RV-Archive.digest.vol-qw
May 12, 2005 - May 17, 2005
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: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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.
I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening' might very
well
be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that day costs
them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need you
to
extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line for 10
minutes
never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is doing
everyone
the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you are referring
to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell you to
take a
flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a few
minutes
to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many times
they've
done that to me that particular month.
Just another viewpoint.
Bill
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith-List: New Regulation or licence to fly experimental |
No NEW license is required. The regs now say you must have a license for
the type aircraft flown. You are flying a single engine land with the
appropriate license.
It was formulated so that you must have the right ratings to fly such things
as rotorcraft, helicopters, and kites. Many have been flying them without
the ratings and here is a chance to up-date via a log book entry their past
experience in for example a gyrocopter without going thru the entire
learning sequence, check rides, and examinations.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc(at)qconline.com>
Subject: Zenith-List: New Regulation or licence to fly experimental
> --> Zenith-List message posted by: Larry McFarland
>
> Hi Guys,
> On the Aeroelectric list the new regulation accessed below
> will require a new form, examination and compliance sheet to
> be able to fly with passengers for sport pilot licences and higher.
> T'would seem there'll be a backlog of work for instructors for a while
> if this isn't misread. It seems very clear, for a Government document.
>
> <<http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc>>
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Larry McFarland - 601HDS with passengers
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Lawson <rv6builder48138(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
quantity system.
Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
and where you folks have encountered the most
problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
baffle?
John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF and
ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
It works. The most aircraf that I have ever had in formation to arrive at a
NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
above method at NON Towered airports.
Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
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: bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
> 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.
I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening'
might very well
be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that
day costs
them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need
you to
extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line
for 10 minutes
never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is
doing everyone
the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you
are referring
to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell
you to take a
flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a
few minutes
to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many
times they've
done that to me that particular month.
Just another viewpoint.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
I did mine according to the construction manual and I do not have any leaks.
I think the key is preparation. Scuff, Clean and scuff and clean the
surfaces that get prosealed. Wear gloves to keep your oily hands off the
surfaces. Clean/soak your rivets in MEK or Lacquer Thinner or Coleman Fuel.
Carefully put a thin line of proseal on the edges that come together in
making the seal. Using too much of the stuff makes clean up a big bear.
Take your time in doing the riveting right. The proseal does not set up
that quickly. When done, set the tank away somewhere for not less than a
month before pressure testing. Give it longer if you can to full cure. I
let mine sit for 6 months before pressure testing. Put your prosealed
clecos into a bucket of MEK.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up Slow Build It Flies TMX-O360 Sensenich FP Dynon
Garmin 430/340/327/601A
Tru Trak AP ACS2002
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
>
> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
> quantity system.
>
> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
> and where you folks have encountered the most
> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
> baffle?
>
> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
FWIW, I found a concealed hinge that I believe will work well for an oil
door. It is like the hinges from McMaster-Carr that I have seen
referenced on the list before, except that it is made of aluminum
instead of steel.
http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
The Guden part number is NHAL9290. I think if it is positioned
properly, it should allow the door to swing open about 120 deg., so it
should stay propped open.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, Cowling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
15, 2004) at 05/12/2005 10:16:44 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
05/12/2005 10:17:15 PM,
Serialize complete at 05/12/2005 10:17:15 PM
Hi John,
I built the tanks pretty much according to instructions/plans. I used a small
syringe to apply the proseal at the leading edges (both inside and out). One
tank came out leak free. The other had a _small_ leak in one of the corners
where the baffle meets up with the outer rib which meets up with the skin. So
I'd make sure I had plenty in this area. Instead of mixing _another_ batch of
proseal, per the archives, I used LocTite 509 (green) and it preassure tested
great several days later.
Regards,
/\/elson
RV-7A
Austin, TX
On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Lawson wrote:
>
> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
> quantity system.
>
> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
> and where you folks have encountered the most
> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
> baffle?
>
> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>
>
--
~~ ** ~~ If you didn't learn anything when you broke it the 1st ~~ ** ~~
time, then break it again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall Insulation |
Looking for the best firewall insulation that has been test over time
and stays stuck. I've heard some peoples have not stayed stuck.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
My cowl is drilled & clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
1/2" above the lower edge. That 3 or 4 inch section at the side that
has no hinge to support it. It sticks out about 3/16". Even if I push
the lower edge into alignment, as it will be when the 2 halves are
joined, it still bows out about 3/16 a couple inches above that.
Tom G. at Vans suggested that when the 2 halves of the cowl are joined,
I can use the lower cowl to pull down on the upper cowl to pull it
further into place, but I just don't think that's going to work. It
takes about a 10 pound force normal to the surface to push it into
alignment with the fuselage. I don't think the lower cowl can pull down
hard enough. And, I don't like the idea of building a big strain into
the cowl.
I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
Does anybody have any suggestions before I do something irreversible?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bruno <rv4(at)videotron.ca> |
| Subject: | UMA LIGHTS VS WIRING KIT |
Hello Listers
I searched the archives , but couldn't find the info so
here it is.
I just bought a few UMA lights to upgrade the panel of my
RV-4 to night flying and as such I have bought UMA Lights from Aircrafts
Spruce with the required inverter and a wiring kit as advertised in the
manual.
I was very surprised when I got my order to find as the
wiring kit only a wire with a terminal at one end to attach to the small
"pig tails" and about 12" of blue wire.
My question to listers who have install the same kind of lights is : Is the
wiring kit it?
Is a wiring kit required for each and every light bezel??
I also bought one of Vans rheostat kit ( The one with 4 connections) is this
kit good enough for a full set of Vans gauges and 3--4 others instruments
lights or do I need something more " powerful) ??
Thanks you for your time
You may reply "off" list if you wish
Bruno Dionne
RV-4 C-GDBH
Rv4(at)videotron.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
| Subject: | Comments from Today's Tour & Demo |
Hopped on an early morning flight to Portland today, rented a car and drove
down to Van's. Got the tour and demo flight... here are some
notes/observations from the day.
- I was amazed to see just how much activity there is at the factory.
Everyone was busy on the phone, packing boxes, or making parts. The
operation was bigger/busier that I had imagined.
- I was a tad bit disappointed to learn the RV-7 had left for a show in
Texas, so I got to fly the RV-9A instead. That was fine by me as I was
really interested in seeing how comfortable I was in the cockpit, and since
the 7 and 9 share the same fuse, it served the purpose.
- I was very impressed with the flying qualities of the 9. That being said,
a few things surprised me;
a) The lack of adverse-yaw and thus the very minimal rudder input needed to
fly the plane. The lack of rudder authority also surprised me. I've been
flying a Citabria for 4 years and some aerobatics in a Pitts S2-C; I guess I
am just accustomed to flying with my feet. I am not sure if I really liked
not needing much rudder as somehow I felt as though flying wasn't as much of
a challenge without it. Challenge may be the wrong choice of words, but
let's go with it for now. Anywhoooo... not trying to start a debate, just
MY observations... mileage may vary.
b) Stall was a non-event. Probably the most benign stalling airplane I have
ever flown. The buffet came on like a light (instantly) and went away just
as fast.
c) Stick forces were heavier than I would have thought, but only minimal
inputs were needed.
Conclusion: Overall I was very impressed with the airplane... especially the
performance envelope.
- I was surprised to learn they encourage customers to buy the A models (I
was told specifically that they push the A's). Maybe my demo pilot was
urging my in that direction, but when he learned I have been flying
taildraggers for several years, the conversation changed topics.
- The RV-9 is the staff fav (nothing new to report here) with Bruce, my
pilot, saying they often fight over who gets to fly it.
- General theme of the day: "Build it light!"
- I was told that the pilots do not like the airplanes with 200HP motors as
they are too nose heavy (see "Build it light"). I was encouraged to go with
the 180 over the 200 for the weight savings, as opposed to a few MPH, and
was told it will handle better with the 180.
I am sure there are a few more things I could think of to tell you, but I've
been up since 4:45 and have been on 3 airplanes (incl the RV-9), 2 buses, 2
trains, a rental car, and my own car... I am pretty much toast. ;-)
Oh, here are few pictures I took while there...
www.rv7factory.com/images/vans/
The last picture is the order for the Emp kit I submitted while there. =8
)
Regards,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 / Waiting on Tail / Spending $ on Tools!
PS - I can't remember the name on the crate, but I saw someone from
Baltimore's fuse being packed while I was there... Check your mailbox soon.
;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
This worked for me:
I sealed and riveted in small aluminium fillers to close up what I thought
where gaps at the corners of the rear baffle.
If you are using the canned stuff?, be very exacting about mixing the
sealant in accordance with directions on the container. My sealant called
for a ten to one ratio. I have watched some people patching up leaking seams
etc. with sealant that was mixed using the "that's about the right shade of
grey" system. {[8-;
For tool cleaning and general cleanups during the sealing process I took
several sheets of household paper towel and cut them up into six sections. I
put MEK into one of two containers with lids. Into that container I put a
one inch high stack of the now small paper wipes into the MEK and put the
lid over it. I put the remaining stack of dry wipes in the other container.
I used an artists pallet knife to apply and spread the sealant as needed.
Whenever things got out of hand or when done with the sealing session the
MEK wetted and dry wipes could be used and thrown away without fear of
tracking the ghastly goop all over the place. Putting the lid on the MEK
container when not in use cut down on the evaporation stink etc.
Be sure to dispose of the wipes with an eye towards fire safety!
I used about a pint of sealant to finish both of my 6a tanks. They tested
good at one and three quarter pounds pressure.
I used an automotive cooling system radiator pressure tester that has a gage
spread reading from 0 to 20 lb..
The small hand operated, six inch stroke plunger type pump with it's own
gage, allowed very good control of pressure regulation.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
>
> I did mine according to the construction manual and I do not have any
> leaks.
> I think the key is preparation. Scuff, Clean and scuff and clean the
> surfaces that get prosealed. Wear gloves to keep your oily hands off the
> surfaces. Clean/soak your rivets in MEK or Lacquer Thinner or Coleman
> Fuel.
> Carefully put a thin line of proseal on the edges that come together in
> making the seal. Using too much of the stuff makes clean up a big bear.
> Take your time in doing the riveting right. The proseal does not set up
> that quickly. When done, set the tank away somewhere for not less than a
> month before pressure testing. Give it longer if you can to full cure. I
> let mine sit for 6 months before pressure testing. Put your prosealed
> clecos into a bucket of MEK.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up Slow Build It Flies TMX-O360 Sensenich FP
> Dynon
> Garmin 430/340/327/601A
> Tru Trak AP ACS2002
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
>
>
>>
>> I'm about to install the baffle on the left fuel tank
>> of my RV-6. I've found some good hints in the
>> archives for installing the baffle, but I could use
>> some suggestions and 'war stories' about ensuring that
>> I have a leak-free baffle. If it matters any, I've
>> installed a flop tube for fuel and a capacitance fuel
>> quantity system.
>>
>> Any thoughts on where and how to apply the pro-seal,
>> and where you folks have encountered the most
>> problems? Where have you experienced leaks around the
>> baffle?
>>
>> John Lawson (RV-6...left wing for what seems like forever)
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.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/
Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard to believe?
The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is getting 2 in-hg?
It does not sound right, or am I missing something. Unless he is going 240
mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure recovery, which is physically impossible,
I can't see those numbers.
His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so much air
you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body. Making the scoop
hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it does get you more drag
as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number for scoop inlet area (mouth)
10% larger than the venturi throat area. Going a lot larger gets more drag,
not more pressure.
The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and has been
used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E conomy) and
found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10 degrees to aircraft
right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of prop wash and free air
stream. There is some additional gain but it is nominal. Also the prop thrust
is poor near the hub and does not get to it's peak until you are at least out
1/2 span of the prop blade. From the pictures the scoop is well back from the
prop and close to the hub of the prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and
not great for airflow. Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design
is art, or making it look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape,
however round tends to be the least drag for a given area.
Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the best efforts
of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of manifold boost.
I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box as they state, is going
to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a RV. I have been wrong before
(but only once : -) Since you need to go 240 MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first
place something sounds off. Can anyone comment on this. My experience is 0.50
to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using Van's scoop and airbox is really the best
you can expect.
Thanks George
Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
"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)."
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.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/
Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard to believe?
The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is getting 2 in-hg?
It does not sound right, or am I missing something. Unless he is going 240
mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure recovery, which is physically impossible,
I can't see those numbers.
His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so much air
you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body. Making the scoop
hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it does get you more drag
as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number for scoop inlet area (mouth)
10% larger than the venturi throat area. Going a lot larger gets more drag,
not more pressure.
The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and has been
used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E conomy) and
found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10 degrees to aircraft
right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of prop wash and free air
stream. There is some additional gain but it is nominal. Also the prop thrust
is poor near the hub and does not get to it's peak until you are at least out
1/2 span of the prop blade. From the pictures the scoop is well back from the
prop and close to the hub of the prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and
not great for airflow. Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design
is art, or making it look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape,
however round tends to be the least drag for a given area.
Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the best efforts
of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of manifold boost.
I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box as they state, is going
to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a RV. I have been wrong before
(but only once : -) Since you need to go 240 MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first
place something sounds off. Can anyone comment on this. My experience is 0.50
to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using Van's scoop and airbox is really the best
you can expect.
Thanks George
Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
"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)."
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
>
> The sad fact is that this happens way too frequently. And when I say
> almost daily, I mean it. After hearing all the trouble GA causes, it's a
> wonder anybody is allowed to fly.
Just my opinion here, but I think all of the hype over GA trouble is just that...hype.
What could a cessna do as far as damage goes? Ok, pack it to the rim with explosives
and it might make a dent in a capital building....if the explosives are light enough
for
it to carry them. A fertilizer and diesel bomb ala oklahoma city certainly wouldn't
work and we are not talking about an airliner here, filled to capacity with fuel.
Even
the airliner didn't take down the building..the fuel melting the steel in it is
what
dropped it. They evacuated the capital because of a cessna? How weak, gun shy
and
scared has this country's leadership become? Meanwhile my family and fellow marines
are
riding around Iraq in hummers with canvas as their armor. Give me a break. Yeah,
the
pilot that busted the airspace made a monumental mistake..but the hype caused by
it is a
joke.
I hope I've made the wrong assumption here and it was actually a citation or something.
Bill
-4 wings
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Sources for electrical system design |
No need to rate the alternator for peak current draw - overkill.
Rather, prepare a load analysis and confirm that you will have say 45 minutes of
power without the
alternator (ie this determines the Battery AmpHour rating required) and that the
alternator will
support the average load. You may need to shed some load under emergency conditions,
just make sure
you know what this should be and document it in the flight manual.
To determine the average load add up the contiouous loads, then add the average
peak load by
multiplying each peak load centre by their respective duty cycles. Peak loads
include items like
Landing lights and Radio transmissions. Strobes will have a peak current load
but present an
average load somewhat less than this, the manufacturer should be able to assist
with this.
Doug Gray
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>
> 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: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Insulation |
Bobby, I bought FW insulation material from Abby at Flightline Interiors.
It is very tough stuff, and installs with spray-on stickum. Did I say it is
tough stuff? I can't imagine any insulating material being better nor
easier to work with although it is hard to cut. I used metal shears on it.
It is removable (thank goodness cause I had to do that already in one
place), but does not come off easily. With the cutouts, angles, protrusions
and all on the cockpit side of the FW, the insulation from Flightline could
possibly stay in place without the glue. The spray-on is 3M super 77
adhesive. Sorry, I can't vouch for what will happen over time when the FW
sees sustained temps in the perhaps 350 degrees range due to engine cooling
and radiant heat from the exhaust. If the glue melts and runs, it could be
a mess at the bottom where the FW and floor meet. I did not overuse the
glue however.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
>
> Looking for the best firewall insulation that has been test over time
> and stays stuck. I've heard some peoples have not stayed stuck.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Comments from Today's Tour & Demo |
>
>
> - I was a tad bit disappointed to learn the RV-7 had left for a show in
> Texas, so I got to fly the RV-9A instead. That was fine by me as I was
> really interested in seeing how comfortable I was in the cockpit, and
> since
> the 7 and 9 share the same fuse, it served the purpose.
(((((Disappointed!! The 9 is one fine plane. If I were starting over
today, I would probably build it rather than the 7. ))))))
>
> - I was very impressed with the flying qualities of the 9. That being
> said,
> a few things surprised me;
> a) The lack of adverse-yaw and thus the very minimal rudder input needed
> to
> fly the plane. The lack of rudder authority also surprised me. I've been
> flying a Citabria for 4 years and some aerobatics in a Pitts S2-C; I guess
> I
> am just accustomed to flying with my feet. I am not sure if I really
> liked
> not needing much rudder as somehow I felt as though flying wasn't as much
> of
> a challenge without it. Challenge may be the wrong choice of words, but
> let's go with it for now. Anywhoooo... not trying to start a debate, just
> MY observations... mileage may vary.
((((((This is the same experience I have had with flying the RV6 which I am
transition training in. Compared to the Cessna 140, the RV has little real
rudder control while airbourne. They are two different planes entirely. I
too am surprised at the amount of pressure required to use the rudder when
it is needed for take offs and landings. While flying, the rudder is used
only during acceleration to keep the ball centered. The C-140 is what I
call a rudder plane. The RV6 I call a aileron plane. Each has its good
points. I try to change direction some in the RV using the rudder and it
does not obey that input easily like the 140. A lot of it has to do with
the speed difference I think.))))))))))))))
> - I was surprised to learn they encourage customers to buy the A models (I
> was told specifically that they push the A's). Maybe my demo pilot was
> urging my in that direction, but when he learned I have been flying
> taildraggers for several years, the conversation changed topics.
>
(((((((The A model will be easier on the insurance pocket book going down
the airways. Also it will be easier to find a buyer if you ever decide to
sell the plane. It is harder to build however. AND did I mention it does
not look as good on the runway? Some opinions will vary on this.)))))))))
>
> - I was told that the pilots do not like the airplanes with 200HP motors
> as
> they are too nose heavy (see "Build it light"). I was encouraged to go
> with
> the 180 over the 200 for the weight savings, as opposed to a few MPH, and
> was told it will handle better with the 180.
(((((((((With the slipperiness of the 9 and the desire to stay light, I
would use the 320 engine from Lyc. or a Lyc. type such as Superior,
Mattituck or whomever. 160 HP is plenty if you want to fly 180
PH. )))))))))
>
>> RV-7 / Waiting on Tail / Spending $ on Tools!
((((((((You really should get your wing order in now.)))))))))))))
>
Indiana Larry, RV7, slowbuilder for 4 years, TMX-O360, SunSeeker (N3XG), It
Flies!!!!!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com> |
Do any of you know where I can find a panel-mounted air vent that would fit in
a standard 2 =BC" instrument hole?
Regards,
Don
Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-mail servers are scanned for viruses
and other threats prior to delivery using e-mail security services powered
by MessageLabs Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
Look at AirCraft Spruce for a fastener called a Camlock. That could work.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
>
>
> I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
> pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
> do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
> and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
> trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
>
> Does anybody have any suggestions before I do something irreversible?
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: oil door Hinges |
What you reference will work. I just wanted to point out that the bent
portion of the hinge can be fabricated/bent from .016 aluminum by the
builder. Bill Majors of the EAA21 group made one for me and it is about 6"
long and I think works better and is stronger although lighter due to it
being full length of the hinge area. Finished results of using this type
or (hidden) hinge are just outstanding.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: oil door Hinges
>
> FWIW, I found a concealed hinge that I believe will work well for an oil
> door. It is like the hinges from McMaster-Carr that I have seen
> referenced on the list before, except that it is made of aluminum
> instead of steel.
>
> http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
>
> The Guden part number is NHAL9290. I think if it is positioned
> properly, it should allow the door to swing open about 120 deg., so it
> should stay propped open.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, Cowling
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/12/05 10:50:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
> My cowl is drilled &clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
> fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
> 1/2" above the lower edge.
Hi Tom-
Had exactly the same problem with mine- After futile attempts to fix it with
a heat gun, I wound up adding epoxy/flox to the inside of the cowl in this
area to thicken it up and sanded the outside down to get it more flush- my
mis-alignment was more like 1/8", so you might want to add a few layers of glass
on
the inside to maintain strength in the area if you have to sand all the way
through the original glass layers. Since the rear edge of the cowl is now
thicker, it closes up the gap when seen from behind. Not perfect, but an
acceptable alternative to cutting a slot, pulling the bulge out and re-glassing.
Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern |
Gary, thank you for this. This is the way it should be done.
When I read of someone approaching an airport with a flight and asking
the downwind traffic to get out of the way, I cringed. I don't care how
nice he asks, or if he says "pretty please", that sounds pretty
arrogant. Unless you have an emergency, you should adjust to the
existing traffic, formation or not.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
RV6 Flyer wrote:
>
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
>
>It works. The most aircraf that I have ever had in formation to arrive at a
>NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
>above method at NON Towered airports.
>
>Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
>https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
>
>Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
>Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
>the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
>
>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: bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com>
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Joy Riding in the Pattern
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 17:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
> > 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.
>
>
>I would respectfully suggest that some of those that aren't 'listening'
>might very well
>be listening and also looking at the hobbs which determines how much that
>day costs
>them...then having a flight of 6 say 'oh, excuse me but we're going to need
>you to
>extend your downwind so that we don't have to wait in line..thanks'
>
>I know you don't mean it rudely, but the guy who has been waiting in line
>for 10 minutes
>never does like to have someone walk straight to the front..even if he is
>doing everyone
>the honor of pulling a formation break. The people with no clue that you
>are referring
>to are likely just not choosing to hit the transmit button when they tell
>you to take a
>flying leap. :-) Personally, I wouldn't mind extending a flying day by a
>few minutes
>to accomodate some RV's but then again I suppose that depends on how many
>times they've
>done that to me that particular month.
>
>Just another viewpoint.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: To ram air or NOT to ram air -- that is the |
question
I believe his latest test bed is a turbo normalized RV-8. I talked to Jon
himself at OSH last year and he told me about his new plane. I also found
an old article in the RVator about ram air on RV's, basically from every
thing I have read you might get .5 inches more by bypassing the air filter.
Dan Checkoway also posted some numbers about his ram air system I think he
saw less than .5 inches boost.
>
> >"Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
> Johanason?" http://www.flymore.com.au/
>
>Not trying to tear down any claims, but I find 2" manifold RAM rise hard
>to believe? The total RAM pressure at 240 MPH is 2 in-hg. How he is
>getting 2 in-hg? It does not sound right, or am I missing something.
>Unless he is going 240 mph and getting 100% efficiency RAM pressure
>recovery, which is physically impossible, I can't see those numbers.
>
>His scoop inlet area is a very large and looks draggy. There is only so
>much air you can stuff thru the area of the venturi or throttle body.
>Making the scoop hole (area) bigger does not get more pressure, but it
>does get you more drag as air will spill off the scoop. The magic number
>for scoop inlet area (mouth) 10% larger than the venturi throat area.
>Going a lot larger gets more drag, not more pressure.
>
>
>The claim of using prop thrust to gain induction RAM air is not new and
>has been used before, with some limited sucses. Kent Paser (Speed with E
>conomy) and found you need to be 5/8 inch from the prop and angled 10
>degrees to aircraft right, into the realtive slip stream, a combination of
>prop wash and free air stream. There is some additional gain but it is
>nominal. Also the prop thrust is poor near the hub and does not get to
>it's peak until you are at least out 1/2 span of the prop blade. From the
>pictures the scoop is well back from the prop and close to the hub of the
>prop. The hub area is full of turbulent air and not great for airflow.
>Again I could be wrong, but part of the scoop design is art, or making it
>look right. I don't think there is any magic scoop shape, however round
>tends to be the least drag for a given area.
>
>Any intake scoop is going to have "spillage" and other losses. Even the
>best efforts of others have only netted a total gain of 0.5 in -hg of
>manifold boost. I find it hard to believe this scoop, using vans air-box
>as they state, is going to gain that much, much less going 240 mph in a
>RV. I have been wrong before (but only once : -) Since you need to go 240
>MPH to get 2 in-hg in the first place something sounds off. Can anyone
>comment on this. My experience is 0.50 to 0.75 in-hg max of MAP rise using
>Van's scoop and airbox is really the best you can expect.
>
>
>Thanks George
>
>
>
>
> Has anyone looked at or installed a ram air induction system from Jon
> Johanason? http://www.flymore.com.au/
>
> "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)."
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
I just ordered a few countersunk camlocs which I plan to use on the oil
door. I have never used camlocs before. Is the countersunk stud (2700
series) OK to use by itself on fiberglass? That is, does it distribute
the load enough so that it doesn't wear out the fiberglass after a
while, or should I use some sort of countersunk washer under it?
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller |
Ted,
The aluminum 2 blade CS MT Propeller and spinner assembly weighs 56 pounds.
A Hartzell 2 blade propeller and aluminum spinner assembly weighed the same
on the same scales.
By comparison, the standard 3 blade CS MT propeller and spinner assembly
weighs 44 pounds.
The standard 3 blade MTV-12-B/183-59b propeller assembly for the RV series
aircraft does not have any RPM restrictions on any Lycoming ( )O-360-series
engine.
The -59b blade was specifically designed, analyzed and tested to demonstrate
no midrange RPM restriction normally present with any undampened crankshaft
Lycoming ( )O-360 engine.
Jim Ayers
Custom Aircraft Propeller - A division of Less Drag Products, Inc.
In a message dated 05/13/2005 12:00:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
From: Ted Lumpkin <tlump51(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aluminum 2 blade MT Propeller Advertisement
Jim,
How much does it weigh?
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
I had planned a trip from Meadow lake (00V) to Cortez CO (CEZ)
to visit Mesa Verde. The trip was a last minute (late decision).
Stop at COS for fuel (more delay).
Heading east at 16,500' was slow (headwind). After a while I elected
to return home but not before taking pictures:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Mtn6.jpg
I also decided to check my climb rate once I leveled at 17,500'
I believe I was just west of (or over) the mountains in the pic above.
At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
for breakfast.
O-360 carbureted engine. Fixed pitch prop.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
"At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
there."
Not so, just file IFR or ask for a special clearance. You don't have to
be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just have to be IFR
rated to fly in IMC conditions.
Nice pic.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
1000 FPM sustained climb? No CS prop? #'s sound to good to be true. I
suspect a large rising air mass. For example, flying over mountains I have
seen 800~1000 FPM sustained climb (20~30 seconds) at 160 kts, it was pretty
cool thing to see, also glass smooth also.
>
>I had planned a trip from Meadow lake (00V) to Cortez CO (CEZ)
>to visit Mesa Verde. The trip was a last minute (late decision).
>Stop at COS for fuel (more delay).
>
>Heading east at 16,500' was slow (headwind). After a while I elected
>to return home but not before taking pictures:
>
>http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/Mtn6.jpg
>
>I also decided to check my climb rate once I leveled at 17,500'
>I believe I was just west of (or over) the mountains in the pic above.
>
>At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
>higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
>there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
>for breakfast.
>
>O-360 carbureted engine. Fixed pitch prop.
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
Hmmm. Strong winds; Rocky Mountains; very little available horsepower;
1,000 FPM climb. Sure sounds like mountain wave, to me.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
> At 115 mph indicated I was doing 1000' FPM. It might have been
> higher but I was getting close to 18,000' and I am not allowed up
> there. Doesn't seem fair to me. So nose down and over to Pueblo
> for breakfast.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Durakovich <ddurakovich(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
If my memory is faulty (advancing years I'm sure!), I apologize in advance.
It's been many years since I first found the interesting "nuance " in the regs
that didn't seem to make sense, but was there anyway.
Basically, a licensed pilot in ANY category or class (powered fixed wing, glider,
rotocraft, airship, balloon) could legally operate ANY experimental aircraft
in ANY OTHER category or class without additional requirements.
A suitably licensed lighter than air ( balloon ) pilot who may have never even
sat in the cockpit of a real airplane could legally climb into an RV-8, and go
do whatever damage he could do.
Prudent? Not at all.
Rediculous? Absolutely.
Legal? Yup!
Likely to have happened? You know it has!
I think the new reg, which still allows you to legally go out and kill yourself,
attempts to prevent you from doing so to the unsuspecting public.
Again, if my memory is faulty, I do apologize!
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Milner" <tldrgred(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
I always hit the lights before starting and leave them on on the
ground... at least the beacon. Remember that non-aviation savvy people
often forget that there is a big sharp fan spinning very fast that they
can't see.
Of course, someone who doesn't notice the noise, etc, may not notice the
light either. but every little bit that i can do to avoid having to
clean the nose of the plane at least makes me feel better about it.
James
Greg Milner wrote:
>
>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
I can find no place in the regs that specify you must hold an instrument
rating to file or fly an IFR flight plan. All the regs say is that you
must be IFR rated to fly in less than VFR mininums. When in controled
airspace, and that airspace is less than VFR mininums, you must also be
on an IFR flight plan.
So, as long as you maintain VFR, anyone can file and fly an IFR
flightplan.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
| From: | "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com> |
Whatever it takes to not get run over! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Milner
Subject: RV-List: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running
Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting
while running. I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the
airplane is running and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority
do?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Joy Riding in the Pattern From |
>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. Alan
Thanks for the correction, I meant 91.303 Aerobatic Flight. You are correct aerobatic
flight is not defined by FARs except by:
Far 91.303: "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."
The intent of my comment was simply high speed patterns and/or abrupt high bank
angles can startle other pilots and people on the ground. We can justify flying
**military style 360 overheads are abeam 180 patterns all day long and argue
the details of what is legal or not. The bottom line use good judgment, have
fun, don't piss people off. I am all for formation flight including in the pattern,
and many of the comments on this thread are excellent and think this topic
is beat to death.
**Military patterns use steep banks to "load the wing" and slow down.
Using steep banks and high G turns slow down aircraft quickly. RVs
can use this technique to enter the down wind faster and bleed speed
off in steep turns, but again this is "sporty" and requires discretion.
====================
FAR 91.303 Aerobatic Flight
No person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight -
(a) Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement;
(b) Over an open air assembly of persons;
(c) Within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class
D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport;
(d) Within 4 nautical miles of the center line of any Federal airway;
(e) Below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface; or
(f) When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.
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.
==============
>
>
> 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]
#####
---------------------------------
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
I strongly support and teach this practice.
I started leaving the beacon or strobe on at all times several years ago.
(except for operational considerations like clouds or night in close prox to
other airplanes.) Since I have done that, I have not bought a single new
battery. NOT ONE! They last forever if you never run them flat.
I call it the Master switch idiot light. It is pretty tough to walk away
from an airplane with the strobes flashing. Even if you do, when you walk
into the FBO some old grumpy corporate pilot or cocky young flight
instructor will ask you if you meant to leave the master on. Really
embarrassing, but cheaper than a new battery.
I always shut off the master with "3-M" Mixture Master and the Mags. My
experience has been, what ever was rushing me and caused me to forget the
master, probably caused me to forget the mags too.
Further, in the Warbirds at an airshow, if we see the beacon flashing it
tells us someone might be fooling around in the cockpit.
I think it is an EXCELLENT idea that saves money on ruined batteries and
adds to overall safety.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: DC incursion (Was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Right on Phil!!!!!
Jim Nelson
St. Petersburg, Fl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
Not saying you are wrong at this point but I think it is not consistent with
current belief. I did a quick google search and found this on landings.com
by Joe Benkert. He apparently believes this also. Don't know about his
knowledge. Would like to flush this out for interest sake.
If you file an actual IFR flight plan, but not controlling the aircraft only
be reference to instruments, then you do not log IFR time. When you file an
actual IFR flight plan, you are in effect testifying that you are IFR rated
and current. So, if you are not so rated, the only way you should be filing
an actual IFR plan is for the CFII (or some other IFR rated pilot) does the
filing and is responsible for the results, hence that pilot is the pilot in
command. Time spent intercepting radials, tracking, etc, is *not* logged as
IFR time , either simulated or actual unless the above conditions are met
Hope this helps.
http://www.landings.com/_landings/Forums/jb/jb-fars.html
Does anybody else have any reference to either confirm or deny this idea?
Tim
DNA
-------Original Message-------
From: Bruce Gray
Date: 05/13/05 11:51:27
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
I can find no place in the regs that specify you must hold an instrument
rating to file or fly an IFR flight plan. All the regs say is that you
must be IFR rated to fly in less than VFR mininums. When in controled
airspace, and that airspace is less than VFR mininums, you must also be
on an IFR flight plan.
So, as long as you maintain VFR, anyone can file and fly an IFR
flightplan.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
just
have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
What?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cutter" <rcutter(at)cupower.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
On larger aircraft I have seen and the ones I fly, strobe lights on, is on the
checklist just as you actually take the active. To do so befofe, one might "flash"
someone in another aircraft in close proximity.
Just my opinion and what we do on our corporate plane.
Robert
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: James Ochs <jochs(at)froody.org>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:34:59 -0700
>
>I always hit the lights before starting and leave them on on the
>ground... at least the beacon. Remember that non-aviation savvy people
>often forget that there is a big sharp fan spinning very fast that they
>can't see.
>
>Of course, someone who doesn't notice the noise, etc, may not notice the
>light either. but every little bit that i can do to avoid having to
>clean the nose of the plane at least makes me feel better about it.
>
>James
>
>Greg Milner wrote:
>
>>
>>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at cupower.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF
and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
Gary: I know you no doubt are a polite, courteous pilot and fly safely, but respectfully
disagree with the premise that descending into the pattern from above
is a good method or even safe. You say you give way to others, but than say
you "adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the traffic established in the
pattern," which sounds good, but what if you don't see all the traffic.
Not only are you flying a "non-standard" pattern you are flying at "your own altitude"
and descending down into and thru the pattern? That sounds like a mid-air
waiting to happen. Descending down into the pattern is a terrible idea. Is
there a reason I am missing for doing this. I know it is fun, faster and all,
but if there is traffic you should get in line (where the line forms), not cut
in from above. I know you say you give way and never had a problem, but what
if you miss seeing a plane. How will you see them banked, in a descending overtake
situation? While your in a descending turn what about a plane on a straight-in
you missed (another pilot doing their own thing).
I don't understand why the idea of funneling in on the 45 degree entry at TPA and
adjusting speed to "merge" into the pattern, first come, is so hard to do,
except it takes longer. The trade off in speed and safety sounds like a bad trade.
Even in the LA area you have room to enter the pattern using the 45 or established
routes. LA area is not a reason for a drop in 500ft above pattern using
a circling descending approach. We had a guy who with a Russian trainer who
felt he would fly the whole pattern 500 feet higher all the time. After almost
landing an a few planes the "airport" straightened him out. He passed planes
overhead on the down-wind and would descend down in front of planes. When he
was asked about what he was doing, his reason was it takes too long to follow
other planes and his plane is faster! Oh yes he said it.
Flying a RV does give you the feeling of superiority. The ease in which RVs fly
and performance can give pilots an over inflated confidence in one's pilot skills.
Not saying this applies to you Gary, and admit I have fell victim of the
anti-Cessna pattern attitude many times. As you point out there are times to
do it and other times we need to knock it off. There is no real good reason we
can't slow down and follow other traffic. From what you are saying it sounds
like you do this, but I don't think a cork-screw approach down into the pattern
is ever needed. If there are planes in the pattern, my opinion is unless you
get an OK over the radio and can assure no other traffic is around, than "special"
approaches should be knocked off all together.
I am not trying to ruin anyones fun, but unless we police our selves the FAA might
make some regulations that will restrict out freedoms more (see DC pilot incursion
and new FAA rules on experimental aircraft). In your scenario you are
in a bank that blocks your view of the down wind, 45 and final approach, all
the time you are descending. If there is room to fit in your 360 overhead than
you should be able to enter at TPA to see the down wind and not descend thru
the downwind.
TPA - traffic pattern altitude is named that for a reason. What if everyone started
flying any altitude they wanted? It sounds like driving up the wrong side
of the freeway because there is less traffic. The traffic pattern is so everyone
knows what to expect and where to expect other aircraft will come from. Being
at the same altitude is so we can see each other. The thought of an aircraft
descending down onto or into the pattern is scary.
The whole purpose of the pattern altitude is to "see and be seen" and know what
to expect from other planes. Gary If you think it is safe, fine, I respect your
opinion, but if I saw a plane drop down into the patten in-front of me or overtake
me from above in the pattern I would be very unhappy. Also 500 ft above
TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE aircraft or aircraft transitioning over
the airport from the non-pattern side to the pattern side to enter the 45 to
down-wind. We can enter the pattern at any altitude and fly any shape pattern
we want, but than why do we have traffic patterns or pattern altitudes at all.
Regards George
===============
Subject: Re: Joy Riding in the Pattern
On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive at
INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I stay
500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the
traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at TPA IF
and
ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
It works. The most aircraft that I have ever had in formation to arrive
at a
NON Towered airport is 12. We have had NO traffic problems when using the
above method at NON Towered airports.
Take a look at the way airports are arranged in my area:
https://aviationtoolbox.org/members/kyler/tools/map_explorer?image=-1699463%2C-262139%2C25&scale=50&selected.x=371&selected.y=172
Maybe I am the only one that remembers what it was like flying a rental.
Anytime that I am in formation and there are other aircraft established in
the pattern, I YIELD the runway to them.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,666 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
5/13/2005
Hello Fellow Builders and Pilot's, Some questions were raised on this
subject. Perhaps this will help explain why the FAA felt it necessary to add
FAR paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B):
The answer is found in this paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F regarding
issuing Operating Limitations for amateur built experimental aircraft which
the FAA apparently considers to override FAR Section 61.31 (d):
"153. b. (18) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold a pilot
certificate or an authorized instructor's logbook endorsement. The pilot in
command also must meet the requirements of 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
and (j), as appropriate."
This paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F, when placed in the Operating
Limitations, would allow a person with any kind of pilot certificate to fly
any category or class of amateur built experimental
aircraft (except any turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, any aircraft with
a maximum takeoff weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, and any other aircraft
when deemed necessary (per the note to paragraph 153. b. (17)) as PIC with
passengers.
The new FAR paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B) is intended to retroactively
remove that allowance.
If you have a pilot certificate for airplane (category) single engine - land
(class) you are good to go with pax in an RV -- no additional certification
action required.
In passing I note that this is another instance, there are others, of
confusion generated by the FAA when the FAR's and the FAA's Orders are not
entirely in synch with
each other and interpretation is required to sort out the confusion.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6fly <rv6fly(at)bresnan.net> |
sarg314 wrote:
>
>My cowl is drilled & clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
>fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
>1/2" above the lower edge. That 3 or 4 inch section at the side that
>has no hinge to support it. It sticks out about 3/16". Even if I push
>the lower edge into alignment, as it will be when the 2 halves are
>joined, it still bows out about 3/16 a couple inches above that.
>
>I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
>pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
>do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
>and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
>trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
>
>--
>Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
>
>
>
Tom,
You can try heat from a heat gun & see if you gain anything. It
probably won't get you where you want to be, however. I would rough up
the inside radius and lay up multiple layers of fiberglass cloth and
then grind the outside contour to what you need. I think cloth would be
preferable to flox as there would be more structual integrity. It will
take quite a few layers but this method works pretty well. This method
can also be used on the front face of the top and bottom cowl to even
things out if the cowl to spinner fit doesn't turn out as well as one
had hoped.
You could add some .032" flanges in the unsupported area and use
machine countersunk screws & Timmerman's into nutplates to hold the cowl
in as another suggestion. You could put a flange on both sides so as to
be symetrical.
Bob Skinner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/aim/glossary.html#o
I am just Following the RECOMMENDED procedure published in the AIM.
------- insert -------
OVERHEAD MANEUVER- A series of predetermined maneuvers prescribed for
aircraft (often in formation) for entry into the visual flight rules (VFR)
traffic pattern and to proceed to a landing. An overhead maneuver is not an
instrument flight rules (IFR) approach procedure. An aircraft executing an
overhead maneuver is considered VFR and the IFR flight plan is cancelled
when the aircraft reaches the "initial point" on the initial approach
portion of the maneuver. The pattern usually specifies the following:
a. The radio contact required of the pilot.
b. The speed to be maintained.
c. An initial approach 3 to 5 miles in length.
d. An elliptical pattern consisting of two 180 degree turns.
e. A break point at which the first 180 degree turn is started.
f. The direction of turns.
g. Altitude (at least 500 feet above the conventional pattern).
h. A "Roll-out" on final approach not less than 1/4 mile from the
landing threshold and not less than 300 feet above the ground.
------ end insert ------
90% of the time, the tower assigns TPA +500.
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: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern)
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
>On an overhead approach at an NON-Towered airport, I always arrive
at
>INITIAL 500 foot above TPA. If other aircraft are in the pattern, I
stay
>500' above TPA. Will adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind
the
>traffic established in the pattern. My flight pitchout will be at
TPA IF and
>ONLY IF there are NO other aircraft in the pattern.
Gary: I know you no doubt are a polite, courteous pilot and fly safely, but
respectfully disagree with the premise that descending into the pattern from
above is a good method or even safe. You say you give way to others, but
than say you "adjust the pitchout so as to fall in behind the traffic
established in the pattern," which sounds good, but what if you don't see
all the traffic.
Not only are you flying a "non-standard" pattern you are flying at "your own
altitude" and descending down into and thru the pattern? That sounds like a
mid-air waiting to happen. Descending down into the pattern is a terrible
idea. Is there a reason I am missing for doing this. I know it is fun,
faster and all, but if there is traffic you should get in line (where the
line forms), not cut in from above. I know you say you give way and never
had a problem, but what if you miss seeing a plane. How will you see them
banked, in a descending overtake situation? While your in a descending turn
what about a plane on a straight-in you missed (another pilot doing their
own thing).
I don't understand why the idea of funneling in on the 45 degree entry at
TPA and adjusting speed to "merge" into the pattern, first come, is so hard
to do, except it takes longer. The trade off in speed and safety sounds like
a bad trade. Even in the LA area you have room to enter the pattern using
the 45 or established routes. LA area is not a reason for a drop in 500ft
above pattern using a circling descending approach. We had a guy who with a
Russian trainer who felt he would fly the whole pattern 500 feet higher all
the time. After almost landing an a few planes the "airport" straightened
him out. He passed planes overhead on the down-wind and would descend down
in front of planes. When he was asked about what he was doing, his reason
was it takes too long to follow other planes and his plane is faster! Oh yes
he said it.
Flying a RV does give you the feeling of superiority. The ease in which RVs
fly and performance can give pilots an over inflated confidence in one's
pilot skills. Not saying this applies to you Gary, and admit I have fell
victim of the anti-Cessna pattern attitude many times. As you point out
there are times to do it and other times we need to knock it off. There is
no real good reason we can't slow down and follow other traffic. From what
you are saying it sounds like you do this, but I don't think a cork-screw
approach down into the pattern is ever needed. If there are planes in the
pattern, my opinion is unless you get an OK over the radio and can assure no
other traffic is around, than "special" approaches should be knocked off all
together.
I am not trying to ruin anyones fun, but unless we police our selves the FAA
might make some regulations that will restrict out freedoms more (see DC
pilot incursion and new FAA rules on experimental aircraft). In your
scenario you are in a bank that blocks your view of the down wind, 45 and
final approach, all the time you are descending. If there is room to fit in
your 360 overhead than you should be able to enter at TPA to see the down
wind and not descend thru the downwind.
TPA - traffic pattern altitude is named that for a reason. What if everyone
started flying any altitude they wanted? It sounds like driving up the wrong
side of the freeway because there is less traffic. The traffic pattern is so
everyone knows what to expect and where to expect other aircraft will come
from. Being at the same altitude is so we can see each other. The thought of
an aircraft descending down onto or into the pattern is scary.
The whole purpose of the pattern altitude is to "see and be seen" and know
what to expect from other planes. Gary If you think it is safe, fine, I
respect your opinion, but if I saw a plane drop down into the patten
in-front of me or overtake me from above in the pattern I would be very
unhappy. Also 500 ft above TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE aircraft or
aircraft transitioning over the airport from the non-pattern side to the
pattern side to enter the 45 to down-wind. We can enter the pattern at any
altitude and fly any shape pattern we want, but than why do we have traffic
patterns or pattern altitudes at all.
Regards George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
George,
You hit it in your last paragraph.
> (snip) Also 500 ft above TPA (usually 1500 agl) is for TURBINE
aircraft or aircraft transitioning over the airport from the non-pattern
side to the pattern side to enter the 45 to down-wind. <
Most crossover entries are done at midfield. I don't see much point in
leaving the pattern and making another 180 (which is what it would take)
to position oneself for the 45 entry unless there is too much downwind
traffic to merge with. While you're doing that, you've lost sight of any
traffic you spotted while crossing over.
An overhead approach is very much like transitioning to the pattern side
of the airport and as such shouldn't be done at pattern altitude. Like
any other maneuver near the airport, it must be done with caution and
with open eyes and ears and with good use of the radio. The traffic
you'd be most concerned with in this case would be opposite direction
and offset to the pattern side. That's an area of pretty good visibility
even when looking slightly lower. One should assure oneself that the
turn is clear before making it (as always). Once the spacing behind the
last downwind aircraft is assured and the turn initiated, it's easy to
keep the traffic you're following in sight, at least with a low short
wing airplane like the RV. The overhead or for that matter the upwind
approach gives you a good look at traffic in the pattern and them at
you. Shine your landing light. It helps. If there is traffic, you merge
behind it and it becomes a regular downwind to base to final approach.
If no traffic, break and land.
You mentioned traffic on straight in. Straight in traffic is bad news at
uncontrolled fields whether or not you fly a standard pattern. If
they're not on the radio, you'll just have to spot them, as always. If
you do your initial approach at pattern + 500, they would be below you
(if you are overtaking) and if they are behind you, you'll get a look at
them when you make your break.
You are correct that the pattern is about seeing and being seen.
Carefully done, the overhead approach provides for both. Horror stories
about descending into traffic don't have to be what a 360 approach are
about. I don't agree with the poster who asks the other traffic to give
way for a formation. I also don't advocate blowing into a busy pattern
and doing whatever you want at the expense of people already there,
although I've seen it done. I've seen plenty of people screw up standard
approaches to the point of near collision. The classic is the 45 degree
entry to downwind on the wrong side of the airport with radio turned
off. A guy in a C182 tried to kill me with that one at Big Bear a few
years back. He said (once I caught up with him at the FBO) that a) left
traffic is standard and b) you don't have to use a radio at
uncontrolled fields. Courteous, cautious and, above all, alert is the
way to go.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GMC <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: FAR`s re: lighting and engine running |
On the airline type aircraft I flew our company procedure was to turn on
the red belly/top strobe during the "Before Start" checklist to warn
ground personnel and vehicles of the impending push back and start. The
white wingtip strobes and landing lights were turned on when T/O
clearance was received.
George in Langley BC
>>Greg Milner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Got in to a debate recently about the use of strobe/beacon lighting while running.
I was taught and believe in having lights on to show the airplane is running
and dangerous to personnel. What does the majority do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly called IMC (Instrument Meteorlogical
Conditions).
Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 - IFR Conditions means
weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight Rules. If what you are saying is
true and you
substituted the definition of IFR conditions for IFR, then FAR 61.3 would read:
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft "under weather conditions
below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" or in in weather conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight....
Which would be saying the same thing twice which doesn't make any sense.
IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply IMC.
Phil
RV8A - Fuse
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | mounting wings in a 6A |
Howdy group:
Just moved my 6A to the airport and am in the head scratching stage regarding supporting
my 6A whilst mounting the wings.
Any sage advice regarding how you got your 6A off the main gear and stable enough
to crawl inside and install wing bolts would be most appreciated. I must add
that I do have my engine mounted, so I need to take that extra weight into
consideration.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
ready to plug the wings in
Peshtigo, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
that are separate unto themselves.
Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
great deal of confusion in the process.
At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly an
IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
logic in the FAR's.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phil Wiethe
Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFRminimums. I've
talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg
thatrequires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.I'm
sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't seeit
written in concrete anywhere.Brucewww.glasair.orgBruce - I do not think
you are correct. IFR and IFR conditions are not
the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly called IMC (Instrument
Meteorlogical Conditions).
Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 - IFR Conditions
means
weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight
rules.
Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight Rules. If what you are
saying is true and you
substituted the definition of IFR conditions for IFR, then FAR 61.3
would read:
No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft "under weather
conditions
below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" or in in weather
conditions
less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight....
Which would be saying the same thing twice which doesn't make any sense.
IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply IMC.
Phil
RV8A - Fuse
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
Bruce,
I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
Dave Leonard
>
> Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> that are separate unto themselves.
>
> Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> great deal of confusion in the process.
>
> At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly an
> IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> logic in the FAR's.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
Bruce,
I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
Dave Leonard
>
> Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> that are separate unto themselves.
>
> Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> great deal of confusion in the process.
>
> At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
an
> IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> logic in the FAR's.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
Boy this is fun!!!!
Almost as much fun as 3pt vs Wheel landings!!!!
Yippee!!!!
And I have sat on my fingers as long as I can.
Let me explain to you guys why people hate it when you do overhead
approaches. Read Carefully, especially the punchline.
In the Mustang I am coming up initial at 230mph, 500 ft above the pattern.
On initial I push the prop up to 2700 turns and drag the power back to 25
inches slowing from my decent speed of 300 mph (250 kts +- ). At midfield I
break, 75 to 90 deg and pull hard. Power to 20" and bend it around,
decreasing the bank to roll wings level abeam the numbers at 170 mph.
"Geardown1/4flapslanding check" is one word. That done, I turn again and
stuff the nose down to an obscene angle of decent whichs gives me full view
of the base and final. My GUMPS check is complete at the 90 point, I set
flaps 30, and at 150 mph I'm falling like a brick. At the 45 point, flaps
50, aimming a few hundred feet short of the runway and slowing to 125. I
roll wings level on a 1000 ft final. The nose starts to rise and the runway
starts to disappear as the nose rises and the speed decays to 115 mph as I
close the throttle. The mains touch and the drag of the wheels raises the
tail slightly to kill the miniscule amount of lift that might remain and I
roll out. The tail settles with a slight thump and a couple jabs on the
rudder and it is all over.
Here is the punchline-
As much as it pisses you all off to read this, how unfair it is that that
bonehead freight-hound from Iowa gets to fly all those cool airplanes,
that's how the spam can drivers feel plowing around the pattern at 80 kts
watching you guys show-off in your homebuilt hot-rods. Now do you
understand why they complain?????
Sorry couldn't resist....
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
PS There is only one safe way to land a Mustang, from the overhead.
Plowing around in the pattern at pattern altitude at with the spam cans is
Russian Roulette. And slowing to their speed is suicide.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
John: I'm assuming that you are referring to the back baffle or rear tank
cover plate. What I did, and no leaks so far knock on wood, was to make
certain that the mating surfaces were absolutely clean with lacquer thinner and
well scrubbed with a stainless steel brush as Van's recommends. I then applied
a good coat of pro-seal to both surfaces and enlisted my wife to assist in
spreading the tank skins while sliding the baffle into place so that I scraped
as
little pro-seal as possible off the mating surfaces while getting the baffle
into place. As soon as the baffle was in place and clecoed, I installed a
bunch of wood strips between the clecoes and clamped them to hold the tank skin
to the baffle flanges. When this was done I turned the whole mess baffle side
down so that any excess pro-seal on the inside would flow down into the joint
to form a fillet and let it set for several days. Like I said, no leaks so
far in almost 80 hours.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 76+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Hodgson" <bob(at)hodgson252.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
Chris,
Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
reduction in sound pressure level.
I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
> From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RV-List: 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: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting wings in a 6A |
It works easily with three people. That is how I did it on my 7, which is
probably easier due to its design than your 6. But you could do it with two
people and a support under the wing of the right height. One person will
have an devel of a time doing it alone.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: mounting wings in a 6A
>
> Howdy group:
>
> Just moved my 6A to the airport and am in the head scratching stage
> regarding supporting my 6A whilst mounting the wings.
>
> Any sage advice regarding how you got your 6A off the main gear and stable
> enough to crawl inside and install wing bolts would be most appreciated.
> I must add that I do have my engine mounted, so I need to take that extra
> weight into consideration.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> ready to plug the wings in
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
Good question. I think the answer to the second part might depend on the
weight and balance of your plane and/or the type of friends you fly with (
that could mean formation flying and maintaining properly spacing ).
Seriously, your plane is heavier up front and could be more difficult to
land 3 Pt than mine. Your approach to stall attitude is more touchy to hold
waiting for the speed to bleed off. My plane is lighter with FP Prop and my
rudder is double painted with its checker board design. My W&B info is on
your web site. I think for that reason, it should be easier to land my
plane in 3 Pt than yours. Why, also because 3 Pt. is done at slower speed
which can mean safer.
Just kidding here, but maybe all pilots are not ex aircraft carrier landing
trained.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
>
>
> What's a "3pt landing" and why-oh-why would you ever consider doing one in
> a
> tailwheel RV?!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mounting wings in a 6A |
Hi Jeff,
My solution to supporting the fuselage during wing attach was the
following:
I made a cradle of 2x6s and 1x4s that conform with he bottom of the
fuselage. Using a automotive floor jack under the cradle, I raised the
fuselage high enough to place two saw horses (made for the purpose) one
under each end of the cradle and lowered the cradle onto the saw horses.
Using shims under the cradle I leveled the fuselage to allow the
incidence angle steps when drilling the rear spars. This provided a
stable platform while working in the cockpit.
Hope this helps.
Richard Dudley
-6A flying
Jeff Orear wrote:
>
>Howdy group:
>
>Just moved my 6A to the airport and am in the head scratching stage regarding
supporting my 6A whilst mounting the wings.
>
>Any sage advice regarding how you got your 6A off the main gear and stable enough
to crawl inside and install wing bolts would be most appreciated. I must
add that I do have my engine mounted, so I need to take that extra weight into
consideration.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jeff Orear
>RV6A N782P (reserved)
>ready to plug the wings in
>Peshtigo, WI
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle |
Don't forget to put plastic wrap on the wing spar and install the tank to
the wing while the proseal cures. This ensures there will be no cured
proseal to spar interference later....
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8, 80+ hrs
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HCRV6(at)aol.com [mailto:HCRV6(at)aol.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:03 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pro-sealing fuel tank baffle
>
>
> John: I'm assuming that you are referring to the back
> baffle or rear tank
> cover plate. What I did, and no leaks so far knock on wood,
> was to make certain that the mating surfaces were absolutely
> clean with lacquer thinner and well scrubbed with a stainless
> steel brush as Van's recommends. I then applied a good coat
> of pro-seal to both surfaces and enlisted my wife to assist
> in spreading the tank skins while sliding the baffle into
> place so that I scraped as little pro-seal as possible off
> the mating surfaces while getting the baffle into place. As
> soon as the baffle was in place and clecoed, I installed a
> bunch of wood strips between the clecoes and clamped them to
> hold the tank skin to the baffle flanges. When this was done
> I turned the whole mess baffle side down so that any excess
> pro-seal on the inside would flow down into the joint to form
> a fillet and let it set for several days. Like I said, no
> leaks so far in almost 80 hours.
>
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 76+ hours
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
For the record, it looks like I found a solution to my cowl fit
problem. John Starn described fixing such mismatches with a heat gun.
I set my heat gun on LOW and tried it. I was very cautious about
overheating the cowl, but I could see some improvement so I kept
repeating the process, escalating the amount of heating each time. I
did it about 5 times.
"The process" is heating the cowl for 3 or 4 minutes while deforming it
quite a bit more than the change in shape that you actually want and
then holding it in that position until it cools completely. This method
is able to correct an error on the order of 3/16".
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
Jeff Point wrote:
>
>How's about landing at 1700 ft grass strip with trees on either end? 3
>points have a lower touch down speed and much shorter landing distances.
>
>
>
What about a 1 point landing? Can't you bring the tail wheel down first
in an RV and wouldn't that be the slowest landing? A friend of mine
said he did that in a super cub one time when he had to land in a very
short distance.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly Patterson" <kbob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | mounting wings in a 6A |
Jeff,
Getting close are we? Grab the motor mount with a hoist & nylon strap. Try
a short (~12-18") saw horse just aft of the firewall (~3"). Place a similar
tall support at the emp. The fuse will just be balanced at this point, so
you may want to use some weight at the tail. Mate the wings at the center
splice plate, then hoist the front using the motor mount (not the motor) and
put in a tall (~40") sawhorse. Now you can place the gear mounts and gear
legs all around and finish the spar bolts.
FWIW - I have not done this yet, but have put the wings on, had the gear on
& off, and now have the motor & cowl hanging over a short sawhorse. I'll be
doing the above in the near future.
Kelly Patterson
RV6A N716K
Baffled with baffles
PHX,AZ
Howdy group:
Just moved my 6A to the airport and am in the head scratching stage
regarding supporting
my 6A whilst mounting the wings.
Any sage advice regarding how you got your 6A off the main gear and stable
enough
to crawl inside and install wing bolts would be most appreciated. I must
add
that I do have my engine mounted, so I need to take that extra weight into
consideration.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
ready to plug the wings in
Peshtigo, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: mounting wings in a 6A |
Jeff, we made stands for the wings and the fuselage from parts of our jig.
We made the stands so that we could adjust them by raising or lowering the
center section and supported the center section with large C clamps. We also used
pipe insulation foam on the center sections to prevent scratching the wings
and fuselage.
We have found the stands have been helpful in supporting the wings and
fuselage while changing tires, and installing the wheel pants.
Hope this helps
Rollie & Rod
N799RQ with about 120 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
>Hmmm. Strong winds; Rocky Mountains; very little available horsepower;
>1,000 FPM climb. Sure sounds like mountain wave, to me.
>
>Larry Pardue
You folks got it. I believe that this was my first experience with mountain
wave lift. I have been in a sink condition in the plains area west of the
mountains where I got the lift last week.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
Thanks Tom for the credit but I was just passing on that which was past to
me. I would add that you use a 2X4 to hold the work area in place. Won't
burn your fingers or leave flat spots if you rock & roll while it's cooling.
We did the same thing to relive stress on the canopy BUT with a lot less
heat, less pressure and shorter times.
Side note: It took 26 saw cuts to fit the canopy. Go slow, it works.
KABONG
Subject: Re: RV-List: cowl fit
RV-List message posted by: sarg314
> For the record, it looks like I found a solution to my cowl fit
> problem. John Starn described fixing such mismatches with a heat gun.
> I set my heat gun on LOW and tried it. I was very cautious about
> overheating the cowl, but I could see some improvement so I kept
> repeating the process, escalating the amount of heating each time. I
> did it about 5 times.
>
> "The process" is heating the cowl for 3 or 4 minutes while deforming it
> quite a bit more than the change in shape that you actually want and
> then holding it in that position until it cools completely. This method
> is able to correct an error on the order of 3/16".
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3pt vs Wheel landings!!!! |
>
> I prefer to do a three-point landing 99% of the time. I like to make sure
> the plane is basically fully stalled at landing and this makes the ground
> speed as slow as possible.
I agree that three-point is the way to go and I like it for the same reasons
you do.
However in my airplane, an RV-6 with 180 hp and Sensenich fixed pitch, that
is not full stall and that does make a difference. A poster today referred
to one point landings, and I have done quite a few. They usually aren't
that pretty though.
In other tail draggers I have flown you really could do nice full stall
landings where you hold the stick all the way back and plop on basically
three point. I find in my 6 you just have to go for the three point
attitude. You are not necessarily done flying when you touch though. If
you really full stall, with most loadings, the nose is real high, the tail
wheel touches way first and the mains hit, way harder than I like.
Have flown the 6 quite a few hours and in some pretty good winds. Haven't
felt the need to wheel land yet, except for sport.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New pitot/ static offerings |
>
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> Date: 2005/05/12 Thu AM 05:37:56 EDT
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
I'm one of the ones Kevin helped with this symptom (RV-4 w/flush static ports).
Always indicated about 10 kts slow at cruise but I never cared about that. Had
an altimeter failure & on 1st flight after replacing it, I actually glanced
at it while doing a high speed pass down my home strip. It indicated that I was
about 150 ft below ground level. Installing pop rivet heads over the static
ports cured the altimeter error (could be a dangerous thing in controlled or high
traffic environment) and gave me a 10 kt faster plane to boot. ;-)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest:33 Msgs - 05/09/05 |
please remove me from all lists
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Short field landings. |
The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for the group
is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of with a 150
hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have noreal short field
exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter than in. (In my cherokee, Im
sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt come out of.) In practicing for
short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably high, and I dont want to drag my tail,
Ive seen couple planes with tail bottoms boogered up. charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Short field landings. |
This has been discussed back and forth on the list, and there should be a
couple of hours worth of reading in the archives...
That said, unless you're a very skilled pilot and are able to use 100% of
the performance of the airplane, the TO distance in an RV is going to be
shorter than the landing distance. With excellent approaches and no wind, I
would take my lightly loaded RV-6 (160 hp) into a smooth 1,000' strip and
still have a comfort level. Sure, I could use a 750' strip for landing and
a 500' strip for takeoff, but that would remove virtually all of the margin
for error. With a loaded airplane, the distances increase by 50% or so,
even more if the surface isn't in good shape.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: Short field landings.
>
> The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for
> the group is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of
> with a 150 hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have
> noreal short field exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter than
> in. (In my cherokee, Im sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt
> come out of.) In practicing for short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably
> high, and I dont want to drag my tail, Ive seen couple planes with tail
> bottoms boogered up. charlie heathco
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Microballon Survivability |
I'm thinking of applying a thin coat of dry epoxy/microballon filler to the surface
of my forward baggage compartment door to remove some large but shallow depressions
left over from shaping the outer door panel to the curvature of the
fuselage. Either that or do the whole thing over right & use the ribs and inner
panel to pull the surface to the correct curve. Anyway, I'm wondering if
anyone reading this may have such shallow patches on their airplane and would
care to comment on how well the patch held up. I'd hate to have the appearance
ruined by cracks or edge separation lines after going to all that work in the
name of better appearance.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
Yes you can. At least in my RV-3. Not good for the tail section though.
Lots of smoking rivits in the bulkheads holding the tailspring assembly.
Doing full-stall landings often results in tailwheel touching first when
a bit of a gust lifts up the wings. A crosswind gust may cause
significant side-load on the tailspring.
Finn
Chris W wrote:
>What about a 1 point landing? Can't you bring the tail wheel down first
>in an RV and wouldn't that be the slowest landing? A friend of mine
>said he did that in a super cub one time when he had to land in a very
>short distance.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
>
> From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> Date: 2005/05/11 Wed PM 12:30:53 EDT
> To: RV-list
> Subject: RV-List: 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
It's known as the inverse square rule or law. Sound from a point source decreases
with the inverse of the square of the distance ratio. Twice as far, 1/4 the
sound level. In dB, it's 10*log of the ratio.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
away.
I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
little planes.
In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
muffler when I finish.
Dick
Bob Hodgson wrote:
>
>Chris,
>
>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>reduction in sound pressure level.
>
>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>
>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>
>Bob
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
>>Subject: RV-List: 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
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: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
live under the approach to
runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
everyday (remember
Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
or more obnoxious than
any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
you really listen to aircraft
noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
that make all of the noise that is
obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
particular attention to the
different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
just as bad as Nike's jets that
fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
is reduced by a considerable
amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
are really annoying.
Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
a muffler is creating no more noise
than any other aircraft.
Jerry
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
>linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
>10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
>db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
>
>To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
>distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
>sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
>away.
>
>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>little planes.
>
>In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
>will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
>muffler when I finish.
>
>Dick
>
>Bob Hodgson wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Chris,
>>
>>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>>reduction in sound pressure level.
>>
>>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>>
>>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
>>>Subject: RV-List: 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: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
Dick Tasker
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
>You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
>live under the approach to
>runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
>everyday (remember
>Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
>or more obnoxious than
>any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
>you really listen to aircraft
>noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
>that make all of the noise that is
>obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
>particular attention to the
>different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
>just as bad as Nike's jets that
>fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
>is reduced by a considerable
>amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
>are really annoying.
>Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
>a muffler is creating no more noise
>than any other aircraft.
>
>Jerry
>
>Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
>>linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
>>10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
>>db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
>>
>>To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
>>distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
>>sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
>>away.
>>
>>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>>little planes.
>>
>>In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
>>will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
>>muffler when I finish.
>>
>>Dick
>>
>>Bob Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Chris,
>>>
>>>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling the
>>>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
>>>reduction in sound pressure level.
>>>
>>>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft with
>>>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL on
>>>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft, and
>>>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at max
>>>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
>>>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
>>>
>>>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting those
>>>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
>>>>Subject: RV-List: 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
----
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: | "oliver h washburn" <ollie6a(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Checkoway Weather |
I,ll second that, a great site.
Ollie 6A Central Fl.
> [Original Message]
> From: Tony Marshall <tony(at)lambros.com>
> To:
> Date: 5/21/2005 9:23:16 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Checkoway Weather
>
>
> A while ago, Dan introduced a really nice, concise, place from which to
obtain weather information. I had forgotten how nice it was....and I for
one really appreciate it....and of course I acknowledge all of the normal
disclaimers. For those of you who haven't yet checked it out....
http://www.rvproject.com/wx/
>
> Thanks Dan.
>
> Tony Marshall
> RV6
> Polson, MT (yep!...in the clouds)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the Pattern) |
| From: | sipherrv(at)juno.com |
--> RV-List message posted by: sipherrv(at)juno.com
Just some other comments. From the USAF point of view, most is the same,
but some of the terms and visual signals are different. However, there
are also some minor differences:
At USAF fields, the altitude flown on initial is also maintained on the
inside downwind approaching the base turn to final, where the USN breaks
and decends 500ft (typcally). Some Air Force bases my have a different
pattern altitude for outside downwind, but initial, the break and inside
downwind are normally the same.
The sequence in the break (or pitchout) is nomally timing (3-7 seconds),
based on the speed of the aircraft and spacing desired on downwind. Most
USAF fighters use 5 seconds (initial at 300KIAS and typical downwind
speed slowing to 200-220KIAS).
With everyone flying a similar G/bank turn and power back to slow to
downwind speed you can get a consistant spacing. If however someone
screws up and you get too close to the guy in front of you, you can't
slow below downwind speed or you will screw the guy behind you, plus you
can't extend downwind or agian screw the guy behind you and the rest of
the flight, so the procedure is to break out of the pattern (climb,
accellerate, turn away from the initial and re-enter the pattern at
"initial", "90 to initial" or "outside downwind".
Typically the USN teaches to turn base abeam the touchdown point and to
vary bank in the base turn to final turn (initially shallow, then steeper
at the end) to rollout 1000ft on final intercepting the 3degree
glideslope, however the USAF teaches to turn 180degree base at the
rollout point and to strive for a consistant 180degree turn with constant
bank/Gs to rollout on final at 300ft/1nm from touchdown to intercept a
normal 3degree glideslope.
The main reasons the military uses the initial and break to get spacing
is that it allows for quick entry to the patterns with 2-4 aircraft under
a single flight clearance and then the quick breakup and establishment of
spacing between flight members without having to have every one slow to
final approach speed many miles from the field. Plus as previously
mentioned, it gives you a much better view of the landing enviorment and
runway prior to the turn to final.
Overall, there are mostly the same, but some minor differences. From the
ground, you often can't tell the differences. Figured I'd give my 2
cents for what it is worth,
Bill Sipher
RV-4 tail and wings
(former F-16/AT-38B Instructor and former T-34C instructor at VT-3)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "REHughes"
>
> In addition to Tom Gummo's comments (below) concerning formation
> safety and
> functionality, there are other sound reasons why the military favors
> the
> 'Initial To An Overhead Break' entry pattern.
>
> If one of your training requirements is that:
>
> "All aircraft will begin their approach turn from downwind to
> final at
> exactly the same point over the ground because it is important to
> learn how
> to land in a safe and consistent manner...",
>
> then extending your downwind leg for spacing is not an acceptable
> maneuver.
> It follows that the only practical and effective way for aircraft to
>
> establish their spacing is by varying the timing of their turn to
> downwind
> from an upwind leg, both for aircraft initially entering the
> pattern, and
> those waiting to turn downwind after climbing out on a
> touch-and-go.
>
> The process flows along something like this. While progressing in
> from the
> Initial (generally a point about 3 miles downwind from the field, on
> the
> extended runway centerline) it is helpful to bias your lineup
> slightly to
> the non-pattern side of the runway as you fly upwind, so that you
> can keep
> the runway environment in sight, look for anyone on a straight-in or
> turning
> final, check out any aircraft holding short or taking off, and make
> sure
> that there is no big yellow 'X' on the approach end of the runway.
> Part of
> the task at this point at an uncontrolled field is to confirm that
> you chose
> correctly in terms of the wind and runway in use. Attention is
> given to
> search for any traffic already established on the downwind, as well
> as
> coming down the 45-to-downwind line, or turning crosswind from a
> climbout.
> Additionally some searching over your "other" shoulder is required
> to make
> sure nobody is entering on a long crosswind from the non-pattern
> side, or is
> stablished on a downwind or straight-in to the "wrong" (opposing)
> runway.
> When you are happy with your interval, turn crosswind. Each member
> of a
> formation flight must ensure their own safe traffic interval when
> they
> become temporary lead, and it is their turn to perform the crosswind
> turn in
> sequence.
>
> In general the entry to the break is flown slightly higher than the
> pattern
> altitude, primarily to provide a safety clearance over the aircraft
> in the
> touch-and-go pattern climbing upwind and turning crosswind. Most
> military
> fields mandate a 500' difference, but 200' feels about right when
> operating
> at civilian fields. Thus any 'descent in the pattern' is pretty
> minimal and
> can be accomplished mainly in the cross-wind turn.
>
> Once you make the turn crosswind to the downwind, the pattern is
> routine.
>
> The beauty of the system is that if there are 40 airplanes already
> in the
> pattern, you (and your formation) just keep motoring upwind until
> you can
> either finally sequence onto the downwind, or run so far away from
> the
> airport that you say screw-it and leave the area to come back and
> re-enter
> at the Initial for another try. Unlike many busy civilian fields
> using
> "normal" entry procedures, you will never be faced with hoards of
> airplanes
> doing hairy 360's on some 45 entry line, or airplanes bunched up and
> flying
> parallel courses all over the downwind, and your final approach turn
> will
> not be delayed so long/far that you are looking at a seven-mile
> straight-in.
>
> Regards,
> Hawkeye Hughes, RV-3s
> A-7 driver with the requisite amount of time scanning for other
> T-34's at
> Magnolia
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in
> the
> Pattern)
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo"
> >
> > I would like to throw another log on the fire - formation flying
> and the
> > approach to the airport debate.
> >
> >
> > First, lets agree that with training, there is nothing wrong with
>
> > formation flying. (So if you disagree with this, delete NOW, as
> we will
> > nothing to say to each other.)
> >
> >
> > In fact, most of the writers that have supported formation flying
> on this
> > list not only have had training but a FAA approved check-rides as
> 2-ship
> > or 4-ship flight leads, or as wingman. So they are aware of the
> problems
> > of fitting a formation of aircraft into the "normal" traffic
> pattern.
> >
> >
> > But, no one has talked about a problem to the formation fliers.
> It has
> > been explained that the Overhead pattern is the fastest and safest
> way to
> > land aircraft in formation. NOTE: the word "safest." So lets
> look at
> > the one other way to separate a flight of aircraft as they inter
> the
> > pattern.
> >
> >
> > The flight inters the pattern at the 45, turns on downwind and
> then works
> > to create the required separation. Lead has number 4 - "Drag",
> reduce
> > power to idle, as soon as possible lower flaps, and slow to the
> minimum
> > speed possible. Several seconds later, Lead has number 3 - "Drag"
> and
> > finally, Number 2 - "Drag." Of course, the lead cannot slow down,
> as the
> > only way the others can get spacing is to have lead keep his/her
> speed up,
> > which means at the last second, lead has to slow down, configure
> to land,
> > turn base, and any other procedures required to land his plane.
> Note that
> > the wingman are not slowing to pattern speed but to a slow-flight
> speed,
> > would any normal VFR pilot expect to find three aircraft doing
> slow-flight
> > in front of them on downwind. The other thing about this approach
> is the
> > number of miles it takes to make it happen. Most airports'
> runways are
> > not long enough to make this happen.
> >
> >
> > (I know it is not the same but in my F-4G days, we would start to
> drag
> > number 4 at 17 miles on final, then every two miles later the next
> wingman
> > is dragged. The goal was to have everybody at approach speed with
> the
> > proper spacing at 3 miles on final. This was used when we
> returned to the
> > airfield with hung or unexpended ordnance. It was bad form to fly
> over
> > the base with things that could fall off the plane and may even go
> boom.
> > One more thing, it was in the emergency procedures section of the
> Local
> > Area In-Flight Guide, i.e., not normal.)
> >
> >
> > There are several other methods to try to gain separation of a
> formation
> > and they all have similar problems. We can hangar fly this all
> you want
> > but the military has had 70 years or more to work this out. The
> Overhead
> > pattern is the SAFEST way to land a formation of aircraft -
> period.
> >
> > Tom "GummiBear" Gummo
> > Wild Weasel #1573
> > Major, USAF Retired
> > F-4G Instructor Pilot
> > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
> >
> >
> > Apple Valley, CA
> > Harmon Rocket-II
> >
> > do not archive
> >
>
>
> ======================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
> bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
> see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
> about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
> on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
>
> Dick Tasker
I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
world.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968(at)aol.com
Go to this link for price, details, and lots of pics:
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/index.html
Questions?? Email me at:
rgray67968(at)aol.com
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
>
>
>
>>I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
>>bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
>>see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
>>about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
>>on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
>>
>>Dick Tasker
>>
>>
>
>I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
>required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
>is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
>as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
>world.
>
>
>
Aren't you using an auto engine? Of course if you are you need to use a
muffler.
Jerry
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel on page
25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment decisions)
but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give some folks
some ideas.
You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects like this.
This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's charter but
we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of the past few decades.
On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we tweaked
the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer algorithms to
adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked great so I suppose
the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design if the prop was also
designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly after TO in a CS plane helps
but it's not nearly as dramatic as the helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter
(Comanche) gave up nothing on the top end or acro ability either.
Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my casual
observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are too big,
ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe the automotive
field can be sought after and tapped for their talents. Sounds like a
good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the art of
taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the ground at and
near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively quiet muffler for
a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation would be welcomed.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
>
> I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> little planes.
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
> youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap music
> when
> they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not archive.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel on page
25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment decisions)
but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give some folks some
ideas.
You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects like this.
This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's charter but we
all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of the past few decades.
On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we tweaked the
blade design and programmed into the flight control computer algorithms to
adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked great so I suppose
the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design if the prop was also designed
for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly after TO in a CS plane helps
but it's not nearly as dramatic as the helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter
(Comanche) gave up nothing on the top end or acro ability either.
Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my casual
observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare too big,
ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe the automotive
field can be sought after and tapped for their talents. Sounds like a
good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the art of
taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the ground at and
near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively quiet muffler for
a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation would be welcomed.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
little planes.
==========================================
If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap music
when
they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not archive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-36
0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker"
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel; Will an additional
magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
"RV-List Digest List"
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/15/05 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie"
If the depressions are a 1/16" or less I'd scuff, clean and use Rage as the
filler. Between a 16th and an 8th the microballoons will work fine.
The issue from my experience is not the epoxy mix as it is the prep. Also
use a slower cure epoxy.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV-List Digest Server" <rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/15/05
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete RV-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the RV-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list/Digest.RV-List.2005-05-15.html
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list/Digest.RV-List.2005-05-15.txt
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> RV-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 05/15/05: 13
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 05:19 AM - Re: Re: New pitot/ static offerings ()
> 2. 06:42 AM - Re: RV-List Digest:33 Msgs - 05/09/05 (Kdh347(at)aol.com)
> 3. 07:11 AM - Short field landings. (Charles Heathco)
> 4. 07:15 AM - locating Terry Adams (Charles Heathco)
> 5. 09:28 AM - Re: Short field landings. (Kyle Boatright)
> 6. 09:37 AM - Microballon Survivability (DAVID REEL)
> 7. 10:35 AM - Re: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the
Pattern) (Finn Lassen)
> 8. 01:13 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude ()
> 9. 03:06 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Richard E. Tasker)
> 10. 04:17 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Jerry Springer)
> 11. 06:26 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Richard E. Tasker)
> 12. 09:42 PM - Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude (Vanremog(at)aol.com)
> 13. 10:44 PM - Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale
(rgray67968(at)aol.com)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: New pitot/ static offerings
>
> --> RV-List message posted by:
>
>
> >
> > From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> > Date: 2005/05/12 Thu AM 05:37:56 EDT
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: New pitot/ static offerings
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> >
> > On 11-May-05, at 10:56 AM, Evan and Megan Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> I'm one of the ones Kevin helped with this symptom (RV-4 w/flush static
ports).
> Always indicated about 10 kts slow at cruise but I never cared about that.
Had
> an altimeter failure & on 1st flight after replacing it, I actually
glanced
> at it while doing a high speed pass down my home strip. It indicated that
I was
> about 150 ft below ground level. Installing pop rivet heads over the
static
> ports cured the altimeter error (could be a dangerous thing in controlled
or high
> traffic environment) and gave me a 10 kt faster plane to boot. ;-)
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Kdh347(at)aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-List Digest:33 Msgs - 05/09/05
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kdh347(at)aol.com
>
> please remove me from all lists
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Short field landings.
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
>
> The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for
the group
> is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of with a 150
> hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have noreal short
field
> exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter than in. (In my
cherokee, Im
> sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt come out of.) In practicing
for
> short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably high, and I dont want to drag my
tail,
> Ive seen couple planes with tail bottoms boogered up. charlie heathco
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RV-List: locating Terry Adams
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
>
> I heard that Terry Adams, (SNJ) was now based in San Antonio/ Beorne area,
and
> Im planning a trip this week to look for prop there. Im sure someone on
the list
> would have a contact for him, I would like to look him up. Charlie
heathco,
> pls reply to my email. Do not archive
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Short field landings.
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
>
> This has been discussed back and forth on the list, and there should be a
> couple of hours worth of reading in the archives...
>
> That said, unless you're a very skilled pilot and are able to use 100% of
> the performance of the airplane, the TO distance in an RV is going to be
> shorter than the landing distance. With excellent approaches and no wind,
I
> would take my lightly loaded RV-6 (160 hp) into a smooth 1,000' strip and
> still have a comfort level. Sure, I could use a 750' strip for landing
and
> a 500' strip for takeoff, but that would remove virtually all of the
margin
> for error. With a loaded airplane, the distances increase by 50% or so,
> even more if the surface isn't in good shape.
>
> KB
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Short field landings.
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> >
> > The 3 pt landing posts had brief mention of short field. My question for
> > the group is what is the shortest strip you can safely get in and out of
> > with a 150 hp FP 6A, and can you get it in, but maybe not out? I have
> > noreal short field exp yet, but would think it would come out shorter
than
> > in. (In my cherokee, Im sure I could get it in a strip that it wouldnt
> > come out of.) In practicing for short field, the AOA gets uncomfortably
> > high, and I dont want to drag my tail, Ive seen couple planes with tail
> > bottoms boogered up. charlie heathco
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Microballon Survivability
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL"
>
> I'm thinking of applying a thin coat of dry epoxy/microballon filler to
the surface
> of my forward baggage compartment door to remove some large but shallow
depressions
> left over from shaping the outer door panel to the curvature of the
> fuselage. Either that or do the whole thing over right & use the ribs and
inner
> panel to pull the surface to the correct curve. Anyway, I'm wondering if
> anyone reading this may have such shallow patches on their airplane and
would
> care to comment on how well the patch held up. I'd hate to have the
appearance
> ruined by cracks or edge separation lines after going to all that work in
the
> name of better appearance.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Descending into pattern? (was: Joy Riding in the
Pattern)
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen
>
> Yes you can. At least in my RV-3. Not good for the tail section though.
> Lots of smoking rivits in the bulkheads holding the tailspring assembly.
>
> Doing full-stall landings often results in tailwheel touching first when
> a bit of a gust lifts up the wings. A crosswind gust may cause
> significant side-load on the tailspring.
>
> Finn
>
> Chris W wrote:
>
> >What about a 1 point landing? Can't you bring the tail wheel down first
> >in an RV and wouldn't that be the slowest landing? A friend of mine
> >said he did that in a super cub one time when he had to land in a very
> >short distance.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by:
>
>
> >
> > From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> > Date: 2005/05/11 Wed PM 12:30:53 EDT
> > To: RV-list
> > Subject: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W
<1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> >
> > 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
> It's known as the inverse square rule or law. Sound from a point source
decreases
> with the inverse of the square of the distance ratio. Twice as far, 1/4
the
> sound level. In dB, it's 10*log of the ratio.
>
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/acoustic/invsqs.html
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
>
> The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
> linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
> 10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
> db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
>
> To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
> distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
> sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
> away.
>
> I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> little planes.
>
> In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
> will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
> muffler when I finish.
>
> Dick
>
> Bob Hodgson wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson"
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling
the
> >distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
> >reduction in sound pressure level.
> >
> >I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft
with
> >an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL
on
> >the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft,
and
> >a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at
max
> >rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
> >60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
> >
> >There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting
those
> >figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> >>Subject: RV-List: 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----
> 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.
> ----
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
____________________________________
>
>
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>
> You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
> live under the approach to
> runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
> everyday (remember
> Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
> or more obnoxious than
> any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
> you really listen to aircraft
> noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
> that make all of the noise that is
> obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
> particular attention to the
> different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
> just as bad as Nike's jets that
> fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
> is reduced by a considerable
> amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
> are really annoying.
> Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
> a muffler is creating no more noise
> than any other aircraft.
>
> Jerry
>
> Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
> >
> >The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
> >linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
> >10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
> >db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
> >
> >To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
> >distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
> >sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
> >away.
> >
> >I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> >who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> >ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> >little planes.
> >
> >In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
> >will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
> >muffler when I finish.
> >
> >Dick
> >
> >Bob Hodgson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson"
> >>
> >>Chris,
> >>
> >>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so doubling
the
> >>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
> >>reduction in sound pressure level.
> >>
> >>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft
with
> >>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA SPL
on
> >>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft,
and
> >>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at
max
> >>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
> >>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
> >>
> >>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting
those
> >>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
> >>
> >>Bob
> >>
> >>----- Original Message -----
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> >>>Subject: RV-List: 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
>
> I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
> bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
> see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
> about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
> on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
> >
> >You can put all the mufflers on you want and it won't change a thing. I
> >live under the approach to
> >runway 30 and runway 02 at Hillsboro(HIO) and RV's fly over my house
> >everyday (remember
> >Hillsboro, OR is right in the middle of RV country:) RVs are no louder
> >or more obnoxious than
> >any of the other type of airplanes that fly overhead. Once again when
> >you really listen to aircraft
> >noise the engine noise itself is just a subtle rumble, it is the props
> >that make all of the noise that is
> >obnoxious to people. Since this noise thread started I have been paying
> >particular attention to the
> >different types of aircraft and the noise they make. A Cessna 150 is
> >just as bad as Nike's jets that
> >fly overhead. If people would reduce power a bit after takeoff the noise
> >is reduced by a considerable
> >amount. It is the constant speed props that are left in flat pitch that
> >are really annoying.
> >Of course Helicopters take the prize for noise. Point is your RV without
> >a muffler is creating no more noise
> >than any other aircraft.
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
> >>
> >>The real problem is that the response of human ear is anything but
> >>linear. Specifically, it takes a reduction in sound (noise) power of
> >>10X to make sound seem half as loud. Or more specifically it takes a 10
> >>db change to make something seem twice or half as loud.
> >>
> >>To make a specific noise level change by 10 db you have to change the
> >>distance by the square root of 10 (or approx 3.16). So to make the
> >>sound of your plane seem half as loud you have to move 3.16 times as far
> >>away.
> >>
> >>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> >>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> >>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> >>little planes.
> >>
> >>In any case, anything we can do to reduce the noise our planes generate
> >>will reduce the number of people who will object. My RV9A will have a
> >>muffler when I finish.
> >>
> >>Dick
> >>
> >>Bob Hodgson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hodgson"
> >>>
> >>>Chris,
> >>>
> >>>Noise level decreases as the inverse square of the distance, so
doubling the
> >>>distance (height) gives you a quarter of the noise, which is a 6 dB
> >>>reduction in sound pressure level.
> >>>
> >>>I did a college study once which concluded that a conventional aircraft
with
> >>>an 0-360 and no muffler would have to be up at 9000ft to give 60 dBA
SPL on
> >>>the ground, a design specifically for low noise would be around 2000ft,
and
> >>>a compromise (standard aircraft with a muffler) around 6700 ft. All at
max
> >>>rated power and rpm as per FAR 36.
> >>>60 dBA was chosen as a target below which complaints were unlikely.
> >>>
> >>>There were a whole stack of conservative assumptions made in getting
those
> >>>figures, so they're only barely useful as a very rough guide.
> >>>
> >>>Bob
> >>>
> >>>----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>From: Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> >>>>Subject: RV-List: 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ----
> 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.
> ----
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
____________________________________
>
>
> From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
>
> I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> little planes.
>
>
> =========================================
>
> If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
> youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap
music
> when
> they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not
archive.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13
____________________________________
>
>
> From: rgray67968(at)aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968(at)aol.com
>
> Go to this link for price, details, and lots of pics:
>
> http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/index.html
>
> Email me at:
> rgray67968(at)aol.com
>
> Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
> Do Not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon Panel Question? |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
It will suffice just fine.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Walker
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker"
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel;
Will an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the
Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon Panel Question? |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
Oops hit send too fast.
Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
is no problem.
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Walker
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker"
For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel;
Will an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the
Dynon suffice?
Tommy
6A, "Finishing the finishing"
Ridgetop, TN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>
>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>give some folks some ideas.
>
>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>the past few decades.
>
>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>the top end or acro ability either.
>
>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>
>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>support.
>
>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>would be welcomed.
>
>Lucky
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
> >
> > I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> > who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> > ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> > little planes.
> >
> >
> > =========================================
> >
> > If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
> > youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting
> (c)rap music
> > when
> > they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not
> archive.
> >
> >
> > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel
>on page 25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>
>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give
>some folks some ideas.
>
>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>the past few decades.
>
>On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>the top end or acro ability either.
>
>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare
>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>
>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their talents.
>Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
>
>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>would be welcomed.
>
>Lucky
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
>
> I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
> who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
> ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
> little planes.
>
>
> =========================================
>
> If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
> youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap
> music
> when
> they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not
> archive.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-36
> 0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
Tommy,
Devil's advocate...if you went without the external compass, and then you
found you did have interference/fields, how much of an ordeal would the
retrofit of the external compass be at that point?
FWIW, I went ahead and installed the EDC in the aft fuselage, and it has
worked rock solid. I personally think that's the ideal place to install it
in a side-by-side RV. My 2 cents is that while it's slightly more
expensive, it's a "known good" setup. The fewer question marks before you
fly the better. Once you get that thing flying, the last thing you'll want
to do is tear back into it to retrofit something you could have just
installed from the get-go.
This is just a philosophical perspective. I don't have the perspective of
trying the Dynon with its internal compass only, but I can say that my panel
mounted Precision vertical card compass does NOT work well installed in my
panel. I'm glad I went external on the Dynon.
Hey, also...I know the -D10 requires the external compass to have certain
"expansion" features like OAT for true airspeed & DA. Not sure about
the -D10A. Something to find out.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Dynon Panel Question?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker"
>
> For you guys (and/or gals) out there who have a Dynon in your panel; Will
an additional magnetic compass be required by my DAR or will the Dynon
suffice?
>
> Tommy
> 6A, "Finishing the finishing"
> Ridgetop, TN
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Paranoider Deutschenmoerder kommt in Psychiatrie |
--> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3(at)juno.com
Lese selbst:
http://brandenburg.rz.fhtw-berlin.de/poetschke.html
---------------------------------------------------
Letter content was scanned by WinAntiVirus 2005.
No threat detected.
Please visit www.winantivirus.com for more details.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
Yes I am, but I still do not "need" to use a muffler. I am using it to
keep things quieter. And I would be using a muffler if I had used an
"aircraft" engine instead.
Dick Tasker
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
>
>Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I know, and with a muffler it will be a little quieter. Every little
>>>bit helps. I want to be able to fly it for many years and don't want to
>>>see any more airports close due to disgruntled neighbors complaining
>>>about noise. If we all added mufflers and tried to be a little quieter
>>>on takeoff we would aggravate less people.
>>>
>>>Dick Tasker
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I totally agree. I'd have mufflers on mine even if they were not
>>required. I hope to teach my grandchildren to fly, and I hope it
>>is still possible when that time comes. If airplanes were as quiet
>>as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
>>world.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Aren't you using an auto engine? Of course if you are you need to use a
>muffler.
>
>Jerry
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg.Puckett(at)united.com |
| Subject: | Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
They are kinda, but they're called gliders. But ya still make some noise
getting them into the air. No airports required just a dry lake bed 100
miles from nowhere. And if all ships were sailboats we would not oil spills.
Gee, for the good ole days before Columbus. KABONG 8*)
Do Not Archive
If airplanes were as quiet as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport
closures around the
> world.
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing
to route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
>
> I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
> my IO360-A3B6D.
>
> The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
> valve:
>
> 74139
> 75444
>
> I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
>
> Does anyone know which is which=3F
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Puckett
> RV-8 80081
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing to
route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
Chat, FAQ,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming sniffle valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing
to route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
>
> I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
> my IO360-A3B6D.
>
> The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
> valve:
>
> 74139
> 75444
>
> I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
>
> Does anyone know which is which=3F
>
> Thanks,
>
> Greg Puckett
> RV-8 80081
>
>
>
>
>
>
I have an A1B6D and have the 75444 valve. It has a barb. It's what you want to
use too. Use some 3/8 ID SAE fuel hose as a short adapter to 3/8 fuel tubing to
route the fuel.
I think the difference between the 2 sniffle valves is the thread size. I don't
think you could use the other one regardless of whether or not it has a barb.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Greg.Puckett(at)united.com
I'm planning on installing the fuel sump drain valve "sniffle valve" on
my IO360-A3B6D.
The Lycoming parts catalog shows two different part numbers for this
valve:
74139
75444
I understand one has a hose barb and the other does not.
Does anyone know which is which=3F
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
RV-8 80081
Chat, FAQ,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: [SoCAL-RVlist] 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force |
Fy In at Chino May 21, 2005
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
FYI, here's the updated skinny on the SoCal RV fly-in at Chino this
Saturday. I know we're kind of "competing" with the Texas fly-in, but we
still hope to see lots of you RVators from the southwest here at Chino!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <N180DK(at)aol.com>
Subject: [SoCAL-RVlist] 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force Fy In
at Chino May 21, 2005
SoCal and other RV listers,
We are holding the 4th (or 5th) Annual SoCal Wing Van's Air Force Fly In on
Saturday, May 21 at Chino Airport. We are holding the Fly In together with
the
marvelous Planes of Fame Airshow at Chino held every year about this time.
We'll be serving hamburgers and hotdogs, together with cold drinks, chips,
etc.,
sponsored by the Chino Squadron of the SoCal Van's Air Force. Last year we
had about 30 RVs show up on Saturday, with slightly less on Sunday. We'll
be
doing the same thing on Sunday, May 22, but no food or drinks.
I have 100 tickets at $10.00 per for those of you who want to fly in or
drive
in to go into the show grounds and see the displays and marvelous warbirds.
We like to support the Chino Planes of Fame Museum, and it is one of the
best
warbird displays; both flying and static that you can see.
I am in Hanger K-6, and Dan Checkoway and Linas Danilevicious; Brad Peacock
and Van are in other hangers within hanger K. We plan on parking the RVs
all
around the hanger, and this is cool with our neighbors. Hanger K-6 is on
the
north side of Hanger K, and Dan and Linas's; Brad and Van's is on the south
side.
If you are flying in, I've already spoken with CNO tower and ground, and
when
you land, tell ground you are going to the RV Fly In at Hanger K at the
North
Hangers. Hanger K is in the row closest to runway 21, which is the eastern
most row of hangers. Hanger K is the 3rd hanger down from the northern most
hanger. Ground control will guide you there and you'll see the other RVs.
Plenty of parking for RVs, and we'll even have a few Glasairs and Lancairs.
For those of you driving in, come to the eastern most gate on Merrill
Avenue.
I believe it is Gate 5A. This is the last gate on Merrill to the east, and
is the gate to the east of Cal Aero Drive, which is under repair. There
will
be very limited parking for automobiles, so I will ask those of you driving
in
to park in the dirt off the taxiway near the gate. I will speak with the
gate security guy, and will tell him that we will have several folks
arriving via
automobile asking about the RV Fly In at Dave's Hanger, and he should let
you
in with no hassle. If there is a problem, call me on my cell or hanger
phone
(cell - 949 375 3067; hanger 909 606 7933)
We'll have the usual Chino Gang of RVs; RV-4s, RV-6s, RV-6As, RV-7s, RV-8s,
RV-8As, and then we'll have Mike Holland's RV-9A, who is almost ready for
first
engine start, as well at Walter Tondu with his RV-7A, who is also almost
ready for first engine start. Both of their planes will be parked nearby
for
those currently building or thinking about building to look at, etc. Both
Mike's
and Walter's RVs will fly on Wednesday. (Right Gary?)
We'll also have several other RVs under construction on hand, with Linas'
RV-7A in progress, and if you are interested in seeing Tom Prokop's RV-8A in
progress, you can go down to his hanger.
We'll also have the opportunity of discussing everything from how to build
an
RV, to how to fly an RV, with lively discussions on formation flying,
overhead approaches (We'll see some great formation and overhead approachs
with the
flying events), so you can listen or share your opinions.
This year we will not have the use of the big hanger adjacent to my hanger,
where we could sit in the shade and watch the flying events. Linas' and
Dan's
hanger has the right orientation, and we'll try to provide enough chairs and
seating, but if you think to bring your own chair, great, but make sure and
wear sun block, bring your shades, and for sure a hat.
Lastly, I hope you all will support the Planes of Fame Airshow by purchasing
a ticket. There is easy access to the show grounds from hanger K, and
you'll
find it is fun and you'll see some amazing airplanes plus amazing flying.
I'll have the tickets at my hanger at the discounted rate of $10.00 per;
good for
both days.
For more information about the Fly In as well as a map, go to Dan
Checkoway's Web site at: http://www.rvproject.com/chino_flyin.html
Dave Klages
RV-8 - N808DK - "Hog"
8 Skysail Drive
Corona del Mar
California, 92625 USA
tel: 1 949 729 1077
home/office: 1 949 706 6068, fax 706 6069
cell: 1 949 375 3067, hanger 1 909 606 7933
e-mail: n180dk(at)aol.com (personal)mailto:david.klages(at)rnldesign.com
(business)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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/SyTolB/TM
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SoCAL-RVlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st customer RV-10 flys! |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
Fantastic! I for one would like to see some pictures. Some good motivation
for my project (I need it once in a while) I downloaded the performance
stats of the Sirrus SR22 and wrote in the equivalent ones for the RV 10.
That got me into the shop for a while :) Keep on building guys....Sirrus is
up to 15 planes a week and they are pricey. There is obviously a strong
demand for aircraft in this performance range....
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: 1st customer RV-10 flys!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer"
>
> Congradulations John Nys on your first fight of an RV-10.
>
> From the SoCAL-RVList at yahoogroups
> ------- insert --------
> From: Kevin Osborn <kosborn_2000(at)yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat May 14, 2005 6:37 pm
> Subject: History kosborn_2000
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to let you know I witnessed history today for
> the RV world.
>
> Today for 20 minutes the first customer built RV-10
> flew today at KO38, Owasso, OK.
>
> The plane N3146S owned and piloted by John Nyes flew
> today. He confirmed with Van's yesterday that He
> would be the first.
>
> I got some great video. If someone has someplace to
> post it I can send it to you. I don't know what it
> will look like reduced to 5 mb.
>
> Anyway, there should be another 10 in Oregon that will
> fly in about 2 weeks.
>
> Kevin
> ------- end insert -------
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,668 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
Hi,
If you want to see how it is done here in Switzerland, have a
look at this page:
http://www.experimental.ch/EAS/Build/e/Schallmessung.shtml
The computer translation to English is pretty horrible, but
I think the major points are explained by the diagram.
Essentially, you load up the plane to MTOW, take off at max
power, climb at Vy, and the noise measurement is made when you
are 2.5km (about 1.5 miles) straight overhead from where
you started your takeoff roll. Max height over the mic
can be 450 meters (almost 1500 feet).
I'm installing an auto conversion, and it really needs a
muffler to be bearable. I think even if you were only
flying in the Mojave you would want a muffler on this thing.
Mickey
Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
> blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
> people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
> some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>>give some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>>support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <bdube(at)al.noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | Prop balancing (from the FlyRotary list) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube
I saw this on the FlyRotary discussion list and thought this
would be of interest to everyone. It is a very clever and inexpensive way
to balance your prop:
Cheers!
Bill Dube'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
got to log a full hour in a -9 as well.
I cannot say enough good things about the workshop. Truly, you can go in as a
clueless newbie (to building) and come out with the skills & confidence to
build the airframe. It was taught by Ken Scott of Van's (who was my demo pilot
when I went out to fly the -10) with a couple assisstants and the knowledge
they imparted was worth the course fee several times over IMO. No, I'm not
affiliated in any way! If you are going to build an RV and you don't have
metal construction experience the course is a great way to start.
As for that -9 (yes, it's a "9" with the 3rd wheel on the wrong end).. wow.
What an airplane. I gave it a thorough eval including maneuvers, stalls
(power-off only), and pitch stability testing. Can't say a bad thing about it.
I could post a detailed flight report here if that's desired by anybody or if
anybody wants details mail me off list.
Oh yeah I got to log .5h actual IMC on the way to OSH Sunday morning too which
was great.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st customer RV-10 flys! (video link) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer"
http://www.vansairforce.com/video/RV10_JohnNyes.wmv
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 1st customer RV-10 flys!
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson"
Fantastic! I for one would like to see some pictures. Some good motivation
for my project (I need it once in a while) I downloaded the performance
stats of the Sirrus SR22 and wrote in the equivalent ones for the RV 10.
That got me into the shop for a while :) Keep on building guys....Sirrus is
up to 15 planes a week and they are pricey. There is obviously a strong
demand for aircraft in this performance range....
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty Helller" <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller"
Gentlemen,
Rules and conditions are not the same. Rules (VFR, IFR) refers to the
ATC and airspace system; conditions (IMC, VMC) is concerned about
visibility, clearance from cloulds, and ceilings.
One can fly IFR in VMC conditions or IFC conditions;
One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for long).
Marty Heller
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 16:05:36 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
>
>Sorry, the FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFR
>minimums.
>
>I've talked to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg that
>requires an instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.
>
>I'm sure it's one of those things that everyone assumes but I don't see
>it written in concrete anywhere.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Point
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point
>
>You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
>just have to be IFR
>rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>
>As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
>one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
>
>(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>category for the instrument privileges sought--
>(i) At least six instrument approaches;
>(ii) Holding procedures; and
>(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>systems.
>
>Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
>when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
>instrument rated pilots.
>
>Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
>severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
>
>reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
>than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
>that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
>without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
>need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
>
>Jeff Point
>do not archive
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: WFACT01(at)aol.com
hi-call him at 360-6595055-tom DO NOT ARCHIVE
Tom Whelan
Whelan Farms Airport
President EAA Chapter 1097
wfact01(at)aol.com
249 Hard Hill Road North
PO Box 426
Bethlehem, CT 06751
Tel: 203-266-5300
Fax: 202-266-5140
EAA Technical/Flight Advisor
RV-8 540 LYC (40 PLUS HOURS)
S-51 Mustang Turbine (Under Construction)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
RV7and7A
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Me too. If you hear anything or manage to get a hold of him please let me know!
thanks,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
>
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Me too. If you hear anything or manage to get a hold of him please let me know!
thanks,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
ore:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol
No clock is required for VFR flight.
Dave
>Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
>example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
>is no problem.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty Helller" <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller"
Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
issue isn't weather, it's rules.
While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
manager sends it to my cubicle.
Marty Heller
Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:55:05 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
>
>I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
>I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard
>
>Bruce,
>
>I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
>not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
>the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
>have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
>weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
>PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
>
>Dave Leonard
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> > logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> > that are separate unto themselves.
> >
> > Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> > experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> > about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> > The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> > great deal of confusion in the process.
> >
> > At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
>an
> > IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> > logic in the FAR's.
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol
Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
want to close the airport, and look how much good mufflers have done for
gen av in Europe-- the government is STILL trying to tax them out of
existence.
Compromising with the complainers is not unlike compromising with
terrorists -- they won't stop until YOU lose, totally.
rant off
Dave
Scott Bilinski wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I agree with those who have made comments about the prop noise. I have a 3
>blade 68" composite prop with narrow tips. It is VERY quiet from what
>people tell me. Hmmmm, sure would be nice to get a Db meter and measure
>some planes, It would be very easy to get some ball park numbers.
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom & supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 of the May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might
>>give some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a recon helicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And the helicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europe are
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their
>>talents. Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to
>>support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
>>>
>>>
>>>In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>>>retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
>>>
>>>I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>>>who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>>>ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>>>little planes.
>>>
>>>
>>>=========================================
>>>
>>>If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
>>>youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting
>>>
>>>
>>(c)rap music
>>
>>
>>>when
>>>they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not
>>>
>>>
>>archive.
>>
>>
>>>GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Check out the muffler hanging out the bottom supported by the nosewheel
>>on page 25 ofthe May 2005 edition of Sport Aviation.
>>
>>They do a lot of talk about fixing up the plane (return on investment
>>decisions) but I didn't read anything about the muffler. Still, might give
>>some folks some ideas.
>>
>>You would think government/industry would eventually partner on projects
>>like this. This type of technology development is definitely in NASA's
>>charter but we all know where they've been trying to suck their air out of
>>the past few decades.
>>
>>On a reconhelicopter program I used to work on, for relative quiet we
>>tweaked the blade design and programmed into the flight control computer
>>algorithms to adjust pitch/power combinations to make it quiet. It worked
>>great so I suppose the same thing could be done with a FADEC type design
>>if the prop was also designed for quiet ops. Just reducing power shortly
>>after TO in a CS plane helps but it's not nearly as dramatic as the
>>helicopter analogy was. And thehelicopter (Comanche) gave up nothing on
>>the top end or acro ability either.
>>
>>Lycoming doesn't seem to think they get a worthwhile ROI, at least from my
>>casual observations and I think mufflers that have come out of Europeare
>>too big, ugly and expensive from what little I've read/seen.
>>
>>So hopefully someone from the EAA ranks with similar expertise in maybe
>>the automotive field can be sought after and tapped for their talents.
>>Sounds like a good project for AOPA and EAA to team up for to support.
>>
>>I'd like to see an updated story in either magazine on the state of the
>>art of taming the perceived and absolute noise levels to people on the
>>ground at and near airports. If there's a known way to build a relatively
>>quiet muffler for a Lycoming then a good How To story in Sport Aviation
>>would be welcomed.
>>
>>Lucky
>>-------------- Original message --------------
>>
>> -- RV-List message posted by: Vanremog(at)aol.com
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 5/15/2005 6:59:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>> retasker(at)optonline.net writes:
>>
>> I have no idea what the "threshold of objectionable noise" is to someone
>> who doesn't like airplane sounds. It really depends on the other
>> ambient sounds/noise where they are and how sensitive they are to our
>> little planes.
>>
>>
>> =========================================
>>
>> If you close all the airports and build houses, I guarantee that the
>> youngsters with their 1000W stereo equipped rice rockets blasting (c)rap
>>music
>> when
>> they come to visit your neighbors would be a far worse fate. Do not
>>archive.
>>
>>
>> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-36
>> 0-A1A, C/S, Flying 744hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
WFACT01(at)aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: WFACT01(at)aol.com
>
>hi-call him at 360-6595055-tom DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
That number is over 2 yrs old and no longer any good. I've called him at
the numbers list on his site and get a recording I've left call back
numbers but have not received a call back :-(
--
------
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [RV7Yahoo] Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie"
Bobby,
He's local for me. I'll call him and let him know. He doesn't do much on the
computer. He will take care of you though.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net>
Subject: [RV7Yahoo] Fairings-Etc?
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
> 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: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
Forgot to add on my last post.
We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol
>
> Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
> want to close the airport,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Konrad L. Werner"
"...Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon..."
>That is unless the fire spewing propane burners are on.<
My two dogs can pinpoint a hot air balloon from quite a distance just by sound,
before you can even see them.
But you are right, some anti-aviators just need something to bitch about.
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: JOHN STARN
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
Forgot to add on my last post.
We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
something to BITCH about.
APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
To:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol
>
> Even if your airplane made zero noise, the airport neighbors would STILL
> want to close the airport,
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CW Crane <cwcrane(at)gbronline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Panel Question? |
--> RV-List message posted by: CW Crane
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>
>Oops hit send too fast.
>
>Note that in the VFR requirements, accuracy is not a requirement. As an
>example. You need a clock, and it must work, but if it cant keep time it
>is no problem.
>
>Mike
>Do not archive
I have never installed a clock in any of the airplanes that I have built and
certificated. A clock with a sweep second hand or digital seconds readout is
required for IFR, though.
CW Crane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: John
One old woman who moved in close to an established airport just up the
valley from me called the airport to complain about an airplane's noise,
she said, "If I can hear them, they're too low!"
Good standards, eh?
John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Grieve <mark(at)macomb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve
I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
Do not archive
JOHN STARN wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
>
>Forgot to add on my last post.
>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <paul(at)kitlog.com> |
| Subject: | Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing"
I can not believe this is a discussion at all. It is blatantly obvious that
you need to be instrument rated to fly on an IFR flight plan. As you
mentioned, you may or may not be in the clouds. The don't know, and don't
care who is IMC or who is not (unless it is safety related of course). You
could be vectored, diverted, etc right into the clouds. What are you going
to say, "uh, unable, I'm not instrument rated" You would immediately be
requested to copy down a phone number, remain VFR, and make contact when on
the ground.
Bottom line is, YES, you have to be instrument rated, current, in the
category and class of aircraft to be flown to fly PIC IFR. IFR is NOT in
the clouds. It's the set of rules that we fly by, and you MUST be
appropriately rated to fly by those rules.
Paul Besing, CFII
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marty Helller
Subject: RV-List: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller"
Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
issue isn't weather, it's rules.
While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
manager sends it to my cubicle.
Marty Heller
Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 23:55:05 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
>
>I'll hold my final judgement until I get an answer back from the FAA.
>I'm covered anyway. I am instrument rated.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: David Leonard
>
>Bruce,
>
>I am a king of using circular logic to my advantage, but the FAR's are
>not ambiguous about this point at all. You must prove that you know
>the Rules, before you can fly under Instrument Flight Rules. You must
>have a rating if you are going to file or fly IFR (regardless of the
>weather conditions) unless you are with an instructor (not acting as
>PIC). Period. It says it right there. Accept it.
>
>Dave Leonard
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps, but we're all assuming and inferring that the FAR's are
> > logical, they're not. They are a defined set of rules and definitions
> > that are separate unto themselves.
> >
> > Witness the recent uproar about TYPE and CLASS requirements to fly
> > experimental airplanes. There always was an idiosyncrasy in the FAR's
> > about experimental airplanes and who or what was required to fly them.
> > The FAA is trying to remove the ambiguities in this area and sowing a
> > great deal of confusion in the process.
> >
> > At best, the requirement to hold a current IFR rating to file and fly
>an
> > IFR flight plan in VMC conditions requires a great deal of circular
> > logic in the FAR's.
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rgray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968(at)aol.com
Hi Bobby,
My 2 cents, Bob is a SUPER guy and has supplied me with his products on 2 separate
projects in a timely fashion. He has always sent the goods 1st, then had me
send a check once the package arrived and I was satisfied with the contents.
He's always there when I needed something and always returned my calls.
Maybe he's out of town??
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net>
Subject: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
The dogs cowering from balloons is very understandable. It's in their genes from
long, long ago. At one time the prehistoric ancestors of the dog were preyed
upon by a very large bird, Ballonius Airelious. The bird was monstrous in
size with an teardrop silhouette and girth of as much as 30'-50'. It consumed
large quantities of energy to fly so it had to be an efficient predator. Without
a doubt, it preyed on large quantities of pre-dog like mammals, thus imprinting
a fear of the shape, much as song birds will cower from the shape of a
hawk in the sky. Now, there is some scientific dispute of the exact nature, even
existence of Ballonious Airelious. Some are convinced of its existence...while
others say they are full of hot air.
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Grieve
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve
I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
Do not archive
JOHN STARN wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
>
>Forgot to add on my last post.
>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot air
>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted ALL
>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air balloon.
>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR system |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
Marty Helller wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty Helller"
>
>Having an IFR ticket means you have the knowledge base and flying skills
>necessary to operate in the IFR system. Controllers sitting in radar rooms
>don't know if you're in the clouds or not...they just know that you have (or
>should have) the ability and proficiency to operate in the system. Class A
>airspace is an area where it is expected that only the professional aviators
>fly. Most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up that high
>(oxygen or pressurized and either turbo charged, or a turboprop). So the
>issue isn't weather, it's rules.
>
>While this isn't the official FAA answer, it will be if FAA inquiry line
>manager sends it to my cubicle.
>
>Marty Heller
>Controller, CFI, RV-7 builder
>
>
>
I would hope that all of us flying are professional aviators. :-) As a
CFI I have to question your
statement that most private pilots don't have the equipment to get up
that high. You make it sound like a
Private Pilots don't quite have what it takes to be in that airspace. As
A CFI you should know that
you can be a Private Pilot and still be IFR rated. I know many Private
Pilots with IFR ratings and Twins that
fly that high. I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
probably more do that I don't know about.
Jerry
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rgray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | re: Sun 'n Fun Grand Champion RV6 For Sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968(at)aol.com
Sorry for taking up bandwith, this should help. I'm getting a ton of inquiries....please
go to this link and click on my RV6 ad just below our Buckeye Flight
formation pic....that will take you to the details of my 'For Sale RV'....AND
the pics :
).
http://rv6rick.tripod.com/ohiovalleyrvators/index.html
If you have any questions feel free to email me at:
rgray67968(at)aol.com
Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Again, do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> system |
| Subject: | Re: Why you need to be IFR quailified in the IFR |
system
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee system
> I know of three RVs on my airport that have oxygen and
>probably more do that I don't know about.
I have O2 and because meanie technocrats have conspired to take
away some of MY airspace I will get my instrument rating so I can
fly up there...even if only for 10 minutes going from Meadowlake
to Greeley.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Hi all,
Someone mentioned that I should wire the VS before assembly as a time saver.
Never struck me that there was wiring there at all.
Are most people using strobes or rotators or what? As I understand it, it
you have wingtip protruding strobes, all you need is left and right plus a tail
marker. If you use lights lensed into the wing tips (is there a more elequent
term?) then you need a rear strobe as well. I suppose a rotating light could
be mounted on top of the VS. Is anyone mounting antennae on the VS?
I frequently wonder if I am planning far enough ahead.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage (wing kit ordered!)
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
"RV-List Digest List"
| Subject: | FS:Andair Gascolator & selector valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie"
Hi All,
Previously posted but the sale fell through. I have a NIB Andair gascolator with
3/8" female fittings and quick drain valve for sale. $115 (Van'sprice $125.00
+ 8.95)
Also, New mounted but never used Andair FS20-20-D2 fuel selector valve. This has
female fittings, 3/8" feed, 1/4" return. $380.
$480 for both + shipping
I'm changing directions and don't need these for my set up.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel"
Lister-
I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
looks something like a very small hole saw.
Thanks,
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
RV-10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo"
And I thought they ate old dead dinosaurs like "butane-asaurous."
Please Do Not Archive
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>
> The dogs cowering from balloons is very understandable. It's in their
> genes from long, long ago. At one time the prehistoric ancestors of the
> dog were preyed upon by a very large bird, Ballonius Airelious. The bird
> was monstrous in size with an teardrop silhouette and girth of as much as
> 30'-50'. It consumed large quantities of energy to fly so it had to be an
> efficient predator. Without a doubt, it preyed on large quantities of
> pre-dog like mammals, thus imprinting a fear of the shape, much as song
> birds will cower from the shape of a hawk in the sky. Now, there is some
> scientific dispute of the exact nature, even existence of Ballonious
> Airelious. Some are convinced of its existence...while others say they
> are full of hot air.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Grieve
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Grieve
>
> I have talked to several friends whose dogs live in fear of balloons. We
> have a balloon festival here and dogs all over town cower behind the
> couch that weekend. Perhaps the pilots should toss dog treats at the
> terrified pooches. I saw the water meter reader use that tactic last week.
>
> Do not archive
>
> JOHN STARN wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
>>
>>Forgot to add on my last post.
>>We had a woman complaining to the newspaper and Town Council about a hot
>>air
>>balloon that flew "low" over her trailer & her dog (she alleged it was the
>>dog) wet the carpet from fear. Balloon was above 1000agl but she wanted
>>ALL
>>flights stopped. It's just a sad fact of life, some people JUST need
>>something to BITCH about. Ya can't get much quieter than a hot air
>>balloon.
>>APV HRII N561FS KABONG 8*) Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice"
Hi all
Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from the
same pitot tube.
Thanks,
Paul RV-8 QB
Working on wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vents
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
>
>
> Do any of you know where I can find a panel-mounted air vent that would fit in
a standard 2 =BC" instrument hole?
>
> Regards,
>
> Don
>
>
> Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-mail servers are scanned for viruses
and other threats prior to delivery using e-mail security services powered
by MessageLabs Inc.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org> |
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Trotter
Check Avery Tools.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Wessel" <robin.wessel(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: screw paint scriber
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel"
>
> Lister-
>
>
> I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw
so
> that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>
>
> Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember
it
> looks something like a very small hole saw.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Robin Wessel
>
> Tigard, OR
>
> RV-10
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point
Avery Tools has em.
Jeff Point
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Reynolds
Yes,
Richard Reynolds, RV-6A
On May 17, 2005, at 1:07 AM, Paul Rice wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice"
>
> Hi all
>
> Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators
> from the
> same pitot tube.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul RV-8 QB
> Working on wings
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Vents
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
>>
>>
>> Do any of you know where I can find a panel-
>> mounted air vent that would fit in a standard 2 =
>> BC" instrument hole?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Don
>>
>>
>> Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-
>> mail servers are scanned for viruses and other threat
>> s prior to delivery using e-
>> mail security services powered by MessageLabs Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters
Robin, that sounds like a neat tool ..... but I've never seen one .....
and I like tools! there are two things you can do for this 'problem'.
The first is to back the screw out 4 turns or so and paint. You'll get
plenty of paint underneath a flathead or countersunk screw. The other
thing you can do .... in the case of flathead screws ..... is to put
nylon washers under them, and use truss head instead of pan head
screws. The truss head screws are lower profile. Hope this helps
...... in the absence of a neat tool!
Linn
Robin Wessel wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel"
>
>Lister-
>
>
>I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
>that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>
>
>Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
>looks something like a very small hole saw.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Robin Wessel
>
>Tigard, OR
>
>RV-10
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1"
If airplanes were as quiet
as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
world.
--
Mickey Coggins
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared little
about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild. Were
were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
left for, literally, a greener pasture.
Bob - RV3 and HP-14 driver
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton"
I'm building a -10 and yes, I have a VOR, LOC, GS antenna on the VS.
Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting
> --> RV-List message posted by: MLWynn(at)aol.com
>
> Hi all,
>
> Someone mentioned that I should wire the VS before assembly as a time
saver.
> Never struck me that there was wiring there at all.
>
> Are most people using strobes or rotators or what? As I understand it, it
> you have wingtip protruding strobes, all you need is left and right plus a
tail
> marker. If you use lights lensed into the wing tips (is there a more
elequent
> term?) then you need a rear strobe as well. I suppose a rotating light
could
> be mounted on top of the VS. Is anyone mounting antennae on the VS?
>
> I frequently wonder if I am planning far enough ahead.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage (wing kit ordered!)
> San Ramon, California
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: screw paint scriber |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson
Seen them all over the place. Search under "paint cutter" at
many places. Avery, Yard Store, ATS, I'm sure Cleaveland too,
although I can't search it on their page.
Try this link:
http://yardstore.com/index.cfm?Action=ViewCategory&Category=50
Never used one yet, but intend to buy one before I need to
remove painted in screws.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
linn walters wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters
>
> Robin, that sounds like a neat tool ..... but I've never seen one .....
> and I like tools! there are two things you can do for this 'problem'.
> The first is to back the screw out 4 turns or so and paint. You'll get
> plenty of paint underneath a flathead or countersunk screw. The other
> thing you can do .... in the case of flathead screws ..... is to put
> nylon washers under them, and use truss head instead of pan head
> screws. The truss head screws are lower profile. Hope this helps
> ...... in the absence of a neat tool!
> Linn
>
>
> Robin Wessel wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Robin Wessel"
>>
>>Lister-
>>
>>
>>I remember seeing a tool that scribes a line around the heads of a screw so
>>that it will not chip the paint off when you remove the screw.
>>
>>
>>Can anyone tell me were I can buy a tool like this? From what I remember it
>>looks something like a very small hole saw.
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Robin Wessel
>>
>>Tigard, OR
>>
>>RV-10
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Casey <tomatwork(at)netscape.com> |
| Subject: | Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tom Casey
Several months ago as I was unpacking my wing kitI found that the top flange on the right wing spar had a slight dent or crease in it. The dent is approximately 37 inches from the outboard tip of the spar. A couple of photos are at http://www.bristolinstruments.com/spar1.jpg and http://www.bristolinstruments.com/spar2.jpg
The damage isn't quite as bad as the photos make it appear. To see the dent at
all you must sight down the edge of the flange. After several conversations with
Van's they told me to ignore it complely--the spar flange isn't subjected to
much stress that far out anyway and that it mostly is just a place to rivet
the skins to. So I pressed on and tried to put it out of my mind. Now I'm about
ready to rivet the leadingedge and skins to the skeleton and my paranoia has
resurfaced. It just doesn't fel right to me. Originally I suggested to Van's
riveting a small doubler under the flange when I rivet on the skins The problem
with that of course is if the doubler is too small it won't have the desired
effect and if it is too big it will simply transfer the failure point elsewhere.
Van's seemed very unconcerned about it. I welcome the expertise and experience
of the members. Ignore, repair or new spar?
Tom Casey
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/emreg
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:pitot tubes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
Paul...
The dynamic pressure created by moving through an air mass is captured at the pitot
and is equal at all points in the pitot and the tube that carries it to the
ASI. Since the ASI is really nothing more then a pressure gage, one or more
can be placed anywhere in the tube and they will see the same dynamic pressure.
To get them to indicate the same they all must be connected to the same static
source as well.
Hope this helps...
Chris Stone
RV-8 x two; wings and wiring
Newberg, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rice <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:pitot tubes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Rice"
Hi all
Can anyone tell me if you can run two different airspeed indicators from the
same pitot tube.
Thanks,
Paul RV-8 QB
Working on wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vents
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alexander, Don"
>
>
> Do any of you know where I can find a panel-mounted air vent that would fit in
a standard 2 =BC" instrument hole?
>
> Regards,
>
> Don
>
>
> Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-mail servers are scanned for viruses
and other threats prior to delivery using e-mail security services powered
by MessageLabs Inc.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066(at)aol.com
"Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum."
But it's still not as good as a wingtip Sportcraft NAV antenna.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/17/2005 5:49:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
william(at)gbta.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill and Tami Britton"
I'm building a -10 and yes, I have a VOR, LOC, GS antenna on the VS.
Reception should be great and interference should be at a minimum.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati
The recent thread discussing the cans and can't of things related to IFR flight
has peaked my often vacillating interest in pursuing the rating. Can anyone
recommend an above average or even outstanding interactive IFR course I can use
with my computer? In the past, I've had a course offered by a certain husband
and wife team but am inclined to seek a different experience this time. I'm
thinking rich graphics, compelling video, frequent quizzes, entertaining instructor(s)
etc. Any comments or recommendations?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wiring the VS--aircraft lighting |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson
Michael,
Forget about a rotating light on the VS use only strobes. Your
right, use only the three strobe version or the protruding two strobe
version. The three strobe version has almost no drag. The two strobe
version is a bit more in the drag category. If you want a reasonable
cruise speed, dont use anything but the three strobe system with the tail
strobe in the lower rudder that Van's provides. Rotating light s went out
a long time ago with their high power consumption and bulb failure rates.
Then again if you have lots of $ and like to fix things, I guess the old
way works. I'm using the LED nav lights in the wings and three strobes
for max recognition. Probably use wig-wag on my landing and taxi lights
for the busy metro areas. Low power and max viz.
Jim Nelson
N599RV (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty"
|
|One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for
|long).
|
|Marty Heller
|
Shouldn't that be "VFR in IMC"?
Marty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
Mike Robertson
>From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>
>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>
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
>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
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> >
> >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: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | New Rule N 8700.42 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
Not necessarily. If you have a private Single-Engine Land rating then
operation of any RV at this point is ok. Where the limitation will come in
is if you have a Private ASEL certificate and have been flying your Mini
500, you will now have to get a rotorcraft rating if you wish to carry
pasengers in your mini 500. You have a choice, to get the appropriate
rating, or to get a license, based on your prior flight time, for just that
aircraft.
Mike Robertson
>From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:10:28 EDT
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>
>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: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like to
do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
heavy traffic areas/airports.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
>
> You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
>just
>have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>
>What?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Hahn" <abakerson(at)zianet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fairings-Etc? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brett Hahn"
Howdy all,
I just talked to Bob at Fairings Etc. He is fine.
He and Sonya took a few days off and hiked the Painted Desert and Canyon De
Shelley in Arizona.
He is back at the salt mine, er...shop.
Contact him at 623-203-9795 or 623-536-0951
Brett Hahn
Managing Editor
Enchanted Publications, LLC
505-635-7444
www.extechmag.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <rgray67968(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
> --> RV-List message posted by: rgray67968(at)aol.com
>
> Hi Bobby,
> My 2 cents, Bob is a SUPER guy and has supplied me with his products on 2
separate projects in a timely fashion. He has always sent the goods 1st,
then had me send a check once the package arrived and I was satisfied with
the contents.
>
> He's always there when I needed something and always returned my calls.
>
> Maybe he's out of town??
> Rick Gray in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
>
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net>
> To: RV-List ; RV7and7A
> Subject: RV-List: Fairings-Etc?
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester
>
> Does anybody know Bob at Fairings-Etc.?
> I placed and order on May 3rd and I've tried to contact Bob to check on
> the status of the order and have not heard back from him.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
> instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared little
> about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild. Were
> were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
> left for, literally, a greener pasture.
That's a shame. The busiest GA airport in Switzerland - Birrfeld - has
a pretty good solution for this problem. Once side of the airport is
for gliders, and the other for powered aircraft. There are two
parallel runways, one is paved, the other grass. It's not uncommon
to have 20 sailplanes lined up waiting for a tow, and dozens out there
in the sky. There are two frequencies - one for the sailplanes and
the other for the powered aircraft. It does require that if the wind
is from the west you fly a right hand pattern with a powered airplane,
but overall it seems to work very well.
http://www.birrfeld.ch/images/pilots/vac_gross.jpg
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <tomvelvick(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | heavy prop extensions |
--> RV-List message posted by:
I use a Landoll 12 lb weight on my ringgear to move the CG forward on my RV-4 with
an O-320 and a wood prop. It also makes the engine run smoother and at a
lower rpm at idle. But I still need more weight forward when my wife flies and
I set in the back seat; especially if we have baggage. Just found out that
Sam Tilleman, Sabre Manufacturing, makes a heavy 22 lb 2 1/4 inch prop extension
or if you use the 4" extension like I do, he makes a 23 lb 8" by 1.75" crush
plate you can use. This puts double the weight forward that the Landoll ring
does. With it and a wood prop, it comes out close to the weight of a Sensenich
metal prop. We are going to order one and see how it works.
http://www.sabermfg.com email:saber@itexas.net
Regards,
Tom Velvick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <paul(at)kitlog.com> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing"
In the flight school I used to work at, we used the Cessna Pilot Center
course. You have to be taking a course at a Cessna Pilot Center to use one.
They are very well produced, but do have John King doing the flying in them.
The classroom video, however, is other people.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Subject: RV-List: IFR for Dummies
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati
The recent thread discussing the cans and can't of things related to IFR
flight has peaked my often vacillating interest in pursuing the rating. Can
anyone recommend an above average or even outstanding interactive IFR course
I can use with my computer? In the past, I've had a course offered by a
certain husband and wife team but am inclined to seek a different experience
this time. I'm thinking rich graphics, compelling video, frequent quizzes,
entertaining instructor(s) etc. Any comments or recommendations?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <paul(at)kitlog.com> |
| Subject: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing"
Or should it be VMC in IFR conditions?
How about IMC in VMC?
Personally, I think IMC in IFR is better than VMC in IMC, as long as you are
VFR flying (on top) on an IFR flight plan, while in VFR (VMC) conditions.
Of course being on Victor airways using your /g suffix on your IFR flight
plan while cleared to "cruise 10,000" and getting vectored for the rnav 30R
with a missed to the 30C ILS/DME.
do not archive this nonsense!
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
Kitlog Builder's Software
www.kitlog.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Marty
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR is not the same as IMC
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty"
|
|One should not be flying VMC in IFR conditions (usually not for
|long).
|
|Marty Heller
|
Shouldn't that be "VFR in IMC"?
Marty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
Not totally true. Anyone may file an IFR flight plan. You must be IFR
rated in order to fly IFR. If you are filing an IFR plan and are a VFR
pilot you simply state in the remarks section that you must remain VMC for
the entire route.
Mike Robertson
>From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:05:15 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point
>
>You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you just
>have to be IFR
>rated to fly in IMC conditions.
>
>As a former active CFII, I'm going to respectfully disagree on this
>one. FAR 61.57 (the recent flight experience reg) states in part:
>
>(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
>section, no person may act as pilot in command under IFR or in weather
>conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR, unless within the
>preceding 6 calendar months, that person has:
>(1) For the purpose of obtaining instrument experience in an aircraft
>(other than a glider), performed and logged under actual or simulated
>instrument conditions, either in flight in the appropriate category of
>aircraft for the instrument privileges sought or in a flight simulator
>or flight training device that is representative of the aircraft
>category for the instrument privileges sought--
>(i) At least six instrument approaches;
>(ii) Holding procedures; and
>(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigation
>systems.
>
>Several paragraphs later it mentions the Instrument Competency Check
>when the six month time has lagged. All of which is appropriate to
>instrument rated pilots.
>
>Acting as PIC under IFR is the important part- one can be flying in
>severe clear, but if you are on on IFR clearance you are under IFR. The
>reg specifically covers this when it also says "weather conditions less
>than the minimums prescribed for VFR." The practical upshot of this is
>that you could, legally, fly in the soup in uncontrolled airspace
>without being on an IFR flight plan and be legal, but you would still
>need to be IFR rated and have the recent flight experience.
>
>Jeff Point
>do not archive
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan. YOU
may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly IFR. You may,
however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must remain VMC for
entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance that sounds like
an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were flying it IFR.
If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC controller that you
must remain VMC.
There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
Mike Robertson
>From: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Wiethe
>
>
>-> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" Sorry, the
>FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than VFRminimums. I've talked
>to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any reg thatrequires an
>instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight plan.I'm sure it's one of those
>things that everyone assumes but I don't seeit written in concrete
>anywhere.Brucewww.glasair.orgBruce - I do not think you are correct. IFR
>and IFR conditions are not
>
>the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly called IMC (Instrument
>Meteorlogical Conditions).
>
>Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations, 1.1 - IFR Conditions means
>
>weather conditions below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules.
>
>Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight Rules. If what you are
>saying is true and you
>
>substituted the definition of IFR conditions for IFR, then FAR 61.3 would
>read:
>
>No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft "under weather
>conditions
>
>below the minimum for flight under visual flight rules" or in in weather
>conditions
>
>less than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight....
>
>Which would be saying the same thing twice which doesn't make any sense.
>
>IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply IMC.
>
>Phil
>
>RV8A - Fuse
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/05 8:40:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
tomatwork(at)netscape.com writes:
> Ignore, repair or new spar?
If there's no obvious sharp bend anywhere that could be bent enough to cause
the material to crack, and it won't affect the skin shape I vote ignore & move
on...
Mark Phillips -6A slo-bild, flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Spicer" <spike(at)rivetbangers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Spicer"
If Van's (who designed the airplane and all of the subsequent engineering work)
answer is not good enough for you, what more expertise do you think you will
find here? Seems to me that its your plane. Either you accept Van's answer as
the authoritative one and use the spar, or you reject it and don't.
-- Spike
>... Van's seemed very unconcerned about it. I welcome the expertise and
experience of the >members. Ignore, repair or new spar?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Microballon Survivability |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
I did that on my RV-8A years ago and it worked great right up to the time it
become an undersea ornament. I used the same techniques for adding filler
as I used when installing the fiberglass around the canopy. Use some three
rock sandpaper to scratch the area well and apply the filler. Then sand
smooth. I was very pleased with the results.
Mike Robertson
>From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "rvlist"
>Subject: RV-List: Microballon Survivability
>Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 12:37:46 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL"
>
>I'm thinking of applying a thin coat of dry epoxy/microballon filler to the
>surface of my forward baggage compartment door to remove some large but
>shallow depressions left over from shaping the outer door panel to the
>curvature of the fuselage. Either that or do the whole thing over right &
>use the ribs and inner panel to pull the surface to the correct curve.
>Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone reading this may have such shallow patches
>on their airplane and would care to comment on how well the patch held up.
>I'd hate to have the appearance ruined by cracks or edge separation lines
>after going to all that work in the name of better appearance.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Thanks, Mike. Re-reading my original post, I guess I was having a bad day ;-)
AvWeb's original reporting on this was a bit confusing, to say the least. Subsequent
discussion in the media and on the list have clarified the FAA's intent,
and it's appreciated.
I agree with the rule as I now understand it, and it's in faact almost generous
to grandfather the prior experience in lieu of a rating. I never realized experimental
pilots enjoyed such a type rating loophole before.
The discordance between the rule and its stated purpose still bothers me somehow.
An increase in fatalities on passenger-carrying flights warrants investigation
as to how the passengers themselves are contributing to the accident rate,
and I don't see that reflected in the rule we have here. I've always been a
stickler for logic and linear thinking, even in governmental regulations, which
does not ingratiate me to bureaucracies...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
Mike Robertson
>From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>
>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>
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
>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
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> >
> >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: | "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson"
It sounds like it is easier to get an IFR rating than to figure this reg
out. The central question seems to be what "no person may act as pilot in
command under IFR" means, since that clearly requires the pilot to have an
IFR rating.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 617 hours
Maple Grove, MN
do not archive
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
>
> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan. YOU
> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly
> IFR. You may,
> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must
> remain VMC for
> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance
> that sounds like
> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were
> flying it IFR.
> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC
> controller that you
> must remain VMC.
>
> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
>
> Mike Robertson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
I doubt your insurance company would agree with that!!!
do not archive
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like
to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
> >
> > You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
> >just
> >have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
> >
> >What?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
Oh good god read the whole thread and knock this crap off. This is total
nonsense!!
do not archive
--- Mike Robertson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
I don't think its because passengers are causing accidents but rather there
are many more experimental aircraft that are carrying more passengers. Many
years ago experimental aircraft were predominately single seaters. Not so
today. With that in mind, obviously, more experimental accidents are going
to include passengers. If we then keep in mind that most regs are for the
safety of the public and passengers rather than for the pilots safety, the
change in the regs is logical.
Mike R.
>From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:40:35 -0400
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
>
>Thanks, Mike. Re-reading my original post, I guess I was having a bad day
>;-)
>
>AvWeb's original reporting on this was a bit confusing, to say the least.
>Subsequent discussion in the media and on the list have clarified the FAA's
>intent, and it's appreciated.
>
>I agree with the rule as I now understand it, and it's in faact almost
>generous to grandfather the prior experience in lieu of a rating. I never
>realized experimental pilots enjoyed such a type rating loophole before.
>
>The discordance between the rule and its stated purpose still bothers me
>somehow. An increase in fatalities on passenger-carrying flights warrants
>investigation as to how the passengers themselves are contributing to the
>accident rate, and I don't see that reflected in the rule we have here.
>I've always been a stickler for logic and linear thinking, even in
>governmental regulations, which does not ingratiate me to bureaucracies...
>
>-Stormy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
>If you have a Private ASEL already then you are good to go with your RV.
>Where this rule mostly comes into play is for those pilots that may be
>flying multi-engine experimentals, gyrocopters, or experimental seaplanes.
>Under the prior rule these pilots did not require a categroy and class
>rating appropriate to these type of aircraft. Now, if they wish to carry
>passengers then they will need to get the proper ratings.
>
>Mike Robertson
>
> >From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:03:44 -0400
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
> >
> >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>
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
> >
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> >
> >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
> > >
> > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> > >
> > >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: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
busted any regulations doing it.
Mike Robertson
PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on this
and they agree.
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 08:56:15 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
>
>I doubt your insurance company would agree with that!!!
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> >
> > Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> > Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still
>file
> > IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people
>like
>to
> > do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying
>into
> > heavy traffic areas/airports.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> > >From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
> > >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > >To:
> > >Subject: RE: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
> > >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:27 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
> > >
> > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan"
> > >
> > > You don't have to be IFR rated to file or fly an IFR flight plan, you
> > >just
> > >have to be IFR rated to fly in IMC conditions.
> > >
> > >What?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Damaged spar flange |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)"
On 6:37:21 2005-05-17 Tom Casey wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tom Casey
> Ignore, repair or new spar?
The engineer in me says "stress concentration". 39" from the tip sounds
like it's near the inboard end of the aileron... If so, remember that an
aileron when deflected also adds a stress concentration to the spar, at the
inboard end. Will these two stress concentrations add up? Are you
planning on doing any aerobatics in your RV? If you're not, and you decide
to sell your plane a few years down the road, would really want to tell
potential buyers that there's a wrinkle in the spar? Would you be happy
from a liability standpoint if you *didn't* tell them?
Of course, the cynic in me says that Vans is unconcerned about it at least
in some small part due to the cost of replacing it...
-Rob
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty" <martorious(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty"
My literal interpretation of the rule indicates that no person may act
as PIC under "Instrument Flight Rules" regardless of Meteorological
Conditions. However it seems that popular aviation vernacular has
made the abbreviations for flight rules and meteorological conditions
interchangeable, with the meaning of both being lost in translation.
I think if this were to go to legal proceedings that a pilot may find
out that what he was reading and what the regs meant were not the
same, at least as far as the FAA is concerned.
Marty,
Learning something new everyday, while trying to keep an open mind.
|-----Original Message-----
|From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
|server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex & Gerry Peterson
|Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 10:46 AM
|To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
|Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
|
|--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson"
|
|
|It sounds like it is easier to get an IFR rating than to figure this
|reg
|out. The central question seems to be what "no person may act as
|pilot in
|command under IFR" means, since that clearly requires the pilot to
|have an
|IFR rating.
|
|Alex Peterson
|RV6-A 617 hours
|Maple Grove, MN
| do not archive
|http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
|
|
|>
|> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
|>
|>
|> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR flight plan.
|YOU
|> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance or fly
|> IFR. You may,
|> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment "Must
|> remain VMC for
|> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC" clearance
|> that sounds like
|> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though you were
|> flying it IFR.
|> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the ATC
|> controller that you
|> must remain VMC.
|>
|> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this. KAPISH!!
|>
|> Mike Robertson
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1"
They are kinda, but they're called gliders. But ya still make some noise
getting them into the air.
> Mickey Coggins
Gliders glide.
Sailplanes soar.....
and can be launched by WINCH.
Bob
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN"
I can see where a SAILplane sitting in the middle of the runway with no way
to taxi could be considered a RPITA . Only recall one time where the Boy
Scouts were giving rides at APV. They would land, change passengers, "taxi"
back up the runway (lots of extra hands) re-hook & takeoff again. Most of
the traffic was using Rwy 18. They were using Rwy 26. Net effect was to
close that runway (26) for up to 20 minutes per flight and 18 for 3 to 5min.
(Middle of 26 is right at the end of 18) The only "real" problem was that
they would turn right off of rwy 26 and go toward an active Acro box.
Turning left would have put them climbing parallel to departing & flyby 18
traffic. We were having an airfair that day BUT the AirBoss was able to keep
everything flowing.
I can see that at an airport with a single runway, SAILplanes with a very
slow approach speed, not able to taxi clear and getting ready for the next
tow could cause problem with power pilots. Finally able to get good radio
communications going with the Scouts. KABONG Do Not Archive 8*)
We share a hanger with a motoglider XImango I think ???
The AirBoss ?? Gummibear, of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob 1" <rv3a.1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Noisy Airplanes and Altitude
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob 1"
>
> If airplanes were as quiet
> as sailboats, there would be far fewer airport closures around the
> world.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> As an owner of a noiseless SAILplane, Utopia remains elusive. For
> instance..... the majority of power pilots at our local airport cared
> little
> about sharing the airport with us. Hostility ranged from mild to wild.
> Were
> were treated, generally, as a royal PITA. Eventually, our sailplane club
> left for, literally, a greener pasture.
>
> Bob - RV3 and HP-14 driver
>
> Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: New Rule N 8700.42 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley"
Choice ends I believe at the end of August this year. Then you have to take
the full-blown course, exam and check ride.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Not necessarily. If you have a private Single-Engine Land rating then
> operation of any RV at this point is ok. Where the limitation will come
> in
> is if you have a Private ASEL certificate and have been flying your Mini
> 500, you will now have to get a rotorcraft rating if you wish to carry
> pasengers in your mini 500. You have a choice, to get the appropriate
> rating, or to get a license, based on your prior flight time, for just
> that
> aircraft.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>>From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: New Rule N 8700.42
>>Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:10:28 EDT
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
>>
>>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: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
Wow, funny you should mention this now. I've had the same problem for over
a year and a half. I finally finished fixing it the day you sent this post.
I have one of the old rv6 gel coat cowls and the fit got worse the more I
flew it. I think the heat of the engine allowed it to soften up and flex
even more. I had a bubble sticking out about 1/8 inch in the middle of the
gap of the hinges. The fix.... I spent 4 days installing cam locs all the
way around the top. They work great. Very good design. I can now
sand/fill the areas that dont quite fit. That will wait for another day.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
190 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: cowl fit
> --> RV-List message posted by: sarg314
>
> My cowl is drilled & clecoed to the hinges all around the firewall and
> fits pretty well except for the upper cowl at the right side about 2
> 1/2" above the lower edge. That 3 or 4 inch section at the side that
> has no hinge to support it. It sticks out about 3/16". Even if I push
> the lower edge into alignment, as it will be when the 2 halves are
> joined, it still bows out about 3/16 a couple inches above that.
>
> Tom G. at Vans suggested that when the 2 halves of the cowl are joined,
> I can use the lower cowl to pull down on the upper cowl to pull it
> further into place, but I just don't think that's going to work. It
> takes about a 10 pound force normal to the surface to push it into
> alignment with the fuselage. I don't think the lower cowl can pull down
> hard enough. And, I don't like the idea of building a big strain into
> the cowl.
>
> I think I'm going to have to mount something to the firewall flange to
> pull it in. A 2 inch section of piano hinge or perhaps a camloc would
> do it. The hinge is undesirable because it's invisible from the outside
> and some one who doesn't expect it to be there might damage the cowl
> trying to get it off after having pulled the 2 standard hinge pins.
>
> Does anybody have any suggestions before I do something irreversible?
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowl.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Mike: I'm not an epidemiologist, but I read their stuff as part of my job...
seems to me if accident numbers are rising but the rate isn't, than there's not
a problem that justifies intervention. Simply discouraging people from flying
would reduce the raw # of fatalities. If the rate is rising, there's likely
a system problem that needs an engineering safety look-see.
Borrowing from my line of work, if pertussis cases double in a population that
has swelled to twice its former size, it doesn't mean the vaccine I'm giving is
losing efficacy, just that the population grew and the whooping cough attack
rate remained unchanged. I could change the wording in the vaccine handout
I give to the parents by adding a statement that the vaccine we're using is "really,
really neat stuff and works great" (ie, has flown in this exact make and
model of gyrocopter for 5 hours in the last 12 calendar months) but I'd be nuts
to think that would change the disease rate among my patients.
Maybe this wasn't their intent, but it looks to me like some regulators at the
FAA actually believe that grandfathering, say, the pilots who now fly rotorcraft
without a type rating is going to increase the public's safety _by magic_ (or
by federal decree, which is the same thing). That's my issue, and why I believe
the licensing gesture is largely symbolic. I would be dismissive of any
upcoming change in the accident stats after these endorsements are issued as purest
coincidence.
In any case, thanks again for the clear explanation of these regs. I always look
forward to hearing the "Das Fed version" of the thread-du-jour, because you
can generally settle for good whatever it is we're thrashing out. You help make
the List the great community that it is :-)
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: "new" regulation re taking pasengers in hombuilts?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
I don't think its because passengers are causing accidents but rather there
are many more experimental aircraft that are carrying more passengers. Many
years ago experimental aircraft were predominately single seaters. Not so
today. With that in mind, obviously, more experimental accidents are going
to include passengers. If we then keep in mind that most regs are for the
safety of the public and passengers rather than for the pilots safety, the
change in the regs is logical.
Mike R.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | IFR is not the same as IMC |
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
Paul,
> RV-6A Sold
You should quit bragging about that. ;->
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue"
Why not? Well start with the little box on the flight plan. It says IFR,
which stands for Instrument Flight Rules. How can that not mean you are
operating under Instrument Flight Rules? The regulations are clear about
the requirements for operating under Instrument Flight Rules. Among other
things they require an instrument rating.
As a practical matter, as others have pointed out, what do you do when your
flight path takes you through a cloud?
This whole discussion just points out to me how many people can argue for a
competely untenable position. I can just see me defending myself to the
local FSDO. "An FAA guy said it is perfectly OK to operate IFR, even though
I don't meet any of the requirements." Sure, that's going to go a long way!
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
> busted any regulations doing it.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on
> this
> and they agree.
>
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
Hey! This is an interesting discussion. If you don't like it, don't read
it. Be nice.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
Oh good god read the whole thread and knock this crap off. This is total
nonsense!!
do not archive
--- Mike Robertson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
> Very true. There is nothing in the regs that says that you must have an
> Instrument rating to file IFR. If you are a VFR pilot, you can still file
> IFR provided that you remain VFR for the entire flight. Some people like
to
> do this to get what they feel is a more priority handling when flying into
> heavy traffic areas/airports.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jason Sneed <n242ds(at)cox.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper
Mike,
So, you can file an IFR flight plan without being IFR
rated if you remain VFR.
What about flying in the flight levels? AIM 3-2-2 B
states:
"Operating Rules and Pilot/Equipment Requirements.
Unless otherwise authorized, all persons must operate
their aircraft under IFR. (See 14 CFR
Section 71.33 and 14 CFR Section 91.167 through 14 CFR
Section 91.193.)"
So, if you file an IFR flight plan, but remain VFR,
then it seems to me that you are not really meeting
the requirements (at least as advised by the AIM) of
Class A air space!
Skylor
RV-8QB
Under Construction
--- Mike Robertson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
>
>
> But guys , it does not say you may not file an IFR
> flight plan. YOU
> may........you just cannot accept the IFR clearance
> or fly IFR. You may,
> however, file an IFR flight plan, place the comment
> "Must remain VMC for
> entire route" in the remarks box, receive a "VMC"
> clearance that sounds like
> an IFR clearance, and fly the entire route as though
> you were flying it IFR.
> If needed during the flight you MUST remind the
> ATC controller that you
> must remain VMC.
>
> There is nothing in the regs that prohibits this.
> KAPISH!!
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: Phil Wiethe <rv8a_builder(at)yahoo.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: RV-List: RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM
> climb at 17,500'
> >Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 18:53:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Phil Wiethe
>
> >
> >
> >-> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
> Sorry, the
> >FAA defines IFR as a weather condition less than
> VFRminimums. I've talked
> >to the AOPA, FAA, and EAA and none can point to any
> reg thatrequires an
> >instrument rating to fly/file an IFR flight
> plan.I'm sure it's one of those
> >things that everyone assumes but I don't seeit
> written in concrete
> >anywhere.Brucewww.glasair.orgBruce - I do not think
> you are correct. IFR
> >and IFR conditions are not
> >
> >the same thing. IFR conditions is more commonly
> called IMC (Instrument
> >Meteorlogical Conditions).
> >
> >Under FAR Part 1: Definitions and Abbreviations,
> 1.1 - IFR Conditions means
> >
> >weather conditions below the minimum for flight
> under visual flight rules.
> >
> >Under 1.2 IFR is defined as Instrument Flight
> Rules. If what you are
> >saying is true and you
> >
> >substituted the definition of IFR conditions for
> IFR, then FAR 61.3 would
> >read:
> >
> >No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
> aircraft "under weather
> >conditions
> >
> >below the minimum for flight under visual flight
> rules" or in in weather
> >conditions
> >
> >less than the minimums prescribed for VFR
> flight....
> >
> >Which would be saying the same thing twice which
> doesn't make any sense.
> >
> >IFR conditions = IMC. IFR alone does not imply
> IMC.
> >
> >Phil
> >
> >RV8A - Fuse
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Off the list for awhile |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6(at)aol.com
In case anyone tries to reach me via the list I have unsubscribed while away
on travel for the next 9 days or so.
Do not archive
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 80+ hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bendix servo adjustemnts |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
Can someone point me to a "how to adjust a bendix servo" article or
diagram?
Im helping a buddy adjust his on a 540. Needs mixture adjustments.
Thanks
Mike
Do not archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
Took a flight of 15 there last year. Yes there are some hoops.
All the docs, regs, paperwork and requirements are here:
http://www.mstewart.net/teamrv/turkscaicos
Enjoy
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sneed
Subject: RV-List: bahama bound
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
I did not say anything about "operating" IFR. You may not accept an IFR
clearance either. I believe that I clearly said that you must operate VFR
and remain VFR. But that does not mean that you may not file an IFR flight
plan and recieve a "VFR" clearance based on an IFR flight plan.
Basically I am doing that every time I contact Center and request flight
following.
Mike Robertson
DO NOT Archive this mess anymore
>From: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 1000 FPM climb at 17,500'
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 11:09:40 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue"
>
>
>Why not? Well start with the little box on the flight plan. It says IFR,
>which stands for Instrument Flight Rules. How can that not mean you are
>operating under Instrument Flight Rules? The regulations are clear about
>the requirements for operating under Instrument Flight Rules. Among other
>things they require an instrument rating.
>
>As a practical matter, as others have pointed out, what do you do when your
>flight path takes you through a cloud?
>
>This whole discussion just points out to me how many people can argue for a
>competely untenable position. I can just see me defending myself to the
>local FSDO. "An FAA guy said it is perfectly OK to operate IFR, even
>though
>I don't meet any of the requirements." Sure, that's going to go a long
>way!
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
> >
> > Why not??? The aircraft is safe to operate (airworthy), and I have not
> > busted any regulations doing it.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> >
> > PS And I have checked with the people more knowledgable then myself on
> > this
> > and they agree.
> >
>
>Larry Pardue
>Carlsbad, NM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cory Emberson" <bootless(at)earthlink.net> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cory Emberson"
It's a great trip! Try www.bahamas.com.
They're one of my favorite booths at OSH!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jason Sneed
Subject: RV-List: bahama bound
--> RV-List message posted by: Jason Sneed
I am going to fly my -6 to the Bahamas next month. Can someone give
me a place to start as far as some paperwork I need to fill out. It
sounds like the best place to leave from and come back into the
country is Fort Pierce. I there are some hoops I have to jump through
before I fly.
Thanks,
Jason Sneed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: IFR flight, was 1000 FPM climb at 17,500' |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson"
Above 18,000 is different because it says you MUST operate IFR, but you may
request a case by case deviation to operate over 18000 VFR. Been done many
times. Bruce Bohannen comes to mind on his altitude reocrd attempts.
Mike Robertson
>From: Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
May 12, 2005 - May 17, 2005
RV-Archive.digest.vol-qw