RV-Archive.digest.vol-qv
May 04, 2005 - May 12, 2005
lubrication, it is just that, a myth as I am told. As a mater of fact, I followed
the advice of a friend who put 2 oz of Marvel Mystry oil in the gas at
fillup. He had 2400+ on his O-360, untouched when he sold the plane. Charlie
heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Manifold pressure to primer port |
They are 1/8" PIPE which has 27 threads per inch
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Inman" <ghinman(at)mts.net>
Subject: RV-List: 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: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
May have been Bob Nuckoll's - AeroElectric.
Many of us have used his and we are very pleased with the results.
Check the yeller pages or search for AeroElectic Connection.
Good Building,
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: Wiring diagram
>Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 15:11:35 -0700
>
>
>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: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
George and all,
I sense some misunderstanding. Just to be totally clear about what I
advocated in my post. I did not take a pilot up in an airplane unfamiliar
to me and pull the mixture to a deadstick landing. I would not do that to
another pilot in an airplane that was not my own, and I do not recommend
that on a BFR.
This is what I said, and what I did. Read carefully...
"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 simulated that descent, 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."
Tailwinds,
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manifold pressure to primer port |
cgalley wrote:
>
>They are 1/8" PIPE which has 27 threads per inch
>
>
I thought it is worth noting that just because it is called an "1/8
inch" pipe thread doesn't mean anything is really 1/8 of an inch.
Theoretically the ID of the pipe would be 1/8", but in reality, you are
not likely to find a 1/8" pipe or fitting where the ID is exactly 1/8"
or whatever the size it is called out as. Hear is a quote from page 2
of the www.mcmaster.com on line catalog.
" Pipe size does not refer to the inside or outside diameters (ID or OD)
of a pipe fitting or pipe. It's the accepted industry designation, not
an actual size. When matching pipe OD for male threads and pipe ID for
female threads, you need them to have the same pipe size."
Their catalog has lots of good information on this and other things it's
worth a look just for that kind of information.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | RV-7 fuel vent location (fuselage side penetration) |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
I am planning to install the fuel vent line prior to wing mating and cannot find
a measurement for the location of the fuel vent bulkhead fitting where it penetrates
the side of the fuselage. Can someone please measure if you are at this
stage and provide details or would it be wise to delay until wing mating?
Regards,
Bill Gill
RV-7 fuse & finish
Lees Summit, MO
I am planning to install the fuel vent line prior to wing mating and cannot find
a measurement for the location of the fuel vent bulkhead fitting where it penetrates
the side of the fuselage. Can someone please measure if you are at this
stageand provide details or would it be wise to delay until wing mating?
Regards,
Bill Gill
RV-7 fuse finish
Lees Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(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
========================================
I used 3M mylar door/window "V" strip to seal skirt leaks.
Works better than anything else I've tried.
P.S.
Unless one understand which way the air is flowing....
chances are the direction of the "V" will need to be reversed.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Hartzell service and trip report (long) |
> God Bless American Aviation Infrastructure!
I agree with this. I hope our politicians don't "fix" it out
of existence.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Group,
Does anyone have an experience with the Starters for Lycoming engines that are
being sold New on ebay? The Starter with the tandem motor... Is there a possible
fit issue with the RV cowling?
Darrell
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Manifold pressure to primer port |
Pipe size is noted as a "nominal" inside dimension. Example: 1/2" plastic
pipe. There are several different wall thickness' but the OD is the same.
Next time your at Lowes, Home Depot etc. pick up any schedule 1/2" slip
(glue) coupling and try it on sprinkler pipe, schedule 40 & schedule 80
pipe. You'll find that they all fit inside the coupling BUT they all have
different wall thickness & therefore different "nominal" inside diameters.
(same holds true for 1/2" copper in types "M" , "L" & "K" copper pipe). Tube
is sized by OD which is why tube & pipe do not fit together without an
adaptor. Pipe threads are tapered, tube threads are not. They are straight
cut, no taper. This is the short lesson. KABONG (GBA & GWB) 8*)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris W" <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Manifold pressure to primer port
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
>
> cgalley wrote:
>
>>
>>They are 1/8" PIPE which has 27 threads per inch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Nels Hanson <pa201950(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long glide to landing |
Been watching this "thread" with interest. For the
last 3 years I've been shutting down over an isolated
airport. I wait until the summer so my engine won't
cool down quickly. The first time I had the prop
completely stopped it was quite a feeling. I would
have landed short the first time by a long shot. I had
aimed for the middle of the runway and just barely got
in down on the threshold. After the first couple of
times,a stopped prop doesn't bother you and boy do you
learn the glide ratio of an RV this way!!
--- Doug Rozendaal wrote:
>
>
> 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>
> To:
> 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.
>
=== message truncated ==
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garth Shearing" <Garth(at)islandnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
Best glide speed won't change much but glide ratio will. Best glide speed
is a function of airframe performance, mainly the wings. Prop windmilling
and prop stopped produce different drags and affect sink rate and gliding
distance accordingly. Prop windmilling is higher drag than prop stopped.
Another lister pointed out the drag difference to me by comparing a
helicopter with rotor windmilling and one with rotor stopped. Which one do
you think will come down faster? You have to translate the helicopter
windmilling rotor producing lift instead of drag in this case but you get
the idea. An autorotating (windmilling) helicopter can in fact land safely.
I'll have to leave how much the drag difference is to the experts.
Garth Shearing
VariEze & 90% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Gray" <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: | How high have you flown an RV6? |
I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying (sans
oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it quit flying
a long time ago.
I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but by how
much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like to hear
about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org> |
When wiring wings, do builders tend to put some kind of disconnect for the
wiring in the wing root, or do most people feel they will not have to remove
the wings after final assemble and just wire directly to wherever the wire
go in the fuselage?
Thanks,
Paul Trotter
RV-8 82080
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/4/2005 4:53:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
ptrotter(at)acm.org writes:
When wiring wings, do builders tend to put some kind of disconnect for the
wiring in the wing root, or do most people feel they will not have to remove
the wings after final assemble and just wire directly to wherever the wire
go in the fuselage?
Most people (including ME) just wire directly out of the wing to the fuse.
I figure, if I need to remove the wings for any reason, the few wires from
the wings are the least of my worries!!!
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <Jdaniel343(at)bresnan.net> |
| Subject: | How high have you flown an RV6? |
I know Terry Jantzi of Kitchener, Ontario took his 180 hp RV-6 to over
26,000 feet.
John L. Danielson
EAA Chapter 420
Secretary and Newletter Editor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Heathco
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before
it quit flying a long time ago.
I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would
like to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500)
Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Paul,
I initially planned to install a connector in the wing roots. However,
Bob N made the point that every connection is an extra point of failure.
Since this area is exposed to the elements, you would need a weather proof
connection. It's easier to just wire it without the connector. If you ever
have to remove the wings, you can cut the wires and add the connector then.
Charlie Kuss
>
>When wiring wings, do builders tend to put some kind of disconnect for the
>wiring in the wing root, or do most people feel they will not have to remove
>the wings after final assemble and just wire directly to wherever the wire
>go in the fuselage?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Trotter
>RV-8 82080
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: try-it-yourself fly-in - was Long glide to landing |
On 4-May-05, at 5:14 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
>
> So does best glide speed differ between 'prop windmilling' and 'prop
> stopped' glide?
>
> And if so, by how much?
>
> Doug Gray
>
I would expect the drag at a constant windmilling rpm to vary with
square of airspeed, like regular profile drag. But, the windmilling
rpm should increase with airspeed, and the drag will increase with rpm.
So, the windmilling drag should increase at something greater than
airspeed squared. So, I would expect that the best glide speed with
windmilling prop would be a bit slower than the best glide speed with
prop stopped. But, the only way to know for sure is to do some flight
testing. Once my RV-8 is flying, I plan to do a full series of glide
performance vs speed with idle power, engine off and windmilling prop,
and prop stopped. I'll publish the results once I have them. I am
many months away from doing this.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
RV-8 - Finishing Kit
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
I've had my 160 hp RV6 to 14,000' several times at or near "my" gross weight
of 1675 lbs, and have done it on warmer than standard days. At that altitude
and weight, it was still climbing reasonably well, but I have never noted
the climb rate. My plane has a cruise prop, and that limits rpm for climb
at that altitude. At lighter weight, I've had it to 15,000', and was still
climbing at 500 fpm.
Van's site lists 17,400 and 21,500 feet as the ceiling for a 160 hp RV-6 at
light and gross weight, and I think my experience shows that these altitudes
are possible. Van's lists 25,700' as the ceiling for a lightly loaded 180
hp RV-6, which is fairly close to the 26,000+ achieved by Terry Jantzi.
I guess those folks at Van's know what they are doing after all... ;-)
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
> (sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
> quit flying a long time ago.
> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
> by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would
> like to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
> heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
| From: | Doug Weiler <dcw(at)nomadwi.com> |
Years ago, Terry Jantzi of Toronto climbed his 180 hp, C/S, RV-6 to 26,000'.
The climb and decent took right at one hour (he said it was really cold up
there).
Doug Weiler
Hudson WI
On 5/4/05 6:39 PM, "Charles Heathco" wrote:
>
> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying (sans
> oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it quit
> flying a long time ago.
> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but by
> how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like to
> hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie heathco
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
How about Terry Jantzi's hop to 26,000! I think oxygen might be in order...
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/high.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
quit flying a long time ago.
> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like
to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
heathco
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
I've cruised my RV-8 at 16,500' a couple of times, and every time was two
up. 180 hp c/s. It still climbed at 400-500 fpm getting up there even near
gross weight.
Randy Lervold
>
> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
quit flying a long time ago.
> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like
to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
heathco
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How high have you flown an RV6? |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
At gross I have been to 22,000 in my 180/cs 6A.
I was coming through 200ft/min max at the leveloff. The angle of attack
was freakin me out so I quit there.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Heathco
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before
it quit flying a long time ago.
I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would
like to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500)
Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
My RV6A went up 17,600-ft in the Rockies and was willing to go higher,
but I was too close to positive control so I stopped climbing. 160HP
fixed wood prop. I descended at 300FPM to reduce chances of shock
cooling, and it took me one-half hour to get down to airport altitude of
about 7,500-ft.
John at Salida, CO
Charles Heathco wrote:
>
>I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying (sans
oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it quit flying
a long time ago.
>I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but by how
much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like to hear
about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie heathco
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
Had my 200hp RV-7 cruising around IFR (in VMC) up at FL200 a month ago.
Details here: http://www.rvproject.com/20050403.html
20,000' MSL was nothing. It had plenty more oomph to go. I plan on doing a
service ceiling test or two once my new O2 system arrives (been on special
order for a month).
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
quit flying a long time ago.
> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like
to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
heathco
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | How high have you flown an RV6? |
About 7 years ago, I had mine up to 17,800 MSL. Everything forward, 100
KIAS, 300 FPM when I turned around. Weight was around 1,500. Had just
refueled at Bowling Green and heading west.
I like my Oxygen any time more than one leg starting at 9,500 MSL. Been
know to use O2 30 minutes before landing at lower altitudes when flying all
day. (2nd leg with flying time 6+ hours for the day.)
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: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 19:39:19 -0400
I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
(sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
quit flying a long time ago.
I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but by
how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would like to
hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
> Good point. However, you can get the rubber? tape that only sticks to
> itself and make a connecter pretty near moistureproof!
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/uniwrap.php
Cheaper at Spruce than the little spool B&C sells. I use Uni-wrap silicone
tape everywhere. Good for much more than electrical stuff. It's my
favorite anti-chafe material used all over the place in my plane.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Response to how high can you fly |
Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep flying.
I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down (sans oxy),
I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling, but it wouldnt
do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:silicone rubber tape |
Dan,
Silicone rubber is usually not very abrasion resistent. How much time do you
have on the anti-chafe appications?
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Response to how high can you fly |
I often fly up around 15-16,000 with no problems. An RV-6 owner in the
hangar next to me says his standard mags starting cutting out in the
18-19,000 range, but when he switched to an electronic system the problem
went away and he made it once to around 24,000.
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Response to how high can you fly
>
> Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep
> flying. I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down
> (sans oxy), I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling,
> but it wouldnt do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Response to how high can you fly |
It would likely do it with a brand new engine in standard atmospheric
conditions.
RVs tend to be quite overpowered which is the difference.
--- Charles Heathco wrote:
>
> Wow, I am impressed, had no Idea they would actually go that high and keep
> flying. I was thinking I would maybe get up to 14000, than drop back down
> (sans oxy), I think the cherokee 180 was rated at 14500 sevice ceiling, but
> it wouldnt do it. Thanks for the many responses. Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Confusing Engine Claims |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
bucks over the years).
Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
there.
So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
participants - in this case, about motors.
Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
Lycoming?
I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
What are opinions about ignition choices?
What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
this stuff?
OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Ridgecrest, CA
-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
That was a great report Dan. Thanks for taking the time to add it to your
web site.
Dick Sipp
do not archieve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
> Had my 200hp RV-7 cruising around IFR (in VMC) up at FL200 a month ago.
> Details here: http://www.rvproject.com/20050403.html
>
> 20,000' MSL was nothing. It had plenty more oomph to go. I plan on doing
> a
> service ceiling test or two once my new O2 system arrives (been on special
> order for a month).
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: How high have you flown an RV6?
>
>
>>
>> I have been wanting to see how high my 6a would go before it quit flying
> (sans oxy). I took a near new cherokee 180 to little over 14000' before it
> quit flying a long time ago.
>> I have a stock O-320, and I would imagine the 180hp would go higher, but
> by how much?? Im sure a few of you at least have tested this. I would
> like
> to hear about it (I know, I know, should have oxy over 12500) Charlie
> heathco
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:silicone rubber tape |
> Dan,
> Silicone rubber is usually not very abrasion resistent. How much time do
you
> have on the anti-chafe appications?
> Dale Ensing
Just shy of 500 hours and ticking. You're correct, it does wear, but not
much. We're not talking about things flailing around here, just very slight
amplitude vibration-induced cycles. So if I have to replace 20 cents worth
of tape every 1000 hours, so be it. ;-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
Hi Darrell,
I have two of these black airboat starters from Ebay in both of my rv-4s to replace
the heavy starters they had. The starters have worked great so far. They
are a lot lighter and spin my props faster. Way cheaper than the Skytec or
B&C starters and cant see any difference in performance or weight. When I bought
mine from Ebay, he was selling them a lot cheaper but they still are a good
price. Am thinking about buying another one to just have as a spare.
Regards,
Thomas Velvick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <cweyant(at)chuckdirect.com> |
I ran the wires an extra twelve inches or so, so after wing installation the
wires reached into the area under the seat inside the fuselage. Easy to get
too and out of the weather.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
WHAT TAS ARE YA'LL GETTING AT HIGH ALTITUDE?
THANKS,
DOUG PRESTON
RV7
N731RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
about the system's performance:
http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
At 17,500 in well above standard temperature I can get 160 to 165 knots.
RV-6, O-360, fixed pitch Sensenich.
http://n5lp.net/day5.htm
Have to go to a best power mixture setting to do that though, so not as much
fuel saving as would be the case with normal leaning.
On 5/5/05 2:01 PM, "DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com" wrote:
>
> WHAT TAS ARE YA'LL GETTING AT HIGH ALTITUDE?
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
I used a thin wall plastic tube to carry the wiring through the wing ribs
and added an extra 2 ft. of this tubing extending inside the inboard root
rib. Then (after suitable measurements) I cut matching holes in the fuselage
side and fuselage seat ribs to extend the tubing in to the fuselage
centerline. There is a junction block there that picks up the wiring from
the L&R wings and the fuselage although a simple solder connection would
work just as well.
This has the best of several worlds: minimizes the wire connections,
protects the wiring all the way from fuselage to wing tip, allows the wings
to be removed as needed (undo the connections, slide tubing out from
fuselage), or conversely will allow the wiring to be replaced with the wings
left on.
This was all on an RV-6A, BTW.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A C-GKGZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Trotter" <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: RV-List: Wing Wiring
>
> When wiring wings, do builders tend to put some kind of disconnect for the
> wiring in the wing root, or do most people feel they will not have to
> remove
> the wings after final assemble and just wire directly to wherever the wire
> go in the fuselage?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Trotter
> RV-8 82080
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Starters |
Thanks, I am going to order one up...
Darrell
tomvelvick(at)cox.net wrote:
Hi Darrell,
I have two of these black airboat starters from Ebay in both of my rv-4s to replace
the heavy starters they had. The starters have worked great so far. They
are a lot lighter and spin my props faster. Way cheaper than the Skytec or B&C
starters and cant see any difference in performance or weight. When I bought
mine from Ebay, he was selling them a lot cheaper but they still are a good price.
Am thinking about buying another one to just have as a spare.
Regards,
Thomas Velvick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Dan, I am curious about your tests but first I appreciate your "hard work"
to get the info.
What impact does RPM have on the manifold pressures each of your buddies
were getting?
Example: Number one engine is turning 2700 RPM at WOT, number two engine
turning 2600 RPM at WOT, number 3 engine turning 2500 at WOT and finally
number 4 engine turning 2400 at WOT. This was probably not the case but
illustrated for discussion.
Will there be a difference in manifold pressures? This info was
not in your web site discussion and may be important info.
What difference between CSP and fixed pitch?
Thanks again for your work on this project.
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
> were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
> confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Dan, nice write up. I thought I would offer another way to accomplish
the same thing...
http://www.lazy8.net/intakesystem.htm
And, another way to test it, that may only work in mountainous areas...
I start on the ground, at my home airport (2V1), at 7650 ft. msl. I note
the manifold pressure reading before starting the engine (normally
around 22.5"). Then I fly 15 miles south, where the ground level is
about 6000 ft msl, and I can fly at 7650, wide open throttle, and read
manifold pressure again. The difference is what I call the ram air gain.
I also close the valve, and see what the difference is with it closed. I
found it interesting that the air pressure in the bottom of the cowl is
still higher than ambient.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
I am working with a fellow in California to go into production on these
valves, so we can supply them to builders.
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
>interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
>how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
>about the system's performance:
>
>http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org> |
Hi,
We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit arrived
with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for inventory.
Thanks,
Steph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
This is the normal Van's packaging. Don't worry about the plastic. Don
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit
> arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
> inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Farner <sfarner(at)gmail.com> |
Yep that's the norm. Whenever possible start peeling the tape from
inboard to out to avoid taking off the plastic
--
Scott
www.scottfarner.com
RV-7A Wings
On 5/5/05, Stephanie Marshall wrote:
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's kit arrived
with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Good questions.
First of all, when we did the head-to-head test, we were all turning 2700
RPM (or as close to it as possible...I was turning 2670).
Regarding tests at lower RPMs, I don't have any hard data on that. I
presume you're implying there's a possibility of the ram effect being
*greater* when the prop blade angle is greater. i.e. the propeller is
providing more compression effect? At some point I'll do some more testing
in that regard. My assumption is that the difference won't be measurable in
10ths of inches...maybe even 100ths of inches.
I only have a constant speed prop, so I can't speak to the question about
fixed pitch stuff. I'm actually trying to think of a single person I know
with fixed pitch and fuel injection (horiz. induction)...I can't think of
anybody!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
> Dan, I am curious about your tests but first I appreciate your "hard
work"
> to get the info.
>
> What impact does RPM have on the manifold pressures each of your buddies
> were getting?
>
> Example: Number one engine is turning 2700 RPM at WOT, number two engine
> turning 2600 RPM at WOT, number 3 engine turning 2500 at WOT and finally
> number 4 engine turning 2400 at WOT. This was probably not the case but
> illustrated for discussion.
>
> Will there be a difference in manifold pressures? This info was
> not in your web site discussion and may be important info.
>
> What difference between CSP and fixed pitch?
>
> Thanks again for your work on this project.
>
> Vic
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
> To: ;
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
>
> >
> > I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
> > were
> > interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram
air,
> > how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
> > confirmations
> > about the system's performance:
> >
> > http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
> >
> > )_( Dan
> > RV-7 N714D
> > http://www.rvproject.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Steph,
When I received my RV-8 Empennage kit, S/N 81735 it had the masking tape
also.
Paul
N9NM reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
Yeah...all the boxes come that way. No big deal..you really should not leave
the plastic coating on too long anyway. I have seen quite a lot of tank
skins that have started to oxidize badly where the aluminum supplier prints
their name. The ink seems to have some caustic properties when it is all
covered up with plastic. You will have to weigh this risk with the potential
of hanger rash after the plastic is pulled. I believe Vans also recommends
you pull the plastic off.
Cheers...Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org>
Subject: RV-List: Duct Tape
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's
kit arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration put
out 180 HP?
Darrell
Ron Lee wrote:
At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Dan,
Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this give
you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible I'm
no where close to building my system?
Kevin
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:20 -0700
I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results were
interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and confirmations
about the system's performance:
http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
>
> The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
> I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
> requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
> can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
> the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
> advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
> bucks over the years).
>
>
> Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
> the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
> Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
> called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
> being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
> there.
>
>
> So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
> participants - in this case, about motors.
>
I think you are a smart person to solict opinions. You will get many to
consider I predict.
>
> Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
>
I think they are from what is being shared on this list. I am surprised
Vans has never seen one come through there.
>
> Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
> Lycoming?
>
I think they are. Basically they start with a certified bunch of parts that
normally go into a Lycoming engine and add a few more and change a few to
make a better engine that is not certified, but Superior is working to have
theirs certified and that will put Lycoming on defense. I expect Lyc. to
come out of their certified shell of uncompetitiveness and offer an
experimental engine soon.
>
> I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
> compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
>
I can say that my new Mattituck TMX-O360 engine fit with everything I got
from Vans. I suspect the others will be the same.
>
> Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
Check the archives on this. Many do. You can more safely use auto gas if
you get lower compression pistons put in your new engine. You probably
could use autogas with standard pistons just so you don't go with higher
compression pistons.
>
>
> What are opinions about ignition choices?
>
I like the standard mag on one side for safety and an electronic with
variable timing on the other side for performance.
>
> What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
> this stuff?
>
Whether you want fuel injection and/or constant speed prop. These add
complexity and cost but have advantages. Consider the risk and benefit of
each choice from the Lycoming norm.
>
> OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
> by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
> no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
> unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
> to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
> north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> -8A QB
((((((((((()))))))))))))))
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tipup, Phase 1 Test flying, TMX-O360 180 HP
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also say
that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to
.20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from (not at) 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you may not need a constant
speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so
a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is
NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine, a Sterling engine or
an axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as
a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you in regard
to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you have
to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of comfort
would you have to have with the company before you would place your order?
Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
This is quibbling. O-360 is essentially 180 HP versus much bless for an O-320.
The point is that starting with a less than large engine on an RV is asking
for a
later upgrade. Name one person who complained about too much power on an RV
and changed the engine to one of less horsepower. Might be such a case but it
would be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who changed to a larger engine.
Ron Lee
>What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration
>put out 180 HP?
>
>Darrell
>
>Ron Lee wrote:
>
>At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
>
>Ron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
No loss. You have to remove it sometime before you rivet it together or
paint it. It is to prevent scratches in shipping. Some builders just remove
in strips where the parts go together and then remove all before painting.
I have heard some have found corrosion under the plastic from moisture
getting trapped under the plastic.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org>
Subject: RV-List: Duct Tape
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's
> kit arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
> inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Adding anything in-line with the ram air inlet would theoretically reduce
manifold pressure. It's arguable whether or not the pressure at the filter
in front of the baffle is lower or identical to the pressure available at
the ram air inlet.
One of these days, maybe I'll remove the filter but keep the ram air inlet
closed -- which ought to tell me exactly what the pressure drop across the
filter is. For example if it's 25.2" with the filter and 25.4" without the
filter (these are out-of-butt numbers), then we can pretty much assume that
adding a filter to the ram air inlet would drop manifold pressure roughly
0.2". Big assumptions here...I don't have the answers. Over time I will
add data points.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
> Dan,
>
> Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
> ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this
give
> you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
> maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible I'm
> no where close to building my system?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
> To: ,
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:20 -0700
>
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Dan,
I understand what your say regarding the filter dropping MP. However, I'm
thinking there might be some marginal MP to be gained over the current
filtered system by getting rid of all the extra ducting and Y connection and
going total clean and straight into the intake via the ram air intake. I'm
thinking the gain would be marginal but in your article you're really keen
on scavanging every little bit that you can.
Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline with
the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Kevin
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 18:52:37 -0700
Adding anything in-line with the ram air inlet would theoretically reduce
manifold pressure. It's arguable whether or not the pressure at the filter
in front of the baffle is lower or identical to the pressure available at
the ram air inlet.
One of these days, maybe I'll remove the filter but keep the ram air inlet
closed -- which ought to tell me exactly what the pressure drop across the
filter is. For example if it's 25.2" with the filter and 25.4" without the
filter (these are out-of-butt numbers), then we can pretty much assume that
adding a filter to the ram air inlet would drop manifold pressure roughly
0.2". Big assumptions here...I don't have the answers. Over time I will
add data points.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
> Dan,
>
> Excellent article. I'm curious if it is somehow possible to use only the
> ram air inlet and somehow place a filter in that inlet? Wouldn't this
give
> you a continuous flow of filterd air with no bends, no Y's and still
> maintain the ram air effect? My appologies if this totally impossible
I'm
> no where close to building my system?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
> To: ,
> Subject: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
> Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:16:20 -0700
>
>
> I have done some testing recently on my ram air setup, and the results
were
> interesting (at least to me). Here's a comprehensive run-down on ram
air,
> how it has worked on my RV-7, and some recent flight tests and
confirmations
> about the system's performance:
>
> http://www.rvproject.com/ramair.html
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
>In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
>in regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
It would have to be in use operationally and show an adequate history of
reliability.
Putting one unit in a Cessna 172 for 40 hours would not do it for me.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
No "quibbling" here... I guess the same could be said for FP vs CS props?
Look at he last aircraft data #'s in the second issue 2005 RVator... just for instance...
180 HP vs 200 HP... This would lead me to believe I wouldn't want a
200 HP period...
Darrell
Ron Lee wrote:
This is quibbling. O-360 is essentially 180 HP versus much bless for an O-320.
The point is that starting with a less than large engine on an RV is asking
for a
later upgrade. Name one person who complained about too much power on an RV
and changed the engine to one of less horsepower. Might be such a case but it
would be overwhelmingly outnumbered by those who changed to a larger engine.
Ron Lee
>What is your reference? O-360's? They do not even at a stock configuration
>put out 180 HP?
>
>Darrell
>
>Ron Lee wrote:
>
>At least you are planning on no lower than 180 HP. Good choice.
>
>Ron
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
>
> The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an
> engine.
> I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the
> performance
> requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
> can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
> the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
> advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
> bucks over the years).
>
>
> Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
> the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
> Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
> called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
> being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
> there.
>
>
> So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
> participants - in this case, about motors.
>
>
I've got nothing bad to say about any of the engine builders that you
mentioned. But I'd offer two comments about Aero Sport Power.
1. When Jon Johanson was getting ready to fly his RV-4 over the North
Pole, he wanted to get his engine rebuilt first. He sent it from
Australia to Aerosport Power for the rebuild. That says quite a bit
about the reputation that Bart Lalonde has for quality work.
2. A local RV builder bought an engine from Aerosport Power. Part way
through his flight test program a sudden very large vibration started.
He looked at everything he could find on the engine, airframe, prop,
spinner, etc, but he couldn't find the problem. The vibration appeared
to vary with rpm, so he believed that it was engine related, and that
it may be a precursor of an engine failure. Bart Lalonde offered to
tear the engine apart to see what was going on. Bart found nothing
wrong with the engine, but the builder said he was nervous to put that
engine back on his aircraft. Bart built him up a different engine, no
charge. It's hard to beat service like that.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
RV-8 - Finishing Kit
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
with
> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Yes, absolutely possible.
)_( Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Ram air intakes are a big part of the muscle car scene. I wonder if they've
come to the same conclussion that ram air doesn't give them any more power
than a normal air intake. If they have come to the same conclusion then it
would certainly go a long way to providing further support to debunking the
myth of ram air. If however, they are getting better preformance with ram
air it would be interesting to study what it is that they are doing to make
their ram air systems more efficient.
This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for bring it to light Dan.
kev
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:34:55 -0700
> Preformance gains / losses aside is it possible to put a filter inline
with
> the Ram air intake and get rid of the Y connector and related ducting?
Yes, absolutely possible.
)_( Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Part 33 compliance, certification, AND a recommendation from Van's Aircraft.
Other wise, NOT INTERESTED even if you PAY me.
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: "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com>
Subject: RV-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:40:22 -0700
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name.
Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber
technology is double what is currently available. This is to say that an
engine that used this combustion chamber technology would operate with a
BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from (not at) 0 rpm and the
torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you may not need a
constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from
~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain
much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in
the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine, a
Sterling engine or an axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be
available in the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine
would only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you in
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you
have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of
comfort would you have to have with the company before you would place your
order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
Hey Paul,
I was at Sun and Fun and ordered an engine from Matituk. They will build you an
engine with superior parts and ECI cylinders. Plus the will put oil injectors
in to lube the cam and lifter bodies. You get the best of both the XP from
Superior and the TMX engine from Matituk. You can get it with the light weight
plastic (I forget the material name) forward facing cool air induction sump
from Superior. Matituk has been around forever and has a great rep. If you
want more info, give them a call or email me at rice737(at)msn.com. My friend who
is an A&P and building a slow build RV-6 also ordered one at the same time.
Take care,
Paul
RV8QB
----- Original Message -----
From: Valovich, Paul
Subject: RV-List: Confusing Engine Claims
The next big event in my RV-8A construction saga is choice of an engine.
I'm not very knowledgeable about engines, but understand the performance
requirements I'm looking for (mainly X/C with a bit of acro when I just
can't stand being right side up any more) and have pretty much narrowed
the general selection to new, 180 hp, fuel injected. (There are $
advantages to becoming an old fart builder who has saved up some RV
bucks over the years).
Now it gets a bit confusing. I'm impressed by the technology claims of
the Superior XP-360, but also like the stability and reputation of
Lycoming. And the Aero Sport folks seem like a delight to deal with. I
called Vans and of course got the Lycoming side - even to the point of
being told they had never seen a Superior-equipped RV come through
there.
So I am once again soliciting the usual unbiased opinions of forum
participants - in this case, about motors.
Are the Superior and Aero Sport products commonly used in RV's?
Are the Superior technology claims a worthwhile improvement over
Lycoming?
I planned on using Vans Firewall Forward kit. Any real-world
compatibility experience with the Superior and Aero Sport products?
Even if the manufacturer says it's ok, do folks really use auto gas?
What are opinions about ignition choices?
What other questions would I be asking if I was "more smarter" about
this stuff?
OBTW - new subject - my QB wings and fuselage were delivered last week
by Tony Partain's company - the driver was Paul. What a professional,
no-hassle way of kit delivery! No crating; no damage; three of us
unloaded the truck in single-digit minutes. I highly recommend it. $1120
to my workshop front door - Vans to Ridgecrest (in the boonies - 60 mi
north of Mojave). No crating / no forklift rental charges.
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Ridgecrest, CA
-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
> >In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
> >in regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
Put it in an RV-4 and fly it around the world a time or two. Show your complete
confidence in it's ability to span an ocean and I would look in your direction.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
YEP, a plan "B" and/or an intake with a "Y" in it. N561FS has ram air AND a
"Y" that can be opened to draw air from inside the cowl. KABONG Do Not
Archive 8*)
My assumption is that no matter what system you
> build you will have some sort of fresh air by pass.
>
>
> Kevin
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
One more thought to this Ram Air discussion. If you have a direct path to
the inside of your engine "A Ram Air Intake", you have several things to
think about. The Rocket has a 90 degree adapter to allow ram air to be
picked up from a air scoop under the prop. During construction, John Harmon
came to visit and I proudly showed him the "Tight" fit between the cowl and
the adapter. He then pointed out that what if a kid walked by and dropped a
small rock into the air scoop. It would clearly roll down inside the
adapter and unseen be ingested on start up. My scoop now has a gap to allow
small items to fall through the gap and not go into the engine. Of course,
this defeats some of the Ram Air Effect.
Of course, that is one of the reasons why, I have the slowest Harmon Rocket
flying.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>
> YEP, a plan "B" and/or an intake with a "Y" in it. N561FS has ram air AND
> a
> "Y" that can be opened to draw air from inside the cowl. KABONG Do Not
> Archive 8*)
>
> My assumption is that no matter what system you
>> build you will have some sort of fresh air by pass.
>>
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Todd Bartrim <haywire(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Affordable and available. Not just empty promises of delivery "real soon",
while accepting deposits.
Todd Bartrim
C-FSTB RV-9endurance
13B Turbo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
| From: | alan(at)reichertech.com |
> From: "Dave Hertner" <effectus(at)rogers.com>
> Subject: RV-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
>
<...>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
> in regard
> to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you have
> to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of
> comfort
> would you have to have with the company before you would place your order?
> Hypothetically!
>
> Dave Hertner
1. Get off the "hypothetical" bandwagon and show us the plan.
"Hypothetical" can translate to "snake oil salesman".
2. Prove the design with extensive testing and use... meaning more than
just 50-100 hours of ground running and a handful of flights.
How about going for certification? (I'm not against non-certified
engines, but this would be a good way to show that the company is
serious about what they are doing.)
3. Prove a viable/affordable/sustainable support plan that supports more
than just the manufacturers whims and protection of the manufacturer's
legal backside.
Anything else is just vaporware/dreams/empty promises, and we've already
seen enough of that in the aviation industry.
-- Alan
RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
Prepping Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizers for Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced
> that was developed by a really brainy person with lots of
> letters behind his name. Let's also say that the demonstrated
> efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
> what is currently available. This is to say that an engine
> that used this combustion chamber technology would operate
> with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple
> different fuels.
>
If someone had this, they would be thinking more about their Gulfstream V's
next destination rather than watching this list.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 612 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Dan, interesting read on the induction system. I do want to point out
one thing, that manifold pressure is a function of ram air pressure at
the inlet and how well it is being "exhausted" through the induction
system. By that I mean how well the engine is breathing all that air
that's presented to it and converting it along with fuel into
horsepower. That's why if you run WOT, and back off the RPM without
touching the throttle your MP increases. My point here is that the
efficiency of the engine will have an effect on indicated MP, so to
more accurately describe your tests you should note fuel flow, and do
some flying with your buddies at the same fuel flow and rpm, running
at a comparable mixture setting. At that point you could compare MP
readings. It would be interesting to see if your fuel flow changes
between ram air and filtered.
One problem with the bendix system IMO is that the servo meters fuel
by measuring the pressure drop from the front to the rear of the
'bullet'. That is one of the reasons why I'm going with the RSA10 and
cold air induction on the rocket. The larger servo will flow more air
around the bullet.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
> One problem with the bendix system IMO is that the servo meters fuel
> by measuring the pressure drop from the front to the rear of the
> 'bullet'. That is one of the reasons why I'm going with the RSA10 and
> cold air induction on the rocket. The larger servo will flow more air
> around the bullet.
Yep. That's one reason why I went with Airflow Performance instead of
Bendix. The servo's throat is huge compared to the stock Bendix servo
usually found on my engine.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org> |
Thanks,
I think that getting your first emp. is like getting a new baby...you don't know
yet what's normal and what isn't. :)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Evan and Megan
Johnson
Subject: Re: RV-List: Duct Tape
Yeah...all the boxes come that way. No big deal..you really should not leave
the plastic coating on too long anyway. I have seen quite a lot of tank
skins that have started to oxidize badly where the aluminum supplier prints
their name. The ink seems to have some caustic properties when it is all
covered up with plastic. You will have to weigh this risk with the potential
of hanger rash after the plastic is pulled. I believe Vans also recommends
you pull the plastic off.
Cheers...Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org>
Subject: RV-List: Duct Tape
>
> Hi,
> We got our RV-8 Emp kit last night and I was wondering if anyone else's
kit arrived with Duct Tape holding the metal pieces down in the box.
>
> We lost a bit of the plastic coating as we tried to get it all apart for
inventory.
>
> Thanks,
> Steph
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob rundle" <bobrundle2(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
Can someone explain how to accurately acheive running a Lycoming at LOP
(lean of peak) or ROP (rich of peak)?
Suppose I takeoff and climb to 8000 ft. I set the cruise (fixed pitch) to
2300 RPM. Pull out the mixture until observe highest EGT then lean a little
more? Is this all this is done? Can someone quantify "a little more".
Thanks
BobR
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net> |
Got more time on my hands this weekend than I know what to do with
(was hoping to go to the Rebel's Bluff Fly-in this weekend, but so far
I've been unable to secure a ride) so if anyone is building or flying
in or around Indy this weekend, contact me off list. I'd really like
to get close and personal with an RV for the first time. It's nice to
look at pictures and the DVD from Van's Info kit, but you can only do
that for so long before you start getting stir crazy!
765-537-2342
Marty,
RV-8a dreamer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Well, for starters, how about pointing to a published
piece of work - i.e, an SAE paper, a patent
description, or an article in any other scientific or
engineering journal describing in detail this
breakthrough new technology by this person with all
the letters behind their name.
Phil
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Spicer" <spike(at)rivetbangers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
Its not something to try if you don't have balanced injectors and EGT probes for
all cylinders. This is because without a balanced induction system there will be
a wide spread in mixture between the first cylinder peaking and the last
cylinder peaking. If you lean to the point that a single probe egt gauge is
telling you that you are LOP, then you may have a different cylinder that is
running at peak. Deakins has a great bunch of articles (Pelican's Peak I
believe) on this at www.avweb.com. Its great reading. He's also an interesting
guy to talk to. There is way more info there than you will probably find here.
-- John
www.rivetbangers.com - Now with listserv !!
www.spikesplace.org/cgi-php/serendipity - Builder's log
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
bob rundle wrote:
>
>Can someone explain how to accurately acheive running a Lycoming at LOP
>(lean of peak) or ROP (rich of peak)?
>
>Suppose I takeoff and climb to 8000 ft. I set the cruise (fixed pitch) to
>2300 RPM. Pull out the mixture until observe highest EGT then lean a little
>more? Is this all this is done? Can someone quantify "a little more".
>
>
My understanding is that, after you get to peak, you lean it till it is
50 degrees below peak for best economy or you richen it till it is 50
degrees below peak for best power. I'm not sure how hard and fast the
50 degree rule is though, it probably varies from engine to engine.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
Hi Rob,
If you really want to know, here is an excellent article:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
Mickey
> Can someone explain how to accurately acheive running a Lycoming at LOP
> (lean of peak) or ROP (rich of peak)?
>
> Suppose I takeoff and climb to 8000 ft. I set the cruise (fixed pitch) to
> 2300 RPM. Pull out the mixture until observe highest EGT then lean a little
> more? Is this all this is done? Can someone quantify "a little more".
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
>Can someone explain how to accurately acheive running a Lycoming at LOP
>(lean of peak) or ROP (rich of peak)?
This (LOP) may not be possible unless you have fuel injection and something
like
GAMI injectors. When I lean my carbureted engine, I lean until some roughness
develops then back in just enough to be smooth. I believe that it is still ROP.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Jacko" <vicwj(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
Ron, I think you have the one or two of the leanest cylinders running at
LOP when you enrichen to smooth things out..
I don't know what the other cylinders are doing other than not running at
LOP!
IMHO,
Vic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings
>
>
>>Can someone explain how to accurately acheive running a Lycoming at LOP
>>(lean of peak) or ROP (rich of peak)?
>
>
> This (LOP) may not be possible unless you have fuel injection and
> something
> like
> GAMI injectors. When I lean my carbureted engine, I lean until some
> roughness
> develops then back in just enough to be smooth. I believe that it is still
> ROP.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
| Subject: | Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05 |
I am in the market for a Pneumatic Squeezer (C 214 type). I have compiled a
list of the prices I have been able to find... anyone else have other
sources I can look into (add to the list)? When given the option, I have
always priced the squeezer with a 3" yoke.
Aircraft Spruce - $487 - 2.5" yoke
ATS - $472 - No yoke
Avery - $689 - 3" yoke
Cleveland - $599 - 3" yoke
Brown Tools - $750 - 3" yoke - new
Ishams - $549 - 3" yoke - new
Pro Rivet Tools - $429 - no yoke
US Tool - $330 - yoke? - US114CR (assume rebuilt)
US Tool - $625 - yoke? - US114C
US Tool - $950 - yoke? - US114CC
Yard Store - $349 - 3" yoke - Rebuilt
Yard Store - $574 - 3" yoke - US114CC new
Then there is always eBay.
Cheers,
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05 |
| From: | "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org> |
I have one to add to this list Clear Air Tools (http://clearairtools.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CA&Category_Code=PRS)
$465.00 Remanufactured with a New 3" yoke and a one year parts and labor warrenty.
We are looking at getting one next month from them.
Cheers,
Stephanie
www.rv-8a.4t.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brad Oliver
Subject: RV-List: Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05
I am in the market for a Pneumatic Squeezer (C 214 type). I have compiled a
list of the prices I have been able to find... anyone else have other
sources I can look into (add to the list)? When given the option, I have
always priced the squeezer with a 3" yoke.
Aircraft Spruce - $487 - 2.5" yoke
ATS - $472 - No yoke
Avery - $689 - 3" yoke
Cleveland - $599 - 3" yoke
Brown Tools - $750 - 3" yoke - new
Ishams - $549 - 3" yoke - new
Pro Rivet Tools - $429 - no yoke
US Tool - $330 - yoke? - US114CR (assume rebuilt)
US Tool - $625 - yoke? - US114C
US Tool - $950 - yoke? - US114CC
Yard Store - $349 - 3" yoke - Rebuilt
Yard Store - $574 - 3" yoke - US114CC new
Then there is always eBay.
Cheers,
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LOP and ROP - Lycoming mixture settings |
Vic, you may be right. Without an all cylinder monitoring system it is
just quesswork. However I believe that this process is well accepted.
Ron Lee
>Ron, I think you have the one or two of the leanest cylinders running at
>LOP when you enrichen to smooth things out..
>
> I don't know what the other cylinders are doing other than not running at
>LOP!
>
>Vic
>
> When I lean my carbureted engine, I lean until some roughness
> > develops then back in just enough to be smooth. I believe that it is still
> > ROP.
> >
> > Ron Lee
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Van's Calendar 2005 |
For those of us that use Van's Calendar, it lists Mother's Day as 15 May.
Be advised that Mother's Day is this Sunday May 8th. If you are like me and
using the Calendar, you forgot about Mother's Day so you are now scurrying
around trying to fix the oversight.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,665 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator belt size |
I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a 30-1/2" v-belt.
Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one! Any suggestions from
you guys who have BTDT?
Tommy Walker
6A, Finishing the finishing!
Ridgetop, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Training Edge Bending Brake |
Hi all
I was getting ready to make a bending brake for the trailing edges. Couple
of things are unclear, and not addressed in the achives.
1. Length I think the longest trailing edge is something around four feet.
Is four feet long enough?
2. Spacer: some folks have described putting a spacer between the boards, I
guess so it can't clamp all the way closed. How thick?
3. I understand that I will want to place a 1/8 hardwood dowel at the bend
point to provide for the correct 1/16 radius.
Any other tips?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05 |
Ebay, Ebay, Ebay
I recently bought a genuine Chicago Pneumatic 214 for.........,
...........get ready.............
. ....................., just $60.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=22664&item=4363032989
This tool has an SRP of $1169 and typically retails for $850
new. Typically, you can get a CP-214 clone on Ebay for about $200, give or
take. (There don't seem to be many for sale at this moment, however.)
The key to good deals like this is a well thought out search
string. For this squeezer, I used the following search string:
(squeezer,squeazer,squeezers,squeazers,squeeze,squeaze) (rivet, rivit)
Notice I include all the common misspellings. Bad listings are
where you will get the best deals because fewer people can find the item to
bid on it. I search both the title and the description.
PayPal is the safest way to do business on Ebay.
My favorite aircraft tool dealer on Ebay is ToolsEZ. You can look
at their Ebay store at:
http://stores.ebay.com/TOOLSEZ_W0QQssPageNameZstrkQ3amefsQ3amesstQQtZkm
In all honestly, I probably spent the same about of money on tools
as I would have had I bought new, but I have about three times as many
tools. I'm like Tim Allen when it comes to tools, but Ebay makes it cheap
to do.
$57. The price included four guns, about 50 tubes, about 40 tips and a
variety of nifty smoothing tools. Enough to fill a box 2 ft on a side. I
have both a 90 deg 1/4-28 air drill AND a 45 deg 1/4-28 air drill. I have
8 or 9 countersink cages so I can set each one up for a different
countersink. I have a big collection of bucking bars. I have an alligator
squeezer that has 9 inch deep jaws. Great for dimpling skins.
At 04:12 PM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
>
>I have one to add to this list Clear Air Tools
>(http://clearairtools.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=CA&Category_Code=PRS)
>
>$465.00 Remanufactured with a New 3" yoke and a one year parts and labor
>warrenty.
>
>We are looking at getting one next month from them.
>
>Cheers,
>Stephanie
>www.rv-8a.4t.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brad Oliver
>To: Rv-List
>Subject: RV-List: Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05
>
>
>I am in the market for a Pneumatic Squeezer (C 214 type). I have compiled a
>list of the prices I have been able to find... anyone else have other
>sources I can look into (add to the list)? When given the option, I have
>always priced the squeezer with a 3" yoke.
>
>Aircraft Spruce - $487 - 2.5" yoke
>ATS - $472 - No yoke
>Avery - $689 - 3" yoke
>Cleveland - $599 - 3" yoke
>Brown Tools - $750 - 3" yoke - new
>Ishams - $549 - 3" yoke - new
>Pro Rivet Tools - $429 - no yoke
>US Tool - $330 - yoke? - US114CR (assume rebuilt)
>US Tool - $625 - yoke? - US114C
>US Tool - $950 - yoke? - US114CC
>Yard Store - $349 - 3" yoke - Rebuilt
>Yard Store - $574 - 3" yoke - US114CC new
>
>Then there is always eBay.
>
>Cheers,
>Brad
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Farner <sfarner(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Training Edge Bending Brake |
Michael,
You'll need to make it at least 5 feet long for the wing flaps.
--
Scott
www.scottfarner.com
RV-7A Wings
On 5/6/05, MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I was getting ready to make a bending brake for the trailing edges. Couple
> of things are unclear, and not addressed in the achives.
> 1. Length I think the longest trailing edge is something around four feet.
> Is four feet long enough?
> 2. Spacer: some folks have described putting a spacer between the boards, I
> guess so it can't clamp all the way closed. How thick?
> 3. I understand that I will want to place a 1/8 hardwood dowel at the bend
> point to provide for the correct 1/16 radius.
>
> Any other tips?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator belt size |
----- Original Message -----
From: Tommy Walker
Subject: RV-List: Alternator belt size
I used a NAPA Premium XL 25-09153/7360 with my 0-360-A1A & Van's 60 amp alternator.
It also allows my hand to slip between the alternator and RV6A cowl.
>I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a 30-1/2" v-belt.
Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one! Any suggestions >from
you guys who have BTDT?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing Engine Claims |
>
>
>In a message dated 5/6/2005 1:34:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
>
>Bart found nothing
>wrong with the engine, but the builder said he was nervous to put that
>engine back on his aircraft. Bart built him up a different engine, no
>charge. It's hard to beat service like that.
>
>Kevin Horton
>Ottawa, Canada
>RV-8 - Finishing Kit
>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>SO, DID THE NEW ENGINE FIX THE PROBLEM??
Well, I am told that there is no more vibration, but it is hard to
know whether it was an engine problem, or loose spinner, or prop, as
all those were taken off and reinstalled. And maybe he found
something else that he is too embarrassed to mention, after all the
fuss with the engine. All I know is that he is very satisfied with
the service from Bart Lalonde.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
Check Terry Jantzi site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/high.html
"Final readings from the data logger indicate an absolute altitude reached at 26,137'
and level flight was maintained at 25,900'."
He states he was at 55kts indicated and 9" MP @2700, on an O-360 (180hp). From
his description is below max endurance/range speed and near stall. Est. HP was
around 52 HP at 25,900 feet.
To note Van's specs the RV-6 with 180 hp with service ceiling of 25,700'.
RV-7/RV-8; 180HP Van's spec says 23,000' but does not say this is absolute ceiling
or service ceiling. My guess is it is absolute (ie ZERO rate of climb), increase
in angle of attack results in decent and no additional hp available. Not
sure but also assume Van's numbers are calculated? Service ceiling is a more
practical number. For a SE airplane by definition is 100 fpm climb, so this is
as high as you can go but not practical. Note of interest alt champ according
to Van's specs is a 180HP RV-4 at 28,600 feet. Obviously, max ceiling is a function
of available HP and aircraft weight.
I never tried for an ultimate ceiling, but did fly my RV-4 150hp solo to 17,500'
once. At 17,500' the angle of attack is high and controls gets a little mushy.
I don't have fuel flow numbers but recall TAS was about 24 mph slower than
8,500, where I could do 193 mph at 7.8 gal.hr. The max cruise alt I would use
on a routine long x-country, if I had O2 and winds were favorable was 14,500'.
If I did not hve O2, winds not favorable, hot outside temps or at higher weight
(passenger) 8,500-11,500 feet was ideal for long cross-country. I usually
flew below 12,500 just because of the lack of O2 on board. One trip I flew solo
all day, above 10,000 feet, 3 legs, over 9 hours in cold weather. With out O2
I ended up with a mild headache at the end of the day. I am a non-smoker and
in good health. I did not care for the after effect of no O2 all day near the
12,500' legal limit. Even with O2, breathing it all day has a down side, besides
cost and weight, there is the drying out of the n
asal
membrane. Practical cruise altitudes between 8,500-11,500 work best for me, unless
terrain is an issue. If you never sniffed O2 in flight it is kind of fun
at first but looses its luster real fast. It is not my idea of fun so I plan on
flying at or below 12,500 (up to incl 14,000 for less than 30 minutes).
What is the purpose of flying high, if not to just set a personal record, than
what is the best altitude to fly at? In theory the higher you fly the less drag
and better range. However you have to have enough HP to maintain the optimum
long range/max range cruise speed.
If you want to go as fast as you can, with no regard to fuel burn, 100% power at
SL would give max speed and min range. If you want fuel economy and max endurance,
fly at reduced power by throttling back, to maintain best glide (L/Dmax),
which is max endurance speed. In RVs this is about 93-109 mph at SL. Assume
a nominal 100 mph IAS. Max endurance (L/D max) is good if you are just trying
to stay aloft longer but not real practical for going somewhere.
If you want max range cruise, best mileage, you need to fly faster than max L/D.
Optimum cruise is best range , approx best glide speed (L/Dmax) x 1.316 at sea
level. Using the average best glide speed (L/Dmax) at SL of 100 mph for a RV,
Best range (SL) = 100 mph x 1.316= 132 mph.
Factors affecting best range (L/Dmax) speed:
-L/Dmax TAS speed goes up with altitude and weight
-Indicated AS goes down for the same TAS with altitude.
-HP goes down with altitude (normal aspirated)
-HP required goes down w/ Alt, for a given speed (not on the back-side of the pwr
curve)
-Max range speed is affected by L/Dmax and wind
To make it easy, the max altitude for efficient (optimal or max range) cruise with
a 180 hp Lycoming RV is between power settings of 75% to 51% BHP or 8,500
- 18,000 feet (density alt). Flying higher allows trading speed for fuel economy
with in limits. Fly lower or faster at higher weights, short legs and with
head-winds. With a tail-wind fly slower (or lower %BHP) and/or higher altitudes.
The lower HP model engines will need to operate at slightly lower altitudes
(or higher % power) since required total HP is the same to achieve the required
speed for a given altitude.
Obviously you can fly slow at sea level by pulling the throttle back and saving
fuel and extending endurance or range, but by flying at altitude with the equivalent
airspeed you can take advantage of lower drag, due to thinner air at the
higher altitudes. The RV has "excess HP" and can fly much faster than optimal
speed at sea level. RVs have "extra HP" due to a low-drag low-weight airframe,
airfoil and relatively high HP engines to start with. Also by flying higher,
less dense air will "throttle back" the engine naturally. This has has a side
advantage of reduced power while still at WOT, where the throttle plate is
in the wide-open position. This allows the engine to breathe easier than when
the throttle plate is partially closed, as you would have at low altitudes and
partial power settings. The loss from pulling air past the restricted intake
from a partially closed throttle butterfly is called pumping loss. It's worth
a few HP.
Note: Advantage of turbo/turbine engines is the higher HP available at altitude,
however the airframe Vne or Vmo, max operating speed, is a function of TAS.
So indicated Vne goes down with altitude. This should not be a problem with a
non-turbo Lycoming since it can't make enough HP to exceed Vne in climb or cruise.
However, if you start a descent from high altitude, you could easily exceed
Vne by accident due to a much lower indicated speed than at sea level. With
more available HP at altitude using a turbo engine, you could easily exceed Vne
in cruise. At very high altitude, Vne and Vstall meet theoretically. This altitude
is possible to reach in Jets and is known as the coffin corner, where
flying slower will cause a stall, flying faster will exceed Vmo (max Mach) and
cause a high speed buffet. The only fix is to descend.
At 18,000 you would need to fly at IAS of 122 to 142 MPH for best range. This is
about as high as you can fly, and still have enough available HP from a 180HP
Lycoming (about 51-53% power) to achieve best range speed in still air. Of course
above FL180 you need an IFR clearance, rating and equipment.
If you want shorter flight time (higher speed) you would want to fly at 65-75%
power, which would be closer to 13,500-9000 feet.
A light (solo) RV with 180 HP c/s prop can easily cruise at 17,500' while maintaining
long range cruise. There is no advantage in flight range or economy by
flying at higher altitudes than FL180 (53% power on a 180HP engine). Lower HP
engines and heavy RVs may have a lower optimum altitude. The best cruise altitudes
without O2 is closer to 8,500-11,500. Your mileage may vary.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator belt size |
I suggest you find a store that sells Gates. Buy several, like a 30", 31",
32" or what ever is available around what you measured. Then return the
ones that don't fit.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
> I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a
> 30-1/2" v-belt. Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one! Any
> suggestions from you guys who have BTDT?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How high have you flown an RV6? |
>
>Check Terry Jantzi site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/high.html
>
>"Final readings from the data logger indicate an absolute altitude
>reached at 26,137' and level flight was maintained at 25,900'."
>
>He states he was at 55kts indicated and 9" MP @2700, on an O-360
>(180hp). From his description is below max endurance/range speed and
>near stall. Est. HP was around 52 HP at 25,900 feet.
Actually, the best condition to be at would have been the speed that
required the least amount of power, because power was the limiting
factor here. The speed that requires the least amount of power is
lower than the speed for best L/D, and is theoretically equal to best
glide speed divided by 1.316. So Terry was probably not too far off
the optimum speed at the light weight he was at.
>If you want fuel economy and max endurance, fly at reduced power by
>throttling back, to maintain best glide (L/Dmax), which is max
>endurance speed. In RVs this is about 93-109 mph at SL. Assume a
>nominal 100 mph IAS. Max endurance (L/D max) is good if you are just
>trying to stay aloft longer but not real practical for going
>somewhere.
There seems to be some confusion between jet aircraft and piston
aircraft performance. The two types of aircraft have different
relationships between speeds for best endurance, best range, and L/D
max. See:
http://www.professionalpilot.ca/aerodynamics/performance/range_jet.htm
http://www.professionalpilot.ca/aerodynamics/performance/range_prop.htm
Max endurance is achieved at the speed that produces the lowest fuel
flow, which means the speed that requires the least amount of power
for a piston engine aircraft. The power required is equal to the
drag times the speed (with a few conversion factors thrown in),
assuming that the prop efficiency doesn't do something strange. So,
the speed for best endurance on a piston engined aircraft is actually
slower than the speed for L/D max.
>If you want max range cruise, best mileage, you need to fly faster
>than max L/D.
This is true on a jet aircraft, but not on a piston engined one.
With a piston engined aircraft, the speed for max range is the speed
for max L/D, assuming that the engine produces the same specific fuel
consumption at all power settings, and that the prop efficiency
remains constant. In the real world, the engine probably is not
quite as efficient at very low power, and the prop may be off its
design point, so it efficiency may suffer a bit. These factors would
lead to a max range speed a bit higher than speed for max L/D. In
practice, the range vs speed curve has quite a flat top, so the range
penalty to go a bit faster is quite small. People looking for max
range will often target the speed that gives 99% of max range, as
giving up on 1% of absolute max range allows the cruise speed to be
bumped up quite a bit.
>Optimum cruise is best range , approx best glide speed (L/Dmax) x
>1.316 at sea level. Using the average best glide speed (L/Dmax) at
>SL of 100 mph for a RV, Best range (SL) = 100 mph x 1.316= 132 mph.
This is Carson's speed - the speed that gives the lowest fuel flow
per unit speed. I.e. a good compromise.
Lots more info at:
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/perfspds/perfspds.htm
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
Anybody make cloche style pliers that don't have to be opened so wide to
grasp a cloche? I have several misc. manufacturer's pliers and they all
have the same grip length. I almost cannot open my hand wide enough to grab
a side grip cloche, and would like it to be easier to grab a regular cloche.
I thought I'd ask the list before I took the torch to one of mine... They
have a useless range of travel at the closed position and have to be opened
too wide at the large.
Thanks,
Dave
RV6 near Seattle
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
> I suggest you find a store that sells Gates. Buy several, like a 30",
31",
> 32" or what ever is available around what you measured. Then return the
> ones that don't fit.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com>
> To: "rv-list"
> Subject: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
>
> >
> > I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a
> > 30-1/2" v-belt. Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one!
Any
> > suggestions from you guys who have BTDT?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Would appreciate references for pro panel-builders |
Cutting & wiring my panel is probably the only thing on the project (other than
painting) that I won't care to do myself. I am, at this planning stage,
looking to get quotes from shops on a plug-and-play panel with component
supplied by me. I would appreciate any references anybody here can give me, as
well as maybe some general information on what it might cost me (I'm hoping
somewhat less than the standard certified avionics shop rates).
For reference, this is the panel I'm planning at this point:
2-screen GRT EFIS (with their EIS 4000)
Garmin 300XL IFR GPS
Garmin SL-30 Nav/com
Garmin 327 transponder
PSE 6000 audio panel
Analog ASI, Alt, electric TC for IFR backup
TruTrak DigiTrak AP (1-axis)
Probably an AOA indicator
I'm especially interested in custom fiberglass panels for the RV. I think they
look better. But that's not a must. I like affordable panels stuff as well.
Feel free to contact me off-list if that would be more appropriate. TIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cleco pliers |
Dave:
If you are having that much trouble with your cleco pliers, I suggest that
you consider buying a pneumatic one from Avery's. It is engaged via a
trigger and may be more comfortable for you.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Heading to the airport 5/11
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Subject: RV-List: cleco pliers
>
> Anybody make cloche style pliers that don't have to be opened so wide to
> grasp a cloche? I have several misc. manufacturer's pliers and they all
> have the same grip length. I almost cannot open my hand wide enough to
> grab
> a side grip cloche, and would like it to be easier to grab a regular
> cloche.
> I thought I'd ask the list before I took the torch to one of mine... They
> have a useless range of travel at the closed position and have to be
> opened
> too wide at the large.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
> RV6 near Seattle
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
>
>>
>>
>> I suggest you find a store that sells Gates. Buy several, like a 30",
> 31",
>> 32" or what ever is available around what you measured. Then return the
>> ones that don't fit.
>>
>> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com>
>> To: "rv-list"
>> Subject: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a
>> > 30-1/2" v-belt. Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one!
> Any
>> > suggestions from you guys who have BTDT?
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Rose" <av8er2(at)mcleodusa.net> |
What are the rivet callout for the 804 Channel Caps on the RV8? I can't find it
on the plans, but I've missed them before too. Thanks Mark finishing all the
little stuff.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 upper spar opening rivets |
Reference drawing 28
The two corner upper rivets around the spar opening in the fuse for
F-704H and side skin call for AN470AD5 rivets. Anyone have experience
with these interfering with the wing root fairing/seal? If so, how did
you remedy this?
Bill
RV-7 fuse & finish
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Duran <mgdurand(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pneumatic Squeezer Prices as of May '05 |
Please allow me to reinforce the usefulness of Ebay
for buying tools - and a friendly raspberry to Bill
Dube for giving away the secret to profitable
searches. My best score is the 9" alligator squeezer
on pedestal stand for pennies on the dollar. Just
hold up a skin and dimple away....
Lots of surplus aerospace stuff out there. I would be
careful about Toolsez though, while I've probably
gotten most of my stuff from them they have stiffed me
twice on minor items. Like the pneumatic wire crimper
for $9.99 (score) which they shipped without the heads
as advertised (loss) and then proceeded to ignore my
emails about it.
Mike
7a Fuselage
planning Snake Oil engine
===========
Ebay, Ebay, Ebay
I recently bought a genuine Chicago
Pneumatic 214 for.........,
...........get ready.............
. ....................., just $60.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator belt size |
If you want a closer fit go get a metric belt as they are sized by the CM so
they are plus or minus a cm instead of an inch on the circumference. That's
less than a 1/3 of a cm as opposed to 1/3 of an inch when you are talking
center to center distances. Matched pairs are very easy with metric sized
belts. Very expensive with inch sizes.
Your 30 1/2 " could be as short as 30 and as long as 31. a 77cm is 30.31
inches while a 78 cm belt is 30.71 inches.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
> I suggest you find a store that sells Gates. Buy several, like a 30",
> 31",
> 32" or what ever is available around what you measured. Then return the
> ones that don't fit.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Testing
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com>
> To: "rv-list"
> Subject: RV-List: Alternator belt size
>
>
>>
>> I have one of Van's 60 amp alternators (kit) on an O-360 and need a
>> 30-1/2" v-belt. Can't seem to find any auto parts store that has one! Any
>> suggestions from you guys who have BTDT?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cleco pliers |
Thanks for the tips. I've thought about a pneumatic cleco tool, and since I
live close to Boeing Surplus I might look for one there. I didn't mention
Boeing as a source for air tools to the list since it doesn't help much if
you don't live around here...
There may be something similar in your area though worth checking out.
Boeing has bins of Rockwell right angle pneumatic drills for $75 and rivet
guns by the hundreds.
I can see that the cleco pliers have lots of wasted travel when closed. I'm
going to either find some different ones or modify one of mine... Boeing
sometimes has boxes of them for a buck. Easy to experiment with.
Sorry about my spell checker changing cleco to chloe. At least the header
stayed correct...
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | camera in the tail |
Hi Folks
to you who have installed a camera in the tail.....the wired
version....
What wires did you run for the camera, I guess a 12 volt, maybe a
ground, and a coax?? if so, what kind of coax does it require??
try to install the ifra structure without actually buying the camera yet.
Thanks
Gert
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 upper spar opening rivets |
The rubber of the wing root fairing seal just "gives" in that area and sort
of forms to the rivet. You'll never notice it. Press on, you'll be flying
soon.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 upper spar opening rivets
>
> Reference drawing 28
> The two corner upper rivets around the spar opening in the fuse for
> F-704H and side skin call for AN470AD5 rivets. Anyone have experience
> with these interfering with the wing root fairing/seal? If so, how did
> you remedy this?
>
> Bill
> RV-7 fuse & finish
> Lee's Summit, MO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
Hi all,
Thought I would report back on a different conversion coating. I ordered the
3 part Sanchem 6100 system. Part C is a cleaner/activator. A&B get mixed
1:1. Basically, you scrub the parts with scotchbrite and part C, rinse and
immediately brush on or immerse in the A&B stuff. I minute or two later, you have
a pretty golden brown conversion coating. It looks exactly like my alondined
conversion. I then applied AZKO two part epoxy over the whole thing. Mostly
an all day project, but the results are beautiful.
The really nice thing about the Sanchem is that it is not toxic or
environmentally harmful. Judging from the color of the stuff, I would guess this
is a
permanganate that reacts with the prepared aluminum to make an AlMn04 coating
over the surface.
The folks at Sanchem, particularly Jonathon Filcher their technical guy, were
very helpful. Will let you know in ten years if the primer remains intact.
Anyway, took about the same amount of time as the alodine process, just a lot
less toxic.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
back".
This does not reflect well on the RV community.
Finn Lassen
RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | camera in the tail |
I did shielded 20 awg for the video, unshielded 20 for the power, and local
ground.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gert [mailto:gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net]
> Sent: Saturday, May 07, 2005 8:48 PM
> To: RV-8(at)yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RV-List: camera in the tail
>
>
> Hi Folks
>
> to you who have installed a camera in the tail.....the wired
> version....
>
> What wires did you run for the camera, I guess a 12 volt,
> maybe a ground, and a coax?? if so, what kind of coax does
> it require??
>
> try to install the ifra structure without actually buying the
> camera yet.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gert
>
>
> --
>
>
> is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
I'm also using the Sanchem products. It's pretty easy to apply and clean
up. And I am really happy with it so far.
I'm using their seal #2 instead of primer on the internal bits. It puts a
coating over the parts that is almost like lacquer or plastic and seems to
be very durable. Again, you just rinse and dry after the part a+b solution,
brush or spray it on, hit it with a heat gun and it's done in about 30
seconds.
For anyone who is interested I have a write up at
http://www.froody.org/html/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=d
isplay&ceid=1&meid=3 and docs and MSDS posted at
http://www.froody.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=DownloadsPlus&file=in
dex&req=viewdownload&cid=3
The MSDS is quite boring as far as MSDS go, which is nice ;)
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: RV-List: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem
Hi all,
Thought I would report back on a different conversion coating. I ordered
the
3 part Sanchem 6100 system. Part C is a cleaner/activator. A&B get mixed
1:1. Basically, you scrub the parts with scotchbrite and part C, rinse and
immediately brush on or immerse in the A&B stuff. I minute or two later,
you have
a pretty golden brown conversion coating. It looks exactly like my
alondined
conversion. I then applied AZKO two part epoxy over the whole thing.
Mostly
an all day project, but the results are beautiful.
The really nice thing about the Sanchem is that it is not toxic or
environmentally harmful. Judging from the color of the stuff, I would guess
this is a
permanganate that reacts with the prepared aluminum to make an AlMn04
coating
over the surface.
The folks at Sanchem, particularly Jonathon Filcher their technical guy,
were
very helpful. Will let you know in ten years if the primer remains intact.
Anyway, took about the same amount of time as the alodine process, just a
lot
less toxic.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | overtightened pipe fittings? |
| From: | "Eastham, Paul" <Paul.Eastham(at)netapp.com> |
Hi list,
I've seen several people warn not to overtighten NPT fittings, but how do you know
if you've overtightened one?
I was just struggling with my gascolator 45-degree elbow -- it started to snug
up just past the proper clocking, so by the time it was back to the right position
the torque was quite high. Toward the end I was wondering if I was bending
the fitting rather than threading it in, though there is no evidence of this
besides some scraped-off anodizing from the wrench. (yes, I used fuellube)
I'm also willing to take the steel-fitting plunge (especially since I suspect I
screwed up this fitting), but is there a dissimilar-metal problem if I use a
steel fitting on the aluminum gascolator?
Thanks,
Paul
RV-9A finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
>N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
>
>If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
>
>Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
>school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
>violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
>minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
>about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
>back".
>
>This does not reflect well on the RV community.
>
>Finn Lassen
>RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
>
>
>
I know 4 of the 5 on your list and I don't believe they did what you
said. I also know that
most of them are or were on the RV-List. To characterize any on that
list as RUDE is way
off the mark. Finn I have to believe that you have the capability to
look up who belongs to
these airplanes and would have to agree with me. You have been on this
list long enough
to see most of them post here at one time or another.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator belt sizeAlternator belt size |
I somehow missed the orig post, but for what its worth the stock belt is a gates
9335XL, get em at NAPA auto. charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <sears(at)searnet.com> |
Maybe the ones who made the error should give the FBO, etc. a call and
apologize. They may have thought the locals would enjoy what they did, as
do most of us who hang out at airports. Sometimes, what we do that's
outside the norm isn't appreciated as well as we think. If the person who
initiated this thread had the "N" numbers, somebody who told him about it
had to have had access to them, somehow. Maybe they were guilty of the
crime, even if we think they weren't? We gotta be careful out there! More
and more homes are encroaching on airports. Those homes are filled with
folks who don't like us. They think most of us are rich guys having our fun
at their expense.
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
EAA Flight Advisor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
Yes, I wish I had been there to see what actually happened...
But if St Pete Tower called the FBO to get their N-numbers, something
must have happened that would have been out of character with the
general RV community.
Finn
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
>>N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
>>
>>If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
>>
>>Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
>>school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
>>violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
>>minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
>>about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
>>back".
>>
>>This does not reflect well on the RV community.
>>
>>Finn Lassen
>>RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I know 4 of the 5 on your list and I don't believe they did what you
>said. I also know that
>most of them are or were on the RV-List. To characterize any on that
>list as RUDE is way
>off the mark. Finn I have to believe that you have the capability to
>look up who belongs to
>these airplanes and would have to agree with me. You have been on this
>list long enough
>to see most of them post here at one time or another.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
Flinn:
I know all of them and do not believe it. One of them have been to
Clearwater before including last years Open House.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rude RVers?
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 23:56:47 -0400
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
back".
This does not reflect well on the RV community.
Finn Lassen
RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
Flinn:
Just got off the cell phone with the people flying the below N numbers.
They talked to the FBO and they tell me they made right traffic like they
were suppose to both coming and going.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rude RVers?
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 23:56:47 -0400
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
back".
This does not reflect well on the RV community.
Finn Lassen
RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
Although we might not like the message here, we must all deal with
**PERCEPTIONS**, especially at "sensitive" airports.
It is good that there was a request for "the other side of the story". I
take it that this is done in the spirit of healing.
Let's assume our RV friends were 100% in the "right" in everything they did.
But if the perception of one or a few "concerned neighbors" in a sensitive
neighborhood is that something was not right and they were concerned enough
to NOTE THE N-NUMBERS, then there is some "healing" that probably needs to
be done by someone.
I operate out of an airport that is "in town" and surrounded on two sides by
a neighborhood. I serve on a committee that tries to deal with the "Safety
Issues" that are perceived by the neighborhood. And I would say that
immediate attention would be good.
It is not the pilots involved in this matter that will stand to lose so much
(unless they are locals) as those that are at the airport in question.
I have witnessed incorrect pattern entry (we use Right 13) at our airport
that took the planes right over the sensitive neighbors at our airport. I
have been there when the FBO got the calls from a certain neighbor and the
FBO feels obliged to log the time, action and N-numbers in case there is a
further issue. And I have nicely talked to pilots who were not aware of the
sensitivities about corrective actions. So far, so good.
Maybe one of the pilots (a local??) can fly over and have a sit down with
the FBO owner. And be prepared to get an earful, but for the greater good
hear the FBO owner out and check to see if anything can be done to help (and
I don't mean staying away).
Such action would probably benefit us all.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. You buy a house near an airport and then
complain about the noise? It makes me sick. In orlando a golf community built
up south
of the airport and THEN the money people got the airport to change its pattern
to suite
them. I would want to go down there and smack the he!! out of all of them. If
you
don't like the sound of aircraft, buy a house that isn't next to an airport. If
you
don't like the sounds of baseball, don't buy next to coors field. If you don't
like
traffic noise, don't buy next to a major highway. If you have your head so far
up your
butt that you have to complain about something every day of your life...seek
counseling. Ok, maybe I'm venting because of that neighbor behind me whose dog
barked
ALL night long but still...
:-) Good morning RV people. See? I'm trying to be nice.
Bill
--- sears(at)searnet.com wrote:
>
> Maybe the ones who made the error should give the FBO, etc. a call and
> apologize. They may have thought the locals would enjoy what they did, as
> do most of us who hang out at airports. Sometimes, what we do that's
> outside the norm isn't appreciated as well as we think. If the person who
> initiated this thread had the "N" numbers, somebody who told him about it
> had to have had access to them, somehow. Maybe they were guilty of the
> crime, even if we think they weren't? We gotta be careful out there! More
> and more homes are encroaching on airports. Those homes are filled with
> folks who don't like us. They think most of us are rich guys having our fun
> at their expense.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> EAA Tech Counselor
> EAA Flight Advisor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Sounds like you might have the same type group at this meeting a lot of airport
communities somehow end up with... Whiners. Build an airport and they will come...
Darrell
Finn Lassen wrote:
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
back".
This does not reflect well on the RV community.
Finn Lassen
RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Is there interest in an Oct fly-in to Albuquerque, NM? |
Another Oct RV fly-in is well attended (I have been three times) but the
move to
Santa Teresa raises doubts in my mind about parking. The Albuquerque
Balloon Fiesta is 30 Sep to 9 Oct and Double Eagle (AEG) is not far from
the balloon launch area (at least by air).
http://www.balloonfiesta.com/
In addition to more things to do in Albuquerque, Sante Fe NM is close by
as well.
Is there interest among RV folks to attend a fly-in to coincide with the
balloon fiesta?
It is probably best to email me directly at ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Rude RVers? (2nd cell phone call) |
Just got off the cell phone for the second time. The 5 airplanes did the
same noise abatment departure that is done at my home airport (CCB) except
it was right turns. They departed one right after the other in sequence
using full power and best rate of climb. All 5 airplanes are 180 HP and
constant speed prop powered. Yes they were heavy with bagagage and two
people per airplane and are not going to have the best rate of climb
published by Van for solo. They departed runway 34 and made a climbing
right 270 degree turn. They passed over the airport at 2,000 feet. The
flew west away from the area at 2,500 feet. All 5 airplanes were in the
article on page 62 of the April 2005 issue of "Sport Aviation". This time
they are on their way to Cayman Islands.
How can one fly an RV more quietly that the departure that I was just told
by one of the pilots described above?
Thanks for letting me know NEVER to fly to Clearwater Airpark. I will go
spend my money where it is welcome. Zephyrhills Municipal Airport is $0.97
per gallon cheaper for 100 LL according to AirNav.com and only 35 miles
away.
I do not see any published noise abatement procedures at
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLW other than "- NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
IN EFFECT CTC FBO 727-443-3433.".
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rude RVers?
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 23:56:47 -0400
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the story.
Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors was
about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
back".
This does not reflect well on the RV community.
Finn Lassen
RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
Finn,
Are you saying that St. Pete tower did call the FBO? It would be
interesting to hear more of the facts. It would be nice to hear exactly
what they are accused of having done.
I went to bed thinking that maybe they had screwed up and flew the wrong
pattern. Gary says that he spoke to them and they say they flew right
traffic. I believe it as these guys are very professional. They may have
made a formation arrival and a low pass (I'm supposing now). It is easy
to piss off locals around airports, especially during a meeting about
noise complaints, even while flying within the letter of the law.
Perhaps on a different day, it wouldn't have made such a stink. Knowing
these guys, you can bet that they did not set out to be deliberately
rude.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Finn Lassen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Rude RVers?
Yes, I wish I had been there to see what actually happened...
But if St Pete Tower called the FBO to get their N-numbers, something
must have happened that would have been out of character with the
general RV community.
Finn
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
>>N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
>>
>>If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the
story.
>>
>>Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
>>school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
>>violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
>>minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors
was
>>about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
>>back".
>>
>>This does not reflect well on the RV community.
>>
>>Finn Lassen
>>RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I know 4 of the 5 on your list and I don't believe they did what you
>said. I also know that
>most of them are or were on the RV-List. To characterize any on that
>list as RUDE is way
>off the mark. Finn I have to believe that you have the capability to
>look up who belongs to
>these airplanes and would have to agree with me. You have been on this
>list long enough
>to see most of them post here at one time or another.
>
>Jerry
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
> Ok, maybe I'm venting because of that neighbor behind me whose dog barked
>ALL night long but still...
If you don't like people buy acreage. Every neighborhood has at least one
inconsiderate
louse.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rude RVers? (2nd cell phone call) |
DITTO FOR ME. I gassed up at Zephyr hills during sun n fun. There
were several RVs tied down there when I was gassing up. Great
place. Self serve.
Clearwater can be a private airport if that's what they want as far
as I am concerned.
Denis Walsh
On May 8, 2005, at 11:54 AM, RV6 Flyer wrote:
>
> Just got off the cell phone for the second time. The 5 airplanes
> did the
> same noise abatment departure that is done at my home airport
> (CCB) except
> it was right turns. They departed one right after the other in
> sequence
> using full power and best rate of climb. All 5 airplanes are 180
> HP and
> constant speed prop powered. Yes they were heavy with bagagage and
> two
> people per airplane and are not going to have the best rate of climb
> published by Van for solo. They departed runway 34 and made a
> climbing
> right 270 degree turn. They passed over the airport at 2,000
> feet. The
> flew west away from the area at 2,500 feet. All 5 airplanes were
> in the
> article on page 62 of the April 2005 issue of "Sport Aviation".
> This time
> they are on their way to Cayman Islands.
>
> How can one fly an RV more quietly that the departure that I was
> just told
> by one of the pilots described above?
>
> Thanks for letting me know NEVER to fly to Clearwater Airpark. I
> will go
> spend my money where it is welcome. Zephyrhills Municipal Airport
> is $0.97
> per gallon cheaper for 100 LL according to AirNav.com and only 35
> miles
> away.
>
> I do not see any published noise abatement procedures at
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCLW other than "- NOISE
> ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
> IN EFFECT CTC FBO 727-443-3433.".
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com.Gecko/20030624.Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO)
> Subject: RV-List: Rude RVers?
> Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 23:56:47 -0400
>
>
> Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
> N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
>
> If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the
> story.
>
> Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
> school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
> violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
> minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors
> was
> about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
> back".
>
> This does not reflect well on the RV community.
>
> Finn Lassen
> RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
>Jerry, If there were enough 'issues' to cause the angst, then there must
>have been something. Maybe 'rude' wasn't a good word .... but symantics
>aside ..... they caused enough grief so that "they are not welcome back".
Even this is debatable. There are people who could have seen five planes
take off quickly and get upset. So the five may have done nada wrong and
are just the recipients of the ire of someone in need of a life. Or maybe
there
was an honest mistake which was blown out of proportion. And just because
one FBO says they are not welcome is not proof that they were wrong.
I am not standing up for them. I just don't see any factual information that
warrants questioning their actions.
In due time we may have facts and can discuss this rationally. Until then, I
am complaining that the restaurant that I went to this morning for breakfast
was closed. I have a gas receipt worth $2.99 off a breakfast burning a hole
in my wallet and I wanted breakfast. This is not right :)
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
LIFE CAN BE A BITCH, CAN'T IT RON.
DELAYING MY WEST COAST TRIP SO HOPE TO BE AT LOE....SEE YA THERE.
DOUG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
if every pilot has your attitude then GA is really in trouble
I hope that other pilots show more sensitivity than you do
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill shook" <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Rude RVers?
>
> I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. You buy a house near an airport
and then
> complain about the noise? It makes me sick. In orlando a golf community
built up south
> of the airport and THEN the money people got the airport to change its
pattern to suite
> them. I would want to go down there and smack the he!! out of all of
them. If you
> don't like the sound of aircraft, buy a house that isn't next to an
airport. If you
> don't like the sounds of baseball, don't buy next to coors field. If you
don't like
> traffic noise, don't buy next to a major highway. If you have your head
so far up your
> butt that you have to complain about something every day of your
life...seek
> counseling. Ok, maybe I'm venting because of that neighbor behind me
whose dog barked
> ALL night long but still...
>
> :-) Good morning RV people. See? I'm trying to be nice.
>
> Bill
>
>
> --- sears(at)searnet.com wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the ones who made the error should give the FBO, etc. a call and
> > apologize. They may have thought the locals would enjoy what they did,
as
> > do most of us who hang out at airports. Sometimes, what we do that's
> > outside the norm isn't appreciated as well as we think. If the person
who
> > initiated this thread had the "N" numbers, somebody who told him about
it
> > had to have had access to them, somehow. Maybe they were guilty of the
> > crime, even if we think they weren't? We gotta be careful out there!
More
> > and more homes are encroaching on airports. Those homes are filled with
> > folks who don't like us. They think most of us are rich guys having our
fun
> > at their expense.
> >
> > Jim Sears in KY
> > EAA Tech Counselor
> > EAA Flight Advisor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org> |
Without arguing the particulars of this event at CLW, I have to agree with
Bill on this one. There is a huge difference between performing a normal
operation during business hours and bringing in a turbojet or large noisy
aircraft at 4 am. Complain about the loud flight at 4 am and I am right
there with you. Complain about the same flight at noon at an airport that
typically has those types of operations and I'll tell you that you really
need to go find something else to do, and probably somewhere else to live.
It's an airport. It's been there a lot longer than 99% of the surrounding
community. There are airplanes, and they make noise. I am all for working
with the surrounding communities to reach acceptable noise abatement
procedures to both parties. What I don't agree with is people who complain
about normal operations and try to get the airport to reduce its hours
unreasonably or close or create noise abatement procedures or encroachment
that cause safety concerns.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of son hoang
Subject: Re: RV-List: Rude RVers?
if every pilot has your attitude then GA is really in trouble
I hope that other pilots show more sensitivity than you do
----- Original Message -----
From: "bill shook" <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Rude RVers?
>
> I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. You buy a house near an airport
and then
> complain about the noise? It makes me sick. In orlando a golf community
built up south
> of the airport and THEN the money people got the airport to change its
pattern to suite
> them. I would want to go down there and smack the he!! out of all of
them. If you
> don't like the sound of aircraft, buy a house that isn't next to an
airport. If you
> don't like the sounds of baseball, don't buy next to coors field. If you
don't like
> traffic noise, don't buy next to a major highway. If you have your head
so far up your
> butt that you have to complain about something every day of your
life...seek
> counseling. Ok, maybe I'm venting because of that neighbor behind me
whose dog barked
> ALL night long but still...
>
> :-) Good morning RV people. See? I'm trying to be nice.
>
> Bill
>
>
> --- sears(at)searnet.com wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the ones who made the error should give the FBO, etc. a call and
> > apologize. They may have thought the locals would enjoy what they did,
as
> > do most of us who hang out at airports. Sometimes, what we do that's
> > outside the norm isn't appreciated as well as we think. If the person
who
> > initiated this thread had the "N" numbers, somebody who told him about
it
> > had to have had access to them, somehow. Maybe they were guilty of the
> > crime, even if we think they weren't? We gotta be careful out there!
More
> > and more homes are encroaching on airports. Those homes are filled with
> > folks who don't like us. They think most of us are rich guys having our
fun
> > at their expense.
> >
> > Jim Sears in KY
> > EAA Tech Counselor
> > EAA Flight Advisor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 5/8/2005 10:32:44 AM Central Standard Time,
billshook2000(at)yahoo.com writes:
I'm sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. You buy a house near an airport and
then
complain about the noise? It makes me sick. In orlando a golf community
built up south
of the airport and THEN the money people got the airport to change its
pattern to suite
them
RIGHT ON !!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
I appreciate all the replies. Unfortunately I was only relaying what I
was told - probably never a good idea.
Yes, it was my understanding that they did encroach on St Pete's
airspace and that Tower called the FBO for the N-numbers.
I probably chose a bad subject line. Maybe "inconsiderate?" would have
been better? But do note the question mark:)
There was a remark from the flight school owner that they had been rude
to "Brian". No idea who Brian is - the line boy?
It's beginning to sound like they just were at the wrong place at the
wrong (worst) time, doing a formation break for landing over the exact
neigborhood where a plane (not a home built) crashed into a house a
month or so ago, were a meeting between the airport manager and a
neighborhood group was taking place.
Yes, KCLW is (now) in the middle of Clearwater. The fact that it was
there first is generally lost on people.
The reason I wrote the original posting was that as I entered the FBO
late yesterday afternoon I was greeted by the flight school owner who
commenced telling me what I relayed in my first posting.
I can see both sides of the argument but sure would like to tell
complaining neighbors to go take a f...
My concern is that I'd like to continue to be based there, at least for
a few more years.
What is OK at an airport open house may not be considered OK during
normal operation.
I guess a good rule of thumb would be to be extra careful when entering
any small airport in the middle of any city or town, if not familiar
with any sensitive issues.
From what Gary wrote, they did indeed take care during departure.
Finn
Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>Finn,
>
>Are you saying that St. Pete tower did call the FBO? It would be
>interesting to hear more of the facts. It would be nice to hear exactly
>what they are accused of having done.
>
>I went to bed thinking that maybe they had screwed up and flew the wrong
>pattern. Gary says that he spoke to them and they say they flew right
>traffic. I believe it as these guys are very professional. They may have
>made a formation arrival and a low pass (I'm supposing now). It is easy
>to piss off locals around airports, especially during a meeting about
>noise complaints, even while flying within the letter of the law.
>Perhaps on a different day, it wouldn't have made such a stink. Knowing
>these guys, you can bet that they did not set out to be deliberately
>rude.
>
>Pax,
>
>Ed Holyoke
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Finn Lassen
>To: ax; PROMO
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Rude RVers?
>
>
>Yes, I wish I had been there to see what actually happened...
>But if St Pete Tower called the FBO to get their N-numbers, something
>must have happened that would have been out of character with the
>general RV community.
>
>Finn
>
>Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Finn Lassen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
>>>N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
>>>
>>>If any of you are on the list, I'd like to hear your side of the
>>>
>>>
>story.
>
>
>>>Apparently managed to piss off a number of people including the flight
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>school owner at the FBO, not following published pattern at airpark,
>>>violate St Pete controlled airspace and buzz the neigborhood below
>>>minimum altitude, just as a meeting to appease complaining neigbors
>>>
>>>
>was
>
>
>>>about to end. The message I got from the FBO was "they are not welcome
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>back".
>>>
>>>This does not reflect well on the RV community.
>>>
>>>Finn Lassen
>>>RV-3 Mazda rotary powered
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I know 4 of the 5 on your list and I don't believe they did what you
>>said. I also know that
>>most of them are or were on the RV-List. To characterize any on that
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>list as RUDE is way
>>off the mark. Finn I have to believe that you have the capability to
>>look up who belongs to
>>these airplanes and would have to agree with me. You have been on this
>>list long enough
>>to see most of them post here at one time or another.
>>
>>Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rude RVers? (2nd cell phone call) |
Yes Gary, I would much rather be based at ZPH. However CLW is only 3
miles from my home.
Can't wait to build my new home at "my own" strip - Shady Bend (9FL5).
But would probably still have to fly to CLW to go to work :(
Finn
RV6 Flyer wrote:
>Thanks for letting me know NEVER to fly to Clearwater Airpark. I will go
>spend my money where it is welcome. Zephyrhills Municipal Airport is $0.97
>per gallon cheaper for 100 LL according to AirNav.com and only 35 miles
>away.
>...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
The Safety data sheet that James posted below states "SafeGard CC-6100
leaves a highly corrosion resistant and adherent surface". My question is,
why prime over this at all, if it is "highly corrosion resistant"? Where
does one purchase some of this stuff?
Marty in Brentwood TN
From: "James Ochs" <jochs(at)froody.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem
I'm also using the Sanchem products. It's pretty easy to apply and clean
up. And I am really happy with it so far.
I'm using their seal #2 instead of primer on the internal bits. It puts a
coating over the parts that is almost like lacquer or plastic and seems to
be very durable. Again, you just rinse and dry after the part a+b solution,
brush or spray it on, hit it with a heat gun and it's done in about 30
seconds.
For anyone who is interested I have a write up at
http://www.froody.org/html/index.php?module=ContentExpress&file=index&func=d
isplay&ceid=1&meid=3 and docs and MSDS posted at
http://www.froody.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=DownloadsPlus&file=in
dex&req=viewdownload&cid=3
The MSDS is quite boring as far as MSDS go, which is nice ;)
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: RV-List: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem
Hi all,
Thought I would report back on a different conversion coating. I ordered
the
3 part Sanchem 6100 system. Part C is a cleaner/activator. A&B get mixed
1:1. Basically, you scrub the parts with scotchbrite and part C, rinse and
immediately brush on or immerse in the A&B stuff. I minute or two later,
you have
a pretty golden brown conversion coating. It looks exactly like my
alondined
conversion. I then applied AZKO two part epoxy over the whole thing.
Mostly
an all day project, but the results are beautiful.
The really nice thing about the Sanchem is that it is not toxic or
environmentally harmful. Judging from the color of the stuff, I would guess
this is a
permanganate that reacts with the prepared aluminum to make an AlMn04
coating
over the surface.
The folks at Sanchem, particularly Jonathon Filcher their technical guy,
were
very helpful. Will let you know in ten years if the primer remains intact.
Anyway, took about the same amount of time as the alodine process, just a
lot
less toxic.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | All these virus messages.... |
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm now getting around 20-50 of these fake
messages everyday along with the RV mail. The latest is from serviceVansAircraft,
which means their computer is infected also. Subject line is usually : mailing
error, Re, FWD Re, Your password, or Email was blocked.
This virus was caught by my computers McAfee Anti Virus, but then I've never opened
the attachments either. It's more of an annoying virus than anything else.
Once in your computer, it sends out these messages to everyone on your address
book. Spreads like wildfire, from what I'm seeing.
L.Adamson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: All these virus messages.... |
I sorry but even though it says it is from Van's...It probably isn't. It is
called spoofing when the virus takes one address out of someone's address
book and uses another as the source. But probably it is someone that has
accessed van's and your computer and the is no way to know where is came
from as it is done randomly. If you keep your computer virus free, that is
about the best you can do.
Cy Galley - Webmaster www.qcbc.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: All these virus messages....
>
>
> I don't know about everyone else, but I'm now getting around 20-50 of
> these fake messages everyday along with the RV mail. The latest is from
> serviceVansAircraft, which means their computer is infected also. Subject
> line is usually : mailing error, Re, FWD Re, Your password, or Email was
> blocked.
>
> This virus was caught by my computers McAfee Anti Virus, but then I've
> never opened the attachments either. It's more of an annoying virus than
> anything else. Once in your computer, it sends out these messages to
> everyone on your address book. Spreads like wildfire, from what I'm
> seeing.
>
> L.Adamson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: All these virus messages.... |
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Grieve
Subject: Re: RV-List: All these virus messages....
Larry,
Do you know the name of the virus? I tried to figure it out from the
subject lines you mentioned but didn't come up with anything definite.
Sounds like a virus that Norton is calling Sober. I'm not sure what
McAfee named it. It has a new variant and is causing a lot of headaches
lately.
It's listed as W32/Sober, first detected on 5/2/2005
And just to make it clear, it doesn't generate from the RV list, but several addresses
from this list as well as Van's, parts suppliers, etc. have appeared as
the E-mail originator, even though it's all bogus.
Off course, IMO, a bit of "jail" time would serve well for these people who write
viruses that disrupt every day commerce. This one could tend to jam mail boxes
everywhere, let alone spending company time to discover what's legit and what
isn't.
L.Adamson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cleco pliers |
>Simply turn the pliers around...
Thanks John,
I gave that a try and it helps a lot.
Just to clarify my "problem". I don't really have small hands, a medium
glove is the right size for me. I've been running cleco pliers since about
1999 and I don't even think about using them to grab a cleco, they just do
it...
My hands are not getting tired for the most part.
What I find frustrating is when I've got a handfull of parts that I'm trying
to hold in alignment to put in a cleco. Especially with the side grip
clecos I find it difficult to open the pliers up wide enough to pick up the
cleco one handed, in fact I can't do it at all with my left hand. When I
can use both hands it's not a problem.
I see that there is almost half an inch of unused travel when first opening
the pliers. If I could gain that much usable travel I think that would
solve the issue. I looked at all my pliers, all bought at different times
and places and coincidentally they all are USATCO brand. I'm wondering if
another brand might have different handles or a different pivit point...
Thanks for all the suggestions..
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Solenoid installation/wire routing |
Hi All,
I have recently had the opportunity to disassembly the firewall forward
electrical wiring on a RV-6A and a RV-6.
In both installations, the starter solenoid was mounted on the front side of
the firewall.
In both cases, the large wire from the master solenoid going to the starter
solenoid was chaffing against the corner of an aluminum bracket. The wire
insulation was worn more than half way through to the copper wire. (48 hours
TT on one installation, and the copper was visible through the insulation.)
Please, take a little extra care with this large wire. With the master
switch on, it's hot all the way to the starter solenoid.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
PS I relocated the master and starter solenoids directly over the battery
box in my RV-6A. The starter wire going through the firewall is only hot when
the starter is engaged.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
Hey Marty,
The answer is that this is a conversion coating, so it is about two or three
molecules thick and needs to be protected with either their clear sealer or a
traditional primer.
Here is the link:
http://www.sanchem.com/
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cleco pliers |
Here is another suggestion that worked well for me;
Get some heat shrink from the electonics supplier. The kind that has the
sealant inside. Cut lengths suitable to cover the handles. Shrink it over
the handles
The slightly larger handle will provide a better sized grip and not be as
slippery. In my case the carpel tunnel syndrome 'type' of pain that plagued
me literally went right away.
Jim in Kelowna
> Try this. You may not, but most people place any pliers in their hand with
> their little finger toward the end of the handles. This puts you at a
> great
> mechanical disadvantage. Simply turn the pliers around So that your index
> finger and thumb are toward the ends of the handles. >
> John D. Heath
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RAM air calculations |
| From: | "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com> |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received": rv-list(at)matronics.com
After reading Dan's well detailed experiments, I became interested in the theoretical
calculations of the "RAM air effect". Disclaimer - I'm a EE, so this ME/Fluid
Dynamics stuff is not my forte, but here goes...
Total Pressure in a fluid is the sum of the static pressure and dynamic pressure.
The "ram" air effect is due to the dynamic pressure. Bernoulli's equation
shows this as:
Pd 0.5 * p * V
2
Where:
Pd Dynamic Pressure
p density (greek letter rho)
V Velocity
Using the STP density of air in SI units - 1.2250 kg/m
3, and an air speed of 220Mph, I solved Bernoulli's equation to yield 1.75 Inches
of Mercury. Thus it looks like the maximum theoretical gain in STP air at
220MPH would be 1.75" Hg from an intake that had no RAM air benefit to one with
full RAM air benefit.
Obviously, air density is a complex function of Barometric Pressure, Altitude,
Temperature, Dew Point, and Humidity. Here is a web site which offers a density
calculator and some other useful flying/engine performance calculators:
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm
Phil
RV8A - Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dimple Dies - regular vs. springback |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Has anyone done a comparison between 'regular' and 'springback' dimple
dies? I figured all dimple dies have some springback designed in, but
maybe not? The springback dies cost a couple bucks more (I'm using
Aircraft Tool Supply as my reference here), so I'm looking for input on
whether they are worth it or not.
I'm getting ready to start an RV7A in July. I will be borrowing most
tools from my son (also building an RV7A), but obviously need to get a
number of things for myself.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dimple Dies - regular vs. springback |
On 05/09 11:32, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
>
> Has anyone done a comparison between 'regular' and 'springback' dimple
> dies? I figured all dimple dies have some springback designed in, but
> maybe not? The springback dies cost a couple bucks more (I'm using
> Aircraft Tool Supply as my reference here), so I'm looking for input on
> whether they are worth it or not.
> I'm getting ready to start an RV7A in July. I will be borrowing most
> tools from my son (also building an RV7A), but obviously need to get a
> number of things for myself.
The best dimple dies I know of come from P.A.R.T.S.
http://www.rivettools.com
Not cheap but well worth it. You might get a deal on them
if buying tools from them, like a pneumatic squeezer.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brad(at)rv7factory.com |
| Subject: | RE: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
I am heading up to Van's on Thursday for the tour and demo ride... I
plan on ordering my RV-7 tail kit while there. Anywhoo... the recent
discussions about Sanchem's products have made me very interested in it
as a form of Conversion Coating, specifically as a way to avoid
storing/using toxic chemical and dealing with the waste.
I called Sanchem for pricing info, but my question is, how much of this
stuff are you guys ordering? Gallon of each (A, B & C)?
Regards,
Brad Oliver
Livermore, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
Here one for engine experts...I began my annual condition inspection
today and pulled the plugs to replace them and do a compression check.
All looked normal except the bottom plug on #1 cylinder...it had FRESH
oil that filled the depression where the electrodes are...upper plug
normal. Rest of plugs normal.
I did a compression check and that #1 cylinder was 78/80, just the same
as last year's compression on that cylinder.
An A&P/IA looked at it and thought perhaps my ring gaps had rotated to
line up, allowing oil to pass. I had just flown and everything was
normal, including run up. Operation on either set of plugs was smooth
and I didn't see anything odd.
Lycoming 0-320, 160 HP, 400 hrs on major overhaul.
Any ideas/thoughts?
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
I ordered a gallon of each a, b and c and a gallon of seal #2. Judging
by what I have used so far I think that amount will probably run out
somewhere in the middle to the end of the wings (I'm working on the emp
kit of a 10 now). They (sanchem) said that the products have an
indefinite shelf life as long as a+b aren't mixed. If a+b are mixed
then its good for about a day, so I usually just mix up what I think I
am going to use.
James.
brad(at)rv7factory.com wrote:
>
>I am heading up to Van's on Thursday for the tour and demo ride... I
>plan on ordering my RV-7 tail kit while there. Anywhoo... the recent
>discussions about Sanchem's products have made me very interested in it
>as a form of Conversion Coating, specifically as a way to avoid
>storing/using toxic chemical and dealing with the waste.
>
>I called Sanchem for pricing info, but my question is, how much of this
>stuff are you guys ordering? Gallon of each (A, B & C)?
>
>Regards,
>Brad Oliver
>Livermore, CA
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Don't be surprised if you glance up from the lounge chair at your local
FBO and see some guys wearing Groucho Marx masks piling out of RV's with
the N-numbers covered with NASCAR decals......
It'll just be part of the north Alabama gang making an attempt to
confuse anybody trying to smear our already questionable reputations via
the RAR-VEE list.
Sam Buchanan (that's not my real name, though)
P.S. In all seriousness, I appreciate the clarification. I am still
struggling with the intent of the original message, however.
=================================
Finn Lassen wrote:
>
> I'm going to owe you on this one. Brian wasn't there today and I'd be a
> while before I can get back there.
>
> I was able to ask the flight instructor (Stefanie) that was talking to
> St Pete Tower. Yes, they did violate St Pete airspace and no, Tower did
> not call the FBO. The FBO took the N-numbers because a neigbor called.
> Stefanie guessed that because it was relatively quiet that day the Tower
> "let it go".
>
> Gary, I appreciate you getting the other side of the story for me. At
> least I now know who to watch for at the airpark regarding reliability
> of data.
>
> Another line boy today told me "not true, we welcome RV's here", when I
> mentioned that the flight school owner has said that they were not
> welcome back.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
Having known Finn for a while, I'd bet that the original intent was as
written, not as mis-read & over-reacted to by several folks. The subject
line ended with a question mark, not a period. The body of the message
stated that allegations had been made by non-pilot neighbors, employees
at the airport, and the FAA. It stated that there were ongoing problems
between neighbors & users of that airport. It seemed clear to me that
the posting was an attempt to get the 'other side' of the story from the
pilots involved. It also seemed clear to me that he recognized the
reality that pilots are in the extreme minority in this country & due to
current government propaganda to hide its incompetence, we could easily
be driven out of flying by overwhelming negative public opinion leading
to more government restrictions. (ok, maybe that was overstating it a bit.)
It's worth noting that at least one of the allegations might be
literally true (airspace violation) which could lead to others being
given more consideration by the FAA and grumpy neighbors. The obvious
net result of all this is the potential for more hassle for those using
the airpark. It's worth remembering that there are very few real
'rights' left in this country. The use of land as an airport is at the
whim of various governments involved in controlling land use.
If I had been in Finn's position, I'd have probably asked the same
questions.
Charlie
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>Don't be surprised if you glance up from the lounge chair at your local
>FBO and see some guys wearing Groucho Marx masks piling out of RV's with
>the N-numbers covered with NASCAR decals......
>
>It'll just be part of the north Alabama gang making an attempt to
>confuse anybody trying to smear our already questionable reputations via
>the RAR-VEE list.
>
>Sam Buchanan (that's not my real name, though)
>
>P.S. In all seriousness, I appreciate the clarification. I am still
>struggling with the intent of the original message, however.
>
>=================================
>
>
>Finn Lassen wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I'm going to owe you on this one. Brian wasn't there today and I'd be a
>>while before I can get back there.
>>
>>I was able to ask the flight instructor (Stefanie) that was talking to
>>St Pete Tower. Yes, they did violate St Pete airspace and no, Tower did
>>not call the FBO. The FBO took the N-numbers because a neigbor called.
>>Stefanie guessed that because it was relatively quiet that day the Tower
>>"let it go".
>>
>>Gary, I appreciate you getting the other side of the story for me. At
>>least I now know who to watch for at the airpark regarding reliability
>>of data.
>>
>>Another line boy today told me "not true, we welcome RV's here", when I
>>mentioned that the flight school owner has said that they were not
>>welcome back.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net> |
John,
I think it's more likely that the oil ran out around a valve stem after the
engine stopped. It just stopped in the right place to allow it to happen.
The idea of the ring gaps lining up is possible, but I think the oil would
have to run slightly uphill to get on the plug. Or have so much oil in there
that it came up to that level.
As long as the mags continue to check good and your oil consumption is
normal I wouldn't worry about it.
I'd bet the next time you pull the plug the oil won't be there.
Just my thoughts.
Mark Burns
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Subject: RV-List: Oil on Plug
Here one for engine experts...I began my annual condition inspection
today and pulled the plugs to replace them and do a compression check.
All looked normal except the bottom plug on #1 cylinder...it had FRESH
oil that filled the depression where the electrodes are...upper plug
normal. Rest of plugs normal.
I did a compression check and that #1 cylinder was 78/80, just the same
as last year's compression on that cylinder.
An A&P/IA looked at it and thought perhaps my ring gaps had rotated to
line up, allowing oil to pass. I had just flown and everything was
normal, including run up. Operation on either set of plugs was smooth
and I didn't see anything odd.
Lycoming 0-320, 160 HP, 400 hrs on major overhaul.
Any ideas/thoughts?
John at Salida, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A Bigger Better ePanel Builder?? |
YOU HAVE A GREAT PROGRAM AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS TO SHARE IT.
ONE THING THAT WOULD BE A BIG HELP TO ME, SINCE I AM NOT A COMPUTER
PERSON........WOULD BE IF IT COULD BE FIXED SO THAT WE DON'T GET THE LOCK UP AND
HAVE
TO GO IN TO THE BOWELS OF THE PUTER TO FIX IT. I CAN'T DO IT SO HAVE TO FIND
SOMEONE TO COME FIX IT FOR ME. I DO ENJOY IT AND HOPE TO USE IT SOON TO
WORK ON OUR 10 PANEL.
THANKS
REGARDS,
DOUG PRESTON
RV7A N731RV
RV10 - TAILCONE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Bigger Better ePanel Builder?? |
On 05/09 2:24, Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> To tell you the truth, I just spent a half-hour with your site building Panel
> Candidate #1 and found it really great.
>
> But, two niceties that would make it better:
>
> 1) Some sort of "snap-to-grid" feature that auto-aligns components.
>
> 2) A Save button that will save the panel locally as a .jpg, instead of having
> to copy/paste to Paint or whatever.
Hi Bill,
I found your site very useful when designing/destroying my panel. The one
item that was challenging was to 'precisely' place items on the panel, especially
if there was any close interferance issues. Snap to grid and a larger on-screen
panel
area might help.
Now how about having the panel *rotate* in the 'Z' axis so we can see
the depth of the instruments, and any interferance issues with the subpanel.
Ok, now for the real "wannahave". How about providing a nice CAD drawing
of the cutouts once the design is complete :)
It's a great site and it will be hard to make better, but I'm sure you will.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
Thanks Michael for the link. Under the page for SAFEGUARD CC it states "
SafeGard CC aluminum pretreatment provides excellent corrosion resistance
without paint. Simple cleaning, or all other chrome-free pretreatment
systems, leaves the metal open to corrosion." They also state "Are there
time restraints on painting after pretreatment? NO, you may paint right
after pretreatment and drying or a year or more later."
So, I think I may give this a try. I'd like to use this on the metal under
the cowling and for the inside (an outside) of the push tubes, both ailerons
and elevator, with out further painting.
Hey Marty,
The answer is that this is a conversion coating, so it is about two or three
molecules thick and needs to be protected with either their clear sealer or
a
traditional primer.
Here is the link:
http://www.sanchem.com/
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Hi John,
My factory-new O-320 had exactly the same happen at its first 100 hourly
inspection, except it was on the bottom plug of cylinder #4. We pulled the
top plug on the same cylinder and it was perfect, so it obviously was not a
problem with the cylinder, and the engine hardly uses any oil between
changes. It was suggested that the valve guide may be dropping a small
amount of oil directly onto the lower plug at shutdown, but I am open to any
other suggestions.....
Martin in Oz
RV6
_____
<http://promos.hotbar.com/promos/promodll.dll?RunPromo&El&SG&RAND8424&par
tnerfastutility> Block Spam Emails - Click here!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
> Each of us....consider how we would feel (and how will the pilots
> involved feel after they return from their island vacation?) if the tail
> number of our plane had been broadcast on the list as was done to the
> "rude?" pilots before we had a chance to explain/defend/refute/accept
> our actions.
I would quite simply slice my wrists. What could there possibly be to live for
if
people I never met thought I might be rude for possibly doing something that might
have
offended someone who bought a house right next to an airport and then complained
about
the noise? Oh thank you Jesus that this has never happened to me, or I would be
living
out my life as a monk in Tibet, praying for the forgiveness of whiners the world
over
and striving to save every earthworm I could find. Well either that or I would
laugh
and get out the map to plan my next trip.
:-) Hehehe. Is it Monday already? Ok, who took off with my weekend? I got robbed.
Charlie Kuss is probably still sipping fruity drinks on his balcony with that marine
corps hippie guy and here I am working like a slave. It's criminal I tell ya.
Bill
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Conversion Coating and Priming with Sanchem |
Hi Brad
Welcome to RV land. I ordered a gallon each. I can see that the cleaner
(part C) will run out first. I suspect I will get through the wings with the two
gallons of A+B that I have. so, I would say to start with a gallon and each
and see how it goes.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
You know, that is a question I have asked myself numerous times. Why don't
we put an effective muffler on our planes? Is it a weight issue? Would the
muffler degrade the engine performance that much? Any aeronautical engineers
out there know the answer?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>You know, that is a question I have asked myself numerous times. Why don't
>we put an effective muffler on our planes? Is it a weight issue? Would the
>muffler degrade the engine performance that much? Any aeronautical engineers
>out there know the answer?
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV-8, Empennage
>San Ramon, California
>
>
>
>
Most of the noise you hear from an aircraft flying overheard is prop noise.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | More O-360 Questions |
| From: | "" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
All, I am trying to finalize the options for my planned O-360, and I had a few
questions I was needing help to understand: 1) I have a FP prop, but I understand
it is possible to set the engine up for a CS (then plug it for FP)? I want
the ability to easily upgrade to CS prop in the future if possible. What does
the $500 adder that Mattituck charges for CS engine consist of? 2) I noticed
the option for horizontal (cold-air induction) on the IO models. Is it not
possible to do horizontal induction with the O-360? How much does that generally
add to the basic cost of the engine (Aerosport or Mattituck)? 3) Will all
of the "regular" O-360s (Aersport, Mattituck, Superior, etc.) use the Dynafocal
#1 mount? Are there percieved advantages of one mount vs the other? I would
also be intersted in talking off-line with anyone who has done the Sam James
cowl. I am curious about the deletions required for the finish kit order. Thanks,Scott7A
Waiting for Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
7.50 BARRACUDA_HEADER_FP56 RBL: Blacklist bl.spamcop
[Blocked - see <http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?68.217.221.11>]
Dan,
Great effort and research, pretty slick how your filtered setup worked
so well. One other thought is based on an experience with my first
airplane, a Q-2/200. A friend of mine experimented with the ram air aspects
as all the engines were set up that way with some very creative filters (a
t-shirt for example). One thing guys tried was varying lengths of the inlet
with the focus being on how close to the prop you should get. The closer
you got, the better the performance and the impression was you got a bit of
a turbo-type boost as the prop went buy. The next step was to align the
prop so you would get the most benefit of the pressure and that was based on
trying to get a blade past the inlet about the time an intake valve was
about to open. Far from an exact science, but some guys seemed to have
pretty good success with it.
Marcus
RV-10, tailcone well on it's way, QB on the ocean
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Bigger Better ePanel Builder?? |
On 05/09 7:57, Walter Tondu wrote:
>
> On 05/09 2:24, Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> >
> > To tell you the truth, I just spent a half-hour with your site building Panel
> > Candidate #1 and found it really great.
> >
> > But, two niceties that would make it better:
> >
> > 1) Some sort of "snap-to-grid" feature that auto-aligns components.
> >
> > 2) A Save button that will save the panel locally as a .jpg, instead of having
> > to copy/paste to Paint or whatever.
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> I found your site very useful when designing/destroying my panel. The one
> item that was challenging was to 'precisely' place items on the panel, especially
> if there was any close interferance issues. Snap to grid and a larger on-screen
panel
> area might help.
>
> Now how about having the panel *rotate* in the 'Z' axis so we can see
> the depth of the instruments, and any interferance issues with the subpanel.
'X' axis. I guess this depends upon which planet you come from...
> Ok, now for the real "wannahave". How about providing a nice CAD drawing
> of the cutouts once the design is complete :)
>
> It's a great site and it will be hard to make better, but I'm sure you will.
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Dimple Dies-regular vs. springback |
I think the extra cost of springback dies is miney well spent. I used them
on our RV-4 and my neighbor used regular. We both riveted together on both
planes and ours is very much smoother than his. We back-riveted on both
fuselages and it really shows up there.
I think I got mine from Bob Avery.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Our European colleagues have been dealing with aircraft noise issues for
many years and have considerable experience with improved (quieter) muffler
systems.
Perhaps some of our European readers can provide some www links to local
muffler suppliers.
Here is one link, ironically to an item from Tony Bingelis's "Firewall
Forward".
http://www.piteraq.dk/flight/muffler.html
Jim Oke
Wpg, MB
RV-6A, RV-3
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
> You know, that is a question I have asked myself numerous times. Why
> don't
> we put an effective muffler on our planes? Is it a weight issue? Would
> the
> muffler degrade the engine performance that much? Any aeronautical
> engineers
> out there know the answer?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
The owner of N628PV gave myself and fellow RV-7 builder Dave Hollingsworth
rides out of Clearwater Airpark this past Friday afternoon (day before all
the excitement). I had never met Paul before but he is one of the most
gracious persons I have had the pleasure to know and most professional in
all his actions when flying the RV. He was very considerate of the noise
issue, very careful about NOT busting Tampa's class B airspace and very
careful about flying the proper pattern when landing at Clearwater. We went
out over the gulf to have our fun and were never below 2500 feet MSL during
that time. I suspect that it was the noise of 5 un-muffled RVs taking off
that made the neighbors upset. So they probably called St. Pete tower to
complain and St. Pete called CLW to find out what was going on. I don't
believe for a minute that any of those RV folks did anything to create this
uproar (if one of them did mess up I'm sure it was accidental, there's just
too much experience there). Thanks for the E-ticket Paul and I hope you and
Victoria have a great vacation in spite of all this.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Tarpon Sprgs, FL
----Original Message Follows----
From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Rude RVers?
Apparently the following RVers visited Clearwater Airpark (CLW) today:
N699JB, N99PZ, N515L, N695LS and N628PV.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
> ... Community outreach is one solution, quieter airplanes is
> another. There was an interesting question from a potential student
> pilot in a British aviation magazine I read, "Why do I have to wear
> the aircraft muffler on my head instead of it being on the airplane?"
Good mufflers will go a long way towards making airplanes quieter,
but there does not seem to be much research into this area. If
anyone knows of some, I'm very interested in finding it.
Here in Switzerland, many airports charge landing fees based on
the MTOW and the "noise classification" of the airplane. They
are doing this in a probably vain attempt at keeping the airports
open. Having a quiet airplane can save you a lot of money per
landing, and usually will pay for itself in a couple of days of
doing touch and gos. The fees can get quite expensive.
The normal way people here quiet down their airplane is with a
big honkin' glasspack, a.k.a. the "Swiss muffler". They do work,
but they are heavy, not too easy to install, and they sit out in
the air stream. I was chatting with a couple of guys trying to
find a way to put one on their Ercoupe just this Sunday. It can
be difficult to mount these rascals.
The other issue is, of course, prop noise. Everyone knows that
long blades spinning fast can approach or exceed supersonic
velocities, which makes a lot of racket. Recently at SNF some
of the airshow guys thought that it would be great to make a
lot of noise, and were constantly overspeeding their props.
Everyone around was really annoyed by the excess noise, and
you know this crowd is pretty partial to airplanes.
The solution to prop noise is pretty well known, and that's
simply reduce the tip speed of the prop. This can be done
with some of those levers in the cockpit, and of course having
a shorter prop (3-blade, for example) makes it easier. Many
of the glider towing airplanes here have huge mufflers, and
tiny 4-blade props to keep the noise down, and it really works.
Yes, they are sacrificing some performance, but from the
testing I've seen on the modern 3-blade props, you don't seem
to lose much at all, if any.
I have communicated with AOPA on this issue to see why they
don't put any emphasis on the quieter airplane when they are
discussing airport complaints and closures. All the answers
I have received are basically saying that they don't want to
open up that can of worms. If they start promoting mufflers
and quieter props, then the people trying to get the airports
closed will use that as a club to beat us. It makes sense,
but does not really solve the problem.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Mufflers on Rv's |
It never ceases to amase me how one can ask a question about a problem and get
maybe one response at best, but something like the rude RV'rs bings dozens of
replys, reposts, posturing, and turmoil. :-) As to noise, we are right up there
with the older jets. First time I heard a 6a with 180 fire up, my first thought
was, man that guy needs a new muffler!, suprise, suprise, NO muffler. ( I
got arrested for not haveing one on my 42 ford when I was a kid). I guess it
would cause loss of performance to have one, as would require bigger cowl, and
reduce poweroutput some. I can and do fly without headphones comfortably, when
not needed, in my cherokee, but try it in my 150hp 6a, Nyet! Nein! Uhuh! Charlie
heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Bibb" <rebibb(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
In one of the Tony Bingelis' books he describes a "European" muffler that is
purported to allow experimental aircraft to meet some claimed some tough
European country noise standards. As I recall it is a coaxial tube
arrangement that runs almost the length of the fuselage and was shown being
mounted along the centerline under the fuselage of some sort of homebuilt
design.
I think the reason you don't see any such muffler is the weight and
performance penalty. You can't build one without robbing some performance
and adding weight. The newer RVs (6,7,8,9,10) have more room under the
cowling than the orignal designs (3,4) that are very tight with their
cowlings and would make it vey hard to fabicate any sort of convential
muffler under the cowling. In any event, any sort of muffler design is
goning to add weight and cut power to some extent but, again with the newer
designs such as the 7 and 10 the goal seems to be shifting from absolute
performance and efficiency to a more complete corss-country and in many
cases fully IFR capable platform so such creature comforts as muffled engine
sound might make more sense, not to mention the airport friendly advantages.
Maybe some inventive person will start making one and offering it for sale
to this ever-growing community.
I forget which Bingelis book it was - 'Firewall Forward' perhaps - but I was
always intrigued by the nature of the muffler design. I remember seeing
some sort of reconisaise aircarft taht was Lycoming ppowered and looked
sorta like a mini U2 type thing in some museum tha thad a long muffler
running external to the fuselage so the key to getting reallly quiet is
probably something similar. In order to perserve the looks of the plane the
fuselage would have to be modified to "hide the thing somewhat which, addes
weight, complexity, and would likely not be considered worht the trouble
unless some severe noise restrictions are enacted here. Perhaps some reader
will know more about the so-called European muffler and the noise
restrictions it is supposed to tame and can add some enlightenment.
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
> You know, that is a question I have asked myself numerous times. Why
don't
> we put an effective muffler on our planes? Is it a weight issue? Would
the
> muffler degrade the engine performance that much? Any aeronautical
engineers
> out there know the answer?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
http://www.customaircraft.com/systems.html
Try this site for mufflers and exhaust systems fir experimentals...
Darrell
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
You know, that is a question I have asked myself numerous times. Why don't
we put an effective muffler on our planes? Is it a weight issue? Would the
muffler degrade the engine performance that much? Any aeronautical engineers
out there know the answer?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OFF THE TOPIC: Young Eagle Credits |
| From: | "Nightingale Michael" <NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com> |
"RV-9 LIST (RV-9 LIST)"
FILETIME=[8811EFC0:01C55562]
Our EAA chapter is sending three young men (we sent two young ladies
last year) to the Advanced Aviation Air Academy during Airventure. If
anyone has any YOUNG EAGLE CREDITS that are not spoken for PLEASE
contact me OFF the list. In the last six year EAA Chapter 75 and the
QCAA (Quad City Airmen's Association) has sent 12 young to the Air
Academy. PLEASE help us continue introducing young people to General
Aviation. This is the only thing the YOUNG EAGLE CREDITS can be used
for; to help pay up to half the tuition for each attendee.
Thank You
Michael V. Nightingale
@ DEERE & Co. Computer Center
400 19th ST
MOLINE, IL. 61265
309-314-6806 cell NightingaleMichaelV(at)JohnDeere.com
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Here is a simple way to keep an engine quiet. EI causes all the combustion
to take place in the combustion chamber where it belongs. An aircraft
engine with one EI at idle is very quiet compared to mags. Although I have
not heard a EI equipped plane take off that I know of, I can only imagine
it is quieter. With the prop, a smaller dia helps. I went with a 3 blade
WW151 prop, it is very quiet, and many people have commented about the
sound of my plane on take off, much quieter than all others with no mufflers!!
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Rude RVers |
The following is a copy of an email that I was asked to forward to the
RV-List. I have already shot my wad on this subject and have nothing
further to add so please direct any responses about this post directly
to Mr. Coggin, not me.
Sam Buchanan
======================================
Sam,
I am not a member of the Matronics RV list but monitor it. Would you
please forward this email to the list? I have sent the same to one Finn
Lassen. Thanks.
Tom Coggin
motniggo(at)localnet.com
----------
Dear Finn Lassen,
I know all of the owners and pilots of the named aircraft in your post
to the Matronics RV list as I flew with them to the Turks and Caicos a
year or so ago. None of them were rude or inconsiderate on that trip. On
that trip I saw all of them experience delays and excessive paperwork
with patience and courtesy. One of the group was once very plainspoken
but when he expressed his forthright opinion about the price of a taxi
ride in the Bahamas, I was in complete agreement with him. Even then he
was not rude to the taxi driver.
All of them are careful and safe pilots. I would fly in formation or
with anyone of them. None of them are "HOTDOGS". If this trip was
handled as the one I was on, it was extremely well planned and
researched. They would certainly have known of and complied with the
proper traffic patterns at planned refueling stops.
I am sure it will come as a shock to them when they return from their
trip to learn that they had insulted or inconviencied anyone.
I am a little disturbed by your post on the RV list which is widely read
in the RV community. Your posting of tail numbers after hearing only one
side of the controversy is (in my opinion) at least inconsiderate of the
owners of those airplanes. RV's having become more numerous and often
flown in groups seem to invite the ire of others more so than regular
certified aircraft which do not as often travel in groups. Flying as a
group is perfectly legal and proper and honored by the FAA but is
unusual in the eyes of the non flying public but is widely practiced in
my part of the country by RVers.
Tom Coggin, RV6 N112WA
(256) 775-0383
motniggo(at)localnet.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Williams" <kevinsky18(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question |
Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
He has some great products and I'm tempted to believe that his ram air
induction might work a touch better then the standard open inlet.
here is a quote from his product site.
"Extensive flight-testing has shown increases in excess of 2 of Manifold
Pressure Recovery at 1,500 and 1" of Manifold Pressure Recovery at 10,000.
These increases are improvements compared to Vans snorkel type induction
(not the rhino horn induction)."
There is actually a full page write up on it on his web site.
kev
From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RV-List: RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 18:21:14 -0400 7.50 BARRACUDA_HEADER_FP56 RBL:
Blacklist bl.spamcop [Blocked - see
<http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?68.217.221.11>]
Dan,
Great effort and research, pretty slick how your filtered setup worked
so well. One other thought is based on an experience with my first
airplane, a Q-2/200. A friend of mine experimented with the ram air aspects
as all the engines were set up that way with some very creative filters (a
t-shirt for example). One thing guys tried was varying lengths of the inlet
with the focus being on how close to the prop you should get. The closer
you got, the better the performance and the impression was you got a bit of
a turbo-type boost as the prop went buy. The next step was to align the
prop so you would get the most benefit of the pressure and that was based on
trying to get a blade past the inlet about the time an intake valve was
about to open. Far from an exact science, but some guys seemed to have
pretty good success with it.
Marcus
RV-10, tailcone well on it's way, QB on the ocean
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Sources for electrical system design |
Now that I've decided on priming, manual vs. electrical trim (agonizing),
engine/prop (Mattituck or Aerosports O-320 with 3-blade Catto), and a working
version of my panel (subject to change), I want to tackle designing the
electrical system for my aircraft in the remaining 6 weeks or so I have before
I can start construction.
I'm not asking any specific questions, just looking for good references to
study. I'm nearly certain I want a single-alt dual-batt system but I need to
decide on things like alternator output, battery brand/size, and come up with
an actual wiring diagram. Am also looking for general tips on electrical
work.. I'm no electrician. I can solder and crimp, but that's about it. (When
I was a kid I once connected the ends of a bare cord to a nail and then plugged
it in a wall socket. I would recommend against this.)
So, if there are some great references out there (websites, books) talking
'bout electrical systems for experimentals in general, and especially RVs, with
emphasis on dual-bus systems for all-electric IFR setups, please shoot them my
way. TIA.
~Paul
~RV-9A QB ordered
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Is it really true that many RVs have NO muffler?? Surely a muffler is part of
Van's FWF kits. I realize they are not very effective mufflers, but they're
mufflers.. just like the stacks on most certified AC. The RVs I have heard are
no louder than the average 172. Am I missing something??
--- Darrell Reiley wrote:
>
> http://www.customaircraft.com/systems.html
>
>
> Try this site for mufflers and exhaust systems fir experimentals...
>
> Darrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Scott ...
what is a WW151 prop and do you have a link to their site?
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
7a shop building
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> I went with a 3 blade
> WW151 prop, it is very quiet, and many people have commented about the
> sound of my plane on take off, much quieter than all others with no
> mufflers!!
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
Quoting Paul Folbrecht :
> So, if there are some great references out there (websites, books) talking
> 'bout electrical systems for experimentals in general, and especially
http://www.aeroelectric.com/
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the |
question
Be careful with those numbers, I belive Jon's new plane is turbo normalized
and am not sure it that is taken into account.
>
>Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
>Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
>
>He has some great products and I'm tempted to believe that his ram air
>induction might work a touch better then the standard open inlet.
>
>here is a quote from his product site.
>
>"Extensive flight-testing has shown increases in excess of 2 of Manifold
>Pressure Recovery at 1,500 and 1" of Manifold Pressure Recovery at 10,000.
>These increases are improvements compared to Vans snorkel type induction
>(not the rhino horn induction)."
>
>There is actually a full page write up on it on his web site.
>
>kev
>
>
>From: "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the question
>Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 18:21:14 -0400 7.50 BARRACUDA_HEADER_FP56 RBL:
>Blacklist bl.spamcop [Blocked - see
><http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?68.217.221.11>]
>
>
>Dan,
>
> Great effort and research, pretty slick how your filtered setup worked
>so well. One other thought is based on an experience with my first
>airplane, a Q-2/200. A friend of mine experimented with the ram air aspects
>as all the engines were set up that way with some very creative filters (a
>t-shirt for example). One thing guys tried was varying lengths of the inlet
>with the focus being on how close to the prop you should get. The closer
>you got, the better the performance and the impression was you got a bit of
>a turbo-type boost as the prop went buy. The next step was to align the
>prop so you would get the most benefit of the pressure and that was based on
>trying to get a blade past the inlet about the time an intake valve was
>about to open. Far from an exact science, but some guys seemed to have
>pretty good success with it.
>
>
>Marcus
>
>RV-10, tailcone well on it's way, QB on the ocean
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
http://www.aeroelectric.com
Buy the book, read it cover to cover, and make up your own mind about
architecture. FWIW, I used Z-11 and Bob's techniques on my RV-7, and it has
been rock solid in the electrons dept.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Folbrecht" <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Sources for electrical system design
>
> Now that I've decided on priming, manual vs. electrical trim (agonizing),
> engine/prop (Mattituck or Aerosports O-320 with 3-blade Catto), and a
working
> version of my panel (subject to change), I want to tackle designing the
> electrical system for my aircraft in the remaining 6 weeks or so I have
before
> I can start construction.
>
> I'm not asking any specific questions, just looking for good references to
> study. I'm nearly certain I want a single-alt dual-batt system but I need
to
> decide on things like alternator output, battery brand/size, and come up
with
> an actual wiring diagram. Am also looking for general tips on electrical
> work.. I'm no electrician. I can solder and crimp, but that's about it.
(When
> I was a kid I once connected the ends of a bare cord to a nail and then
plugged
> it in a wall socket. I would recommend against this.)
>
> So, if there are some great references out there (websites, books) talking
> 'bout electrical systems for experimentals in general, and especially RVs,
with
> emphasis on dual-bus systems for all-electric IFR setups, please shoot
them my
> way. TIA.
>
> ~Paul
> ~RV-9A QB ordered
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
The AeroElectric thread on this list server - along with
AeroElectric.com.
Here's a link to a date sorted view:
http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list/date.html
Get Bob Nuckolls book - he's just updated it (Version 11).
Some tips: (worth what you paid for it :-)
A 40A alternator will handle an all electric IFR airplane - even with
electronic ignition (is that why you want 2 batteries?). I'm planning
on a couple of Odyssey PC625 batteries (I'm using an electrically
dependent Subaru engine).
I'm also going with electric trim (not too much agonizing). Your panel
will constantly change because new stuff is always coming out!!
Dennis Glaeser
Starting an RV-7A in July
-----------------------------------------
Subject: Sources for electrical system design
From: Paul Folbrecht
Now that I've decided on priming, manual vs. electrical trim
(agonizing),
engine/prop (Mattituck or Aerosports O-320 with 3-blade Catto), and a
working
version of my panel (subject to change), I want to tackle designing the
electrical system for my aircraft in the remaining 6 weeks or so I have
before
I can start construction.
I'm not asking any specific questions, just looking for good references
to
study. I'm nearly certain I want a single-alt dual-batt system but I
need to
decide on things like alternator output, battery brand/size, and come up
with
an actual wiring diagram. Am also looking for general tips on
electrical
work.. I'm no electrician. I can solder and crimp, but that's about it.
(When
I was a kid I once connected the ends of a bare cord to a nail and then
plugged
it in a wall socket. I would recommend against this.)
So, if there are some great references out there (websites, books)
talking
'bout electrical systems for experimentals in general, and especially
RVs, with
emphasis on dual-bus systems for all-electric IFR setups, please shoot
them my
way. TIA.
~Paul
~RV-9A QB ordered
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes |
http://www.whirlwindaviation.com/
The WW 151 is a very smooth and quiet prop.
>
>Scott ...
>what is a WW151 prop and do you have a link to their site?
>Regards ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre
>7a shop building
>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
>
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> > I went with a 3 blade
> > WW151 prop, it is very quiet, and many people have commented about the
> > sound of my plane on take off, much quieter than all others with no
> > mufflers!!
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Dimple Dies-regular vs. springback |
At the risk of asking a really stupid question, what is the difference?
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Most RV's have no mufflers at all... not a Van's norm...
Folbrecht
Is it really true that many RVs have NO muffler?? Surely a muffler is part of
Van's FWF kits. I realize they are not very effective mufflers, but they're
mufflers.. just like the stacks on most certified AC. The RVs I have heard are
no louder than the average 172. Am I missing something??
--- Darrell Reiley
wrote:
>
> http://www.customaircraft.com/systems.html
>
>
> Try this site for mufflers and exhaust systems fir experimentals...
>
> Darrell
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
On 05/10 11:17, Stephanie Marshall wrote:
>
> I am not an Oklahoma gal, I am an Oregonian born and bred :-) BTW where is Brown't
Tools, do they have a web site?
http://www.browntool.com
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
A couple of quick points:
Noise:
RVs (and other straight no muffler airplanes) are louder. That is OK since we climb
so fast and move so fast the effect to Mr & Mrs. Joe Public is not real bad.
Just be aware we are louder than you think. Our European brothers and sisters
have to add 4-5 feet long "swiss mufflers". to reduce noise. Any builder can
reduce noise but it will cost you a little added weight, a loss of a few MPH,
a few less HP and a less than attractive tube extending under the belly. I
have a 4 into 1 exhaust with a 2.25" collector. I am thinking of a removable 21"
stainless 4" diameter stainless steel racing muffler extending back past the
firewall on the centerline of the belly. I could extend the cowl exit aft to
cover it and maybe get a little "augment-or" action, which improves cooling
and will hide the muffler. Since the "tuned" length of a Lycoming is in 18.5"-21"
interval lengths, the racing muffler should produce min back-pressure and
could actually improve exhaust scavenging.
Mistakes Happen
If you say you never have flown into airspace that you should not have, you have
not been flying very long or you have never figured out you already have, probably
many times. (Thank you GPS with airspace warning.)
"Formation Flight" and "180 Overhead Break approach":
A group of RV's fly formation and like to land in formation. They are friends of
mine and I flew with them on occasion. They were all retired and flew often.
When their activities came under attack from the general pilot community at the
airport, they were dumbfounded that anyone should complain. Their usual activity,
formation landings are: in trail formation, idle power (with back-fires),
"180 Break" approach abeam the numbers, steep continuous bank descending 180
turn to landing. Each RV lands within say 10-15 seconds. The "short approach",
back-fire, from abruptly going to Idle power and 4 plus planes at once was
not popular with all. They were pissing off the airport general population, but
were oblivious, and because of their previous airline or military experience
they justified it is the safest way to land a group of airplanes in minimum time.
That is true, but I tried to explain they (we) needed to fit into the pattern.
The Airman's Info Manual (AIM) shows 45, downwi
nd,
base, final to landing patterns. The 180 overhead landing is not standard. I do
formation flying, takeoff, approach and landing, including 180 overheads, however
you have to be aware that you will startle other pilots and folks on the
ground with mass arrivals and military patterns. Some bystanders love it, and
my RV buddies think everyone should love the show. They don't all love it. May
be it is jealousy, but just be sensitive to that. Also this could be actionable
by the FAA. Patterns are not specified by the FARs except "all turns must
be made to the left unless noted otherwise." However US Government Vs. Joe Pilot,
in appeals court, has shown the AIM, which is not regulations, does show a
standard pattern and has been upheld as de-facto law. Meaning pilots not flying
the pattern per the AIM can get the FAA shaft. If the pattern is clear, no
one around and you are over flying rural unpopulated areas, make formation 180
break overhead landings all day, but if the pattern
is full,
I would kindly suggest you knock it off.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Uneven RV6 bottom cowl |
| From: | <Clay.Killion(at)infineon.com> |
Hi Listers....
A friend who mounted the cowling on his almost completed RV6... noticed
the bottom cowl contour curves not matching exactly.
The bottom right (passenger side) contour seems to bow down a bit
further towards the ground than on the left side. However it does
match up even at the firewall area and close to the spinner. Darn thing
just looks ' swollen' in between those two area's.
I'm building an RV6 too ... I checked and my lower cowl does the same
thing.... same side. It's a notice-able when looking head on
and I'll probably be cutting into it to even things up best I can.
These cowlings are known for needing reshaping but I hadn't heard of
this one nor found anything in the archives about it. Any RV6,7 or 9
builders
with the same problem on the O360 RV bottom cowl? Wondering if someone
had addressed this problem already with a workable solution?
Thanks everybody,
Clay - RV6 finish kit (almost)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
Just came across this a few minutes ago, Just an FYI:
http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=528
*Marathon Oil Warns Pilots Using Auto Gas in West Virginia.*
Safety and Warnings
<http://planenews.com/modules.php?name=News&new_topic=52>Marathon
Ashland Petroleum officials are warning pilots in West Virginia, and
parts of Ohio and Kentucky, who use 87 or 89 octane auto fuel in their
aircraft that the company has detected the presence of foreign materials
in some of that fuel. Pilots using auto fuel in airplanes in those areas
are asked to call 800-892-3418.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
www.whirlwindpropellers
You will find information here...
Darrell Reiley
Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
Scott ...
what is a WW151 prop and do you have a link to their site?
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre
7a shop building
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
> I went with a 3 blade
> WW151 prop, it is very quiet, and many people have commented about the
> sound of my plane on take off, much quieter than all others with no
> mufflers!!
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Jim,
Vetterman has a muffler system for the RV. I think I will order
one for my RV9. He states it will make very little difference inside but
much better on the outside.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
Wow, that's quite a bit. Is this the max draw configuration, ie. pitot
heat, landing lights, microwave oven all on at once? If so how much do
you draw under normal flying conditions?
Jeff Point
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>I draw 48 amps, IFR all electric rv.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re:Dimple Dies-regular vs. springback |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Whenever you form sheet metal, you can't just bend it exactly to the
desired angle because it 'springs back' a bit. The amount depends on
material, thickness, bend radius, bend angle, (there are tables for
this) ... Tooling designers take this into account and add a springback
angle to the tooling surfaces where flanges are formed - you overbend
the flange by the springback angle and the result is a flange bent to
the angle you intended to get.
I figured that all dimple dies already had this built-in, but then I saw
that suppliers had 'spring-back' dimple dies, in addition to the
'regular' ones. I guess in general, dimples are small enough, and
typically done with enough force (hammer, squeezer) that the metal
doesn't spring back enough to matter. But apparently someone decided to
make a better mousetrap. I was wondering if the difference is
noticeable, and a couple of people have said yes.
(BTW - the only dumb questions are the ones you DON'T ask :-)
Dennis Glaeser
----
Subject: Re: Re:Dimple Dies-regular vs. springback
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
At the risk of asking a really stupid question, what is the difference?
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
> Some tips: (worth what you paid for it :-)
> A 40A alternator will handle an all electric IFR airplane - even with
> electronic ignition (is that why you want 2 batteries?). I'm planning
I'm planning LASAR ignition. Maybe it's silly, but a battery-dependent engine
just makes me a tad nervous. I like the LASAR solution of having old-fashioned
mags underneath.
Two batts is because I will have an all-electric IFR aircraft. I want two
separate busses with my IFR backup instruments and avionics on the 2nd bus with
its own battery.
> on a couple of Odyssey PC625 batteries (I'm using an electrically
> dependent Subaru engine).
> I'm also going with electric trim (not too much agonizing). Your panel
> will constantly change because new stuff is always coming out!!
I don't know about that. I'm going with the GRT EFIS in part because it's
*not* brand-new and it's proven. Same goes for the TT AP. If a new company
comes along, I'm not going with their product, no matter how good it
sounds/looks, until plenty of others have been flying with it for a year+.
That's not going to unfold in the next 1-2 years.
As for avionics, really doesn't change that fast. I may well go with a GNS 430
instead of the 300XL if prices drop or refurbished units become available, but
that's about it. Don't see my SL-30 nav/com, Garmin 327 xponder, or PSE audio
panel being superseded in the next year either. If they are, though, with a
better unit at the same price range, that doesn't really change the panel much.
I don't see many major innovations coming in the way of my backup analog ASI,
alt, or electric TC, either. ;->
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared3(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
> The 180 overhead landing is not standard. I do formation flying,
> takeoff, approach and landing, including 180 overheads, however you have
> to be aware that you will startle other pilots and folks on the ground
> with mass arrivals and military patterns. Some bystanders love it, and my
> RV buddies think everyone should love the show. They don't all love it.
> May be it is jealousy, but just be sensitive to that. Also this could be
> actionable by the FAA. Patterns are not specified by the FARs except "all
> turns must be made to the left unless noted otherwise." However US
> Government Vs. Joe Pilot, in appeals court, has shown the AIM, which is
> not regulations, does show a standard pattern and has been upheld as
> de-facto law. Meaning pilots not flying the pattern per the AIM can get
> the FAA shaft.
Now for the other side of the story. Flying a standard pattern behind a
Piper Cub flying at 35 knots and doing a Bomber Pattern, (that is 5 miles
downwind, 2 miles crosswind and another 5 miles on final with a 5 minute
taxi on the runway before turn off on a taxiway) is sheer frustration for
even a Citabria Pilot.
My philosophy is if you are going to land, then land. Do not joy ride in
the pattern.
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
I'm still a tad confused on this. Van's FWF kits include what they call a
"muffler". What I think you're saying is that this "muffler" is so ineffective
that it barely qualifies as one. Correct? If not, you're saying that most
RVers do not use Van's FWF kits with their Lycs or do not use the Van's exhaust
stack.
> Most RV's have no mufflers at all... not a Van's norm...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Glasser" <ku-tec(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Does anyone know if Larry Vetterman has a web site?
Thanks
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "James H Nelson" <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
> Jim,
> Vetterman has a muffler system for the RV. I think I will order
> one for my RV9. He states it will make very little difference inside but
> much better on the outside.
>
> Jim Nelson
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
On 14:12:39 2005-05-10 Bob wrote:
> My philosophy is if you are going to land, then land. Do not joy
> ride in the pattern.
Another option is, if you're going to fly formation, learn to take off and
land *in formation*. That way you get your entire wing in or out in one
shot, without confusing the itinerant traffic with interval takeoffs or
breaks to downwind on landing.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
>Now for the other side of the story. Flying a standard pattern behind a
>Piper Cub flying at 35 knots and doing a Bomber Pattern, (that is 5 miles
>downwind, 2 miles crosswind and another 5 miles on final with a 5 minute
>taxi on the runway before turn off on a taxiway) is sheer frustration for
>even a Citabria Pilot.
So turn base while they still have three miles to go on downwind. Just
announce that you are turning base inside of the Cub doing a B-52
pattern and everything is fine.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Sources for electrical system design |
Paul,
Suggest you purchase Bob Nuckolls - AeroElectric book. We used his designs
and our elecrtical systems have been rock solid and allows for future
growth. In addition, Bob has answered our few questions. IMHO the small cost
of his book was some of the best $$ spent on our 8A.
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A 300+ hours
>From: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Sources for electrical system design
>Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 07:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Now that I've decided on priming, manual vs. electrical trim (agonizing),
>engine/prop (Mattituck or Aerosports O-320 with 3-blade Catto), and a
>working
>version of my panel (subject to change), I want to tackle designing the
>electrical system for my aircraft in the remaining 6 weeks or so I have
>before
>I can start construction.
>
>I'm not asking any specific questions, just looking for good references to
>study.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
> Wow, that's quite a bit. Is this the max draw configuration, ie. pitot
> heat, landing lights, microwave oven all on at once? If so how much do
> you draw under normal flying conditions?
>
> >I draw 48 amps, IFR all electric rv.
FWIW, I'm in the same boat. With all toys running, including dual 100W
landing lights, high pressure boost pump, strobes, position lights, and
pitot heat, my system draws around 48A as well.
Nevertheless, I use a single 40A B&C alternator on my RV-7, all-electric,
IFR, single 17AH PC-680 battery.
Typical current flowing from the alternator to battery with no "high power"
toys running is just shy of 11A. This is with all of the avionics, engine
monitor, and instruments running, without shedding any load.
On my plane strobes add around 7A, position lights another 7A, each landing
light (or wig-wag) another 7A, boost pump another 5A or so.
Imho, every builder should do a current draw analysis on all of your toys to
size your alternator needs. Or just be lazy and go with a 60A setup.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
From the people I have discussed FWF kits with, it a deletion. You can add and
subtract from the FWF kit. You really do not need a muffler and in the end will
not want a muffler. The prop makes most of the noise. I do not believe I have
ever seen an RV with a muffler... I have heard of people using them. If your
going with the Catto, you will be just fine.
Darrell
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I'm still a tad confused on this. Van's FWF kits include what they call a
"muffler". What I think you're saying is that this "muffler" is so ineffective
that it barely qualifies as one. Correct? If not, you're saying that most
RVers do not use Van's FWF kits with their Lycs or do not use the Van's exhaust
stack.
> Most RV's have no mufflers at all... not a Van's norm...
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Actually, after looking they are deleting the aluminum heat muff and going with
the stainless one. There is no muffler in the FWF kit.
Darrell
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I'm still a tad confused on this. Van's FWF kits include what they call a
"muffler". What I think you're saying is that this "muffler" is so ineffective
that it barely qualifies as one. Correct? If not, you're saying that most
RVers do not use Van's FWF kits with their Lycs or do not use the Van's exhaust
stack.
> Most RV's have no mufflers at all... not a Van's norm...
>
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
Mattituck's standard alternator option is 55A. Seems like a prudent choice
given that I'll all the same "toys" as well as the LASAR ignit which I believe
draws about 4A.
> Imho, every builder should do a current draw analysis on all of your toys to
> size your alternator needs. Or just be lazy and go with a 60A setup.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
>
> Actually, after looking they are deleting the aluminum heat muff and going
> with the stainless one. There is no muffler in the FWF kit.
>
> Darrell
>
Yep what the listing says is at:
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1115764777-100-615&browse=engines&product=FF_Kit
It is "1 EA EXH W/MUFF 320/ RV-6/6A/7/7A/8/8A/9A "
Now MUFF may be carburator heat muff or may be cabin heat muff but it pretty
sure isn't a muffler. Haven't seen a muffler yet on a Lycoming powered RV.
Yes I know there are a few, mostly in Europe though.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Joy Riding in the Pattern |
At my home field, the flight schools teach huge patterns to their
students - wide downwinds and long finals. I guess they want them to
have time to think what the next step is. They also don't do touch and
goes so every landing has a taxi back. Maybe what they're really
teaching is how to run up the Hobbs. That's where they make their money.
The bad news is that they are also teaching them to spend a lot of time
in the pattern out of gliding range to the runway. One can't turn inside
them as it's a towered airport.
Most arriving traffic is given a straight in and call 3 mile final. Any
traffic on downwind is forced to extend. This is all well and good
except that you have to slow down a fair distance from the airport at
low altitude and, if your engine quits, you're landing on the road. I
usually ask for the overhead approach on first call up. This lets me
drive on in to the airport at good speed which I can trade for altitude
if the engine quits. I start to slow down when I've got the runway made
and dissipate the rest of my speed in the break. My plan is to stay
close enough to make the runway if the engine quits and I think it's
more realistic than the big pattern.
Arriving at untowered airports is only different in that you've got to
provide your own traffic avoidance and spacing. If the pattern is
occupied, one must fit in with the traffic. A modified overhead approach
is safer than a straight in and much the same as crossing midfield to
enter downwind. I start a little higher than the pattern and turn
downwind with good spacing. If the guy I'm following is slow, I practice
slow flight and try to stay reasonably close to the airport. If you're
arriving from the direction of the pattern side of the airport, by all
means enter on the 45 to downwind.
By the way, you're right. A 180 degree approach is non-standard - a 360
degree overhead approach would be much more standard. ;-)
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Subject: Re: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
> The 180 overhead landing is not standard. I do formation flying,
> takeoff, approach and landing, including 180 overheads, however you
have
> to be aware that you will startle other pilots and folks on the ground
> with mass arrivals and military patterns. Some bystanders love it, and
my
> RV buddies think everyone should love the show. They don't all love
it.
> May be it is jealousy, but just be sensitive to that. Also this could
be
> actionable by the FAA. Patterns are not specified by the FARs except
"all
> turns must be made to the left unless noted otherwise." However US
> Government Vs. Joe Pilot, in appeals court, has shown the AIM, which
is
> not regulations, does show a standard pattern and has been upheld as
> de-facto law. Meaning pilots not flying the pattern per the AIM can
get
> the FAA shaft.
Now for the other side of the story. Flying a standard pattern behind a
Piper Cub flying at 35 knots and doing a Bomber Pattern, (that is 5
miles
downwind, 2 miles crosswind and another 5 miles on final with a 5 minute
taxi on the runway before turn off on a taxiway) is sheer frustration
for
even a Citabria Pilot.
My philosophy is if you are going to land, then land. Do not joy ride
in
the pattern.
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Folbrecht
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
This alternator debate has been a tough one. I have a 60 internally regulated alt.
from Van's. A few years ago, I installed the O.V, protection that opened the
main cable from the alt. to battery. Turns out, that removing the alt field
voltage won't shut down an internally regulated alternator, and disconnecting
from the battery can cause a load dump. Haven't yet flown the plane, but it looks
like I'm taking out the O.V. (over voltage) setup. There is a good discussion
of this on the Matronics Aeroelectric list during the last month.
Seriously? I thought all the hard decisions had been made. Damn!
Is it that big a deal? I admit I'm not expert, but I've never had an
alternator failure (Ok, in my measly 300 hours) or heard of one firsthand even
on airplanes with very old alternators. Which I think are all externally
regulated.. I guess it's another point to research.. and I guess there is
probably a reason why a B&C alternator costs 2x what the one Mattituck supplies
does.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
----- Original Message -----
> Turns out, that removing the alt field voltage won't shut down an
> internally regulated alternator, and disconnecting >from the battery can
> cause a load dump. Haven't yet flown the plane, but it looks like I'm
> taking out the O.V. (over voltage) setup.
((((((((()))))))))
Good point. IR (internally regulated) alternators are so plentiful and
reasonably priced. Everyone can easily accept the thought of having a
problem in podunk, podunk where there is an Autozone close that has a
freshly overhauled alternator replacement. No hold over, reasonable prices.
BUT there is a problem, we might also like the idea of OV protection, LV
warning, and perhaps the ability to adjust the voltage up or down a tenth or
two. That is where the IR alt does not work. SO,,,,,,decide whether you
can live with IR and its risks --or-- NR (non regulated) with OV/LV
regulator. Vans sells a NR alternator but you can't be running your
electric copier while flying =:-)
Bob of Aeroelectric advocates the NR alternator. Whichever way you go with,
you have some risks, which you should understand, and their costs. Yearly
out of pocket cost appears to be lower by not using a fresh battery every
year as Bob advocates. However the risk is lowered with Bob's admonition.
Risk vs. cost. You understand them and make and fly your decision within
the design and needs of your flying. I found that I revised some of my
flying goals to make the components in my electrical system more acceptable
risk-cost wise. I recommend, if you haven't already done so, to get a copy
of Aeroelectric Bob's manual and read it at least twice. A few nights well
spent. No, I am not on Bob's payroll, I am just happen my RV7 is flying
using one of his wiring designs and appears to not have any electrical
problems. And I more fully understand what
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up FLYING - Phase 1 Flight Testing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! |
In a message dated 5/11/05 6:37:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
afulmer(at)charter.net writes:
> I still don't know how I will get my fat hand on a bucking bar over those
> bottom rib/top skin rivets? And I think I will get my wife to help hold the
> flap steady in the v-blocks.
>>>
I had good luck using a modified splitting wedge for a bucking bar- seems it
came in real handy on the flap ribs and also for all the rear control surface
rivets. There's enough mass in it to help control it when banging on the
skinny end.
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers) |
Are you sure that what you are referencing is not the "cabin heat muff" or
"carb heat muff"?
The widely used Vetterman cross-over exhausts that I suspect most of us use
is non-mufflered as far as I know.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Folbrecht
| Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:17 PM
| To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes (was Rude RV'ers)
|
|
| I'm still a tad confused on this. Van's FWF kits include what they call
| a
| "muffler". What I think you're saying is that this "muffler" is so
| ineffective
| that it barely qualifies as one. Correct? If not, you're saying that
| most
| RVers do not use Van's FWF kits with their Lycs or do not use the Van's
| exhaust
| stack.
|
| > Most RV's have no mufflers at all... not a Van's norm...
| >
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Joy Riding in the Pattern |
Thanks Mike for posting this. I was about to look up the pages and diagrams
to post with my notes below.
For those who might not have experienced this from inside a plane, it is not
only legal but is understood at the "big airports with picky controllers
that will remind you if you are doing anything wrong :-) ". If you ask
properly they will not only oblige, they will vector you into position
(mindful of other traffic) and sometimes call the point for lead to make the
first turn.
Of course at some (non-towered) airports when it is first introduced, there
may be people in the pattern that are wondering what is going on (they
might not be familiar with the AIM reference below), but a courteous (and
quick) explanation works wonders. This I have experienced.
Finally, upon returning to the home base airport in IFR conditions (riding
with the FBO owner, Aeronautics Commission member, bazillion hour pilot)
this maneuver was performed after we broken out in the clear on the
localizer approach. He pointed out to me how it was a MUCH safer approach as
even though the ceilings were a bit low, it was still LEGAL for VFR traffic
to be in the pattern.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
| Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:18 PM
| To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: RE: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
|
|
|
| OK here we go again on the overheads.
| They are very standard and are defined in the AIM chapter 5. Quote
| below. Searchable here:
| http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html
|
{SNIP}
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | New pitot/ static offerings |
A few months ago there was a thread about the poor choices available for pitot tubes and static port kits. We have just received our first batch of CNC machined pitot tubes and they look beautiful! Please have a look http://www.evansaviationproducts.com/Other%20Products.htm
The pitot kit comes complete with the mast and all of the hardware you need for
a super clean installation. I believe this is the only kit available right now
as a complete package....most others require you to go searching for the components
from different sources. You will find a significant cost savings with
the kit as well as really nice hardware. We are currently prototyping a heated
version, but it is still a bit down the road.
Cheers,
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mason City 3rd annual RV Formation Clinic |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Its that time of year for the Mason City Iowa 3 day formation clinic.
Its held the weekend before Oshkosh so you can gear up and head in for
the show. This is one of several clinics held around the country. The
training program is provided by Team RV with support from other talented
folks to include the SoCal group, Falcon Flight, Buckeye flight and
others. These RV'ers have lots of formation experience and freely give
of their time and money to provide this training free of charge.
Obviously they are not in it for the money, but the love of the game.
You will not receive a better training in your RV than what these teams
provide. The training is intense and carefully checked by experienced
pilots and instructors. Im sure participants from past years will chime
in and provide you some feedback on the value and activities. Its more
fun than should be allowed. Great planes, great flying, and as
always..... great people.
Details can be found at the website below. Doug Rozendaal is our host.
You all should know him from his excellent posts on the RV-list. Last
year our training culminated in a 13 ship on a P-51D Mustang, Mustang
flown by Doug. Fun had by all.
http://www.mstewart.net/teamrv/formationclinic/masoncity05
Hope to see you there.
Kahuna
Aka Mike Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! |
15, 2004) at 05/11/2005 09:39:05 AM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
05/11/2005 09:39:07 AM,
Serialize complete at 05/11/2005 09:39:07 AM
Hi Mark,
As I'm getting to do this...
Are you talking about a wedge for splitting wood? And what type of
modifications? Got a picture?
Thanks,
/\/elson
RV-7A - Feveristly finishing the wings before the fus shows up
Austin, TX
On Wed, 11 May 2005 Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> I had good luck using a modified splitting wedge for a bucking bar- seems it
> came in real handy on the flap ribs and also for all the rear control surface
> rivets. There's enough mass in it to help control it when banging on the
> skinny end.
>
> Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! 15, 2004) at 05/11/2005 09:39:05 |
A...
In a message dated 5/11/05 9:43:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
david.nelson(at)pobox.com writes:
> Are you talking about a wedge for splitting wood? And what type of
> modifications? Got a picture?
>>>
Yep- maybe $10-12 down at the local hardware store, WallyWorld or Lowes
Depot. These come kind of rough- you'll need one good surface on both sides down
near the pointy end. As purchased, mine had too much radius along the side
near the point, so I ground it flatter (on the side) until I could get a fairly
square edge, then polished both sides and dulled the original cutting edge to
avoid scratching any metal it might contact. What you're shooting for is a
good bucking surface close to the very end of the wedge on both sides so you can
flip it over to get 'em from both directions. Sorry, but don't think I ever
took a foto of it...
And if it don't work, it still makes a nice doorstop, or you can even split
farwood with it!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
>
> Thanks Mike for posting this. I was about to look up the pages and
> diagrams
> to post with my notes below.
>
> For those who might not have experienced this from inside a plane, it is
> not
> only legal but is understood at the "big airports with picky controllers
> that will remind you if you are doing anything wrong :-) ". If you ask
> properly they will not only oblige, they will vector you into position
> (mindful of other traffic) and sometimes call the point for lead to make
> the
> first turn.
>
> Of course at some (non-towered) airports when it is first introduced,
> there
> may be people in the pattern that are wondering what is going on (they
> might not be familiar with the AIM reference below), but a courteous (and
> quick) explanation works wonders. This I have experienced.
>
> Finally, upon returning to the home base airport in IFR conditions (riding
> with the FBO owner, Aeronautics Commission member, bazillion hour pilot)
> this maneuver was performed after we broken out in the clear on the
> localizer approach. He pointed out to me how it was a MUCH safer approach
> as
> even though the ceilings were a bit low, it was still LEGAL for VFR
> traffic
> to be in the pattern.
>
> James
>
>
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> | server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
> | Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 5:18 PM
> | To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> | Subject: RE: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
> |
> |
> |
> | OK here we go again on the overheads.
> | They are very standard and are defined in the AIM chapter 5. Quote
> | below. Searchable here:
> | http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0504.html
> |
> {SNIP}
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Just trashing my first flap!! |
Allen
What weight bar are you using? I've found that my riveting has been transformed
since I got an aerospace surplus 3lb bar off ebay. Previously I was having problems
when using some of the recommended lighter bars. This new one will buck
3/32" rivets without any pressure other than its own weight.
I've only got a cheap manual squeezer so am bucking nearly everything (including
all 1/8" rivets). As long as I can get the heavy bar in it is no problem. Also,
I don't subscribe to the swivel flush set argument. I use a 1.5" solid flush
set with a neoprene ring round the edge. I've had no problems with smilies
as the set is big enough to guarantee its aligned.
Best regards
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Just trashing my first flap!!
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 06:34:41 -0500
>
>
> Swivel flush set was in use. I DID try a little boost in air pressure as it
> "seemed" I was having to rat-a-tat-tat too long on the bottom side. And I
> WAS getting some "bounce" on the bottom side, but reasoned it was acceptable
> since it was the bottom. I don't have a pressure gage on the gun but one of
> those little regulators with a numbered knob you can adjust. Setting has
> stayed the same for wings and ailerons. By the time I reduced the
> "regulator" on the gun back to where it had been the damage had been done
> and I was too frustrated to be able to think straight anyway.
>
> I still don't know how I will get my fat hand on a bucking bar over those
> bottom rib/top skin rivets? And I think I will get my wife to help hold the
> flap steady in the v-blocks.
>
> I know others have probably had to work through similar disappointments and
> I will too.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Allen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
altitude. Does anyone know?
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Inman" <ghinman(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | PC680hd (Battery hold down) |
I was going to use the PC680 hold down
to mount a PC680 battery in my RV-8.
I decided against it,because the battery
cannot be removed without removing the hold down.
There is a lip on the hold down,and then the engine
mount is in the way
Has anyone else used the hold down on
the firewall?
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)mts.net
CELL 204 799 7062
HOME 204 287 8334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
I did some reading. I think I will go with the B&C alternator. I think I will
need the 60A too which is $600 - ouch!!
--- LARRY ADAMSON wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Folbrecht
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
>
>
>
> This alternator debate has been a tough one. I have a 60 internally regulated
> alt. from Van's. A few years ago, I installed the O.V, protection that opened
> the main cable from the alt. to battery. Turns out, that removing the alt
> field voltage won't shut down an internally regulated alternator, and
> disconnecting from the battery can cause a load dump. Haven't yet flown the
> plane, but it looks like I'm taking out the O.V. (over voltage) setup. There
> is a good discussion of this on the Matronics Aeroelectric list during the
> last month.
>
>
> Seriously? I thought all the hard decisions had been made. Damn!
>
> Is it that big a deal? I admit I'm not expert, but I've never had an
> alternator failure (Ok, in my measly 300 hours) or heard of one firsthand
> even
> on airplanes with very old alternators. Which I think are all externally
> regulated.. I guess it's another point to research.. and I guess there is
> probably a reason why a B&C alternator costs 2x what the one Mattituck
> supplies
> does.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Lycoming O-360 A1A for Sale |
I have a Lycoming 0-360 A1A for sale. $8500 1700 TTSN 1000 since TOH. Has carburator
and starter, no other accessories. Set up for constant speed with a govenor
pad and line from govenor to prop. Wide Deck. This engine came out of a piper
navajo that had the O-360 conversion done. I bought both engines. One
for my rv-6a project and one for my wifes rv-4. She had decided that she wants
a new XP-360 instead so I am selling her engine. Buyer has to pay shipping and
crating costs or come and pick it up.
Contact Tom Velvick in Peoria, AZ at 623-261-2906 cell, 623-979-2519 home phone.
My email is tomvelvick(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers on Rv's |
"Prop noise is loudest" - not necessarily, and it's very 'peaky' in line
with the plane of the prop. Keep helical tip speed below around 800 fps and
you avoid the annoying T6 blare. Not a problem on fixed pitch props unless
they're very fine, and on a CS prop that allows 2700 rpm on take-off, just
get back to 25/25 as soon as safely possible after take-off.
Exhaust noise remains the dominant factor for most of the time an aeroplane
is overflying, and as for mufflers, the Swiss type in Tony Bingelis' books
works well for damping out the high frequencies. However the Lycoming sound
spectrum shows highest powers under 800Hz. An expansion chamber muffler of
adequate volume (say over 270 cu in) should work better for these low
frequencies. Even treating the ends of the exhaust pipes as per the Wicks
'piccolo' takes some of the 'bite' out of the sound. Some German companies
have done successful work on certificated mufflers and will be happy to sell
you a couple (for enormous piles of euros!) They are much smaller / lighter
than the Swiss muffler in Tony's book. Have a Google for Gomolzig and Liese
for starters.
Our Popular Flying Association takes noise reduction seriously, and some
info can be found on their website:
http://www.pfa.org.uk/engineering_services/silencing_papers.asp
Performance loss may be less than feared using these new free-breathing
mufflers. If the length of pipe is tuned to say 2500rpm, it may not even
happen, according to some reports.
My RV is not yet flying, so I can't quote actual figures yet. I do however
intend to take before and after readings when playing around with mufflers.
You can still legally fly an 'experimental' without any muffler over here in
the UK, but for how long?? We've lost a lot of airfields to noise
complaints, so have to disarm the critics before they shut us down
completely.
Just my 2c /pence worth, YMMV etc
Bob
(RV3B - still starting 'finishing')
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Joy Riding in the Pattern |
>
> Mike, so you are telling us that everytime you do an overhead break to a
> landing you have been on an IFR flight plan? I seriously doubt it,
> especially when you are in formation flight. According to the source you
> quote, that is the only time it is allowed.
> Don
Don:
How do you get that interpretation? The source says, "Pilots operating in
accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)
may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver." It says nothing
whatsoever about when an overhead may not be used.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
09":39:05.A...@roxy.matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! 15, 2004) at 05/11/2005 |
09:39:05 A...
15, 2004) at 05/11/2005 03:08:39 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ58-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
05/11/2005 03:08:41 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/11/2005 03:08:41 PM
Thanks Mark,
I've got an better idea/vision of what you are talking about.
Thanks,
/\/elson
On Wed, 11 May 2005 Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> Yep- maybe $10-12 down at the local hardware store, WallyWorld or Lowes
> Depot. These come kind of rough- you'll need one good surface on both sides
down
> near the pointy end. As purchased, mine had too much radius along the side
> near the point, so I ground it flatter (on the side) until I could get a fairly
> square edge, then polished both sides and dulled the original cutting edge to
> avoid scratching any metal it might contact. What you're shooting for is a
> good bucking surface close to the very end of the wedge on both sides so you
can
> flip it over to get 'em from both directions. Sorry, but don't think I ever
> took a foto of it...
>
> And if it don't work, it still makes a nice doorstop, or you can even split
> farwood with it!
>
> Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "son hoang" <son(at)hoangs.com> |
| Subject: | plane flew into restricted airspace |
C 152 w/ 2 men on board violated no fly zone
White House and Congress evacuated
red level alert
stock market dived because of the security scare
this incident made me angry, frustrated and very sad
I just shook my head in disbelief
there was much over reaction to the real threat
but if we GA pilots keep doing this we will lose any freedom we have to fly
who do we have to blame but ourselves ( or a few rotten ones among us)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers on Rv's
>
> "Prop noise is loudest" - not necessarily, and it's very 'peaky' in line
> with the plane of the prop. Keep helical tip speed below around 800 fps
and
> you avoid the annoying T6 blare. Not a problem on fixed pitch props unless
> they're very fine, and on a CS prop that allows 2700 rpm on take-off, just
> get back to 25/25 as soon as safely possible after take-off.
>
> Exhaust noise remains the dominant factor for most of the time an
aeroplane
> is overflying, and as for mufflers, the Swiss type in Tony Bingelis' books
> works well for damping out the high frequencies. However the Lycoming
sound
> spectrum shows highest powers under 800Hz. An expansion chamber muffler of
> adequate volume (say over 270 cu in) should work better for these low
> frequencies. Even treating the ends of the exhaust pipes as per the Wicks
> 'piccolo' takes some of the 'bite' out of the sound. Some German companies
> have done successful work on certificated mufflers and will be happy to
sell
> you a couple (for enormous piles of euros!) They are much smaller /
lighter
> than the Swiss muffler in Tony's book. Have a Google for Gomolzig and
Liese
> for starters.
>
> Our Popular Flying Association takes noise reduction seriously, and some
> info can be found on their website:
> http://www.pfa.org.uk/engineering_services/silencing_papers.asp
>
> Performance loss may be less than feared using these new free-breathing
> mufflers. If the length of pipe is tuned to say 2500rpm, it may not even
> happen, according to some reports.
>
> My RV is not yet flying, so I can't quote actual figures yet. I do however
> intend to take before and after readings when playing around with
mufflers.
> You can still legally fly an 'experimental' without any muffler over here
in
> the UK, but for how long?? We've lost a lot of airfields to noise
> complaints, so have to disarm the critics before they shut us down
> completely.
>
> Just my 2c /pence worth, YMMV etc
>
> Bob
>
> (RV3B - still starting 'finishing')
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Joy Riding in the Pattern |
I believe that the original post used an IFR scenario to justify all uses
of this approach.
Ron Lee
> > Mike, so you are telling us that everytime you do an overhead break to a
> > landing you have been on an IFR flight plan? I seriously doubt it,
> > especially when you are in formation flight. According to the source you
> > quote, that is the only time it is allowed.
> > Don
>
>Don:
>
>How do you get that interpretation? The source says, "Pilots operating in
>accordance with an IFR flight plan in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC)
>may request ATC authorization for an overhead maneuver." It says nothing
>whatsoever about when an overhead may not be used.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC, Canada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Read this for starters www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Wing_Heavy.pdf
Darrell Reiley
Round Rock, Texas
RV 7A #70125
N622DR (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is there interest in an Oct fly-in to Albuquerque, NM? |
Hi Ron. How is the EASTER EGG doing? Wish we had kept it. Flying a 7 right
now and hope to come to LOE 5. Are u suggesting a change of dates for LOE to
coincide with the balloon activities?
Regards,
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Joy Riding in the Pattern |
>
> I believe that the original post used an IFR scenario to justify all uses
> of this approach.
If I'm reading the posts in the right order, that's true. But, unless I missed
the post, there so far hasn't been any reference presented that suggests
overhead breaks are for IFR flights only. Can someone provide such a
reference?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI |
Decided to cheat and ordered a custom interior from Abby at Flightline
Interiors for my 7a. Having a golf club compartment and lower baggage
access panels complicated that area immensely. Also wanted something a
little different on the seats. All the stuff came today, some 30 separate
pieces and I am totally amazed at the workman(woman)ship and detail. Won't
have it installed for a while but simply had to put in a plug for Abby after
having the finished product in my hand!
Now that she is not working on mine, I would highly recommend her operation!
You will not be disappointed.
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark fuse/panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> Albuquerque, NM?(at)roxy.matronics.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is there interest in an Oct fly-in to |
Albuquerque, NM?
> Are u suggesting a change of dates for LOE to coincide with the
> balloon activities?
>Regards,
>Doug
Absolutely not. This has nada to do with LOE. This is a possible new
fly-in opportunity that offers different things to see and do than LOE
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI |
I have to second this. Abby did my interior and I am verrrrrry happy with
it.
Tim
RV6 - N616TB
DNA
-------Original Message-------
From: Bill Schlatterer
Date: 05/11/05 18:19:03
Subject: RV-List: Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI
net>
Decided to cheat and ordered a custom interior from Abby at Flightline
Interiors for my 7a. Having a golf club compartment and lower baggage
access panels complicated that area immensely. Also wanted something a
little different on the seats. All the stuff came today, some 30 separate
pieces and I am totally amazed at the workman(woman)ship and detail. Won't
have it installed for a while but simply had to put in a plug for Abby after
having the finished product in my hand!
Now that she is not working on mine, I would highly recommend her operation!
You will not be disappointed.
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark fuse/panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Is there interest in an Oct fly-in to Albuquerque, NM? |
OK. I wish the timing was such that I could make both in one trip.
dp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI |
I'm lucky enough to live just a few miles from Abby and lucky enough to have
flown in one of the 7s she did (and also flew in herself I undertand) and it is
indeed impeccable. Interior's a no-brainer for me when I get to that stage!
--- Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> I have to second this. Abby did my interior and I am verrrrrry happy with
> it.
> Tim
> RV6 - N616TB
> DNA
>
> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Bill Schlatterer
> Date: 05/11/05 18:19:03
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RV-List: Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI
>
> net>
>
> Decided to cheat and ordered a custom interior from Abby at Flightline
> Interiors for my 7a. Having a golf club compartment and lower baggage
> access panels complicated that area immensely. Also wanted something a
> little different on the seats. All the stuff came today, some 30 separate
> pieces and I am totally amazed at the workman(woman)ship and detail. Won't
> have it installed for a while but simply had to put in a plug for Abby after
> having the finished product in my hand!
>
> Now that she is not working on mine, I would highly recommend her operation!
> You will not be disappointed.
>
>
> Thanks Bill S
> 7a Ark fuse/panel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [RV7Yahoo] Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI |
I echo your sentiments. I had already chosen a material and wanted someone
familiar with RV seats to use my stuff. She gladly accepted. I received my
seats and everything fits great.
FYI, I asked her how she liked the material. (White leather like material
and blue microfiber for the center pieces.) She said it was refreshing from
the usual tans and grays most people pick:)
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [RV7Yahoo] Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI
> Decided to cheat and ordered a custom interior from Abby at Flightline
> Interiors for my 7a. Having a golf club compartment and lower baggage
> access panels complicated that area immensely. Also wanted something a
> little different on the seats. All the stuff came today, some 30 separate
> pieces and I am totally amazed at the workman(woman)ship and detail.
Won't
> have it installed for a while but simply had to put in a plug for Abby
after
> having the finished product in my hand!
>
> Now that she is not working on mine, I would highly recommend her
operation!
> You will not be disappointed.
>
>
> Thanks Bill S
> 7a Ark fuse/panel
>
>
> Help save the life of a child. Support St. Jude Children's Research
Hospital's
> 'Thanks & Giving.'
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/6iY7fA/5WnJAA/Y3ZIAA/1yWplB/TM
>
>
> Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing
> www.vansaircraft.net
>
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7and7A/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> RV7and7A-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! |
Since those devices restrict flow but don't drop the pressure, my theory is
that the first hit from the rivet gun is at whatever the line pressure is
and then the restricted flow keeps the pressure from building up on
subsequent hits. As soon as you stop riveting, the line pressure will build
up again ready for the next smile. I'd say throw those devices away and get
a pressure regulator or better yet a combination regulator/oiler/water
trap. You need to oil your tool from time to time.
Albert Gardner
RV-9A 872RV
Yuma, AZ
I don't have a pressure gage on the gun but one of
> those little regulators with a numbered knob you can adjust. Setting has
> stayed the same for wings and ailerons. By the time I reduced the
> "regulator" on the gun back to where it had been the damage had been done
> and I was too frustrated to be able to think straight anyway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flightline Interiors - Comments FYI |
I will second this endorsement. I recently received my RV9A interior
and was amazed by the number of pieces included. She provides precut
pieces for just about every exposed surface in the cockpit area -
including under the panel and the sidewalls under the instrument area.
She covered Oregon Aero seats for my installation and they look great!
The quality is top notch! She also provides pictorial directions for
where each and every piece goes and in what order to install them.
As Bill says, now that she is finished with mine I would highly
recommend her work.
Dick Tasker
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
>Decided to cheat and ordered a custom interior from Abby at Flightline
>Interiors for my 7a. Having a golf club compartment and lower baggage
>access panels complicated that area immensely. Also wanted something a
>little different on the seats. All the stuff came today, some 30 separate
>pieces and I am totally amazed at the workman(woman)ship and detail. Won't
>have it installed for a while but simply had to put in a plug for Abby after
>having the finished product in my hand!
>
>Now that she is not working on mine, I would highly recommend her operation!
>You will not be disappointed.
>
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark fuse/panel
>
>
>
>
--
----
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: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! |
I agree. I started with one and almost immediately removed it and used
a real regulator. Much better control.
Dick Tasker
Albert Gardner wrote:
>
>Since those devices restrict flow but don't drop the pressure, my theory is
>that the first hit from the rivet gun is at whatever the line pressure is
>and then the restricted flow keeps the pressure from building up on
>subsequent hits. As soon as you stop riveting, the line pressure will build
>up again ready for the next smile. I'd say throw those devices away and get
>a pressure regulator or better yet a combination regulator/oiler/water
>trap. You need to oil your tool from time to time.
>Albert Gardner
>RV-9A 872RV
>Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>I don't have a pressure gage on the gun but one of
>
>
>>those little regulators with a numbered knob you can adjust. Setting has
>>stayed the same for wings and ailerons. By the time I reduced the
>>"regulator" on the gun back to where it had been the damage had been done
>>and I was too frustrated to be able to think straight anyway.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
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: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
Something about diminishing by the square of the distance...
Finn
Chris W wrote:
>
>I was just curious how high you would have to be for the sound level on
>the ground to be low enough that it probably wouldn't be hard in
>someones house. Maybe there is a formula of x DB drop per 1000 feet of
>altitude. Does anyone know?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes) |
Has anybody used the exhaust system from Aircraft
Exhaust Technologies http://www.aircraftexhaust.net?
According to their web site, they have a stainless
steel crossover system that includes two mufflers that
are small enough to fit inside the cowl of an RV-6,
RV-6A, RV-7, RV-7A, RV-8, RV-8A, RV-9, or RV-9A.
Besides reducing sound, they are supposed to increase
cabin heat, too.
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New pitot/ static offerings |
On 11-May-05, at 10:56 AM, Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
>
>
> A few months ago there was a thread about the poor choices available
> for pitot tubes and static port kits. We have just received our first
> batch of CNC machined pitot tubes and they look beautiful! Please have
> a look http://www.evansaviationproducts.com/Other%20Products.htm
> The pitot kit comes complete with the mast and all of the hardware you
> need for a super clean installation. I believe this is the only kit
> available right now as a complete package....most others require you
> to go searching for the components from different sources. You will
> find a significant cost savings with the kit as well as really nice
> hardware. We are currently prototyping a heated version, but it is
> still a bit down the road.
> Cheers,
> Evan Johnson
> www.evansaviationproducts.com
> (530)247-0375
> (530)351-1776 cell
>
>
The pitot tubes look great.
The static ports look great too, but people need to understand that a
flush port may not provide an accurate static source on RVs. It seems
that the static pressure in the area of the recommended aft fuselage
location is not the same as the free-stream ambient pressure. The
protruding pop rivet head is needed, as it forces the air flow to
accelerate around it, causing the pressure at the static port to be
decreased.
Several builders have found that flush static ports resulted in
indicated airspeeds and altitudes that were too low. One report showed
a difference of about 10 kt in indicated airspeed, and 100 - 200 ft of
altimeter error at cruise speed. Many other builders probably haven't
done the testing to know the difference, and they might just wonder why
their RV's indicated airspeeds are a bit lower than everyone else's RV.
If looks are more important to you than accurate airspeed and altitude
indications, then by all means go for flush static ports.
There is lots of info in the archives on this, including reports from
people who found flush static ports gave them errors in IAS and/or
altitude.
Info on how to test your static system accuracy is on my web site:
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/rvlinks/ssec.html
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
RV-8 - Finishing Kit
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
| From: | alan(at)reichertech.com |
>
>
> Points addressed below:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com [mailto:gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com]
> Subject: Joy Riding in the Pattern
<...>
>
>
> Also, to avoid doing aerobatics in the pattern by definition (far
> 91.307), bank angles must be limited to 60 degree bank. Many RV 180
> breaks are done at high initial speeds and large (up to 90 degree)
> initial bank angles. There is nothing making this cool to the FAA.
> Again some think it looks great but it tends to get people excited
> in a bad way when they see a 90 degree bank in the pattern.
>
> I did not recommend any aerobatic maneuvers or even suggest how
> to execute the maneuver.
<...>
CFR 91.307 does not address or "define" aerobatics. It addresses
parachutes and parachuting. It explains that occupants *other* *than*
*crew* *members* must wear a parachute if the aircraft exceeds 60 degrees
bank or 30 degrees pitch. It does not *limit* the angles of bank or
pitch.
CFR 91.307 is included below. Look through it all, but in particular,
read through 91.307(c). Note that many high-performance aerobatic
aircraft can reach high nose-up angles easily, but that may also be the
angle needed for their Vx/Vy.
If you want to argue the aerobatic flight angle, at least reference the
correct CFR: 91.303. Note, though, that that CFR does not limit angles
either. It simply states this:
"For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an
intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's
attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not
necessary for normal flight."
That, of course, opens up interpretation as to "normal flight". I have
not reproduced the entire CFR 91.303 here. I'll leave that as an exercise
for those who want to argue it to do the research first.
#####
91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(a) No pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a parachute that is available
for emergency use to be carried in that aircraft unless it is an approved
type and
(1) If a chair type (canopy in back), it has been packed by a certificated
and appropriately rated parachute rigger within the preceding 120 days; or
(2) If any other type, it has been packed by a certificated and
appropriately rated parachute rigger
(i) Within the preceding 120 days, if its canopy, shrouds, and harness are
composed exclusively of nylon, rayon, or other similar synthetic fiber or
materials that are substantially resistant to damage from mold, mildew, or
other fungi and other rotting agents propagated in a moist environment; or
(ii) Within the preceding 60 days, if any part of the parachute is
composed of silk, pongee, or other natural fiber, or materials not
specified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person
may conduct, a parachute operation from an aircraft within the United
States except in accordance with part 105 of this chapter.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute,
no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember)
may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds
(1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any
certificate or rating when given by
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or
(ii) An airline transport pilot instructing in accordance with 61.67 of
this chapter.
(e) For the purposes of this section, approved parachute means
(1) A parachute manufactured under a type certificate or a technical
standard order (C23 series); or
(2) A personnel-carrying military parachute identified by an NAF, AAF, or
AN drawing number, an AAF order number, or any other military designation
or specification number.
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34308, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91255,
62 FR 68137, Dec. 30, 1997; Amdt. 91268, 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001]
#####
--
Alan Reichert
Priv, Inst, SEL
RV-8 N927AR (reserved)
Prepping Horizontal/Vertical Stabilizers for Assembly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on RV mufflers
on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and post my findings.
I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce and so do a lot of
other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are under attack for just
the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their right to make as much noise
as they want and would point to the fact that we in the USA are not under any
noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind giving up a small amount of performance
for a quieter plane. Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Just trashing my first flap!! |
In a message dated 5/11/05 9:59:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
ibspud(at)adelphia.net writes:
> I'd say throw those devices away and get
> a pressure regulator or better yet a combination regulator/oiler/water
> trap. You need to oil your tool from time to time.
>>>>
Agree on use of regulator- a good regulator at the compressor is the way to
go, but best avoid any automatic oiler- If an oiler is placed upstream of the
hoses, these same hoses can not be used for any priming or painting as they
will be contaminated with oil- it's easy to just add a few drops of oil to the
gun inlet occasionally, or before each extended riveting or drilling session to
keep your tool well-lubed! Also consider that using larger hoses will reduce
the pressure drop once the tool is activated- the plastic coiled hose is
particularly notorious for this- all that going round & round adds centrifugal
force to the air, slowing it down as Gs build in the airstream! 8-)
(well, not really on the G stuff, but don't use 'em for riveting, anyway!)
Also be sure to drain your compressor tank regularly- amazing how much water
is in the air, particularly in humid locations.
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips -6A, flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers in
homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have
the necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly.
This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about it? charlie
heathco (this is from Avweb)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Marshall" <tony(at)lambros.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
Having watched this noise thread....I guess I love the noise of
airplanes.....one of the many things I enjoy about them. I understand that
many dont feel this way. For this reason we probably should be moving in
the direction of quieter engines and better controlled props.
Dont be deceived into believing that the airport/airplane dissidents will go
away though....the only way many will be happy is if your engine simply
doesn't run. We can then all sit out on the ramp, in formation, making
engine noises as far as many of them are concerned. But....be sure, someone
will protest that, too. While some airplane/airport detractors have
legitimate concerns, the 'rush' of many, if not most, comes simply from
being 'involved'....not really having a dog in the fight. I wish they knew
how much they were messing with the wholesome enjoyment of a lot of good
people.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
>
> I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on
> RV mufflers on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and
> post my findings. I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce
> and so do a lot of other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are
> under attack for just the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their
> right to make as much noise as they want and would point to the fact that
> we in the USA are not under any noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind
> giving up a small amount of performance for a quieter plane. Charlie
> heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made it
possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having a
multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a categroy
and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
>
>
>The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
>passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
>flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
>experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take people
>for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
>until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
>ratings for the aircraft they fly.
>
>This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
>it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
Like you, Charlie, I somehow missed out on the public comment period on this new
rule ;-)
I couldn't believe my eyes when I read & re-read the AvWeb's report on it: the
paperwork required and the revised license which sounds like it will only permit
the pilot to fly in the experimental make & model for which pax-carrying permission
is sought, and no other aircraft, even when solo. That is so bizarre,
it can't be right. Even the D. C. Swamp mentality isn't that screwed up.
Great example of fixing a non-existent problem by heavy-handed regulation.
I'm beginning to think we need an unauthorized small aircraft overflight of the
DC airspace about twice a day, to keep the gummint hunkered in their bunkers,
and the citizens safe and free.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Heathco <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers in
homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the
necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly.
This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about it?
charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
hal
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
I did some reading. I think I will go with the B&C alternator. I think I will
need the 60A too which is $600 - ouch!!
--- LARRY ADAMSON wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Folbrecht
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
>
>
>
> This alternator debate has been a tough one. I have a 60 internally regulated
> alt. from Van's. A few years ago, I installed the O.V, protection that opened
> the main cable from the alt. to battery. Turns out, that removing the alt
> field voltage won't shut down an internally regulated alternator, and
> disconnecting from the battery can cause a load dump. Haven't yet flown the
> plane, but it looks like I'm taking out the O.V. (over voltage) setup. There
> is a good discussion of this on the Matronics Aeroelectric list during the
> last month.
>
>
> Seriously? I thought all the hard decisions had been made. Damn!
>
> Is it that big a deal? I admit I'm not expert, but I've never had an
> alternator failure (Ok, in my measly 300 hours) or heard of one firsthand
> even
> on airplanes with very old alternators. Which I think are all externally
> regulated.. I guess it's another point to research.. and I guess there is
> probably a reason why a B&C alternator costs 2x what the one Mattituck
> supplies
> does.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hal Kempthorne <hal_kempthorne(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bomber pattern WAS: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
The bomber pattern yesterday was not at all frustrating but then I was in no hurry.
The B-17 arrived in Paso Robles yesterday afternoon as I was approaching the airport.
He did fly very large pattern. To follow him in one would have to be
very patient. He was so far away that someone got in the way and he had to go
around once. I followed around on his right about a thousand feet above and
a bit behind. I later wondered if that is about where crews would first spot
an enemy fighter.
He did not seem to have prepared himself for the landing at this uncontrolled airport.
After landing he asked for the ground control frequency.
hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flynlow" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net> |
| Subject: | Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes) |
Hello;
Cant resist, forgive me. It would seem to me in that case that we would all
need to install windshield wipers on the inside of our canopies. You know,
all those lips flapping making airplane sounds and the spit flying.......
Sorry but I just couldn't resist.
Bud Silvers
RV-8 wings done starting on fuselage.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tony Marshall
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
Having watched this noise thread....I guess I love the noise of
airplanes.....one of the many things I enjoy about them. I understand that
many dont feel this way. For this reason we probably should be moving in
the direction of quieter engines and better controlled props.
Dont be deceived into believing that the airport/airplane dissidents will go
away though....the only way many will be happy is if your engine simply
doesn't run. We can then all sit out on the ramp, in formation, making
engine noises as far as many of them are concerned. But....be sure, someone
will protest that, too. While some airplane/airport detractors have
legitimate concerns, the 'rush' of many, if not most, comes simply from
being 'involved'....not really having a dog in the fight. I wish they knew
how much they were messing with the wholesome enjoyment of a lot of good
people.
Tony Marshall
RV6
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mufflers for RVs (Was Noisy Airplanes)
>
> I have read with interest the "swiss muffler" blog, and also the info on
> RV mufflers on Aircraft Exaust site, I will call them when they open and
> post my findings. I for one highly dislike the noise our planes produce
> and so do a lot of other people. Like it or not, airports everywhere are
> under attack for just the noise factor. I am sure many would defend their
> right to make as much noise as they want and would point to the fact that
> we in the USA are not under any noise restrictions YET. I woulnt mind
> giving up a small amount of performance for a quieter plane. Charlie
> heathco
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | 'New' proficiency/currency rules for experimentals |
From AvWeb...
I'm sure many of you have already been aware of this, but I don't remember seeing
any list traffic or discussion of it.
Anyway, after calling the EAA to confirm this I was told that this only really
applies to those who are flying experimental aircraft for which category and class
they are not rated as a pilot, i.e... a private pilot with a single-engine-land
rating who is operating an experimental helicopter. There is and has been
for decades, a loophole in the rules which allows pilots of experimentals to
do this sort of thing mainly for the purpose of developing new types of aircraft
like say powered lift a few years back -there was no recognized category
for it (although there is now) and so it was impossible to be rated properly in
category and class. So... AvWeb has really not worded it as it should have been
worded. The statement "make and model" will really not apply to us since we
are properly rated as to category and class (assuming we all have airplane single-engine-land
ratings), and no, we're not all going to have to go out and
have logbooks entries made and get new licenses to ca
rry
passengers in our RV's. This will affect mainly the gyroplane, powered-lift and
rotorcraft guys as I see it. It didn't help that AvWeb included a picture of
an RV-4 in their article.
-Scott Spencer N4ZW (CFII, ATP)
The article follows:
The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly passengers
in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to flying passengers only
in planes in which they are qualified and experienced. Currency and proficiency
rules apply to those who take people for rides in their experimental aircraft
and EAA says current pilots have until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have
the necessary category and class ratings for the aircraft they fly. Those who
always fly solo will not need to fly through the bureaucratic hoops. Under the
new notice, which was issued April 21, affected pilots will have fill out a
form and make sure their recreational or higher certificate is in order. Flying
passengers requires that the pilot have at least five hours as PIC in the category,
class, make and model of the experimental aircraft in question between
Sept. 1, 2004, and Aug. 31, 2005. An authorized flight instructor must make a
logbook entry attesting to the pilot's proficiency w
ith the
aircraft and then the pilot must show the log to a designated pilot examiner or
FAA Operations Inspector. A new pilot certificate will then be issued restricting
the pilot to flying that particular experimental aircraft (or any others
for which he or she has done the paperwork).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flynlow" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net> |
Hello group;
I have an IO 360 A1A 200 hp angle valve engine with a Hartzel Constant Speed
Propeller. Engine, prop and spinner came from a Mooney M20. Question is can
I use my spinner or do I have to use the one from Vans? My spinner bulkhead
attaches to ring gear and it looks like we will have to modify the cowling
to make it work. Has anyone done this before? If so how has it worked?
Please advise. Thanking you all in advance.
Bud Silvers
RV-8 under construction in Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
> Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
>but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
>have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
>don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
>incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility around 30 miles
seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone explain how a person
could fly over DC even not using GPS? Where conditions hazy and
five miles visibility?
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller
for eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant
speed propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360- series
engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental
engines developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter
and includes a spinner assembly installed at the factory to match your cowl.
This allows delivery to be a bolt on propeller assembly. Minimum blade
diameter is 68 inches.
Price is $6,399 plus shipping and any applicable taxes.
13" diameter spinner assembly set for 1 1/2" cowl spacing installed on
propeller.
No cost option: Spinner color - White, Red, Black, Grey, Yellow or left in
primer only.
"Hi-Glo" option - $450 (The "Hi-Glo" option gives the Kevlar/Epoxy spinner
the appearance of a polished aluminum (or chrome) spinner dome.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
_www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com/)
(805) 795-5377
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
Mike- I went to the link and read the regs; my legalese-challenged eyes glazed
over rather quickly... I had always thought "category and class" meant that "ASEL"
would cover it for a fixed-wing experimental that was not "high-performance"
without any further endorsements. Have I been operating my RV illegally
(with pax) all these years?
What really caught my eye was the verbiage defending the reason for the regs: an
increasing trend in experimental accidents with pax aboard. The FAA's response
to this data appears not to involve investigating the EFFECT OF PASSENGERS
on the aircraft involved in these accidents, but on granting almost "shall-issue"
rubber-stamp license endorsements to the pilots of those aircraft. If the
trend is rising for pax-carrying experimental fatalities, let's dig into why
the CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS causes increased numbers of crashes: are the aircraft
overloaded? Are pax grabbing the controls and pulling wings off? Are pilots
acting stupid with a captive audience aboard? If it's an uptrend for experimental
crashes in general, and fatality absolute numbers are climbing only because
a crash with pax aboard _by definition_ kills more people than an aircraft
crashed solo, then let's be logical and scrutinize experimental accidents in
general, admitting that pax are not a contributing
variable to the crashes themselves.
At any rate, I am without a clue how the proposed issuance of new license endorsements
based on prior expereince might do anything to reduce the fatality statistics;
it's all symbolism trumping substance. How many pax fatalities occur
in the first five hours that a pilot flies a new make and model? If it's significant,
then forbid that behavior for the first 5 hours. Why the license endorsement?
Prediction: I foresee the FAA certifying night proficiency using the
same "logic" - issuing every airman a license with a night flight endorsement
- valid only for 90 days, of course, in keeping with the night flight currency
regs we already have on the books. Or maybe issuing every airline pilot an
endorsed license after he passes a blood alcohol test, such license only good
for flight on the day of issue, to cut down on the number of flight crews flying
under the influence... I fail to see why every reg needs to appear reincarnated
as a license endorsement; it's already illega
l to bust these regs! (Reminds me of gun control - lets' reduce murder by making
it illegal; oh, wait, it already is - ya think making it double-illegal will
help?)
I would sincerely appreciate your assistance with understand this. The rule announcement
comes on the heels of a vey bad day for GA in the Washington ADIZ,
a day that made one pilot look foolish, and the federal security apparatus look
like a cross between Chicken Little and a two-ton, rabid gorilla.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
It is a new requirement that came out just recently with the light sport
changes. It is in FAR 61.31(k)(2). This is the FAR that previously made it
possible for multi-engine Experimental aircraft to be flown without having a
multi-engine pilot's certificate. The wording in 61.31(k)(1) has not
changed and still excludes non-type certificate aircraft from needing a
categroy and class rating. But 61.31(k)(2) changed clarifying that a
categroy and class rating is needed if a passenger is being carried. For
the vast majority of people this will mean nothing new as the FAA has been
including wording in the aircraft Operating Limitations requiring a categroy
and class rating since the mid 90's. Only if you have an aircraft that was
completed prior to that time and do not have a paragraph about categroy and
class rating in your operating limitations do you need to worry about this.
A new order, 8700.42 gives all the details and is available at:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc
If you do happen to be in the categroy needing new operating limitations
and/or ratings added to your pilot's certificate the procedures are also in
this order. The good news is that you will be able to use the flight time
you already have in your aircraft to get these newly required ratings.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:28:11 -0400
>
>
>The FAA is underscoring regulatory requirements for pilots who fly
>passengers in homebuilt aircraft. A new notice would restrict them to
>flying passengers only in planes in which they are qualified and
>experienced. Currency and proficiency rules apply to those who take people
>for rides in their experimental aircraft and EAA says current pilots have
>until Aug. 31, 2005, to prove they have the necessary category and class
>ratings for the aircraft they fly.
>
>This is the first Ive heard of this, am I the only one in the dark about
>it? charlie heathco (this is from Avweb)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
Seems that 40A may not cover max current draw. More research needs to be done.
If it turns out 40A will cover the draw then I'll go with 40.
--- Hal Kempthorne wrote:
>
> 60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
>
> hal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
For others that may be sorting through on this, yet another angle.
The 60 amp is what I decided to do as well.
Some of my logic ...
My Piper consistently uses in the high 30's to low 40's amps. I monitor it
and based on the way I prefer to fly (lights on etc. and with admittedly
older radios) that is what it takes.
Our RV6 in theory should have been just fine with the 35 amp alternator from
Van's, **BUT** I noticed that based on the way I prefer to fly (lights on in
somewhat busy area), once I slowed down to enter the pattern, that
alternator definitely was NOT delivering 35 amps. Nowhere near it. By the
time I turn final, I had a bright red low voltage light staring me in the
face. I was not happy with that. My **estimates**, as far as I can recall
(data not currently handy), that 35 amp'er may have looked more like a 20
amp'er under certain conditions.
So I switched it out for Van's 55(?) amp'er. Even with it, on a long taxi at
very low idle (not a problem condition) I can get to low voltage on the
PC680.
So when it came to RV under construction that is electrically dependent, and
with a lot more electrical "stuff" (toys), I took the "lazy way out" and
went ahead and ordered the 60 amp'er from B&C to complement the 20 amp'er
(Z-14). Of course, I do believe that based on data received either from Bob
or B&C the B&C 40 amp unit delivers closer to rated current at low RPM that
the one 35 amp unit from Van's. And maybe that is part of what one pays for.
But for me the extra $$ was worth the peace of mind.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hal Kempthorne
| Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 11:23 AM
| To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Sources for electrical system design
|
|
|
| 60 amps! Wow! So you can run your compressor and drill press?
|
| hal
|
| Paul Folbrecht wrote:
|
|
| I did some reading. I think I will go with the B&C alternator. I think I
| will
| need the 60A too which is $600 - ouch!!
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | New Rule N 8700.42 |
What looks disturbing to me is that in sect. 5. GUIDANCE it specifically
states: "The pilot certificate will be issued with the limitiation "Authorized
Experimental Aircraft: [Category] and [Class] rating [Make] and [Model]" for the
aircraft authorized to be operated. This reference to Make and Model appears
several more times, and is shown on Figure 5 "Baxter built- Mini 500" and
Figure 6 "Weaver built Mini 500". Is this to be interpreted to mean my re-issued
certificate limits me to pax transport in "Phillips built RV-6A" only and
would preclude me from carrying pax in a "Rosales built RV-6A", a "Hotchkiss built
RV-7A" or even a "Buchannan built RV-6"? (supposing one of these guys would
even let me NEAR their airplanes!)
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes) |
Mark:
It sure looks like a new product they are offering, MUFFLER and heat Muff. I can
recommend aircraft exhaust in general, as I have a custom exhaust system from
them. Good quality. As far as cabin heat muff and muffler (noise suppressor)
in one I can't say. Looks like they combined the two.
How much quieter? I can't speak to the muffler, as my 4 into 1 are straight pipes
with no muffler. However one thing I did have them do on my pipes is weld
the optional porcupine studs on the pipe where the heat muff goes, as they show
on their web site. They improve heat transfer and you get much more heat.
Good find Mark, George
Mark Schrimmer
Subject: Re: Mufflers for RVs (Was Re: Noisy Airplanes)
Has anybody used the exhaust system from Aircraft
Exhaust Technologies http://www.aircraftexhaust.net?
According to their web site, they have a stainless
steel crossover system that includes two mufflers that
are small enough to fit inside the cowl of an RV-6,
RV-6A, RV-7, RV-7A, RV-8, RV-8A, RV-9, or RV-9A.
Besides reducing sound, they are supposed to increase
cabin heat, too.
Mark
---------------------------------
Find restaurants, movies, travel & more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | Microfastener website |
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Microfastener website |
Don't forget the "S"
http://www.microfasteners.com/
Jeff Point
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Draper <mdraper(at)nww.com> |
| Subject: | New rule N8700.42 does not apply to RVers |
According the EAA, new requirements would not apply to RVers.... See
example A.
ATTENTION, EXPERIMENTAL/HOMEBUILT PILOTS
Category and Class Rating Required to Carry Passengers
May 9, 2005 - On April 21, 2005, FAA Flight Standards reinforced a
regulatory requirement for passenger-carrying experimental/amateur-built
aircraft pilots to have category and class ratings for the aircraft they
intend to fly. The new Notice, N 8700.42, also provides a "grandfather"
clause allowing current pilots without the required ratings a limited window
of opportunity (through August 31, 2005) to obtain them. This new policy
does not apply to pilots flying experimental aircraft who do not carry
passengers.
Here's the procedure:
1. The airman must complete an FAA Form 8710-1.
2. The airman must currently hold a Recreational Pilot certificate or
higher.
3. The airman must have at least five hours as pilot in command flight time
in the category, class, make, and model of experimental aircraft between
September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005.
4. An authorized flight instructor must provide a logbook endorsement that
the applicant is proficient to act as PIC of that category, class, make, and
model of experimental aircraft.
5. The airman must make an appointment with a DPE or an FAA Operations
Inspector (ASI), who will verify that 1-4 are completed correctly, then
issue the new certificate. No DPE or ASI flight evaluation is required.
6. The new pilot certificate will be issued with the following restriction
placed on it: "Authorized Experimental Aircraft: (category) and (class),
(make) and (model)."
Examples:
a. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and fly a SEL experimental aircraft, no action is required.
b. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and fly a multi-engine experimental aircraft (MEL), will need
to comply with the new requirements.
c. Pilots who hold a private pilot SEL airplane category and class rating
certificate, and who fly an experimental single-engine sea plane, will need
to comply with the new requirements.
d. Pilots who hold a private pilot Glider category and class rating
certificate, and who fly an experimental single-engine helicopter, will need
to comply with the new requirements.
Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) or FAA Inspectors (ASIs)
will continue issuing operating limitations without this new requirement,
until the FAA issues the revision based on notice N 8700.42. However, at the
time the operating limitations are issued, DARs/ASIs will brief the
builder/owner of the new requirement.
This new requirement does not do away with requirement for the pilot to meet
FAR 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i), or (j).
Mike Draper
RV-8 (fuse)
N468RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McBride" <rickrv8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Microfastener website |
It came up okay for me at http://www.microfasteners.com/> Perhaps the "s" will make the difference.
Rick McBride
----- Original Message -----
From: John Danielson<mailto:johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:01 PM
Subject: RV-List: Microfastener website
Has Microfastener.com changed their web address? I can't seem to get on
their web site.
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert St.Denis" <rob(at)iahu.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
In the video, the plane was clearly visible from the ground, I would imagine similar
visibility from where he was sitting
On May 12, 2005 12:52 pm, Ron Lee wrote:
>
>
> > Folks, I don't mean to sound arrogant
> >but my experience has been the airways are full of pilots that don't
> >have a clue, and frequently use their ears instead of their eyes, or
> >don't think while they're flying, or in the case of the latest DC ADIZ
> >incursion, don't do any preflight planning.
>
> Where I live 100 mile visibility is typical and visibility around 30 miles
> seems like "IFR" conditions. Can someone explain how a person
> could fly over DC even not using GPS? Where conditions hazy and
> five miles visibility?
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Lumpkin <tlump51(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement |
Jim,
How much does it weigh?
Ted
LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com wrote:
NEW! JAA/FAA certified 2 blade aluminum constant speed MT-Propeller
MT-Propeller has developed a new high performance 2 blade aluminum propeller
for eliminating certain disadvantages of regular 2 blade aluminum constant
speed propellers.
The 2 blade aluminum MT-Propeller has the following:
- No RPM restrictions for undampened crankshaft Lycoming ( )O-360- series
engines.
- Latest available high efficiency airfoils
- Scimitar blade shape for noise reduction and high performance.
- Smooth running due to close tolerance manufacturing (CNC machined)
The new aluminum MT-Propeller is available for Lycoming and Continental
engines developing up to 300 hp. The maximum diameter is 203 cm (80 inches).
The Lycoming ( )O-360-series MT-Propeller is typically a 72 inch diameter
May 04, 2005 - May 12, 2005
RV-Archive.digest.vol-qv