understanding, and I believe it was worth the
risk. But then you could find several people who would say I am one of the
clueless ones ;-)
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Long glide to landing
>
>
> >Doug wrote:
>
> >I asked the pilot what the rate of decent was power off in his airplane.
He said, "I don't >know, I suppose around 500 fpm." I said we would go up
over the airport and pull the >mixture and find out. He was concerned about
that. I asked him why? He said "What if >it doesn't restart?" We land, I
replied. If anyone is concerned in the least about an engine >failure at
3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway they should not be flying
single >engine airplanes.
>
>
> >If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport,
find a
> >flight instructor and go do it ASAP. Unfortunately most flight
instructors are teaching to >gain experience rather than share it. If your
flight instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> >different flight instructor.
>
>
> Doug:
>
>
> The pilot in command is the pilot getting the BFR. The instructor giving a
BFR to a current pilot is not the PIC. When he said to you, "What if the
engine does not start?" that was a very valid question.
>
>
> What if cut-off is used in training and the engine does not come back in
time or at all? The FAA would rightly blame the CFI. I think CFIs should
provide realistic training with out undue risk to the student or yourself.
Doug if you feel it is safe, that is your judgment call, but I respectively
disagree with your suggestion that a CFI who does not use idle cutoff is
unworthy some how to teach.
>
>
> You don't have to simulate an emergency with a real emergency. Regardless
what is under you at the time, loss of power, intentional or not, in a
single engine airplane is always an emergency. Pulling mixture in flight has
risks. Not sure what you are advocating, but if you are suggesting dead
stick landing practice with the mixture in cut-off, I would say that is
unnecessarily risky, and I know if an accident resulted the FAA would agree.
I agree at 3000 feet over a long runway and engine failure should be no
problem. However what if? Vehicle on runway, you miss judge and the engine
wont fire up? It has happened.
>
>
> If you are alluding to simulating engine out glide, in a single engine
airplane, with partial power and flaps. That is a great idea. However you
demonstrated glide performance by actually using idle cutoff? Why? Could you
not just tell the pilot what the best glide ROD-rate of decent is and
appropriate speed, without shutting the engine down? BTW 900-1000 fpm @ 96
kts is a good number for most RVs (1.4 to 1.6 nm/1000ft).
>
>
> I know it is not as macho, and the law of INTENSITY says making it "real"
enhances learning but not if the student is scared. It sounds like you took
that into consideration and explained this. I would say just tell the
student what to expect from experience without demonstrating it with idle
cutoff, and simulate using partial flaps at idle power as you apparently
did. Again great idea.
>
>
> I would say anyone who has a CFI that says you must practice with idle
cut-off, whether at high altitude or low, go find another CFI, If you are
not comfortable with it. Even going to idle power has some risks, like carb
ice, thus CFIs check or clear the engine occasionally.
>
>
> In defense of Doug he apparently he has supreme confidence in making a
dead stick landing and limits the risk by practice over a runway, but is
that extra risk for realistic training needed? It is not common to use idle
cutoff and some would say, including the FAA, not necessary. In the early
days of multi-engine training, engine failures were simulated with with idle
cutoff mixture. Many accidents resulted from this practice. Engine failures
on takoff and landing for multi-engine airplanes are now simulated with idle
power (per the FAA PTS-practical test standards). Feathering the engine is
done by using simulated with "zero thrust and partial power. I would say
that is a good conservative approach to carry over the SE airplanes.
>
>
> Regards George CFI(CFII)(MEI), ATP
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> From: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> Subject: Re:
try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing Date: May 01, 2005
>
>
> I was giving a BFR this week and I asked the pilot what the rate of decent
> was power off in his airplane. He said, "I don't know, I suppose around
500
> fpm." I said we would go up over the airport and pull the mixture and
find
> out. He was concerned about that. I asked him why? He said "What if it
> doesn't restart?" We land, I replied. If anyone is concerned in the least
about an engine failure at 3000 AGL directly over a 6500 x 250 ft runway
they should not be flying single engineairplanes.
>
>
> We pulled the mixture and flew best glide speed and the airplane came down
> 1000 fpm measured on my watch, not the VSI. The VSI showed about 800 fpm.
We
> found that 1/3 flaps and idle thrust simlated that decent, then we
practiced
> deadstick overhead 360 and 180 approaches to a specific point on the
runway,
> without going short. He did well and I would suspect his chances of
> successfully making a deadstick landing increased dramatically.
>
> If you are not comfortable shutting down your engine over an airport, find
a
> flight instructor and go do it ASAP.Unfortunately most flight instructors
are teaching to gain experience ratherbthan share it. If your flight
instructor is unwilling to do it, find a
> different flight instructor.
>
>
> A successful outcome from a bad situation is directly related to the
> confidence the pilot has in that outcome. If you have realistically
trained
> for, and successfully completed deadstick landings on a point, you will
have
> a much higher level of confidence in the outcome and that increases the
> likelyhood of a successful outcome WHEN (not if) the fire goes out.
>
> Tailwinds,Doug Rozendaal
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Lights |
www.creativair.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Landing Lights
Hey All,
I was at Sun and Fun and saw that many of you have those small landing
lights in the wing tips. They look like the type Vans sell for the RV-10,
but vans says they will not work in the RV-8 wing tips, the parts person
said they are to hot and would melt the tip. Where would I find what I saw
in many planes at the airshow. I want to install them in the wing tip with
the strobe and the nav. light.
Thanks.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
So does best glide speed differ between 'prop windmilling' and 'prop stopped' glide?
And if so, by how much?
Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landingtry-it-yourself |
fly-in - was Long glide to landing
I was told to run it pedal to the metal for 1 1/2 to 2 hrs continuous. Result in
good normal consumption breakin. (O-320e2a) As an aside, I have gottien advice
to only use 100LL, that use of Mogas is bad for breakin. However, I have not
seen any compelling data re this. If it is due to the myth that LL suplies some
April 24, 2005 - May 04, 2005
RV-Archive.digest.vol-qu