RV-Archive.digest.vol-qy
May 31, 2005 - June 12, 2005
your
signal. I am trying to avoid the ugly "towel bar" VOR antennas. What are
others doing to compensate for this?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rudder Riveting Question |
Hi all,
I should be ready to rivet my rudder this weekend, assuming I can get the
priming done sometime this week. At the base of the rudder, where the rudder
brace R-710 sits on the rib R-704, there is either limited or no access to the
shop side of the rivets when riveting the skin on. Is there a trick to getting
this spot riveted? I would normally squeeze everything on the outer ribs/skin
interface. I assembled this area and am sort of lost on how to approach it.
Blind rivets would work, but I would like to avoid them for the sake of
uniformity.
Thoughts?
Michael Wynn
RV-8, Empennage
San Ramon, California
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Farner <sfarner(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Riveting Question |
Michael,
At first I thought that I would have to use some blind rivets there
because of limited bucking access, but I was able to squeeze all of
those rivets with the longeron yoke (definitely worth getting if you
don't have one yet - it is used in so many other places).
Scott
www.scottfarner.com
RV-7A
waiting for fuse
On 5/30/05, MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I should be ready to rivet my rudder this weekend, assuming I can get the
> priming done sometime this week. At the base of the rudder, where the rudder
> brace R-710 sits on the rib R-704, there is either limited or no access to the
> shop side of the rivets when riveting the skin on. Is there a trick to getting
> this spot riveted? I would normally squeeze everything on the outer ribs/skin
> interface. I assembled this area and am sort of lost on how to approach it.
> Blind rivets would work, but I would like to avoid them for the sake of
> uniformity.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8, Empennage
> San Ramon, California
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
In today's frenetic world of 24/7 commerce and navigation driven more and more
by GPS dependency, for the benign people-friendly door unlocking service that
can come with the ONSTAR equipped SUV, for an unblinking world in which the golf
cart with the low battery you rented unerringly displays the distance to the
hole from your position on the fairway and as a bonus, the club house will quickly
radio you to speed up play when you find yourself looking for a lost ball
somewhere off the remote fringes of the 14th hole, for the professional over
the road transportation workers and your local UPS driver who's second to second
whereabouts are constantly monitored by satellite, I'd like to think of my
"VOR" equipped RV as a VALUABLE OPTIONAL RECIEVER.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Riveting Question |
Michael,
I managed to build my 8A rudder without using any blind rivets. I cut the
lightening hole Vans mentions in that "box" reinforcement piece. I borrowed
a friend's Tatco squeezer and his 4" yoke. By using the longest flat set I
owned on one end, and the shortest set on the "ram" end, I was able to
reach in through the lightening hole to squeeze all those rivets. I believe
I've got a photo or two of how I did this, if you are interested.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Hi all,
>
>I should be ready to rivet my rudder this weekend, assuming I can get the
>priming done sometime this week. At the base of the rudder, where the rudder
>brace R-710 sits on the rib R-704, there is either limited or no access to
>the
>shop side of the rivets when riveting the skin on. Is there a trick to
>getting
>this spot riveted? I would normally squeeze everything on the outer
>ribs/skin
>interface. I assembled this area and am sort of lost on how to approach it.
> Blind rivets would work, but I would like to avoid them for the sake of
>uniformity.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV-8, Empennage
>San Ramon, California
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Subject: RE: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
I've been using moving map GPS since the first available map handhelds of the
early nineties. I feel that I've always had a much better idea of exactly where
I am, than I ever did with tracking VOR's. I wouldn't be lost, the second the
GPS signal disappears, since I had a "much" greater awareness of the surroundings
and nearest airports to start with.
IMO, if you really don't know where you are with a GPS, then you probably wouldn't
know for sure, when zig zagging VOR to VOR either. Needless to say, I'm with
the camp that believes the VOR is "past" history.
>Plus, all the newer pilots (and older ones that use GPS exclusively) that
>don't use VOR's would have problems. I've done BFR's with people and when I
>put them under the hood and turn of the GPS, they are completely lost, even
>though they have a capable VOR right in front of them. It would cause many
>problems. Again, for a short time, but I bet it would warrant serious
>airspace restrictions until they got it sorted out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | poor radio xmit quality |
My RV-6A radio transmit quality is very bad and I am asking for ideas as to
what to look for.
I have an Icom A200 radio and a Flightcom FC-403 stereo intercom. When I
transmit at engine idle, the transmitted signal sounds like high static with my
voice weakly buried in the noise. The sound in my headset is normal. At
full power, the feedback of static that I hear is quite loud and ATC complains
about readability. The static overwhelms my voice in the signal.
* I have one electronic ignition and one magneto. I have connected the
P-lead shield on the magneto to ground. Should there be a capacitor here?
* The mic jacks are mounted so that they don't short to ground
* the mic returns connect together and then connect only to the intercom mic
return pin.
* power for the radio and intercom come from the avionics bus on the EXP2
power board.
* I've tried turning off alternator in flight, strobes, running on elec ign
only, magneto only, pos lights -- no change in headset feedback.
Any thoughts as to what to try would be appreciated.
Rick Grenwis
N613G - RV6AQB - 45 hours
_http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a_ (http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Barker" <Andrew(at)trutrakap.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question re: Tru Trak |
John,
Do not install anything at this time. The installation is done in the
fuselage of the RV-6. When you get to the fuselage, I would recommend that
you at least run the wiring to the servo. If you would like to talk about
your options, please give me a call. I am pretty much always here.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
www.trutrakap.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lawson" <rv6builder48138(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Question re: Tru Trak
>
> I've tried to contact Tru Trak three times thru their
> web site, with no response. Has anyone else had the
> same problem?
>
> My question to them: I'm partway thru building the
> left wing of my RV-6. If I choose to install a Tru
> Trak product, is there anything I need to/can install
> in the wing, while I'm working on it?
>
> John
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1115 (20050530) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.nod32.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CustomACProp(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Hi Kim,
The Sportcraft antenna is a groundplane antenna. The airframe is the
antenna.
1.) Make certain the VOR antenna is mounted as far forward in the wingtip as
possible.
2.) Make certain that the NAV light, strobe light, and/or landing light
wires all are routed along the front edge of the antenna with the adle clamps
provided.
3.) Make certain that the base of the antenna is grounded to the wing skin
with at least four screws/nutplates.
When installed properly, the Sportcraft NAV antenna is thre best there is.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/31/2005 2:39:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
Subject: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
When I built my RV9A I built it for IFR certification. (I don't necessarily
think long "hard" IFR in a single engine is a good idea, but it is nice to
get through those Seattle marine layers). That has been argued
elsewhere....
Anyway... I installed the Archer nav antennas in the wing tips. THey work
well UNLESS the VOR is on the wrong side of the plane and the fuselage
blocks
the signal. This makes for an unsafe (and illegal) approach if you lose
your
signal. I am trying to avoid the ugly "towel bar" VOR antennas. What are
others doing to compensate for this?
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall insulation |
Hi All-
I'm rapidly closing in on hanging the engine, and am researching firewall insulation
/ blankets. Do folks have an experience based opinion on the value of the
heat and sonic benefits VS. the cost, hassle, and weight issues? How about
front side vs. backside installations? With a FWF blanket, do you simply penetrate
the blanket for the fasteners and then clamp the material between the firewall
and the item, or do you cut the blanket out around the footprint of the
item?
TIA-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
RV-8, smoke stayed in the wires, gear fairings start today!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <paul(at)kitlog.com> |
| Subject: | What's a "VOR" ??? |
Look at how long NDB's have been in service. Tax dollars still keep them
running. Just a backup instrument approach procedure, but they're out
there. When did the VOR's come out, anyone know? I would guess in the 50's
or so. I bet they keep them turned on for another 25 years.
Yes, the technology is antiquated, but it works. Being that the ILS is
received on a VOR/LOC/GS receiver, that will only help its longevity. Maybe
GPS will replace navigation for airport to airport flying, but the ILS will
remain for a long time.
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 LARRY ADAMSON
Subject: Re: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Subject: RE: RV-List: What's a "VOR" ???
I've been using moving map GPS since the first available map handhelds of
the early nineties. I feel that I've always had a much better idea of
exactly where I am, than I ever did with tracking VOR's. I wouldn't be
lost, the second the GPS signal disappears, since I had a "much" greater
awareness of the surroundings and nearest airports to start with.
IMO, if you really don't know where you are with a GPS, then you probably
wouldn't know for sure, when zig zagging VOR to VOR either. Needless to
say, I'm with the camp that believes the VOR is "past" history.
>Plus, all the newer pilots (and older ones that use GPS exclusively) that
>don't use VOR's would have problems. I've done BFR's with people and when
I
>put them under the hood and turn of the GPS, they are completely lost, even
>though they have a capable VOR right in front of them. It would cause many
>problems. Again, for a short time, but I bet it would warrant serious
>airspace restrictions until they got it sorted out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Bob Archer's instructions for the VOR antenna say:
"NEVER connect two antennas together through a coupler thinking this
would produce better all around coverage. Due to the distance between
the antennas and resulting phasing effects the resulting radiation
pattern would have an extreme number of lobes."
And at the end of the instructions:
NOTE: DO NOT connect two antennas together!!!
Dave -6 So Cal
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>I feel the same way...reception before looks and drag. But, I had been
>hoping to use an archer in each wingtip for each NAV radio. I *think*
>the reference I saw was relating to NAV's. I also know that if you use
>a signal splitter (not the proper name) for the nav signal to 2 radios,
>you end up with less signal available for each radio. While I've had
>no problems in my current plane with this, I thought that the
>one-antenna-per wingtip thing was just the ticket. Now I'm thinking
>maybe a cat whiskers with a splitter might be the way it has to be.
>Still have to think about that one. I'll run the wires to the wing
>either way just in case.
>
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
In a message dated 5/30/2005 10:07:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com writes:
Thanks for the input from everyone. Allow me to respond to some of the
questions.
You must have installed the antenna incorrectly if you are having a problem.
IF I installed them wrong I don't know what I did wrong. Each wingtip NAV
antenna seems to work well, I just can't get good reception from the opposite
side of the fuselage. If there is a trick I missed, PLEASE let me know
what I did wrong.
You mentioned you installed the nav antennas in the wing tips (plural). If
>>this is true, why would you have this issue? If not, could you install in
>>both wing tips and tie the nav antennas together?
According to Bob Nickols, you should not connect two antennas together.
Apparently you lose signal. I have two NAV-COM radios, each has its own
Archer antenna in the wing tips. THe localizer antenna is in the left wing tip.
It does not pick up the signal until I am approx. 30 degrees from intercept.
I am thinking of putting a cat whisker on just that radio. Which one do you
guys prefer?
Kim Nicholas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: poor radio xmit quality |
Rick,
The first thing that I'd try is to connect the mic and phones directly
to the A200, this will isolate the intercom and tell you whether or not
the intercom is the problem. You DID install auxiliary phone and mic
jacks didn't you? If not, this would be a good time because without them
it's going to be very difficult to troubleshoot.
If the intercom isn't the problem then it's likely shop time for the ICOM.
The easiest thing of course would be to swap the A200 with a known good
one, if you can find one.
You can probably rule out the antenna because it wouldn't cause static
in your sidetone.
Dave -6, So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Grenwis(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>My RV-6A radio transmit quality is very bad and I am asking for ideas as to
>what to look for.
>
>I have an Icom A200 radio and a Flightcom FC-403 stereo intercom. When I
>transmit at engine idle, the transmitted signal sounds like high static with
my
>voice weakly buried in the noise. The sound in my headset is normal. At
>full power, the feedback of static that I hear is quite loud and ATC complains
>about readability. The static overwhelms my voice in the signal.
>* I have one electronic ignition and one magneto. I have connected the
>P-lead shield on the magneto to ground. Should there be a capacitor here?
>* The mic jacks are mounted so that they don't short to ground
>* the mic returns connect together and then connect only to the intercom mic
>return pin.
>* power for the radio and intercom come from the avionics bus on the EXP2
>power board.
>* I've tried turning off alternator in flight, strobes, running on elec ign
>only, magneto only, pos lights -- no change in headset feedback.
>
>Any thoughts as to what to try would be appreciated.
>
>Rick Grenwis
>N613G - RV6AQB - 45 hours
>_http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a_ (http://rickgrenwis.tripod.com/rv6a)
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Kim,
My Archer wing tip VOR antenna works better than any "conventional" antenna
I've used. Direction & shadowing has no effect whatsoever. Check that your
antenna is properly grounded to the airframe.
Here's a tip/trick:
http://www.rvproject.com/20040322.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Knicholas2(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
>
> When I built my RV9A I built it for IFR certification. (I don't
necessarily
> think long "hard" IFR in a single engine is a good idea, but it is nice
to
> get through those Seattle marine layers). That has been argued
elsewhere....
>
> Anyway... I installed the Archer nav antennas in the wing tips. THey work
> well UNLESS the VOR is on the wrong side of the plane and the fuselage
blocks
> the signal. This makes for an unsafe (and illegal) approach if you lose
your
> signal. I am trying to avoid the ugly "towel bar" VOR antennas. What
are
> others doing to compensate for this?
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
> Seattle
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Insurance rates for RV's |
| From: | "GreenoL" <GreenoL(at)roberts.edu> |
Just renewed with AIG; ground hull (not in motion) only at $50K & $1M
liability, for $740. This was down from about $1,000 for the prior
year. Approximately 1,000 hrs. total flight time, and 200 hrs. in type
since first flight June 2002. The first year I carried full hull, but
the last 2 years I have chosen to absorb the in-flight risk.
Sincerely,
Larry Greeno
EAA Chapter 44 Rochester, NY
N446A Type: RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20, 50 years
VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is superior in many
ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain Avionics
and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR is not needed
with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for declaring the
death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS
alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not exempt from having NAV
equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be used. Yes certified aircraft
may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR (but dont know of any); Check
the operation limitations for an experimental, FAR 91.205(d)(2)- navigational
equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND) facilities to be used. You require
one ground based NAV unit and there is no exemption at this time. The airway
system is still the basis in the USA and is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can stir up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons, revolvers, and startin'
>fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and dead-reckoning.
Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for Sissies, student pilots, and
folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held GPS that'll get you darn near
anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out for those F-18's when ya' blow
through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup >areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Tim , I put mine on the bottom of my RV-4 under the horizontal tail and it worked
great, out of the way and looked great. The reception was excellent. Speed
loss at 200 mph due to drag I guess is less than mph.
I would remove the VOR antenna when I raced. It was easy to remove with two screws
from the outside of the airplane. I would secure the coax with a small piece
of safety wire and stuff the coax back into the fuselage. A little piece of
safety wire was left outside and taped over with speed tape to retrieve the coax
later when I hooked up the VOR antenna again.
Here are some pictures (long link):
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/vwp?.dir=/gmcjetpilot&.src=gr&.dnm=RV4-2.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rv-8/lst%3f%26.dir=/gmcjetpilot%26.src=gr%26.view=t
Cheers George
---------------------------
>
>
> >Subject: Re: VOR Antenna limitations
>
>You mentioned you installed the nav antennas in the wing tips (plural). If this
is true, why >would you have this issue? If not, could you install in both
wing tips and tie the nav >antennas together?
>
>Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Wonder if someone with mini-NEC or similar software would care to model this for
us and see... My armchair guess is that with the extreme separation in terms
of wavelengths, the resulting lobes and nulls would be numerous but very low
magnitude, appraoching insignificance. Takers?
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: VOR Antenna limitations
Bob Archer's instructions for the VOR antenna say:
"NEVER connect two antennas together through a coupler thinking this
would produce better all around coverage. Due to the distance between
the antennas and resulting phasing effects the resulting radiation
pattern would have an extreme number of lobes."
And at the end of the instructions:
NOTE: DO NOT connect two antennas together!!!
Dave -6 So Cal
Tim Olson wrote:
>
>I feel the same way...reception before looks and drag. But, I had been
>hoping to use an archer in each wingtip for each NAV radio. I *think*
>the reference I saw was relating to NAV's. I also know that if you use
>a signal splitter (not the proper name) for the nav signal to 2 radios,
>you end up with less signal available for each radio. While I've had
>no problems in my current plane with this, I thought that the
>one-antenna-per wingtip thing was just the ticket. Now I'm thinking
>maybe a cat whiskers with a splitter might be the way it has to be.
>Still have to think about that one. I'll run the wires to the wing
>either way just in case.
>
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com> |
| Subject: | SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
(Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
answered?)
I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20, 50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR (but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental, FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons, revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup >areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Wampler <jwampler(at)cisco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SOT: GPS/NAV Switch |
A great resource for avionics/electrical questions is the AeroElectric
Connection <http://www.aeroelectric.com/>. Join the email list and
ask your questions there.
-jim
>
> (Slightly off-topic... someone have place to get avionics questions
> answered?)
>
> I'm trying to figure out what sort of "external switch" I need to use for my
> KLN-89B/KX-155/KI-209A installation. The 209A has the relay built in, I just
> need some sort of external switch. Do I really need a full-blown annunciator
> panel? Can I get by with a toggle switch? A Cessna I recently flew in had a
> simple button that illuminated GPS or NAV when pressed. I'd like not to
> spend $800+/- for an annunciator I really don't need.
>
>
> Matthew Brandes,
> Van's RV-9A (Electrical/FWF)
> #90569
> http://www.n523rv.com
>
> EAA Chapter 1329 President
> EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
> While changing the oil, I noticed blue fuel stains on the
> intake tube for cylinder #4 on my O-360-A1A. Checked with my
> local A&P, and he said the gasket where the tube goes into
> the cylinder is probably leaking. That certainly appears to
> be the case.
One thing that does occur is if the rubber boots get really hard and stiff
they won't flex well and will preload the tube as the engine warms up. This
eventually either gouges the gasket, or cracks the tube where it is flared
into a flange. This crack is hidden behind the mounting collar and can only
be seen by removing the tube and cleaning it up.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Sequence/timing of major tasks in QB kit (finishing/panel/engine)... |
If you've built/are building a QB kit, I would like to hear from you on
approximately how long you spent on QB wings/fuse parts before you
needed to start on/order one of the following:
- Finishing kit
- FWF
- Panel
The empennage is going to take me a couple months or maybe less (I plan
a week off work to put in 80-100 hours on that sucker) and it seems
there is relatively little work on the QB wings/fuse themselves before
you are onto finishing/FWF/panel. So, I may have to start thinking
about ordering that finishing kit surprisingly soon (10-week lead time
according to Van's).
Another question I've got right now concerns the order of FWF and
panel. Which first? I had been thinking it would be the panel last, to
wait as long as possible to buy avionics, but it seems that letting the
engine sit for 6-12 months, and/or re-preserving it regularly, is
probably enough of a factor to make doing FWF last a better idea.
Opinions on this? I would also like to avoid getting a "temporary core"
for fitting if at all possible. (I don't plan to have a core rebuilt,
but to buy an experimental Lyc outright).
I realize I am probably planning a bit obsessively now - I would really
like to avoid any down-time waiting for components. As well as budget
accordingly for the big-ticket items down the road.
TIA.
~Paul
~QB 9A - delivery this weekend - #91176.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marcus Cooper" <coop85(at)bellsouth.net> |
I searched the archives but couldn't find a specific discussion on this, so
I apologize if it's redundant. I'm trying to decide on an O-540 vs IO-540
for my RV-10. Some thoughts I had were:
Pluses for the IO-540:
No icing problems
More even burn between cylinders
Pluses for the O-540
Cheaper to overhaul the fuel system
Lower pressure aux fuel pump (ie much cheaper)
Potential to use auto fuel
I've had an IO-540 C4B5 before on my Skybolt and it was a great engine and I
am leaning toward that for the RV-10. However I'd sure appreciate any other
considerations, ideas and suggestions.
Thanks,
Marcus
QB fuselage will be here Thursday!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
If you want an IFR capable plane for cheap then VOR is usually your best option...
Certified IFR GPS setups for enroute and approach are typically *much* more
expensive... and require expensive updates/subscriptions.
Another thing to consider is that VOR antennae are used for localizer and ILS approaches
-and there is currently no available GPS setup that will allow descent
to minumums as low as ILS offers.
So GPS is great, I agree, but a good 'ol ILS will get you safely on the ground
in much worse weather.
Bottom line is that if you fly your RV IFR you will probably want VOR/LOC/ILS capability...
and GPS as well.
Scott
N4ZW
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Riveting Question |
Thanks to all for your advice. I will let you know how it goes.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IO VS O-540s |
On 5/31/05, Marcus Cooper wrote:
> Potential to use auto fuel
You can run auto fuel in the IO-540. There are two rockets locally
with injected 540's that have no problems running it, if the quality
and alcohol content of the fuel are acceptable.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying 600+ hours, F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of my
RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in level flight,
at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon and Van's ASI
reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC
excel sheet. I did this series of three tests at rpm settings
of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error factor ranged from -18 kts at
2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column of
water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and confirmed by
ATC with transponder testing.
So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow in
my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that has
ideas or suggestions.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI indicates.
((:- }
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Indicator Error |
Sounds like you might have a flush static port instead of Van's
"cheapie" pop rivet. That's the direction the error will be.
Dave
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>
>I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of my
RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in level flight,
at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon and Van's
ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS using Horton's
TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three tests at rpm settings
of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error factor ranged from -18 kts
at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>
>I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column of
water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and confirmed by
ATC with transponder testing.
>
>So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow in
my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that has
ideas or suggestions.
>
>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI indicates.
((:- }
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of errors
are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that people
have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
something else....
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed of
my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a column
of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or somehow
in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone that
has ideas or suggestions.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
indicates. ((:- }
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
Group:
I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on this one.
Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the center of the
5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge of all aspects of the rear
spar. No questions asked!
The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately) is What difference
does it make measuring from the center of the hole? If I wanted to drill
a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its center 5/8" from the edge of the material,
does that mean its ok?? I think not!
Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the material
have more importance?
I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my helper let the
reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole. So the plan is to ream out
to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole is right in the center of both the rear
wing spar attach point and the fuselage attach point.
I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my incidence (I won't
elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard) and the email response I got from
Vans stated that I can't ream out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance
won't work. If I measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming
out to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole to
the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of being on the centerline
of the spar attach points.
So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with its center 5/8"
from the edge of the material, I have just less than 1/2" of material from the
edge of the hole to the edge of the material. If I get that same amount only
using a 3/8" bolt, whats the harm in that?
Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
Peshtigo, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Indicator Error |
Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
other ideas?
Indiana Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>
> Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of
> errors
> are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that
> people
> have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
> something else....
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> LarryRobertHelming
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>
>
> I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
> of
> my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
> level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
> and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
> using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
> tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
> factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>
> I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
> column
> of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
> confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
>
> So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
> somehow
> in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone
> that
> has ideas or suggestions.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
> indicates. ((:- }
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall insulation |
I installed all the cables, wires, etc that go through the FW before
installing the insulation/soundproofing material on the pilot side of the
FW. I bought my material from Abby at Flightline Interiors. It is really
tough stuff and has held up well after 8 hours of test flying.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies, It Flies.........
>
> Hi All-
>
> I'm rapidly closing in on hanging the engine, and am researching firewall
> insulation / blankets. Do folks have an experience based opinion on the
> value of the heat and sonic benefits VS. the cost, hassle, and weight
> issues? How about front side vs. backside installations? With a FWF
> blanket, do you simply penetrate the blanket for the fasteners and then
> clamp the material between the firewall and the item, or do you cut the
> blanket out around the footprint of the item?
>
> TIA-
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
> RV-8, smoke stayed in the wires, gear fairings start today!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
What did Vans recommend? That's what I would follow.
I would call (phone, not email) and make sure they understand
the situation. There's a fix for everything. You may not
like it but it will work.
On 05/31 8:29, Jeff Orear wrote:
>
> Group:
>
> I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on this one.
>
> Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the center of
the 5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge of all aspects of the
rear spar. No questions asked!
>
> The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately) is What difference
does it make measuring from the center of the hole? If I wanted to
drill a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its center 5/8" from the edge of the
material, does that mean its ok?? I think not!
>
> Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the
material have more importance?
>
> I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my helper let
the reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole. So the plan is to ream
out to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole is right in the center of both the
rear wing spar attach point and the fuselage attach point.
>
> I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my incidence (I won't
elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard) and the email response I got
from Vans stated that I can't ream out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance
won't work. If I measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming
out to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole
to the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of being on the centerline
of the spar attach points.
>
> So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with its center
5/8" from the edge of the material, I have just less than 1/2" of material from
the edge of the hole to the edge of the material. If I get that same amount
only using a 3/8" bolt, whats the harm in that?
>
> Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Indicator Error |
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>
>Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
>that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
>
>The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
>the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
>size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
>Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
>other ideas?
>Indiana Larry
>
This doesn't really help you much, but how do you know the altitude info
is correct? If your mode C is set up like most, it will see any static
errors the same as your altimeter. I first noticed my static system
error when I glanced at the altimeter during a high speed low pass at my
home runway (at about 100' below ground level).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Speed Indicator Error |
The fact that ATC verified the mode C reading just means that the mode C
agrees with the altimeter, which it should if both are working
correctly, however it doesn't mean that you are actually at the correct
altitude. If the static system pressure is incorrect it will affect both
equally, so you wouldn't see an error between them.
It's unlikely that both the ASI and Dynon are off the same amount, so it
almost has to be a pitot or static system error. If the pitot system
doesn't leak and the pitot tube is in the correct location and pointed
the right direction, then you need to take another close look at the
static system. The tubing size difference won't cause any problems
(unless it leaks) since there is no flow through it, only a pressure change.
My guess is a leak in the static system that somehow escaped detection
when you tested it.
Dave
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
>
>Well, I have the standard Van's static pop rivet vents. So, I don't think
>that is it. And the altitude info is correct.
>
>The one thing I did, which might be suspect, is come into the fuselage with
>the per plans aluminum tubing but changed to plastic of a slightly larger
>size. The larger plastic tube size fits snugly over the aluminum tubing.
>Would that factor into presenting a lower pressure to the instruments? Any
>other ideas?
>Indiana Larry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>
>
>
>
>>
>>Which static vents do you have?? More often than not, those types of
>>errors
>>are fairly common with the "flush mount" or machined type ports that
>>people
>>have installed. If you have the standard pop rivets, then it's probably
>>something else....
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Stein.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>>LarryRobertHelming
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
>>
>>
>>
>>I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
>>of
>>my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm, in
>>level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and Dynon
>>and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed the TAS
>>using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series of three
>>tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI error
>>factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
>>
>>I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
>>column
>>of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct and
>>confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
>>
>>So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
>>somehow
>>in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from anyone
>>that
>>has ideas or suggestions.
>>
>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
>>indicates. ((:- }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Air Speed Indicator Error |
Well I recently ran into the same problem doing some of the flight testing
of a friend's RV9A.
Up to about 140kts IAS, it seems OK.
Tests on the ground with a manometer indicated nominal accuracy up to
200kts.
Above 140 kts when actually flying, it is WRONG. About 150kts reads as 142
kts or so. And 160kts read NO MORE THAN 145 kts or so.
Seemingly no leaks in the PITOT lines. Not sure yet on the static side as I
haven't tested that.
I suspect the "flush mount" static ports that my friend made on his lathe.
He is a real craftsman and felt he could get a better fit of the tubing by
make the ports.
WHAT I PLAN TO DO: (I may be silly, so don't laugh :-) )
1. Build up a "ramp" just before ONE of the ports using tape.
2. Fly and note any differences.
3. Add some tape to before the port on the other side.
4. Fly and note any differences.
I am assuming that there is a small amount of "high pressure" building up
above the static port.
The other thing I plan to do is compare altitude with that of another RV
flying near me at the same speed and height. I am suspecting they will read
the same altitude BELOW 140kts and I will read LOWER and ABOVE 140kts. If
this occurs, to me this will confirm the port being the problem.
Does this seem to make sense to the rest of you???
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
| server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming
| Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 6:09 PM
| To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: RV-List: Air Speed Indicator Error
|
|
|
| I just completed a series of test flights to determine the true air speed
| of my RV7. I used the method of running three directions at same rpm,
| in level flight, at same altitude each run, recording the direction and
| Dynon and Van's ASI reading and the GPS ground speed. I then computed
| the TAS using Horton's TrueAirSpeedCALC excel sheet. I did this series
| of three tests at rpm settings of 2,500, 2,300, 2,100, and 1,900. My ASI
| error factor ranged from -18 kts at 2,500 rpm to -10 kts at 1,900 rpm.
|
| I had already tested the pitot and static air system and they held a
| column of water pressure without loss. The altitude reading is correct
| and confirmed by ATC with transponder testing.
|
| So it seems the error has got to be in two air driven instruments or
| somehow in my pitot plumbing that does not leak. I'd like to hear from
| anyone that has ideas or suggestions.
|
| Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up, FP prop. It Flies faster than the ASI
| indicates. ((:- }
|
|
|
|
|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built in.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and
needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20,
50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is
superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR
is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for
IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not
exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be
used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR
(but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental,
FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there
is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA
and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can
stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons,
revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for
Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held
GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out
for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup
>areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
Wrong!! Although there is a vor/ils built in to the 480 the gps portion is
certified without the requirement to hook up or use them. It is certified
(and it is the only unit that is under TSO C 146a levels 1,2,3) This is why
it is stand alone. The need for ground based equipment does not apply to
devices certified under C146a. Read it before you come back with flames (g)
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built in.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and
needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20,
50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is
superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR
is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for
IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not
exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be
used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR
(but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental,
FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there
is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA
and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can
stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons,
revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for
Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held
GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out
for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup
>areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derrick Aubuchon <n184da(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rear spar/fuselage attach bolt edge distance |
The typical edge distance formula is twice the diameter of the bolt,,
that's were the 5/8" distance originates (5/16 x 2).
So if you drilled out to a 1/2' bolt, the required edge distance
would be at least 1" from center to edge.
Of course, there are exceptions in certain applications which call
for even more, but these are usually related to a specific installation.
Call Vans.
Derrick L. Aubuchon
RV-4: N184DA
Jackson/Westover -Amador County (O70)
n184da(at)volcano.net
>
> What did Vans recommend? That's what I would follow.
> I would call (phone, not email) and make sure they understand
> the situation. There's a fix for everything. You may not
> like it but it will work.
>
> On 05/31 8:29, Jeff Orear wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Group:
>>
>> I need to get some professional guidance, or maybe even therapy on
>> this one.
>>
>> Van's indicates that you must have at least 5/8" distance from the
>> center of the 5/16" bolt hole in the rear spar attach to the edge
>> of all aspects of the rear spar. No questions asked!
>>
>> The thing that confuses me (like alot of things confuse me lately)
>> is What difference does it make measuring from the center of the
>> hole? If I wanted to drill a 1/2" hole there, so long as have its
>> center 5/8" from the edge of the material, does that mean its
>> ok?? I think not!
>>
>> Doesn't the amount of material from the edge of the hole to the
>> edge of the material have more importance?
>>
>> I ask all this because while drilling my rear spar bolt holes, my
>> helper let the reamer drift and we ended up with an oblong hole.
>> So the plan is to ream out to a 3/8" hole. The center of my hole
>> is right in the center of both the rear wing spar attach point and
>> the fuselage attach point.
>>
>> I asked a question regarding another problem I have with my
>> incidence (I won't elaborate...I don't want to cry on my keyboard)
>> and the email response I got from Vans stated that I can't ream
>> out to a 3/8" hole because the edge distance won't work. If I
>> measure from where my holes are, even accounting for reaming out
>> to 3/8", I still would have 1/2" of material from the edge of the
>> hole to the edge of the spar attach point.. I am within 1/8" of
>> being on the centerline of the spar attach points.
>>
>> So what is the problem with that?? If I place a 5/16" hole with
>> its center 5/8" from the edge of the material, I have just less
>> than 1/2" of material from the edge of the hole to the edge of the
>> material. If I get that same amount only using a 3/8" bolt, whats
>> the harm in that?
>>
>> Sure would appreciate any clarification on that folks.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeff Orear
>> RV6A N782P (reserved)
>> setting up the wings...while taking a few steps backward
>> Peshtigo, WI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
I've seen pictures, on other peoples sites, of a fluting diagram for the HS
ribs, but I don't have a diagram. I assume it is because many of the ribs
are now pre-drilled (and I will know where to flute), when previously they
were not. That correct?
Thanks,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 Emp
Livermore, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HS Rib Fluting |
| From: | "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter(at)jpainter.org> |
> I've seen pictures, on other peoples sites, of a fluting diagram for the HS
> ribs, but I don't have a diagram. I assume it is because many of the ribs
> are now pre-drilled (and I will know where to flute), when previously they
> were not. That correct?
Yes, this is correct. I went looking for those in my kit, too. Just flute
between the holes...but not on the end flanges that connect to the spars. My
experience thus far has been that you really only need to flute parts that
have a curve bent into them. The more curve the more you need to flute.
Pieces that are bent along straight lines do not (generally) need to be
fluted.
On my kit there were two ribs on the HS (just forward of the forward spar)
that were not pre-punched. The trick there is to just sit them in
place...mark the holes with a pen, remove it...flute between the pen marks,
re-insert and check that it's straight.
Hope that helps.
- Jamie
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A fuselage N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "brucebell74" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Would like to talk with Barry Palmer about his master cylinder mod.
Bruce Bell
Lubbock, Texas
RV4 # 2888
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-8 project FOR SALE |
| From: | "Textor, Jack" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Good morning all,
For those that expressed interest in purchasing my RV-8 project, I have
updated some pictures and information on our web site at
www.textorfamily.com <http://www.textorfamily.com/> . Time and $$
dictate the sale. Excellent workmanship throughout. Project includes
RV-8 wing and empennage kits. Empennage, ailerons and flaps are
complete except fiberglass. Both tanks are complete. The right wing is
a quick build stage, ready to close. The left wing is jigged and ready
to rivet. This project is essentially at the "quick build stage and can
be purchased at below current kit prices. For more complete details
please check our web site.
Thanks!
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
515-225-7000 work
515-277-4173
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
True. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GPS approaches are NOT authorized
for use when picking an alternate airport -which is a very important point
when flying IFR (gotta' have a back door! -both in practicality and legality
as well, depending on the conditions...) SOooo... you either have to pick an alternate
in 'guaranteed' VFR weather that allows you to proceed from the enroute
IFR structure to the surface VMC (certainly a gamble) ... OR... you must have
another form of nav onboard and pick an alternate not predicated on a GPS
approach.
Bottom line... if you go flying IFR with just a GPS onboard you're foolish (read
'stupid')... and depending on whether or not you have RAIM, the weather being
below mins and your requiring an alternate, you could be screwed. All this not
even considering a failure of your onboard equipment. Like a few others on
this list, I fly IFR for a living, and as wonderful as they are, there's no way
I'd consider going off into the muck with just a GPS.
Scott N4ZW
most
correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and needs no "land based backup".
-----Original Message----- From
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall insulation |
Hi Larry-
Thanks for the response. There doesn't seem to be much in the archives on
this subject.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Since you have 2 antennas separately coupled to 2 navs, I wonder if one may
interfering with the other in some subtle way. Given all the reports of no
shadowing with the Bob Archer antenna perhaps putting a diplexer and
running both navs from one antenna may work.
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
Scott,
I have three gps's, two vor/ils's and a handheld gps for my panel. I will
also have a trutrack ap that id "a self contained" unit. You never heard
me say a word about if gps only is safe the comments were about legal, in
response to some one saying it was not legal.
Don N12VS reserved
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of SCOTT SPENCER
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
True. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GPS approaches are NOT
authorized for use when picking an alternate airport -which is a very
important point when flying IFR (gotta' have a back door! -both in
practicality and legality as well, depending on the conditions...) SOooo...
you either have to pick an alternate in 'guaranteed' VFR weather that allows
you to proceed from the enroute IFR structure to the surface VMC (certainly
a gamble) ... OR... you must have another form of nav onboard and pick an
alternate not predicated on a GPS approach.
Bottom line... if you go flying IFR with just a GPS onboard you're foolish
(read 'stupid')... and depending on whether or not you have RAIM, the
weather being below mins and your requiring an alternate, you could be
screwed. All this not even considering a failure of your onboard equipment.
Like a few others on this list, I fly IFR for a living, and as wonderful as
they are, there's no way I'd consider going off into the muck with just a
GPS.
Scott N4ZW
there is a vor/ils built in to the 480 the gps portion is certified without
the requirement to hook up or use them. It is certified (and it is the only
unit that is under TSO C 146a levels 1,2,3) This is why it is stand alone.
The need for ground based equipment does not apply to devices certified
under C146a. Read it before you come back with flames (g) Don -----Original
Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke Subject:
Holyoke" That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built
in. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From:
owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS Subject: RE:
This is al
most
correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and needs no "land based
backup". -----Original Message----- From
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trevor Davis" <tdavis(at)netactive.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder Riveting Question |
Michael,
Try inserting 3 or so washers under the die on the non-movable side of your
rivet squeezer.
This allows sufficient clearance when setting the rivet.
Works like a charm - did mine this morning
Trevor Davis
RV-7
Cape Town
South Africa
>
>
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I should be ready to rivet my rudder this weekend, assuming I can get the
> >priming done sometime this week. At the base of the rudder, where the
rudder
> >brace R-710 sits on the rib R-704, there is either limited or no access
to
> >the
> >shop side of the rivets when riveting the skin on. Is there a trick to
> >getting
> >this spot riveted? I would normally squeeze everything on the outer
> >ribs/skin
> >interface. I assembled this area and am sort of lost on how to approach
it.
> > Blind rivets would work, but I would like to avoid them for the sake of
> >uniformity.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Michael Wynn
> >RV-8, Empennage
> >San Ramon, California
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based NAV |
equip)
>From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
>This is almost correct. A Garmin 480 is certified >for primary NAV and Needs
no "land based backup".
--------------------------------------------------
Don:
We disagree and I think you are only part right, and I think you are in for a surprise,
as was I. Could be wrong but this is what the EAA has to say.
From the EAA the primary navigational facility must be ground based for an experimental:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for%20IFR%20operations.html
(READ: The 6th paragraph under What About GPS?)
Whether the GPS is IFR (TSOed) or not has nothing to do with it. If you read the
operating limitations for an experimental it MUST meet Part 91.205 to fly IFR,
including 91.205(d)(2), which states what KIND of NAV equipment we must have.
There is no mention of GPS or away around this, unless you have your limitation
modified or waived for your installation.
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND) facilities
to be used. The point is experimental aircraft are not certified but specifically
have an operating limitation to meet 91.205 (d)(2) limitation. There is
no way around this, unless you get a waiver issued to amend or delete part of
the 91.205 requirement.
You can still use the GPS for IFR NAV, but the GPS is an adjunct not a sole replacement
in an experimental. It is not a GPS thing it is an experimental issue.
The EAA article could be wrong? What you say?
I agree with Scott, a VOR/LOC is cheap and a few paper charts gets you into basic
IFR capability. Add glide slope and ILS gets you low mins for not a lot of
money. The charts can be bought as needed without expensive electronic GPS updates.
Of course a good VFR GPS can act as a BACK-UP and improve situational awareness.
A trick is GPS direct, IFR, without an IFR approved GPS, legally. If you can get
ATC to give you a direct heading, you are legally on vectors, but you can stay
on or check you are on a good direct course by using the GPS. If they say "Heading
2-3-0 direct XYZ" you are on a direct vector. XYZ can be far away and
not a VOR, you are on a heading, but the GPS will give you a, how's-go-it. At
work I have departed Seattle late at night and got Direct Detroit, 10 minutes
after take-off, but than I have a equip code /E FMS (flight managment system).
Cheers George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna limitations |
Again, from Bob's installation instructions:
"If two VOR receivers are being installed, one antenna should be
installed in each wing tip and each antenna connected to a receiver.
This type of installation would produce twice as much signal into each
receiver and this much signal increase would mean an increase of about
25% in VOR range."
Dave
Matt Jurotich wrote:
>
>Since you have 2 antennas separately coupled to 2 navs, I wonder if one may
>interfering with the other in some subtle way. Given all the reports of no
>shadowing with the Bob Archer antenna perhaps putting a diplexer and
>running both navs from one antenna may work.
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
>
>e-mail mail to:
>phone : 301-286-5919
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based |
NAV equip)
George,
You are right, my mistake. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground
based NAV equip)
>From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
>This is almost correct. A Garmin 480 is certified >for primary NAV and
Needs no "land based backup".
--------------------------------------------------
Don:
We disagree and I think you are only part right, and I think you are in for
a surprise, as was I. Could be wrong but this is what the EAA has to say.
From the EAA the primary navigational facility must be ground based for an
experimental:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for
%20IFR%20operations.html
(READ: The 6th paragraph under What About GPS?)
Whether the GPS is IFR (TSOed) or not has nothing to do with it. If you read
the operating limitations for an experimental it MUST meet Part 91.205 to
fly IFR, including 91.205(d)(2), which states what KIND of NAV equipment we
must have. There is no mention of GPS or away around this, unless you have
your limitation modified or waived for your installation.
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. The point is experimental aircraft are not certified
but specifically have an operating limitation to meet 91.205 (d)(2)
limitation. There is no way around this, unless you get a waiver issued to
amend or delete part of the 91.205 requirement.
You can still use the GPS for IFR NAV, but the GPS is an adjunct not a sole
replacement in an experimental. It is not a GPS thing it is an experimental
issue. The EAA article could be wrong? What you say?
I agree with Scott, a VOR/LOC is cheap and a few paper charts gets you into
basic IFR capability. Add glide slope and ILS gets you low mins for not a
lot of money. The charts can be bought as needed without expensive
electronic GPS updates. Of course a good VFR GPS can act as a BACK-UP and
improve situational awareness.
A trick is GPS direct, IFR, without an IFR approved GPS, legally. If you can
get ATC to give you a direct heading, you are legally on vectors, but you
can stay on or check you are on a good direct course by using the GPS. If
they say "Heading 2-3-0 direct XYZ" you are on a direct vector. XYZ can be
far away and not a VOR, you are on a heading, but the GPS will give you a,
how's-go-it. At work I have departed Seattle late at night and got Direct
Detroit, 10 minutes after take-off, but than I have a equip code /E FMS
(flight managment system).
Cheers George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based |
NAV equip) NOT
Since y'all want to get so literal, then read it carefully. It says:
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the
> ground (GROUND) facilities <>. (emphasis mine)
If you aren't using any facilities, then NOT having any
nav equipment is perfectly appropriate. I don't have a dog in
this fight since I've got an approach certified GPS and Nav/Com... Just
stirring the pot.
Greg
>
> Whether the GPS is IFR (TSOed) or not has nothing to do with
> it. If you read the operating limitations for an experimental
> it MUST meet Part 91.205 to fly IFR, including 91.205(d)(2),
> which states what KIND of NAV equipment we must have. There
> is no mention of GPS or away around this, unless you have
> your limitation modified or waived for your installation.
>
>
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the
> ground (GROUND) facilities to be used. The point is
> experimental aircraft are not certified but specifically have
> an operating limitation to meet 91.205 (d)(2) limitation.
> There is no way around this, unless you get a waiver issued
> to amend or delete part of the 91.205 requirement.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
Flames?? I haven't studied C 146a so I'll have to take your word for it.
I was going by what I was told by an avionics shop tech. We were
discussing the need for VOR with IFR GPS and annunciator. He said that
the 440 and 540s didn't need a separate annunciator as long as they were
within 30 degrees of the pilot's field of view, but that no approach
certified GPS installation would be approved without a VOR receiver of
some sort also installed. Note that he was talking about the
installation being legal, not the receiver. This discussion was held
before the GNS 480 was certified and if my info is out of date, I'm
sorry that I flamed you with it. (g)
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
Wrong!! Although there is a vor/ils built in to the 480 the gps portion
is
certified without the requirement to hook up or use them. It is
certified
(and it is the only unit that is under TSO C 146a levels 1,2,3) This is
why
it is stand alone. The need for ground based equipment does not apply
to
devices certified under C146a. Read it before you come back with flames
(g)
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
That's because the 480 has a VOR/ILS built in.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DonVS
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
This is almost correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and
needs
no "land based backup".
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
Chuck:
You may be declairing the death of VORs a little early. True in 10, 20,
50
years VORs may be phased out. Who knows? As we all know the GPS is
superior
in many ways to a VOR. However..
Your RV is not legal for IFR with an IFR GPS alone (Ref. Blue Mountain
Avionics and FARs).
I assume you are talking about IFR flight. I would agree for VFR a VOR
is
not needed with a GPS; However, before you pat yourself on the back for
declaring the death of VORs, you should consider an RV is not legal for
IFR
with an IFR GPS alone. Read the Regs., experimental aircraft are not
exempt
from having NAV equipment suitable for ground (GROUND) stations to be
used.
Yes certified aircraft may get away with certifying IFR without a VOR
(but
dont know of any); Check the operation limitations for an experimental,
FAR
91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground (GROUND)
facilities to be used. You require one ground based NAV unit and there
is no
exemption at this time. The airway system is still the basis in the USA
and
is based on VORs.
>
>
>
>From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com> Subject: What's a "VOR" ???
>
>Hey I ain't seen any good flamin' for awhile, so I'll see what I can
stir
up....
>
>VOR's are extinct! Yep they went the way of covered wagons,
revolvers,
and startin' >fires with flint. EVERYONE is using GPS, pilotage and
dead-reckoning. Heck a'doodle >lining up 'dem cross hairs is for
Sissies,
student pilots, and folks who can't afford 100 >bucks for a hand-held
GPS
that'll get you darn near anywheres, anytime, anyhow ('cept >watch out
for
those F-18's when ya' blow through one of 'dem darn alphabet-soup
>areas).
>
>There, that ought to do it. Nomex britches on...
>
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
On 6/1/05, SCOTT SPENCER wrote:
>
>
> True. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GPS approaches are NOT
> authorized for use when picking an alternate airport -which is a very
> important point when flying IFR (gotta' have a back door! -both in
> practicality and legality as well, depending on the conditions...) SOooo...
> you either have to pick an alternate in 'guaranteed' VFR weather that allows
> you to proceed from the enroute IFR structure to the surface VMC (certainly
> a gamble) ... OR... you must have another form of nav onboard and pick an
> alternate not predicated on a GPS approach.
Scott, just to clarify for everyone, it is legal to intend to use, and use
a GPS approach at your filed alternated airport. What you can't do is file
an airport that has ONLY GPS approaches.
Bottom line... if you go flying IFR with just a GPS onboard you're foolish
> (read 'stupid')... and depending on whether or not you have RAIM, the
> weather being below mins and your requiring an alternate, you could be
> screwed. All this not even considering a failure of your onboard equipment.
> Like a few others on this list, I fly IFR for a living, and as wonderful as
> they are, there's no way I'd consider going off into the muck with just a
> GPS.
Can't dissagree with that. Note that all IFR GPS, even in an experimental,
must have RAIM. It is part of the performance requirements for both en route
and approach IFR GPS, TSO'd or not.
--
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/vp4skydoc/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based |
NAV equip)
Apparently the EAA site is down? Here is another link to get you to the info.
http://images.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf
Here is the Par in question:
"As we are required by out Operating :imitations to equip the aircraft in accordance
with the 91.205, this statement tells us that out primary navigational equipment
must be based on the ground facilities (primary VOR). As this is the
case m a homebuilt with only a GPS installed would not be legal for IFR operations."
Questions?
BTW, TSO, Technical Standard Order, means squat to us and refers to performance
of equipment and has nothing to do with operating limitations.
Prove that experimental Op limits don't apply. TSO is not going to do it. Sorry,
no offense, but if you disagree could you base your argument on facts based
on FAR's. Remember experimental aircraft are NOT certified, which usually works
in our favor in maintenance and modifications.
Cheers George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org> |
Happy Thursday, only one day to go until 12 hours a day of building time! OK I
know it could be more but we like to sleep in when we get a chance. ;~)
I have added a WHOLE bunch of stuff to our site and thought you might want a pick
me up to keep you going.
I want to also give a HUGE thank you to Dan C. for his Great advice and help.
Cheers,
Stephanie
www.rv-8a.4t.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped RV-6A
now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I am a little
concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine monitor consistently
indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range. Cylinder #3 runs the hottest
and on one occasion the temperature reached 482 degrees generating an audio
alert. What baffles me is that the oil temperature has yet to surpass 170
degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder
was running at 434 degrees at cruise with the oil temperature at 160 degrees.
I have not leaned the mixture on any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce
CHT's somewhat. My Lycoming operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the
max acceptable cylinder head temperature. Of course, I am running mineral
oil for the first 25 hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I
am getting? Is it possible the VM-1000 is reporting
bogus
numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
482 is a bit on the high side, even for a new engine. That being said, if
they are consistently under 450, I wouldn't be too awfully worried about it
for the first dozen hours or so. If you still have those temps after 20-25
hrs, then something probably isn't right. Depending on your cylinders, they
should be already broken in or darned close to it at 11hrs. Of course,
that's assuming you've been running the engine good and hard for the first
few hours.
You didn't mention how the #1 Cyl is indicating??? If it's much lower than
#3, then you obviously need to put the standard "ramp" in in front of #1 to
get more air back to #3 and even out the temps. It's pretty typical to need
some sort of small ramp on the front cylinder (I have about 1/2" on mine),
and usually it will even the temps out nicely. For doing a "test", you can
simply use the aluminum or stainless tape, cut a piece and stick in down by
the baffling on the front Cyl.
Just my 2 cents!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----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: CHT's....... how high is high?
Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I am
a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range.
Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature reached 482
degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the oil
temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT
of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at cruise
with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the mixture on
any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's somewhat. My Lycoming
operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max acceptable cylinder head
temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil for the first 25
hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I am getting? Is it
possible the VM-1000 is reporting
bogus
numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
I start to take notice at 400, I would crap my pants at 480!! In general,
400 max for prolonged engine life is what I have read in numerous places.
>
>Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
>RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I
>am a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
>monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the
>range. Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature
>reached 482 degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the
>oil temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an
>OAT of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at
>cruise with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the
>mixture on any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's
>somewhat. My Lycoming operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max
>acceptable cylinder head temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil
>for the first 25 hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I
>am getting? Is it possible the VM-1000 is reporting
> bogus
> numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
>
>Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Rick: I have seen a gradual decrease in CHT's with time. Initially #3
(hottest) would get to 425 to 450 deg F in full throttle climb to pattern
altitude at 110 to 120 MPH (0-360 A1A). Now at 82 hours the EIS will show #3
barely reaching 400 under the same conditions. In 65-75% cruise I'm seeing
340-350s with all cylinders within 15 degrees spread.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think there is any direct connection
between oil temp and CHT. My oil temps were way down in the 150 to 160 deg F
range with ambients around 55 to 65 deg. My seven row cooler is baffle
mounted behind #4. I have blocked off the back side of my oil cooler completely
and
now get 180-185 deg or so. I'm waiting to see what happens as the ambient
temp goes up, we're still in the 70s and low 80s in this area.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX
Pleasanton, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert E. Newhall II" <renewhall2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | cloudy whelen strobes |
My RV7 has 95hrs on it and the lenses of my Whelen
wingtip strobes have started to get cloudy. Anybody
else seeing this? Is this normal or is it indication
of impending failure? It's been suggested that maybe
they are not getting enough cooling because they are
inside the plexiglass wingtip covers.
Bob Newhall
Boulder, CO
RV7
__________________________________
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Where are you located? I have a thermocouple tester that will read the
probes and simulate a probe to test the instrument.
This is one real advantage of an Engine Monitor that will log the flight
data.
Rob Hickman
_www.Advanced-Flight-Systems.com_ (http://www.Advanced-Flight-Systems.com)
(503) 598-7727
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: cloudy whelen strobes |
If you take the cover off the glass lens will clean up with soap and water.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
Rick,
The temperatures you cite are somewhat higher than what is normally seen...I
would say that with an O-320 you should be looking at 350 or so in a climb
and about 300 or so in cruise even leaned back. By the way, when you do
start to lean, your temps will go up, not down. At least until you get to
peak CHT. If you do lean and temps go down, you definitely need to re-jet
your carb, it would be running way too lean. I would check your baffling
system for tightness, etc.; if OK, I would suspect possibly an indication
problem of some sort. Can you calibrate a CHT probe by giving it a known
temp? Possibly put it into a can of boiling water and look for 212 degrees.
Whatever you do, please let us know what you find.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7
-----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: CHT's....... how high is high?
Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I am
a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range.
Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature reached 482
degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the oil
temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT
of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at cruise
with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the mixture on
any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's somewhat. My Lycoming
operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max acceptable cylinder head
temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil for the first 25
hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I am getting? Is it
possible the VM-1000 is reporting
bogus
numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cloudy whelen strobes |
Yeah, my tail strobe lens did that. Take off the cover and clean it. ;-)
http://www.rvproject.com/20050210.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert E. Newhall II" <renewhall2(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: cloudy whelen strobes
>
> My RV7 has 95hrs on it and the lenses of my Whelen
> wingtip strobes have started to get cloudy. Anybody
> else seeing this? Is this normal or is it indication
> of impending failure? It's been suggested that maybe
> they are not getting enough cooling because they are
> inside the plexiglass wingtip covers.
>
> Bob Newhall
> Boulder, CO
> RV7
>
>
> __________________________________
> Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matthew Brandes <matthew(at)n523rv.com> |
| Subject: | High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
Rick's email reminded me of a recent article that I read in an EAA newsletter
relating high CHT's to excess flash on the cylinder heads. When I was visiting
a Mel down in Texas, I looked at an O-320 he had hanging on an RV-9A in his shop
and sure enough, you could see excess flash on the fins around the spark plug
area.
The article starts on page 3 of this PDF document. Very interesting read. I'd
be curious to find out how many people have excess flash on their cylinder
heads and if they removed it, what difference it made.
http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/0408nltr.pdf
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Fiberglass)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
Someone just posted this......on one of these E-mail lists, it was a
significant temp decrease with the flash removal.
>
>Rick's email reminded me of a recent article that I read in an EAA newsletter
>relating high CHT's to excess flash on the cylinder heads. When I was
>visiting
>a Mel down in Texas, I looked at an O-320 he had hanging on an RV-9A in
>his shop
>and sure enough, you could see excess flash on the fins around the spark plug
>area.
>
>The article starts on page 3 of this PDF document. Very interesting
>read. I'd
>be curious to find out how many people have excess flash on their cylinder
>heads and if they removed it, what difference it made.
>
>http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/0408nltr.pdf
>
>Matthew Brandes,
>Van's RV-9A (Fiberglass)
>#90569
>http://www.n523rv.com
>
>EAA Chapter 1329 President
>EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
At the risk of asking my typical newbie question, what is "flash'?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV-8 Empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
Flash is when someone flips open their coat ..... oh, sorry, wrong
flash. :-P
More accurately, 'flashing' is metal that squeezes between the parting
faces of a mold. In the case of cylinders (for those that didn't follow
that link .... it explains in more detail) the flashing blocks off the
air flow passages around the cylinder head .... near the spark plug is
more common.
Linn
MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>At the risk of asking my typical newbie question, what is "flash'?
>
>Regards,
>
>Michael Wynn
>RV-8 Empennage
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
Hi Matthew,
I found that my O-360-A1A had the excess casting flash on three of the
cylinders. One cylinder in particular was all but closed off with it. This
now zero timed engine's matched Lycoming cylinder set had 1206 hr. total
time since factory re-manufacture.
I have not flown as yet but I am glad that I was able to remove all of the
excess casting flash and make the cylinders match. In the future I will not
have to look here in regard to cylinder temp irregularities.
This is another one of those things that I most likely would not have
thought of or done, had I not been clued into it by a previous RV-list
posting.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com>
Subject: RV-List: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders
>
> Rick's email reminded me of a recent article that I read in an EAA
> newsletter
> relating high CHT's to excess flash on the cylinder heads. When I was
> visiting
> a Mel down in Texas, I looked at an O-320 he had hanging on an RV-9A in
> his shop
> and sure enough, you could see excess flash on the fins around the spark
> plug
> area.
>
> The article starts on page 3 of this PDF document. Very interesting read.
> I'd
> be curious to find out how many people have excess flash on their cylinder
> heads and if they removed it, what difference it made.
>
> http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/0408nltr.pdf
>
> Matthew Brandes,
> Van's RV-9A (Fiberglass)
> #90569
> http://www.n523rv.com
>
> EAA Chapter 1329 President
> EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
Hello Michael,
The casting "flash" that is referred to is the result of less than exact
matching of sand casting moulds during manufacture (poor fit and or
misalignment).
In the case being recently on the list discussed the cylinder head castings
have
their moulding seams half way between the tops and bottoms of the head
castings.
The flash is the result of molten aluminium squeezing or squirting out from
between the casting moulds.
The result is that in the close tolerance areas such as the areas around the
spark plug bosses can have variances from one cylinder to the next.
If you look down past the spark plugs on a Lycoming engine that has not
been worked on in this area you will likely see some notable differences
from one
cylinder to the next in the shapes of the areas that are ment to let cooling
air
to pass by or through.
The fix for mine included filing, drilling and grinding the excess flash
material away
taking care not to damage the castings.
As with most other tools, processes and materials in modern manufacturing,
sand
casting has become more exacting over the years and the newer lost wax type
moulding systems for instance are producing much better product.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders
>
> At the risk of asking my typical newbie question, what is "flash'?
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Wynn
> RV-8 Empennage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mesquite Aviation" <info(at)mesquiteaviation.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Awesome Rick keep me posted Ben
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: CHT's....... how high is high?
>
> Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I am
a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range.
Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature reached 482
degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the oil
temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT
of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at cruise
with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the mixture on
any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's somewhat. My Lycoming
operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max acceptable cylinder head
temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil for the first 25
hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I am getting? Is it
possible the VM-1000 is reporting
> bogus
> numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Mckenna" <mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | For Sale: Lyc 200HP IO-360-A3B6D |
For Sale: Lyc 200HP IO-360-A3B6D. Pulled from flying Mooney M20J by
Mod Works 3/25/97.
Has been pickled since I bought it shortly there after. Includes
single drive dual mag, alternator, mechanical fuel pump, fuel servo,
ignition harness, starter, flywheel.
Engine log included and available for review. 3944 TT, 1716 SMOH
$8500.
Call 770-962-7064 or email mmckenna(at)bellsouth.net for more info.
Mike Mckenna
Lawrenceville, GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nick Nafsinger" <nick(at)creteaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based |
NAV equip) NOT
Coming in a little late here, BUT....
The GNS480 is a WAAS Certified GPS, and WAAS signals come from the
GROUND. How does that play into the whole scheme of things?
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground
based NAV equip) NOT
Since y'all want to get so literal, then read it carefully. It says:
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the
> ground (GROUND) facilities <>. (emphasis mine)
If you aren't using any facilities, then NOT having any
nav equipment is perfectly appropriate. I don't have a dog in
this fight since I've got an approach certified GPS and Nav/Com... Just
stirring the pot.
Greg
>
> Whether the GPS is IFR (TSOed) or not has nothing to do with
> it. If you read the operating limitations for an experimental
> it MUST meet Part 91.205 to fly IFR, including 91.205(d)(2),
> which states what KIND of NAV equipment we must have. There
> is no mention of GPS or away around this, unless you have
> your limitation modified or waived for your installation.
>
>
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the
> ground (GROUND) facilities to be used. The point is
> experimental aircraft are not certified but specifically have
> an operating limitation to meet 91.205 (d)(2) limitation.
> There is no way around this, unless you get a waiver issued
> to amend or delete part of the 91.205 requirement.
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
Rick, are you getting these temperatures with the mixture full rich? If so,
something is really amiss. Full rich should really drop the CHT's down
(albeit at a significant fuel expense!). Peak CHT's will almost exactly
correlate with peak EGT's, so avoid that area (the red zone). Stay about
100 degrees rich or 50 degrees lean of peak for CHT control. Do you have a
fuel flow sensor with your VM1000? That could help diagnose the problem.
What is your fuel flow at full throttle low altitude? What fuel flow do you
have at what MAP/rpm settings during the cruise flight that gives you the
high CHT's? Knowing that will help determine if mixture is a problem.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 621 hours
Maple Grove, MN
> Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
> RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I
> am a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
> monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range.
> Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature reached
> 482 degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the oil
> temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT
> of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at
> cruise with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the
> mixture on any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's somewhat.
> My Lycoming operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max acceptable
> cylinder head temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil for the
> first 25 hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I am
> getting? Is it possible the VM-1000 is reporting
> bogus
> numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Rick,
Take a look at the gaps in the individual cyl and head baffleing on the
bottom of each cyl. If these are closed up to a small gap say 1 to 1.5
inches or are differing gaps it will effect your temps.
Mine in a 4 are approx 2 inches and I rarely see over 400 with cruise temps
below 350.
Dick Sipp
RV4/RV10
----- Original Message -----
From: <HCRV6(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: CHT's....... how high is high?
>
> Rick: I have seen a gradual decrease in CHT's with time. Initially #3
> (hottest) would get to 425 to 450 deg F in full throttle climb to pattern
> altitude at 110 to 120 MPH (0-360 A1A). Now at 82 hours the EIS will show
> #3
> barely reaching 400 under the same conditions. In 65-75% cruise I'm
> seeing
> 340-350s with all cylinders within 15 degrees spread.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something but I don't think there is any direct
> connection
> between oil temp and CHT. My oil temps were way down in the 150 to 160
> deg F
> range with ambients around 55 to 65 deg. My seven row cooler is baffle
> mounted behind #4. I have blocked off the back side of my oil cooler
> completely and
> now get 180-185 deg or so. I'm waiting to see what happens as the ambient
> temp goes up, we're still in the 70s and low 80s in this area.
>
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX
> Pleasanton, CA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: cloudy whelen strobes |
In a message dated 6/2/2005 11:47:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
renewhall2(at)yahoo.com writes:
My RV7 has 95hrs on it and the lenses of my Whelen
wingtip strobes have started to get cloudy. Anybody
else seeing this? Is this normal or is it indication
of impending failure?
=====================================
It is normal and is the result of the RTV rubber molded base out gassing as
it gets warm. Remove lens (don't drop it) and clean the inside using a
little Isopropyl Alcohol on a Kim Wipe or paper towel.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 752hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
RV-8 list RV List
| From: | Ed OConnor <Edwardoconnor(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Advance Angle of Attack (Old PSS System) |
For those of you who have already installed the PSS system on your
RV-8, the manual states to install the wing ports 12 inches from the
leading edge, which is 6 inches from the trailing edge of the wing skin
break line. The instructions say to maintain the same % cord for top
and bottom. Anybody, whose system is working, how far from the aft
skin edge of the skin is the lower port. Is it also 6 inches? Not
sure this is the same cord % as measured that way. I think measuring
from the aft edge of the skin line is easier then figuring from a line
from the leading edge. But maybe its not that critical. Also, how
critical is the #60 drill being centered on the piece mounted on the
inner wing skin?
I read the archives and understand it is a straight line from the
leading edge if you use that method of locating the port. Just looking
for an easier method then finding 12 inches from the leading edge
since that will require finding a 90 degree line from the cord at the
leading edge.
RV-8 N366RV. Panama City FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cloudy whelen strobes |
>
>
> In a message dated 6/2/2005 11:47:16 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> renewhall2(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> My RV7 has 95hrs on it and the lenses of my Whelen
> wingtip strobes have started to get cloudy. Anybody
> else seeing this? Is this normal or is it indication
> of impending failure?
>
>
>
>
> It is normal and is the result of the RTV rubber molded base out gassing
> as
> it gets warm. Remove lens (don't drop it) and clean the inside using a
> little Isopropyl Alcohol on a Kim Wipe or paper towel.
Cool, you guys are great. I had given those up as clouded for good. Thanks.
--
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/vp4skydoc/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based |
NAV equip) NOT
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Actually, WAAS is computed on the ground from reference stations but the correction
signal is transmitted from two satellites in geosync orbit.
Either way I don't agree with the interpretation that it has to be ground based
and I'm willing to bet the feds would be hard pressed to actually bust someone
for it. Now using a non-TSO'd GPS for area or approach nav as a primary source
you would probably get busted, experimental or not.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick Nafsinger
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based
NAV equip) NOT
Coming in a little late here, BUT....
The GNS480 is a WAAS Certified GPS, and WAAS signals come from the GROUND. How
does that play into the whole scheme of things?
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based
NAV equip) NOT
Since y'all want to get so literal, then read it carefully. It says:
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
> (GROUND) facilities <>. (emphasis mine)
If you aren't using any facilities, then NOT having any nav equipment
is perfectly appropriate. I don't have a dog in this fight since I've
got an approach certified GPS and Nav/Com... Just stirring the pot.
Greg
>
> Whether the GPS is IFR (TSOed) or not has nothing to do with it. If
> you read the operating limitations for an experimental it MUST meet
> Part 91.205 to fly IFR, including 91.205(d)(2), which states what KIND
> of NAV equipment we must have. There is no mention of GPS or away
> around this, unless you have your limitation modified or waived for
> your installation.
>
>
> 91.205(d)(2)- navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
> (GROUND) facilities to be used. The point is experimental aircraft are
> not certified but specifically have an operating limitation to meet
> 91.205 (d)(2) limitation.
> There is no way around this, unless you get a waiver issued to amend
> or delete part of the 91.205 requirement.
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | GMA340 Installation manual |
Does anybody have an electronic copy of the GMA340 Audio Panel installation
manual? I've looked on the Garmin site, but can only find the Pilots users
guide......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GMA340 Installation manual |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
http://www.garmin.com/manuals/GMA340AudioPanel_InstallationManual.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stucklen,
Frederic W UTPWR
Subject: RV-List: GMA340 Installation manual
Does anybody have an electronic copy of the GMA340 Audio Panel
installation
manual? I've looked on the Garmin site, but can only find the Pilots
users
guide......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vision micro" <vision_micro(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
Hello Rick,
I wouldn't discount the readings that the VM1000 is giving you. I have seen
a couple FACTORTY NEW engines running hotter due to a carb jetting issue.
The first thing I would do is check your carb and see if it is a 10-3878.
If it is, its my understanding there is a kit for the carb. I also have
this Bulletin A11-62 number written down as a reference.
Best Regards
David McCluskey
support(at)visionmicrosystems.com
From: Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: CHT's....... how high is high?
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Phase One flight testing is underway. My factory new O-320-D1A equipped
RV-6A now has 11 hours on the Hobbs, "Darla" flies very, very well but I am
a little concerned about percieved high CHT numbers. The VM-1000 engine
monitor consistently indicates CHT's at the higher end of the range.
Cylinder #3 runs the hottest and on one occasion the temperature reached 482
degrees generating an audio alert. What baffles me is that the oil
temperature has yet to surpass 170 degrees. Todays flight indicated an OAT
of 64 degrees at 4500' yet #3 cylinder was running at 434 degrees at cruise
with the oil temperature at 160 degrees. I have not leaned the mixture on
any flights yet and I'm told this should reduce CHT's somewhat. My Lycoming
operating manual indicates 500 degrees as the max acceptable cylinder head
temperature. Of course, I am running mineral oil for the first 25
hours.....can this partly account for the temperatures I am getting? Is it
possible the VM-1000 is reporting
bogus
numbers? Is this post much ado about nothing?
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Filler durability |
I'd like to hear from anyone with experience of the durability of filler on aluminum.
The Imron paint my painter wants to use won't cover the small gap between
rivet head and dimpled skin reliably so we intend to fill the rivets before
painting. The plane will be yellow and stored outside so I'm anticipating a
pretty severe shrink/expand movement in the aluminum. The documents I've seen
don't address the coefficient of expansion of the filler relative to aluminum
or the strength of the bond so I'm hoping your experiences, good and bad, can
shed some light to help us pick a good filler that won't crack around the rivets.
We're considering All-Metal, Superfil, Aeropoxy light, Everglass, Feather Fill,
Sterling Primer/filler, and Dynalite.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Advance Angle of Attack (Old PSS System) |
Ed,
1. Port location is not that critical. 6" forward of the wing skin break at
the spar about 12" aft of the leading edge this should be for the top and
the bottom. If you put a tape measure from the leading edge to the Aileron tip
double check that the ports are approx 12" from the leading edge.
2. The #60 hole needs to go into the opening of the plastic port. As long
as it is +/- 1/8" it should be fine.
If you need any more help give me a call, I am almost always reachable.
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems
Work (503) 598-7727
Cell (503) 701-5042
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com> |
| Subject: | RE: F-623 Baggage Compt Corner Ribs |
See my entry on this subject. I left the flange but trimmed the bottom.
http://www.n523rv.com/fuselage/2004/02/lots-of-center-section-work.html
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Finish Kit)
#90569
http://www.n523rv.com
EAA Chapter 1329 President
EAA Chapter 868 Web Editor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders |
I experienced high CHT on one cylinder (#3) and attributed it to my plenum
rather than using Van's baffle/baffle seal method. After I got into
removing the plenum and looking things over closely (new TMX-O360 engine) I
found the closed casting problem described in the article on only #3. I
removed what I could easily (used a drill bit and small file) and changed my
cooling to the Vans method. I no longer have a cooling problem on that
cylinder. Incidentally, the cooling for the remaining cylinders all
improved a bit with the baffle seals. I apparently obstructed the air flow
coming into the top of the plenum which caused the higher temps in general.
But the excess flash was a problem I had not suspected to look for on a new
engine. That cylinder was originally 50 degrees higher than the others. I
also put in a air dam in front of #1 to move more air to #3. All cyls are
happy now...
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
that it can bribe the public with the public's own money."
Alexis de Toqueville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew(at)n523rv.com>
Subject: RV-List: High CHT's caused by excess flashing on cylinders
>
> I'd
> be curious to find out how many people have excess flash on their cylinder
> heads and if they removed it, what difference it made.
>
> http://www.eaa1000.av.org/newsletr/0408nltr.pdf
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
I have a Dynon D-10 and routinely fly IFR. I would love to have AOA info
mostly for gee whiz, but I also recognize the value of that information.
Even if Dynon had their heated pitot, I will be slow to give up a my "real"
heated pitot tube because the dynon is a pitot static instrument for pitch
and roll as well as alt/AS info.
So here is my question. Has anyone experimented with using the standard
pitot tube pressure and comparing that to a leading edge hole on the top of
the wing like the AFS system???? My guess is that it would work, but I
really don't want to drill a bunch of holes in the wing to find out. I
could care that it is not heated and would freeze over. Flying IFR I never
plan to be anywhere near the range of the AOA instrument. This would be
used only for dogfighting and short field landings.
Anyone have any ideas if that would work? If someone had a Dynon and a AFS
system, they could hook the top of the wing port to the Dynon AOA port and
check it out.
Thanks and
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv6n6r(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | RE: Question re: Tru Trak |
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
Okay my curiosity is piqued.
I installed mine in the wing per the instructions at that time. Also a while back
there was discussion regarding the Navaid and the possibility of the cockpit
location contributing some pitch deviation due to the geometry of the pushrods,
etc. Is that not an issue? Why/why not?
BTW mine was a retrofit installation in my right RV-6 wing (!!!!) I was only able
to manage it with the help of my flex-angle drill and the fact that I'd made
the access hole about 3" larger than spec when I built it (yes I was thinking
ahead). Even so, it was a bi+@h!
Randall Henderson
RV-6
---
John,
Do not install anything at this time. The installation is done in the
fuselage of the RV-6. When you get to the fuselage, I would recommend that
you at least run the wiring to the servo. If you would like to talk about
your options, please give me a call. I am pretty much always here.
Andrew Barker
General Manager
TruTrak Flight Systems
PH: 479-751-0250 Ext.222
Toll Free: 1-866-TruTrak
www.trutrakap.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
'Has anyone experimented with using the standard
pitot tube pressure and comparing that to a leading edge hole on the top of
the wing like the AFS system???? My guess is that it would work, but I
really don't want to drill a bunch of holes in the wing to find out."
My guess is that it would not work. The Dynon AOA port reads the pressure
difference between the AOA port and the static pressure, this should be a
positive value. If you connect it to the top wing port you are going to get a
negative pressure differential. If it was to work it would also violate the
Patents on the AFS AOA System.
Rob Hickman
Advanced Flight Systems
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Filler durability |
If you make sure you sure epoxy based filler then it should hold up fine.
Do NOT use regular bondo polyester-based fillers. They will not hold up.
MIke Robertson
>From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "rvlist"
>Subject: RV-List: Filler durability
>Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:23:22 -0400
>
>
>I'd like to hear from anyone with experience of the durability of filler on
>aluminum. The Imron paint my painter wants to use won't cover the small
>gap between rivet head and dimpled skin reliably so we intend to fill the
>rivets before painting. The plane will be yellow and stored outside so I'm
>anticipating a pretty severe shrink/expand movement in the aluminum. The
>documents I've seen don't address the coefficient of expansion of the
>filler relative to aluminum or the strength of the bond so I'm hoping your
>experiences, good and bad, can shed some light to help us pick a good
>filler that won't crack around the rivets.
>
>We're considering All-Metal, Superfil, Aeropoxy light, Everglass, Feather
>Fill, Sterling Primer/filler, and Dynalite.
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
On 06/03 12:23, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> I'd like to hear from anyone with experience of the durability of filler on
aluminum. The Imron paint my painter wants to use won't cover the small gap between
rivet head and dimpled skin reliably so we intend to fill the rivets before
painting. The plane will be yellow and stored outside so I'm anticipating
a pretty severe shrink/expand movement in the aluminum. The documents I've
seen don't address the coefficient of expansion of the filler relative to aluminum
or the strength of the bond so I'm hoping your experiences, good and bad,
can shed some light to help us pick a good filler that won't crack around the
rivets.
>
> We're considering All-Metal, Superfil, Aeropoxy light, Everglass, Feather Fill,
Sterling Primer/filler, and Dynalite.
What about Hysol? I've heard good things about it but have no
personal experience with it.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Dynon EFIS-D10 update 6/03/05 |
DYNON EFIS-D10 update now on Dynon web site
Date: 06/03/2005
Improved: The serial data output now supports an EFIS display on our EMS-D10 engine
monitor. See the "Serial Data Output" section of our updated user manual
here.
Improved: The G-Meter maximum and minimum values are now updated when not displayed.
Fixed: A problem causing bugs to be turned off
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hilger" <rvsixer(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vision micro" <vision_micro(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: CHT's....... how high is high?
Hello Rick,
I wouldn't discount the readings that the VM1000 is giving you. I have seen
a couple FACTORTY NEW engines running hotter due to a carb jetting issue.
The first thing I would do is check your carb and see if it is a 10-3878.
If it is, its my understanding there is a kit for the carb. I also have
this Bulletin A11-62 number written down as a reference.
Best Regards
David McCluskey
support(at)visionmicrosystems.com
Rick,
When I first flew my RV-6 (O-360-A1A, Sensenich, carbureted), the CHT's
were very high, and the EGT's peaked as soon as the mixture was pulled back
at all. My engine was overhauled and the carb was new, the same part number
as the original, and as specified on the TC for the engine (I forget what
that was). When I mentioned it to the accessories guy at our local engine
shop, he said to put a service kit in it to move the fuel schedule one step
richer. I had that done and that fixed the problem. I was told this mod was
meant for carbureted Mooneys, some of which had the same problem. I'm sorry
but I don't know the kit number. The shop was Bolduc Specialized Aviation
Services in Minnesota.
Mike Hilger
RV-6, N207AM, 700 hours
Inver Grove Hgts, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Good" <chrisjgood(at)lycos.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
Filling all the rivets seems a bit extreme. My painter didn't have any problem
using Imron. Five years & 900 flying hours later the paint is in excellent condition.
Has anyone actually seen a problem with Imron adhesion around the rivet
heads?
Regards,
Chris Good,
West Bend, WI
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Tondu" <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Filler durability
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 19:10:18 -0400
>
>
> On 06/03 12:23, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd like to hear from anyone with experience of the durability
> of filler on aluminum. The Imron paint my painter wants to use
> won't cover the small gap between rivet head and dimpled skin
> reliably so we intend to fill the rivets before painting. The
> plane will be yellow and stored outside so I'm anticipating a
> pretty severe shrink/expand movement in the aluminum. The
> documents I've seen don't address the coefficient of expansion of
> the filler relative to aluminum or the strength of the bond so I'm
> hoping your experiences, good and bad, can shed some light to help
> us pick a good filler that won't crack around the rivets.
> >
> > We're considering All-Metal, Superfil, Aeropoxy light,
> Everglass, Feather Fill, Sterling Primer/filler, and Dynalite.
>
> What about Hysol? I've heard good things about it but have no
> personal experience with it.
>
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
--
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re:CHT's....... how high is high? |
Many, many thanks to all who responded. I took all the valuable suggestions seriously
and armed with a fresh perspective redoubled my efforts at improving overall
baffling efficiency. The only place where I could have done better originally
was around the forward baffle area. With added bits of aluminum here and
there, I RTV'ed the forward baffle to the engine case where it previously had
an approximately 1/4" clearance gap all around it. Also, the constant speed
oil return line (unused with my fixed pitch prop) required a large (3/4"?) hole
in the baffle floor to allow its fluid fitting nut to pass through the floor
during the initial baffle installation. Some people simply remove this line
if using a fixed pitch prop but I left it in place. I used rubber baffle material
and RTV to seal off the hole around the oil line as it passes through the
floor. RTV was applied to every gap and pin hole I could detect. I observed
no flash on any of the cylinders. Finally, I install
ed a
full size plate on the back side of the oil cooler in an attempt to raise the
oil temperature. When I took off this morning the temperature was 84 degrees
at the surface. I maintained a climb speed of about 120 MPH. It was with some
chagrin that I watched the CHT's rise. #3 was (as usual) the hottest cylinder
and attained a max temperature of 434 degrees before I leveled out. I hate
to think what the temps would have been in a 100 MPH climb. After a time in
stabilized level flight, the CHT's finally settled in at 377, 404, 418, 404.
The oil temperature throughout the 1.5 hour flight up to an altitude of 5500'
and 65 degrees OAT, settled into a range of 179-184, and on one occasion peaked
at 191degrees. Before the next flight, I am going to install a dam on #1 as
Stein suggested. Since #1 was by far the coolest running at 377 degrees, I think
it can give up a bit of air to help out hothead #3 behind it. I'm told builders
of other designs have been known to bond a cu
rved
piece of fiberglass or attach aluminum to the inside of the upper cowl aimed at
directing air straight down onto #3. Has anyone done that with an RV? Again,
thanks for all the advice. The forum is an invaluable resource. Now I have
several areas to examine and work with if need be.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re:CHT's....... how high is high? |
>
> Many, many thanks to all who responded. I took all the valuable
> suggestions seriously and armed with a fresh perspective redoubled my
> efforts at improving overall baffling efficiency. The only place where I
> could have done better originally was around the forward baffle area. With
> added bits of aluminum here and there, I RTV'ed the forward baffle to the
> engine case where it previously had an approximately 1/4" clearance gap
Rick, you may well be onto the right track, but please do investigate fuel
flow rates. It is a little hard to believe how much that affects CHT's on
these planes. I can run the mixture at near peak EGT and see CHT's
stabilize around 400, while 10 minutes later, after running the mixture to
lean of peak, see 330. If you have a 160 hp, you should see something
around 13 to 14 gph at near sea level, full throttle, full rich power
setting. If you aren't seeing that, you may not be putting enough gas
through.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 621 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
David,
Filling rivet seem a little extreme unless you have a lot of dings . . .
there are methods for cleaning the rivets so there is no oil residue, etc .
. . if you get the clean the paint should be fine?
I'm no expert but that my suggestion . . . good luck!
Bob
On 6/3/05, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>
> I'd like to hear from anyone with experience of the durability of filler
> on aluminum. The Imron paint my painter wants to use won't cover the small
> gap between rivet head and dimpled skin reliably so we intend to fill the
> rivets before painting. The plane will be yellow and stored outside so I'm
> anticipating a pretty severe shrink/expand movement in the aluminum. The
> documents I've seen don't address the coefficient of expansion of the filler
> relative to aluminum or the strength of the bond so I'm hoping your
> experiences, good and bad, can shed some light to help us pick a good filler
> that won't crack around the rivets.
>
> We're considering All-Metal, Superfil, Aeropoxy light, Everglass, Feather
> Fill, Sterling Primer/filler, and Dynalite.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Rick,
Your email report is very timely as I was preparing to report a similar situation
with my RV-7A equipped with a certified Lycoming 0-320-B1B (160 hp).
I don't know what cowl you have but here is my take on the problem with high CHT's
on my aircraft:
Van's gave me a 90235 cowl when I picked up my QB kit at their factory in May-03.
This is the same cowl they send to their RV-9 customers who plan to install
a Lycoming 0-235 engine. I called Van's on this once I got home, looked at
the part number on the cowl halves when unloading the U-Haul and was told "...
this is the recommended cowl for our RV-9 Lycoming 0-235 customers and RV-7/7A
customer installing a Lycoming 0-320.... ". OKAY! Build on.... Van's knew
I planned to install a Lycoming 0-320 in my RV-7A and everything is okay.
During my first flight (3/17/05) (see http://www.yudavision.net/rv/#7), I noted HIGH CHT's (400-445 deg F) during the flight on a rather cold, blustery (65 deg F OAT) day in Southern CA. I contributed this to NEW rebuild, tight engine, and etc.
After 25 hours on my engine, it STILL produces CHT's in the area of 398 degrees
F at cruise and a high of 435 degrees F during climbs at 120 KTS. This concerned
me as I was fairly certain my engine was 'broken in...' at this point.
I re-read the Tony Bingelis book 'Firewall Forward' which stated that the cowl
air exit should be approximately 1.5 times the inlet size in order to obtain good
engine cooling. I measured my 90235 cowl inlets and determinded there was
approx. 39" of inlet air total versus ONLY 42 inches of exit air (subtracting
for the exhuast pipes and etc.)!!! The inlet on the 90235 is TOO SMALL for a
160 HP engine! Might be good for a 108 HP Lycoming 0-235 but not nearly enough
inlet/cooling air for a Lycoming 0-320/160 HP engine. Also the exit was way
too small for the inlet air. My oil temps are great (175-190 deg F), it's the
CHTs that have me concerned.
5. At approx. 33 hrs of engine operating time, I added two (2), 4"x4", SeaFit
Marine exhaust vents to my lower cowl in order to increase the exit air openings
-versus- the inlets in order to get a bit closer to the 1.5 deg ratio. It
helped a bit by lowering CHTs approx 15 degrees, but I'm still sure the inlets
are TOO SMALL on my cowl for proper cooling of a 160 HP engine. I have also
discovered that running at 2300 RPMs and WOT at 7500 FT MSL, leaned 50 degrees
ROP, my CHTs are running approx 363 degrees. I can live with this and my CHTs
are approx. 35 degrees lower than while running at 2400 RPMS and WOT (22 inches
of MAP).
My recommendation for anyone installing a 150 or 160 HP Lycoming on their RV....
ensure you get the Lycoming 0-360 cowl from Van's!!! The 90235 cowl is TOO
small. My hangar mate has a Lycoming 0-360 (and cowl) and his inlets/exits are
perfect for the engine. I test flew his aircraft for the first 25 hours on
a brand new Suerior engine and the CHT's never got above 360 degrees with an OAT
of 80 degs F. His inlets and exit air openings are considerably larger than
mine. (Sorry... I don't have the actual measurements.). I think Van's got
the 0-360 cowl right, but missed the boat sending 90235 cowlings to Lycoming 0-320/160
HP customers. If I could do it again, and I may, I would ENSURE I got
an 0-360 cowl from Van's for ANY engine I was installing. The inlets/exits
are better sized.....
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
N174JL at the paint shop!
http://www.yudavision.net/rv/#7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV6A Nose Gear Fairing Question |
I'm wrapping up my RV-6A finally! I can't find Figure
10-10 in my RV6/6A instructions (which are eight years
old by now). Am I missing anything earth shattering
or will I eventually figure out after a few days
thought? The figure is referenced in the COWL/NOSE
GEAR INTERFACE section on page 10-9 (last page).
Thanks in advance.
Greg Grigson
Honolulu
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
Filling all the rivets seems a bit extreme. My painter didn't have any problem
using Imron. Five years & 900 flying hours later the paint is in excellent
condition.
Has anyone actually seen a problem with Imron adhesion around the rivet
heads?
My inquiry about filler durability was prompted by painting a 'spare' rudder.
The test paint job showed dark rings around many of the rivet heads where the
imron did not flow over the gap. It wasn't a cleaning problem because the primer
flowed into the gap fine but didn't remove it enough everywhere for the imron
to bridge the gap reliably.
Dave - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Crosley" <rcrosley(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
I used Imron paint and agree it does not like to flow across the rivet. I like
the look of the rivets so used spray can primer before painting. Spray the
rivet line and wipe it off with a credit card. The primer is forced down into
the little rivet crack and the Imron flows nicely across the rivet. If you want
the rivets to go away entirely then you'll have to use a filler and do a lot
of sanding, and push your first flight back a month or so.
Rich Crosley
RV-8, N948RC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV6A Nose Gear Fairing Question |
In a message dated 6/4/05 2:36:41 AM Central Daylight Time,
iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com writes:
> I can't find Figure
> 10-10 in my RV6/6A instructions (which are eight years
> old by now
>>>
Hi Greg-
Neither could I, or rather, I couldn't figure out why to make something so
complicated to just close out the slot. I just resorted to a small aluminum
plate, wider than the slot and shaped to match the rear of the leg fairing, with
a couple of platenuts on either side. Screws go up through the cowl into the
platenuts. I added epoxy/flox/microballoon mix to fill the gap on the plate
between the cowl edges, sanded flush with the cowl. Four screws and it's off.
I'll send a bad foto off-list...
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips -6A N51PW, 185 hrs...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
> I used Imron paint and agree it does not like to flow across the
> rivet. I like the look of the rivets so used spray can primer
> before painting. Spray the rivet line and wipe it off with a credit
> card. The primer is forced down into the little rivet crack and the
> Imron flows nicely across the rivet. If you want the rivets to go
> away entirely then you'll have to use a filler and do a lot of
> sanding, and push your first flight back a month or so.
I like the look of rivets, too, but I've seen some problems with
dark colors. Wax or polish sticks in the rivet or along the
edge of the rivet, and stays white. I guess flushing up the
rivets might help. I'm a ways away from worrying about this,
but it never hurts to plan ahead.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Inman" <ghinman(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Engine thrustline |
How close does the engine thrustline have
to match the cabin longerons?
My engine thrustline is about one degree downward
compared to the cabin longerons.In my RV-8 QB
If it was one degree upward I would not worry about
it since the engine might sag that much.
Is there anyone flying with one degree down.?
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman(at)mts.net
CELL 204 799 7062
HOME 204 287 8334
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based NAV |
equip)
"I don't agree with the interpretation"
"I'm willing to bet the feds would be hard pressed to actually bust someone"
Mike: Those quotes are great but are you guessing? Not saying you are wrong, but
the EAA posts an article saying all the GPS technology, geosync orbit , WAAS,
is not the point. It makes sense (IFR) GPS should not require a reglatory back-up,
but the FAA and FAR's do not always make sense. I was wondering if someone
has ask the FAA. My guess is they will not know off-hand or you will get more
than one answer. I hope you are right.
Of course others have made excellent points that a VOR/LOC/ILS back-up is a good
idea or needed for a legal alternate approach.
Cheers George
>Subject: Re: What's a "VOR" ???(Homebuilts must have Ground based NAV equip)
NOT
>From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
>Actually, WAAS is computed on the ground from reference stations but the
correction
>signal is transmitted from two satellites in geosync orbit.
>Either way I don't agree with the interpretation that it has to be ground
based
>and I'm willing to bet the feds would be hard pressed to actually bust someone
>for it. Now using a non-TSO'd GPS for area or approach nav as a primary
source
>you would probably get busted, experimental or not.
---------------------------------
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Leach" <papadaddyo(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | New to the group |
Hello all. My name is Rick Leach and I am a new builder. I actually
have had my RV10 empennage kit for about a month and finally got to
start on it a couple of days ago. Real humbling for the first step to
be cutting out stock. Several questions if anyone can help. What is
the best way to cut the thicker pieces of stock and two, I have 2 part
epoxy primer but there are no mixing instructions. I am assuming that
it is equal parts of A and B.
My questions may be basic but I believe in the old saying that the only
dumb question is the unasked question. I am sure I will have many more.
Thanks all,
Rick #40397
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: New to the group |
In a message dated 6/4/05 11:02:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
papadaddyo(at)verizon.net writes:
> What is
> the best way to cut the thicker pieces of stock
>>>>
Welcome to the fray, Rick!
If'n ya ain't got yerself a bandsaw yet, ya best git shoppin! Of course,
they may not be as useful for the newer kits, but I sure busted out lots of parts
on mine for my -6A slo-bild. Most useful was a real skinny (width-wise)
metal blade, about 8 or 10 teeth per inch IIRC. Works great for anything from
.025 sheet and thicker. Also works good for plastic, wood, fingers etc. 8-)
Alternately, you could use a cut-off disc in a die grinder, but take care you
don't toast yer fingers! Hacksaw would be way down the list somewhere...
(sorry- can't hep with the primer stuff)
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips N51PW, 190 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Filler durability |
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> Filling all the rivets seems a bit extreme. My painter didn't have any problem
> using Imron. Five years & 900 flying hours later the paint is in excellent
condition.
> Has anyone actually seen a problem with Imron adhesion around the rivet
> heads?
>
>My inquiry about filler durability was prompted by painting a 'spare' rudder.
The test paint job showed dark rings around many of the rivet heads where the
imron did not flow over the gap. It wasn't a cleaning problem because the primer
flowed into the gap fine but didn't remove it enough everywhere for the imron
to bridge the gap reliably.
>
>Dave - RV8A
>
One tip I saw recently was to wipe diluted proseal over the rivet heads
to fill the groove.
I owned a -4 for about 7 years that had filled heads on the top of the
wings. It wasn't heavy (932 lbs) & it was fun answering questions at
flyins & airshows. "Why did you build a fiberglas airplane?" "It's all
metal; look at the bottom of the wing."
It was also pretty fast, 170 kts on a tired O-320/wood prop/old style
pants/etc @ 75% power.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | CHT's....... how high is high? |
Regarding putting an 0--360 cowl on an 0-320 powered RV-6/7/9: An 0-360
cowl will obviously fit; however, keep in mind that the 0-360 cowl has a
larger lower air scoop with much more frontal area than the 0-320 scoop.
More frontal area = more drag and less speed.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
-------------------------------------
> From: "jacklockamy"
> Subject: Re: RV-List: CHT's....... how high is high?
>
>
> ----------snip--------------
>
> My recommendation for anyone installing a 150 or 160 HP Lycoming on their RV....
> ensure you get the Lycoming 0-360 cowl from Van's!!! The 90235 cowl is TOO
> small. My hangar mate has a Lycoming 0-360 (and cowl) and his inlets/exits are
> perfect for the engine. I test flew his aircraft for the first 25 hours on
> a brand new Suerior engine and the CHT's never got above 360 degrees with an
OAT
> of 80 degs F. His inlets and exit air openings are considerably larger than
> mine. (Sorry... I don't have the actual measurements.). I think Van's got
> the 0-360 cowl right, but missed the boat sending 90235 cowlings to Lycoming
> 0-320/160
> HP customers. If I could do it again, and I may, I would ENSURE I got
> an 0-360 cowl from Van's for ANY engine I was installing. The inlets/exits
> are better sized.....
>
> Jack Lockamy
> Camarillo, CA
> N174JL at the paint shop!
> http://www.yudavision.net/rv/#7
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New to the group |
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Welcome Rick, check the archives as there has been a lot of discussion
on bandsaws. If you haven't joined the RV-10 specific group here, make
sure you do. Lot's of traffic on there since we all left the Yahoo
group.
Personally I went with a $99 cheapy from Harbor Freight. It's
variable speed, benchtop, and works pretty good.
Michael Sausen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: New to the group
In a message dated 6/4/05 11:02:20 AM Central Daylight Time,
papadaddyo(at)verizon.net writes:
> What is
> the best way to cut the thicker pieces of stock
>>>>
Welcome to the fray, Rick!
If'n ya ain't got yerself a bandsaw yet, ya best git shoppin! Of
course, they may not be as useful for the newer kits, but I sure busted
out lots of parts on mine for my -6A slo-bild. Most useful was a real
skinny (width-wise) metal blade, about 8 or 10 teeth per inch IIRC.
Works great for anything from
.025 sheet and thicker. Also works good for plastic, wood, fingers etc.
8-)
Alternately, you could use a cut-off disc in a die grinder, but take
care you don't toast yer fingers! Hacksaw would be way down the list
somewhere...
(sorry- can't hep with the primer stuff)
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips N51PW, 190 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New to the group |
Richard Leach wrote:
>I have 2 part
>epoxy primer but there are no mixing instructions. I am assuming that
>it is equal parts of A and B.
>
>
Various brands of epoxy can have lots of different mix ratios. I would
sit down at the computer with your A and B cans of primer and do some
searching on google for the manufacturers web site and find the details
of that particular hardener and epoxy. Be sure you are looking at the
specs for the exact product you have, some manufactures have different
hardeners for the same epoxy resin that require different mix ratios.
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Jones" <stan.jones(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
Fitting the rear skirts, I can get it just fine until I get to the bottom
six inches.
I get it sitting on the Fuse, and the side skirts pop out, and then I have
it fitting fine with the side skirt, and the
rear skirt pops off the Fuse. It's the compound curve is the problem.
I need some advice from those who have achieved a reasonable result.
Stan Jones. N.Z.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New to the group |
Rick,
Glad to hear you're started on your tail kit. Don't worry, after
a few sessions you'll get into the swing of it.
I found the easiest way to cut most things that are in the
kit is a bandsaw. I got a cheap Harbor Freight 12" model
that is currently $109.99. I wouldn't go any less than a 9",
but larger is nicer. The bandsaw will be used a LOT of times
during the process. I also bought an air powered cutoff tool,
that is nice for cutting some things. Between those 2 items,
95% of my cutting is done.
You didn't mention your primer brand and type. Not all are the
same. I'm using AKZO from Aircraft Spruce. It's a 1:1 mixture.
I don't get overly precise...I just have 2 measuring dip cups
and I take out equal numbers of cupfuls of each. Works well
for me.
One other suggestion for you. This RV list is fantastic, but
you should not forget to join the other RV10-List on the
Matronics page too. It's on the same subscription page
on Matronics site. You can post this type of question there
and if you reference specific parts, there are many of us who
have been through what you're about to take on.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Current project: Fuselage
Richard Leach wrote:
>
> Hello all. My name is Rick Leach and I am a new builder. I actually
> have had my RV10 empennage kit for about a month and finally got to
> start on it a couple of days ago. Real humbling for the first step to
> be cutting out stock. Several questions if anyone can help. What is
> the best way to cut the thicker pieces of stock and two, I have 2 part
> epoxy primer but there are no mixing instructions. I am assuming that
> it is equal parts of A and B.
>
> My questions may be basic but I believe in the old saying that the only
> dumb question is the unasked question. I am sure I will have many more.
>
> Thanks all,
>
> Rick #40397
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New to the group |
Rick,
When looking at band saws, make sure the speed will slow down to about 300
or so. Also make sure you can get a metal cutting blade for it that is good
for aluminium. Makes a big difference. My first bandsaw would not slow
down and did not work well. I bought a variable speed saw from sears and
love it. Slows way down and they have a non ferous metal cutting blade.
Works great.
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Richard Leach
Date: 06/04/05 09:04:28
Subject: RV-List: New to the group
Hello all. My name is Rick Leach and I am a new builder. I actually
have had my RV10 empennage kit for about a month and finally got to
start on it a couple of days ago. Real humbling for the first step to
be cutting out stock. Several questions if anyone can help. What is
the best way to cut the thicker pieces of stock and two, I have 2 part
epoxy primer but there are no mixing instructions. I am assuming that
it is equal parts of A and B.
My questions may be basic but I believe in the old saying that the only
dumb question is the unasked question. I am sure I will have many more.
Thanks all,
Rick #40397
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine thrustline |
> How close does the engine thrustline have
> to match the cabin longerons?
> My engine thrustline is about one degree downward
> compared to the cabin longerons.In my RV-8 QB
> If it was one degree upward I would not worry about
> it since the engine might sag that much.
> Is there anyone flying with one degree down.?
George, I researched this issue some time ago when building my RV-8. See
this page for what I found...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Engine.htm
Regards,
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
Stan Jones wrote:
>
>Fitting the rear skirts, I can get it just fine until I get to the bottom
>six inches.
>I get it sitting on the Fuse, and the side skirts pop out, and then I have
>it fitting fine with the side skirt, and the
>rear skirt pops off the Fuse. It's the compound curve is the problem.
>I need some advice from those who have achieved a reasonable result.
>Stan Jones. N.Z.
>
>
>
>
I've got the same results, I'm about ready to call them done with 1/4"
gap at the back bottom edge of the rear skirts. I can't seem to find
anything to make it better. I'll use weather stipping of some type
inside to help seal the air gap. I did use a metal shrinker of the top
frt. edge to help it fit better. Not sure if I want to try that on the
rear bottom though.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Olson <lolson22(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall forward RV6 Engine & Prop |
For Sale
Engine & Prop
Firewall forward off a RV6
All included except engine mount.
Lycoming O320-A2A 160 hp
200 hrs SMOH
Absolutely everything was done at overhaul
Balanced pistons, rods and crank
All AD's complied with.
Spin on oil filter.
New Slick mags and harnesses.
Vacuum Pump
Vetterman exhaust
Van's filtered air box w/alt air
Carb
Van's throttle and mixture bracket
Van's 35 amp alternator
Sky-Tec starter
Heat muff
Baffling
Oil cooler & oil lines
(oil cooler mounted LR baffle)
Fuel Pump
Engine runs great
Can accept a CS prop
Sensenich FP Prop
70CM6S9-0-80
Van's spinner (true to .004)
Spinner painted Sherwin Williams AcroGlow White
If purchased before my new 200hp arrives you can hear it run and take
a test flight. My RV6 with this set up cruses at 185 mph and climbs at
1500 fpm. I never had any heat issues even in 100+ summers in Arizona.
I took very good care of this engine. I have all records and oil analysis.
I changed the oil after 10 hrs then at 25 hrs then every 25 hrs after that.
This is a great set up and will cut hundreds of hours off your build time.
Think
about it, all of the bugs have been worked out. You won't have to build the
baffle!!! I am replacing the engine and prop with an IO360 and a CS prop.
$20,000 fob Phoenix, AZ
Larry Olson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian" <brian2207(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RV-8 QB Aileron bracket |
I tried to rivet the outboard aileron bracket to the wind of my QB-8
yesterday and noticed a problem. The pre-drilled holes for the rivets
joining the bracket to rear spar are too close to the tab of the last rib
resulting in a "step" in the shop head. Anybody else noticed this? Do I have
to take everything a part and shave the rib a little? Thanks for any help.
Brian
Brian Duncan
RV-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | off-center induction |
My IO360-B2B (vertical induction) mounts the AFP fuel controller off to
the left a bit, which I gather is normal. My circa 1999 Van's manual
seems to indicate that the induction scoop should be mounted in the
center of the lower cowling and the FAB should angle to the right a bit
to link up to it.
I believe I recall that some folks actually mount the induction scoop
off center to line up with the carb/fuel controller.
Which is best, or does it not make much difference. I favor centering
the scoop.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowling.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Another RV in Tx |
Im going off the air in a few min, Have Tweetybird hangered at Beorne Stage, hope
to back on the air before too long, Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Garrett" <rgarrett(at)objectsciences.com> |
| Subject: | optimum altitude for flight planning |
Does anyone know of a free or online tool that will determine the optimum
altitude for a flight using winds aloft data? I know a couple of commercial
flight planning tools do that, but I don't really want to buy a whole
package for just one function.
Ideally, the software would take the start and end points, calculate the
great circle distance, pull the winds aloft data from DUATS, use RV-6A (in
my case) performance data, and tell me the best altitude. I realize winds
aloft data is not precise, but it's a place to start.
Thanks,
Randy
RV-6A
550 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | off-center induction |
I am just finishing up my Filtered Air Box & cowling installation on my
RV-8A with a Superior/Aero Sport Power IO-360-b1b with Airflow Performance
fuel injection. My finish kit came with the oval plate that mounts the top
of the FAB to the Airflow Performance fuel metering box, and another
anodized one came with my engine, but I had to make about three more before
I got the FAB offset back toward the centerline enough to clear the inside
of cowl air scoop. If I offset it enough to come close to centering it in
the scoop, there it didn't leave enough room on one side of the FAB for the
filter. I ended up offsetting the hole in the oval plate 3/8" from the
parts that came from Van's and with the engine. I think it also angles
slightly to the scoop inlet.
Since there were several reports of the plate cracking, I made the new ones
out of heavier aluminum plate.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
My IO360-B2B (vertical induction) mounts the AFP fuel controller off to
the left a bit, which I gather is normal. My circa 1999 Van's manual
seems to indicate that the induction scoop should be mounted in the
center of the lower cowling and the FAB should angle to the right a bit
to link up to it.
I believe I recall that some folks actually mount the induction scoop
off center to line up with the carb/fuel controller.
Which is best, or does it not make much difference. I favor centering
the scoop.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowling.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EMAproducts(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Was AOA patents |
I have built an AOA that uses differential pressure. It is interesting
that you mention violating AFS or Dynon's patents since I know that
the process of using differential pressure to determine AOA is not new.
The airlines all use it.
~~~Sorry Matt, in my over 25 years flying aircarrier aircraft I saw a Vane
outside and below the cockpit windows. I've got lots of photos of these vanes
on everything from Fairchild F-27 to Douglas & Boeing aircarrier aircraft plus
the military. Have a look at Oshkosh if you are there, they measure the actual
airflow, not a pressure derived AOA.
Ask any aircarrier pilot, including Jim Frantz, designer of the AFS system,
he also is Air Carrier if they had a vane for the AOA.
Elbie Mendenhall
Retired AA Capt.
EMA, LLC, mfg of the RiteAngle, we use a vane like the airliners do.
www.riteangle.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re nose-gear cowl interface |
Hi Greg,
>I'm wrapping up my RV-6A finally! I can't find "Figure"
>10-10 in my RV6/6A instructions (which are eight years
>old by now). Am I missing anything earth shattering---
I think you had a a bad choice of words when you wrote "Figure" above! My instruction
book ( which is ten years old) shows on page 10-10, SK 82, the set-up for
checking the nose wheel fork breakout force. The text continues on page 10-11
(for the whole page) giving instructions how to manage the slot that must be
cut in the cowl to allow its installation and removal. I built the plates as
shown in SK 81 on page 10-12 and that works out OK. (Maybe you are missing these
2 pages?--if so I can scan copies and send them to you).
However, I didn't bother to make the the sculptured fairing to go around the leg
as described.The slot has to be extended forward to alow the cowl installation
to clear the leg as it is brought into place and to clear the prop spinner.
I made a seperate plate to close that slot once the cowl is installed, held in
place with 4 6-32 screws into nut-plates in the cowl.
Cheers!--Henry Hore --C-GELS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Was AOA patents |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Okay, I am wrong then, but I still hold that the concept behind using a pressure
differentail sensor for determining AOA can not be
patentable as it has been around for a long time and many people are doing it.
I wonder if AFS holds a patent how Dynon can be doing it too...
-----Original Message-----
From: EMAproducts(at)aol.com
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:47:21 EDT
Subject: RV-List: Re: Was AOA patents
>
>
>
> I have built an AOA that uses differential pressure. It is interesting
> that you mention violating AFS or Dynon's patents since I know that
> the process of using differential pressure to determine AOA is not new.
> The airlines all use it.
> ~~~Sorry Matt, in my over 25 years flying aircarrier aircraft I saw a
> Vane
> outside and below the cockpit windows. I've got lots of photos of
> these vanes
> on everything from Fairchild F-27 to Douglas & Boeing aircarrier
> aircraft plus
> the military. Have a look at Oshkosh if you are there, they measure the
> actual
> airflow, not a pressure derived AOA.
> Ask any aircarrier pilot, including Jim Frantz, designer of the AFS
> system,
> he also is Air Carrier if they had a vane for the AOA.
> Elbie Mendenhall
> Retired AA Capt.
> EMA, LLC, mfg of the RiteAngle, we use a vane like the airliners do.
> www.riteangle.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig <craigtxtx(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 QB Aileron bracket |
Brian,
It turns out I did that just last week. I did not have any problem with rib interference.
The shop heads came right up to the edge of the rib, but there was
no interference or deformation of the rivet.
Craig
RV8AQB wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Glasser" <ku-tec(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Was AOA patents |
The principle of measuring AOA from differential pressure has been around
for many years as most have now realised. What you will probably find is
that the AFS patent only covers some new aspect such as how they process or
display the data not the basic principle.
As the database of information grows exponentially it is impossible for a
patent examiner to cover all the knowledge base and patents do get issued in
error.
Has anyone actually seen the claim that Dynon are patenting their system or
is that just a rumour?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Was AOA patents (not processed: message from valid
local sender)
>
> Okay, I am wrong then, but I still hold that the concept behind using a
> pressure differentail sensor for determining AOA can not be
> patentable as it has been around for a long time and many people are doing
> it.
>
> I wonder if AFS holds a patent how Dynon can be doing it too...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAproducts(at)aol.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:47:21 EDT
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Was AOA patents
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have built an AOA that uses differential pressure. It is interesting
>> that you mention violating AFS or Dynon's patents since I know that
>> the process of using differential pressure to determine AOA is not new.
>> The airlines all use it.
>> ~~~Sorry Matt, in my over 25 years flying aircarrier aircraft I saw a
>> Vane
>> outside and below the cockpit windows. I've got lots of photos of
>> these vanes
>> on everything from Fairchild F-27 to Douglas & Boeing aircarrier
>> aircraft plus
>> the military. Have a look at Oshkosh if you are there, they measure the
>> actual
>> airflow, not a pressure derived AOA.
>> Ask any aircarrier pilot, including Jim Frantz, designer of the AFS
>> system,
>> he also is Air Carrier if they had a vane for the AOA.
>> Elbie Mendenhall
>> Retired AA Capt.
>> EMA, LLC, mfg of the RiteAngle, we use a vane like the airliners do.
>> www.riteangle.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
If the aft part of the canopy is higher than the surface of the fuselage it
will be hard to get a good fit. If that isn't the case here, sometimes you
can use a set of rollers to put a lengthwise curl or twist in the rear skirt
to help it press down against the fuselage.
Albert Gardner
RV-9A Yuma, AZ
-----Original Message-----
Stan Jones wrote:
>Fitting the rear skirts, I can get it just fine until I get to the bottom
>six inches.
>I get it sitting on the Fuse, and the side skirts pop out, and then I have
>it fitting fine with the side skirt, and the
>rear skirt pops off the Fuse. It's the compound curve is the problem.
>I need some advice from those who have achieved a reasonable result.
>Stan Jones. N.Z.
>
I've got the same results, I'm about ready to call them done with 1/4"
gap at the back bottom edge of the rear skirts. I can't seem to find
anything to make it better. I'll use weather stipping of some type
inside to help seal the air gap. I did use a metal shrinker of the top
frt. edge to help it fit better. Not sure if I want to try that on the
rear bottom though.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Brown" <cptbuzz(at)adelphia.net> |
Listers,
I have decided to put my RV4 up for sale. I have babied and improved this bird
since the day that I purchased it. The following is some info on it and most of
the things that I have done to it.
Engine: AEIO-360, Approx 650 hours on it
Prop: Hartzel Constant Speed
When I purchased the airplane it was configured as per most RV4s. I have added
a lengthened baggage area that extends back approximately 4 feet. This area allows
for lighter items to be placed to the rear while heavier items to be placed
further forward, or allows for carriage of longer items such as fishing poles,
scooters (go-ped). I have replaced the Vans fuel selector valve with the Andair
Fuel selector valve and have replaced all fuel lines with braided stainless
lines. Almost all metal parts in the cockpit have been powder coated dove
gray, including the instrument panel. I have built a new electrical switch panel
with all new breakers and breaker/switches. I replaced the Vans cowl with a
new Sam James cowl with the Sam James fiberglass plenum chamber. I really like
that cowl. I had pretty substantial speed increases with the new setup. (Thanks
Sammy) Recently I have purchased new Sam James wingroot fainrings. These are
in the process of being installed. The aircraft is also being painted as I
write this AD. I replaced the fiberglass gearleg intersection fairings with custom
fiberglass ones, they look really awesome. The battery was replaced about
a year ago. The engine is from a pitts. The oil inverted kit was removed and
I no longer have it. I have replaced the throttle, mixture, and prop cables, with
all new bracketry, as well as a new throttle quadrant installed. New interior
has been done, and new seats are in the process of being made. Airplane is
a night VFR bird. Due to the type of engine that is in this plane and the type
of prop, and the new cowl, it is a very fast RV4. WOW! What a rush!! Asking
price is $65k. Any questions, please contact me offline at cptbuzz(at)adelphia.net
.
Cheers!
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Alley <n320wt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Before spending hundreds of dollars and hours labor on
a new cowl. Try installing a make shift water
manometer to measure the pressure difference above and
below the engine baffling. Lycoming recommends between
5.5 and 6.5 inches of water for proper cooling of the
0320. I used a U shaped loop of clear tubing and food
color in the water. Lines on a peice of cardboard 1"
apart and 1/4" aluminum tubing mounted above and below
the engine. Drill a few small holes in the sides of
the aluminum tubing and plug the ends. The difference
in pressure will displace the water and allow a direct
measurement of the pressure drop across the cooling
fins. Adjustments can be made to the openings in the
baffles at the bottom of the cylinders to obtain the
correct pressure differential. My 0320 runs CHT spread
of 15 deg at 350-365 in cruise. Good Luck
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
101 Caroline Circle
Hurricane, WV 25526
304-562-6800 home
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Schrimmer <mschrimmer(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | A question for the paint experts |
I'm painting fuselage interior parts with rattle-can
enamel from Ace Hardware. The results are reasonably
good, but there are always a few spots that could be
better. Sometimes the paint splatters just a little,
sometimes a dust or dirt settles onto the surface
while the paint is drying, sometimes there is slight
orange peel. Is there a way to fix minor blemishes in
enamel without completely sanding the entire part and
starting over?
Thank you,
Mark Schrimmer
Irvine, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Re: optimum altitude for flight planning |
Try
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/flight_path/
It shows the wind velocity at different altitudes. The brown stuff is
"rocks" sometimes called mountains. The instructions for use are
somewhat lacking.
Richard Reynolds
On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:14 PM, Randy Garrett wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know of a free or online tool that will determine the
> optimum
> altitude for a flight using winds aloft data? I know a couple of
> commercial
> flight planning tools do that, but I don't really want to buy a whole
> package for just one function.
>
>
> Ideally, the software would take the start and end points,
> calculate the
> great circle distance, pull the winds aloft data from DUATS, use
> RV-6A (in
> my case) performance data, and tell me the best altitude. I
> realize winds
> aloft data is not precise, but it's a place to start.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Randy
>
> RV-6A
>
> 550 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr(at)petroblend.com> |
| Subject: | Re: optimum altitude for flight planning |
The ADDS site has a pretty good tool for determining what altitude, and what
route, you want to fly.
http:\\adds.aviationweather.gov
My WX Worx reciever has a similar page and I bet it makes my airplane
average about 5 kts faster.
The WX Worx uses the RUCS-2 model data and it is incredibly accurate. I
have no idea what ADDS uses or if it is accurate.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Garrett" <rgarrett(at)objectsciences.com>
Subject: RV-List: optimum altitude for flight planning
>
> Does anyone know of a free or online tool that will determine the optimum
> altitude for a flight using winds aloft data? I know a couple of
commercial
> flight planning tools do that, but I don't really want to buy a whole
> package for just one function.
>
>
> Ideally, the software would take the start and end points, calculate the
> great circle distance, pull the winds aloft data from DUATS, use RV-6A (in
> my case) performance data, and tell me the best altitude. I realize winds
> aloft data is not precise, but it's a place to start.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Randy
>
> RV-6A
>
> 550 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
David Fenstermacher wrote:
>
>That is absolutely not true.
>It doesn't matter if you sell it or not.
>You cannot make, use, or sell..... for financial gain or not.
>ALthough, as has been pointed out, you probably won't get sued... but you
>could.
>
>Trust me on this - I do patents for a living.
>
>Dave
>
Oh, I trust you. But surely you won't mind if I verify by asking you to
quote chapter & verse from US code.
Charlie
(I've got this great idea. Can you do me a patent?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CHT's....... how high is high? |
Or you could come pretty close by using an airspeed indicator. Six
inches of water is about 110 MPH,
or 5.5 - 6.5 inches of water is 105.5 - 114.6 MPH. And not nearly so
messy while you're flying! 8 > )
Dave
Brian Alley wrote:
>
>Before spending hundreds of dollars and hours labor on
>a new cowl. Try installing a make shift water
>manometer to measure the pressure difference above and
>below the engine baffling. Lycoming recommends between
>5.5 and 6.5 inches of water for proper cooling of the
>0320. I used a U shaped loop of clear tubing and food
>color in the water. Lines on a peice of cardboard 1"
>apart and 1/4" aluminum tubing mounted above and below
>the engine. Drill a few small holes in the sides of
>the aluminum tubing and plug the ends. The difference
>in pressure will displace the water and allow a direct
>measurement of the pressure drop across the cooling
>fins. Adjustments can be made to the openings in the
>baffles at the bottom of the cylinders to obtain the
>correct pressure differential. My 0320 runs CHT spread
>of 15 deg at 350-365 in cruise. Good Luck
>
>
>BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
>CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
>101 Caroline Circle
>Hurricane, WV 25526
>304-562-6800 home
>
>
>How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New to the group |
In a message dated 6/4/05 9:02:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
papadaddyo(at)verizon.net writes:
> Several questions if anyone can help. What is the best way to cut the
> thicker pieces of stock--->>
I bought an inexpensive Craftsman band saw at the start of my RV-6 project
and used it throughout to cut everything from 0.025 Al. sheet parts to 1 inch
bar stock. A great time saver and one of the most used and useful tools I own.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 88 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Lein <pj115(at)journey.com> |
| Subject: | tools and canopy cover for sale |
I've sold my 6a and have the tools I used to build it and an Orndorf
silver canopy cover for sale. I am in central MI and will sell cheap
to whoever comes to pick up this stuff. Everything 40% of new price.
Show me today's price and we'll know what you will pay.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Whelen strobe firing pattern |
Good morning:
I purchased a Whelen System 6 (Model HDACF) from Van's Aircraft a year or
so ago for installation in the RV7A which is presently under construction.
When testing out the unit prior to installation, I notice that the pattern
of firing is different that what is indicated. The wing strobes seem to
flash at the logical interview, and then the tail strobe flashes, but the
tail strobe also flashes when the wing strobes fire, in addition to in the
interval between wing tip strobe firing.
The jumper jumps pins 1 & 2 at the proper location as the instruction
say.
My concern, of course, is the tail strobe gets REALLY hot because of the
number of fires.
Anyone have a clue on this?
Bob
St. Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
Quoting Charlie England :
> Oh, I trust you. But surely you won't mind if I verify by asking you to
> quote chapter & verse from US code.
I'm not David, but I think this would be relevant, from 35 USC sec. 271:
271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know all
the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but the
general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
I used SikaFlex 295UV adhesive to attach my canopy to the frame, and then used
it again to attach the side and aft skirts to the canopy. I thought I might have
to lay up glass aft canopy skirts, but was finally able to achieve a near
perfect fit except for the lower corners, where I had about a 1/4" gap. Some
other builders looked at it and assured me I could just put a soft bend there
by hand once the skirts were attached with the adhesive With some degree of trepidation...that's
what it did and it worked out great. I was worried I'd put
a "kink" in the metal that would be visible, but there are no bend lines visible
under the bright lights...it worked out fine. One of my other neighbors,
(a sheet metal guru) assured me a shrinker would work also, but I'm very happy
with the fit I have now. Personally, I think one of the big variables in how
you're able to fit the aft canopy skirts revolves around how much "tail" of
the canopy you leave hanging off the back of the frame. The angle that the canopy
skirt meets the canopy dictates much of the fit where the aft skirt meets
the turtle deck and the sides of the fuse. This is where using the adhesive
gives you the advantage...you need a minimum thickness of adhesive for a good
bond. Tipping the aft canopy slightly onto the skin allows that space to occur,
and also gives the good fit you're looking for.
Bob Brown
RV7A - wiring Trutrak ADI - waiting on engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | meljordan(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon AOA (not processed: message from valid local sender) |
Before this goes too far, Dynon is not making any patent claimes on AOA or differential
pressure technologies. This is just a thread gone wild. Dynon only
offers AOA as an option for the EFIS systems and does not claim to own this technique
or any patent. Dynon does not care if you build your own AOA or if
you sell your AOA. I am sure that Dynon would not want you to copy their software,
which I believe probably is covered by a copyright, but as far as the concept
of differential pressure AOA, that is not something that Dynon claims in
any way.
Thanks,
Mel Jordan,
Tucson - RV-6A
Subject: Re: Dynon AOA (not processed: message from valid local
From: Wayne Glasser (ku-tec(at)bigpond.net.au)
Date: Sun Jun 05 - 10:01 PM
Matt
Do you have a patent number for Dynon. I would like to clarify their claims
Thanks
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM> |
| Subject: | The engine breather |
0.38 FROM_NO_LOWER From address has no lower-case characters
What are you doing with the breather pipe? I set mine up per the
directions, ran it down above the exhaust pipe. But....I still get oil on
the belly. My current thought is to buy the $40.00 Spruce air-oil
separator, open it up and put in the scrub pad and mount it on the firewall.
If I do that.......what do I do with the oil? Run it back in the engine
(not sure I like that option), run it into a bottle or other container, or
overboard, but then how do I keep it off the airplane? Run a line to the
tail? What's working for everyone?
Rich Crosley
RV8, N948RC
Rosamond, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
Bob,
Sounds like a very slick installation. Do you have any
pictures you can share? I'm planning on gluing on my
canopy as well, so any hints are most appreciated.
Thanks,
Mickey
> I used SikaFlex 295UV adhesive to attach my canopy to the frame, and
> then used it again to attach the side and aft skirts to the canopy.
> I thought I might have to lay up glass aft canopy skirts, but was
> finally able to achieve a near perfect fit except for the lower
> corners, where I had about a 1/4" gap. Some other builders looked at
> it and assured me I could just put a soft bend there by hand once the
> skirts were attached with the adhesive With some degree of
> trepidation...that's what it did and it worked out great. I was
> worried I'd put a "kink" in the metal that would be visible, but
> there are no bend lines visible under the bright lights...it worked
> out fine. One of my other neighbors, (a sheet metal guru) assured me
> a shrinker would work also, but I'm very happy with the fit I have
> now. Personally, I think one of the big variables in how you're able
> to fit the aft canopy skirts revolves around how much "tail" of the
> canopy you leave hanging off the back of the fra! me. The angle that
> the canopy skirt meets the canopy dictates much of the fit where the
> aft skirt meets the turtle deck and the sides of the fuse. This is
> where using the adhesive gives you the advantage...you need a minimum
> thickness of adhesive for a good bond. Tipping the aft canopy
> slightly onto the skin allows that space to occur, and also gives the
> good fit you're looking for.
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | off-center induction |
While we are on the subject of the FAB and Airflow Performance this might be
a good time to let everyone know about something that we discovered on this
last yearly condition inspection. If you have the vertically mounted
Airflow Performance fuel injection servo and are using Van's Air box then I
suggest that you do NOT install the filter by-pass door. This is the little
door that is held closed with a small magnet on the bottom plate of the
filter. The Airflow Performance servo mount uses a "donut" ring bolted to
the upper FAB plate Airflow furnishes with their servo. It replaces the
original one that comes with the Van's airbox. The donut mounts inside the
airbox and reduces the airpath height by about half. This reduction in
height increase the velocity of the air going past the dounut and into the
servo. No big deal unless you have the by-pass door installed. Physics
says that with an increase in velocity there is a decrease in pressure. Low
pressure is what causes the by-pass door to come open should the filter get
clogged.
During the last condition inspection and cleaning of the filter we noticed
rub marks on the by-pass door and corresponding marks on the mounting donut.
It became very apparent that the by-pass door was opening every time the
RPM/manifold pressure went beyond a certain point. Everytime the engine
shut down the door would re-close so there was no tell-tale. So for much of
the last year we were flying around with carb heat on and un-filtered air.
This expains a lot of the problems we were having, such as varying
performance, wierd things happening dsiguised as spark plug problems, fuel
injector problems, cylinder temperature problems, etc.
Once we found this we "glued" the door shut using some high temp RTV so see
what it would do. The very first thing I noticed was an increase of almost
1/2 inch of manifold pressure as full throttle. The next things I found
were lower CHTs, lower oil temps, lower fule consumption, and about a 3-4
mph increase in airspeed for a given throttle and prop setting.
So.....if you intend on installing an Airflow Performance fuel injection
system, I highly recommend that you do NOT install the FAB air fliter
by-pass door.
Good flying everyone and be safe.
Mike Robertson
RV-8A, RV-6A, and RV-9a
God, I much be a sadist, I starting another RV-8A
>From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: off-center induction
>Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:32:36 -0700
>
>
>I am just finishing up my Filtered Air Box & cowling installation on my
>RV-8A with a Superior/Aero Sport Power IO-360-b1b with Airflow Performance
>fuel injection. My finish kit came with the oval plate that mounts the top
>of the FAB to the Airflow Performance fuel metering box, and another
>anodized one came with my engine, but I had to make about three more before
>I got the FAB offset back toward the centerline enough to clear the inside
>of cowl air scoop. If I offset it enough to come close to centering it in
>the scoop, there it didn't leave enough room on one side of the FAB for the
>filter. I ended up offsetting the hole in the oval plate 3/8" from the
>parts that came from Van's and with the engine. I think it also angles
>slightly to the scoop inlet.
>
>Since there were several reports of the plate cracking, I made the new ones
>out of heavier aluminum plate.
>
>Terry
>RV-8A
>Seattle
>
>
>My IO360-B2B (vertical induction) mounts the AFP fuel controller off to
>the left a bit, which I gather is normal. My circa 1999 Van's manual
>seems to indicate that the induction scoop should be mounted in the
>center of the lower cowling and the FAB should angle to the right a bit
>to link up to it.
>
>I believe I recall that some folks actually mount the induction scoop
>off center to line up with the carb/fuel controller.
>
>Which is best, or does it not make much difference. I favor centering
>the scoop.
>--
>Tom Sargent, RV-6A, cowling.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Condon" <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | AOA REPRINT for the archives |
Bulletin No. 21
PRESSURE MEASUREMENT FROM NCAR AIRCRAFT
rev. 10/91
----
General
This Bulletin describes the types of pressure measurements and the sensors
and transducers used to make them. Performance specifications and
information on transducer accuracy are also included.
Pressure Measurements
Both static (absolute) and differential pressure measurements are made at
various locations on the RAF aircraft. Table I summarizes the measurements,
their location, and the type of transducer used.
The static pressure measurements are made through a static pressure port,
flush on the side of the fuselage or on the side of a pitot-static tube.
This port is connected to either a Rosemount Model 1201 capacitive-type
absolute pressure transducer or a Rosemount Model 1501 digital absolute
pressure transducer. The Rosemount Model 1201F series absolute pressure
transducer uses a diaphragm-driven capacitance-measuring circuit. The
Rosemount Model 1501 high-accuracy digital absolute pressure transducer
outputs a pressure-dependent frequency signal.
Differential pressure measurements are made with either a pitot-static tube
or a pitot tube referenced to a static port. The differential pressure
measurements are used to determine aircraft dynamic pressure and flow angle
(angles of attack and sideslip of the aircraft). Dynamic pressure (Qc) is
the difference between the total pitot pressure (Pt) and the static pressure
(Ps).
Qc = Pt - Ps
The true airspeed of the aircraft (TAS) is calculated from measurements of
this pitot-static difference, the static pressure, and the total air
temperature using Bernoulli's equation. (See RAF Bulletin No. 9.)
Flow-angle measurements are made with either a Rosemount Model 858AJ
flow-angle sensor of a nose radome flow-angle pressure-sensing
configuration. In flow-angle measurements, differential pressures are
measured in the horizontal and vertical axes, relative to the aircraft, at
or near the nose of the aircraft. These pressure differentials are used with
the dynamic pressure at the aircraft nose or boom to determine the angles of
attack and sideslip of the aircraft.
The RAF currently uses an electrically-deiced flow-angle sensing probe
(Rosemount Model 858AJ) that can be interchangeably mounted on any of the
aircraft. This flow angle sensor is hemispheric, capping a cylindrical tube,
as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic Representation of the Rosemount 858AJ Flow-Angle Sensor
The attack and sideslip angles of the aircraft are determined from the
Rosemount Model 858AJ flow-angle sensor by the following equations:
ATTACK = ADIF / (GR * QCB)
SIDESLIP = BDIF / (GR * QCB)
Here ADIF is the differential pressure across the vertical axis of the
probe. BDIF is the differential pressure across the horizontal axis of the
probe. QCB is the dynamic pressure at the probe tip. GR is the normalized
sensitivity coefficient, which for Rosemount 858AJ probe is 0.079 for Mach
numbers below 0.51.
The radome technique for flow-angle sensing is similar, in principle, to
that used with the Rosemount Model 858AJ probe. The major difference is that
the nose of the airplane itself is used as a probe instead of the separate
flow-angle sensor, as shown in Figure 2. In-situ calibration techniques are
used for each aircraft to determine the normalized sensitivity coefficients.
Details of the radome technique are discussed by Brown, et al., 1983.
Figure 2. Sketch of Nose Radome Flow-Sensing Configuration on the NCAR
Sabreliner and Detail of Pressure Taps in the Radome
At present the radome flow-angle sensing configuration is available on the
King Air N312D, the Sabreliner (N307D), and the Electra (N308D) aircraft.
The King Air and the Electra radomes are heated and will function well under
most atmospheric conditions. The Sabreliner radome is unheated; thus, the
range of atmospheric conditions in which it will function properly is
somewhat limited. (Icing conditions and liquid water will adversely affect
radome performance on the Sabreliner.)
The Rosemount Model 1221F series differential pressure transducer is used
for differential pressure measurement for determining high-rate winds in the
gust probe dynamic pressure measurement on RAF aircraft. The 1332 series
transducer is used in this application, because it can be located out in the
boom closer to the Qc measuring point. (The size of the 1221 transducer does
not allow this. See the line-length tabluation in Table I.) Both types of
differential-pressure transducers us a diaphragm-driven capacitive
pressure-sensing capsule. {Obsolete: For high-rate winds and turbulence
studies, the gust-probe dynamic pressure is used with flow-angle
measurements obtained from fixed vanes rather than with the Rosemount Model
858AJ differential pressure flow-angle sensor. (The vanes use strain gauges
to measure the force, which is proportional to the flow angle.)}
TABLE I: Pressure Measurements
Measurement Description Transducer Used
(Rosemount Model) Nominal Line Length
Sensor to Transducer (M)
N307D N308D N312D
PSW Static pressure at the wing tip 1201 3.6 1.2
PSB Static Pressure at the boom 1201 5.4
PSF Static pressure at the fuselage 1201 4.9
PSFD Static pressure at the fuselage (digital) 1501 5.2 12.2 2.4
PCAB Static pressure in the aircraft cabin 1205
QCW Dynamic pressure at the wing tip 1221 3.6 1.5
QCB Dynamic pressure at the boom 1221 5.4
QCF Dynamic pressure at the fuselage 1221 2.9
4.9* 2.0
QCR Dynamic pressure at the radome 1221 2.1
5.5* 1.7
ADIF Differential pressure in the vertical plane on the boom w/Rosemount
858AJ 1221 5.4
BDIF Differential pressure in the horizontal plane on the boom w/Rosemount
858AJ 1221 5.4
ADIFR Differential pressure in the vertical plane on the radome w/radome
1221 2.1 1.7 0.9
0.6*
BDIFR Differential pressure in the horizontal plane on the radome w/radome
1221 2.1 1.7 0.8
0.6*
All pressure lines are 4.32mm I.D.
* The high-pressure line lehgth is given first.
Correction for Static Pressure Defect
Pressure measurements on board an aircraft are affected by local flow-field
distortions, and corrections are made for these pressure defects. The
corrections are unique to both the aircraft and the position of the
measurement on the aircraft.
The correction for static pressure error for a given location on a given
aircraft may be determined by flying by an instrumented tower (equipped with
a precision barometer) at various air speeds (varying dynamic pressure, Qc).
The pertinent meteorological data (ambient static pressure, etc.) are
recorded simultaneously on the aircraft and on the tower. Pressure
corrections ("PCORs") are determined from a regression between the static
pressure differences measured between the tower reference and the aircraft
versus the dynamic pressure, Qc, measured on the aircraft.
An example of a PCOR calculation follows (In this case QCF is a measurement
of uncorrected dynamic pressure; PSF is an uncorrected static pressure
measurement.):
PCOR(QCF) = C1 + C2 * QCF
Here C1 and C2 are coefficients determined from the regression, in this case
a first-order regression. Thus, the corrected static pressure would be:
PSFC = PSF + PCOR (QCF)
For dynamic pressure correction, the sign of the PCOR is reversed as shown
below.
PSFC = PSF + PCOR (QCF)
QCFC = PPitot - {PStatic + PCOR(QCF)} = QCF - PCOR(QCF)
PCORs have been determined at RAF using both tower flybys and trailing-cone
tests. Extensive trailing-cone calibrations have been completed on the RAF
aircraft; this procedure and uncertainty analysis are discussed by Brown,
1988.
Table II lists the "PCORs" for each RAF aircraft.
Table II: PCOR Tabulation (not avaliable)
Transducer Specifications
Performance and environmental specifications for the pressure transducers
used on NCAR aircraft are shown in Table III. This information was obtained
from "Product Data Sheets" provided by the manufacturer, Rosemount, Inc.
TABLE III: Specifications for Rosemount Pressure Transducer Models
1501 Digital Absolute (FSP=1000 mbar) 1201F Absolute (FSP=1034 mbar) 1221
Differential (FSP=? mbar) 1332 Differential (FSP=172.4 mbar)
Operating Accuracy 0.042% FSP
(0.42mbar)* 0.30% FSP
(3.0 mbar)** Refer to Table IV 0.20% FSP
(0.35 mbar)***
Static Error
The static error is the root sum square of the errors due to nonlinearity,
repeatability, hysteresis and resolution. 0.026% FSP
(0.26 mbar) 0.10% FSP
(1.0 mbar) 0.10% FSP 0.10% FSP
(0.2 mbar)
Long-Term Stability
Change in output over period indicated 0.025% FSP
(12 months) 0.15% FSP
(6 months) 0.15% FSP
(6 months) 0.15% FSP
(6 months)
Response Time
(63% response) 75 milliseconds 15 milliseconds 10 milliseconds 10
milliseconds
Operating Temperature Range -55C to +81C -55 to +71C -55C to +71C
(Electronically compensated range) -18C to +65C (Electronically compensated
range)
* This is the root sum square error, which includes dynamic error (stated by
Rosemount as 0.021% FSP), the static error, and the long-term stability.
** The reported operating accuracy includes the effect of ambient
temperature on the transducer. Laboratory tests at RAF indicate that ambient
temperature changes on the order of 2C per minute produce static pressure
errors of 1.0 to 1.5 mbar in the 1201 series transducer. Thus, if the
ambient temperature around the transducer is controlled, by locating the
transducer in the aircraft cabin for instance, the operating accuracy is
greatly improved.
*** This value is an estimated root sum square error obtained from errors
(stated by Rosemount) caused by various environmental factors. This value
includes the static error in the root sum square calculation.
TABLE IV: Differential Pressure Measurements and the Operating Accuracies of
the Rosemount 1221 Transducer used for each Measurement (-55C to +71C)
Aircraft Measurement Transducer Pressure Range Used Accuracy*
Electra N308D QCRC 206.8 mbar
275.8 mbar 0.27% FSP (0.6 mbar)
0.23% FSP (0.6 mbar)
Electra N308D ADIFR, BDIFR 68.9 mbar
51.7 mbar 0.27% FSP (0.2 mbar)
0.37% FSP (0.2 mbar)
* The operating accuracy includes the static accuracy as well as calibration
tolerance and the effect of ambient temperature over the compensated range
(-55C to +71C).
Error Propagation
Pressure measurement error, either static of differential, will propagate
into parameters derived from those pressure measurements. Errors propagated
to selected derived measurements are shown in Table V. For illustration
purposes, the errors shown are those that would result for each 1.0 mbar
error in the corresponding measured pressure. Details of the measurement
uncertainty of true air speed, angle of attack, and sideslip applicable to
RAF aircraft are discussed in Brown, 1991.
TABLE V: Error Propagation
Measurement
(1.0 mbar error) Conditions Derived measurement to which error is propagated
TAS (M/s) Wind speed (M/s)* W (M/s) Attack (deg) Sideslip (deg)
Static Pressure 750 mbar
(Qc=35 mbar) 0.05 0.05
540 mbar
(Qc=81 mbar) 0.05 0.13
760 mbar
(Qc=93 mbar) 0.09 0.09
Dynamic Pressure 750 mbar
(Qc=35 mbar) 1.18 1.18 0.14 0.09
540 mbar
(Qc=81 mbar) 0.78 0.78 0.05 0.05
760 mbar
(Qc=93 mbar) 0.65 0.65 0.10 0.4
Attack Differential Pressure 750 mbar
(Qc=35 mbar) 0.48 0.37
540 mbar
(Qc=81 mbar) 0.42 0.16
760 mbar
(Qc=93 mbar) 0.35 0.14
Sideslip Differential Pressure 750 mbar
(Qc=35 mbar) 0.37
540 mbar
(Qc=81 mbar) 0.16
760 mbar
(Qc=93 mbar) 0.14
* Assumes wind is along the longitudinal axis (worst case for error
attributable to the pressure measurement)
References
1. Rosemount Engineering Co., Post Office Box 35129, Minneapolis, MN 55435
2. Brown, E.N., C.A. Friehe, and D.H. Lenschow, 1983: The use of pressure
fluctuations on the nose of aircraft for measuring air motion, J. Clim.
Appl. Meteorol., 22, 171-180.
3. Brown, E.N., 1988: Position Error Calibration of a Pressure Survey
Aircraft Using a Trailing Cone. NCAR Tech. Note (NCAR/TN-313+STR). NCAR,
Boulder, Colo., 29 pp.
4. Brown, E.N., 1991: The Uncertainty Analysis of a Radome Flush Orifice
Air Motion System for the Measurement of Aircraft Incident Angles. NCAR
Tech. Note (NCAR/TN-359+STR). NCAR, Boulder, Colo., 27 pp.
----
RAF Technical Bulletins | RAF Home Page | ATD Home Page | NCAR Home Page
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re nose-gear cowl interface |
Thanks for the reply Henry. I think I will go a
similar route.
Aloha.
Greg
--- elsa-henry <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com> wrote:
> <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> >I'm wrapping up my RV-6A finally! I can't find
> "Figure"
> >10-10 in my RV6/6A instructions (which are eight
> years
> >old by now). Am I missing anything earth
> shattering---
>
> I think you had a a bad choice of words when you
> wrote "Figure" above! My instruction book ( which is
> ten years old) shows on page 10-10, SK 82, the
> set-up for checking the nose wheel fork breakout
> force. The text continues on page 10-11 (for the
> whole page) giving instructions how to manage the
> slot that must be cut in the cowl to allow its
> installation and removal. I built the plates as
> shown in SK 81 on page 10-12 and that works out OK.
> (Maybe you are missing these 2 pages?--if so I can
> scan copies and send them to you).
>
> However, I didn't bother to make the the sculptured
> fairing to go around the leg as described.The slot
> has to be extended forward to alow the cowl
> installation to clear the leg as it is brought into
> place and to clear the prop spinner. I made a
> seperate plate to close that slot once the cowl is
> installed, held in place with 4 6-32 screws into
> nut-plates in the cowl.
>
> Cheers!--Henry Hore --C-GELS
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Patent laws, was Dynon AOA |
Dan Brown wrote:
> 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
>title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
>*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
>United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
>during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
>
>(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know all
>the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but the
>general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
>
>
I don't find it all that cut and dry. It seems worded clearly enough,
and would seem to indicate that if you make a "patented invention", that
"infringes the patent". However it also says that if you use a
"patented invention", that also "infringes the patent", I don't know
about you, but everyday I use several things that are patented, dose
that mean I am infringement of those patents? Now if it said "makes and
uses", I would be with you, but it said "makes, uses". I'm going to
read more before I am going to be convinced of exactly what that means.
Also what you quote comes from the US Patent Act, I don't know much
about this legal stuff, but I thought that all federal laws on this, or
anything, have to be in the applicable CFR (Code of Federal
Regulations), in this case CFR Title 37. Like I said I don't know much
about it just curious
do not archive
--
Chris W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <batfinks(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patent laws, was Dynon AOA |
I missed the first part of this discussion, so I may be way off base
here on the premise, but...
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I do hold a few
patents (although they are assigned to a corporation). I have also had
several discussions with patent weasels...er lawyers.
A couple of points here:
1) I know, but could not point out the song and verse where it is
spelled out, that you can build and use anyting for your own consumption
and not run afoul of patent laws. Now if you build a hundred of them
and give them to your freinds, the patent holder may have a case against
you if he decides to sue you.
2) The Government does not enforce patent law. The patent holder must
bring a civil suit to assert his patent against each person/entity who
is infringing it.
3) A patent is worthless unless the patent holder spends the bucks to
sue someone who is infringing the patent. Unless you have ticked off
the patent holder personally, even if you do violate the patent on a
small-scale, it probably wouldn't be worth the holder's time and money
to pursue a suit against you.
4) HOWEVER, you may not infringe a patent for gain, NOR encourage
other's to do so. Publishing a web page on how to violate someone's
patent would probably get you a stongly worded letter from the patent
holder's lawyer with the threat of a lawsuit. Whether he would pursue
the lawsuit or would prevail if he did is another matter.
Scott
Chris W wrote:
>
>Dan Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>>271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
>>title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
>>*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
>>United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
>>during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
>>
>>(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know all
>>the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but the
>>general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I don't find it all that cut and dry. It seems worded clearly enough,
>and would seem to indicate that if you make a "patented invention", that
>"infringes the patent". However it also says that if you use a
>"patented invention", that also "infringes the patent", I don't know
>about you, but everyday I use several things that are patented, dose
>that mean I am infringement of those patents? Now if it said "makes and
>uses", I would be with you, but it said "makes, uses". I'm going to
>read more before I am going to be convinced of exactly what that means.
>
>Also what you quote comes from the US Patent Act, I don't know much
>about this legal stuff, but I thought that all federal laws on this, or
>anything, have to be in the applicable CFR (Code of Federal
>Regulations), in this case CFR Title 37. Like I said I don't know much
>about it just curious
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
Just wondering, if you ever need to replace the canopy, how do you get it
off? Do you smash it and grinding the remnance off or is there some kind of
remover for the glue?
Greg
RV8
>
> I used SikaFlex 295UV adhesive to attach my canopy to the frame, and then
used it again to attach the side and aft skirts to the canopy. I thought I
might have to lay up glass aft canopy skirts, but was finally able to
achieve a near perfect fit except for the lower corners, where I had about a
1/4" gap. Some other builders looked at it and assured me I could just put
a soft bend there by hand once the skirts were attached with the adhesive
With some degree of trepidation...that's what it did and it worked out
great. I was worried I'd put a "kink" in the metal that would be visible,
but there are no bend lines visible under the bright lights...it worked out
fine. One of my other neighbors, (a sheet metal guru) assured me a shrinker
would work also, but I'm very happy with the fit I have now. Personally, I
think one of the big variables in how you're able to fit the aft canopy
skirts revolves around how much "tail" of the canopy you leave hanging off
the back of the fra!
> me. The angle that the canopy skirt meets the canopy dictates much of
the fit where the aft skirt meets the turtle deck and the sides of the fuse.
This is where using the adhesive gives you the advantage...you need a
minimum thickness of adhesive for a good bond. Tipping the aft canopy
slightly onto the skin allows that space to occur, and also gives the good
fit you're looking for.
>
> Bob Brown
> RV7A - wiring Trutrak ADI - waiting on engine.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
better, but I'm still not convinced.
Charlie
Dan Brown wrote:
>
>Quoting Charlie England :
>
>
>
>>Oh, I trust you. But surely you won't mind if I verify by asking you to
>>quote chapter & verse from US code.
>>
>>
>
> I'm not David, but I think this would be relevant, from 35 USC sec. 271:
>
> 271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
>title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
>*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
>United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
>during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
>
>(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know all
>the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but the
>general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> |
| Subject: | Filter Bypass Door |
I just finished my annual on my RV-6A (N841RV) after 160 hours.
When I removed the VA-131-A Air Box to service the air filter, I
noticed the VA-191A Magnet Retainer was gone. The AN426AD3.5 flush
rivets had pulled through the thin fiberglass shell of the Air Box.
Fortunately, the VA-191M Magnet had fallen down and attached itself
to one of the nut plates of the nose wheel fairing cover. The Magnet
Retainer was no where to be found. I inspected the throat of the
carburetor to make sure it was not lodged in the throat.
I fabricated a new Magnet Retainer with the body running
longitudinally , the Magnet on the aft end and two 1/8 pop rivets
with backing washers forward of the VA-191B Filter Bypass Door.
I had noticed on engine run ups in the last few hours before the
annual with carburetor heat pulled, the RPMS did not drop as much and
the carburetor temperature did not rise as much. I thought it was
just the warmer weather.
I plan to send report this to Vans Aircraft.
Richard Reynolds
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Patent laws, was Dynon AOA |
Ahhhh.... something that passes the smell test.
Thanks,
Charlie
Scott wrote:
>
>I missed the first part of this discussion, so I may be way off base
>here on the premise, but...
>
>I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I do hold a few
>patents (although they are assigned to a corporation). I have also had
>several discussions with patent weasels...er lawyers.
>
>A couple of points here:
>1) I know, but could not point out the song and verse where it is
>spelled out, that you can build and use anyting for your own consumption
>and not run afoul of patent laws. Now if you build a hundred of them
>and give them to your freinds, the patent holder may have a case against
>you if he decides to sue you.
>
>2) The Government does not enforce patent law. The patent holder must
>bring a civil suit to assert his patent against each person/entity who
>is infringing it.
>
>3) A patent is worthless unless the patent holder spends the bucks to
>sue someone who is infringing the patent. Unless you have ticked off
>the patent holder personally, even if you do violate the patent on a
>small-scale, it probably wouldn't be worth the holder's time and money
>to pursue a suit against you.
>
>4) HOWEVER, you may not infringe a patent for gain, NOR encourage
>other's to do so. Publishing a web page on how to violate someone's
>patent would probably get you a stongly worded letter from the patent
>holder's lawyer with the threat of a lawsuit. Whether he would pursue
>the lawsuit or would prevail if he did is another matter.
>
>Scott
>
>Chris W wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Dan Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in this
>>>title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
>>>*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
>>>United States or imports into the United States any patented invention
>>>during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
>>>
>>>(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know all
>>>the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but the
>>>general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't find it all that cut and dry. It seems worded clearly enough,
>>and would seem to indicate that if you make a "patented invention", that
>>"infringes the patent". However it also says that if you use a
>>"patented invention", that also "infringes the patent", I don't know
>>about you, but everyday I use several things that are patented, dose
>>that mean I am infringement of those patents? Now if it said "makes and
>>uses", I would be with you, but it said "makes, uses". I'm going to
>>read more before I am going to be convinced of exactly what that means.
>>
>>Also what you quote comes from the US Patent Act, I don't know much
>>about this legal stuff, but I thought that all federal laws on this, or
>>anything, have to be in the applicable CFR (Code of Federal
>>Regulations), in this case CFR Title 37. Like I said I don't know much
>>about it just curious
>>
>>do not archive
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com> |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
That is correct, this is thread should be titled AFS not Dynon, AFS is the one
with the patent.
-----Original Message-----
From: meljordan(at)earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:42:30 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
Subject: RV-List: Re: Dynon AOA (not processed: message from valid local sender)
>
> Before this goes too far, Dynon is not making any patent claimes on AOA
> or differential pressure technologies. This is just a thread gone
> wild. Dynon only offers AOA as an option for the EFIS systems and
> does not claim to own this technique or any patent. Dynon does not
> care if you build your own AOA or if you sell your AOA. I am sure that
> Dynon would not want you to copy their software, which I believe
> probably is covered by a copyright, but as far as the concept of
> differential pressure AOA, that is not something that Dynon claims in
> any way.
>
> Thanks,
> Mel Jordan,
> Tucson - RV-6A
>
>
> Subject: Re: Dynon AOA (not processed: message from valid local
> From: Wayne Glasser (ku-tec(at)bigpond.net.au)
> Date: Sun Jun 05 - 10:01 PM
>
>
> Matt
>
> Do you have a patent number for Dynon. I would like to clarify their
> claims
>
> Thanks
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com> |
| Subject: | AFS Patent (was Dynon AOA) |
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Just so you know, the Patent that started this whole thing is #6,271,769 which
is held by AFS.
The full information on their claims is here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-
bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,271,769&OS=6,271,769&RS=6,271,769
P.S. This thread was incorrectly referencing Dynon when it should be directed towards
AFS.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:26:23 -0500
Subject: Re: RV-List: Patent laws, was Dynon AOA
>
>
> Ahhhh.... something that passes the smell test.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> Scott wrote:
>
> >
> >I missed the first part of this discussion, so I may be way off base
> >here on the premise, but...
> >
> >I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, but I do hold a few
> >patents (although they are assigned to a corporation). I have also
> had
> >several discussions with patent weasels...er lawyers.
> >
> >A couple of points here:
> >1) I know, but could not point out the song and verse where it is
> >spelled out, that you can build and use anyting for your own
> consumption
> >and not run afoul of patent laws. Now if you build a hundred of them
> >and give them to your freinds, the patent holder may have a case
> against
> >you if he decides to sue you.
> >
> >2) The Government does not enforce patent law. The patent holder must
> >bring a civil suit to assert his patent against each person/entity who
> >is infringing it.
> >
> >3) A patent is worthless unless the patent holder spends the bucks to
> >sue someone who is infringing the patent. Unless you have ticked off
> >the patent holder personally, even if you do violate the patent on a
> >small-scale, it probably wouldn't be worth the holder's time and money
> >to pursue a suit against you.
> >
> >4) HOWEVER, you may not infringe a patent for gain, NOR encourage
> >other's to do so. Publishing a web page on how to violate someone's
> >patent would probably get you a stongly worded letter from the patent
> >holder's lawyer with the threat of a lawsuit. Whether he would pursue
> >the lawsuit or would prevail if he did is another matter.
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >Chris W wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> <1qazxsw23edcvfr45tgbnhy67ujm(at)cox.net>
> >>
> >>Dan Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>271. Infringement of patent (a) Except as otherwise provided in
> this
> >>>title [35 USCS 1 et seq.], whoever without authority *makes*,
> >>>*uses*, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the
> >>>United States or imports into the United States any patented
> invention
> >>>during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
> >>>
> >>>(emphasis added). Now, not being a patent attorney, I don't know
> all
> >>>the parameters of "except as otherwise provided in this title", but
> the
> >>>general prohibition is clear and unambiguous.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I don't find it all that cut and dry. It seems worded clearly
> enough,
> >>and would seem to indicate that if you make a "patented invention",
> that
> >>"infringes the patent". However it also says that if you use a
> >>"patented invention", that also "infringes the patent", I don't know
> >>about you, but everyday I use several things that are patented, dose
> >>that mean I am infringement of those patents? Now if it said "makes
> and
> >>uses", I would be with you, but it said "makes, uses". I'm going to
> >>read more before I am going to be convinced of exactly what that
> means.
> >>
> >>Also what you quote comes from the US Patent Act, I don't know much
> >>about this legal stuff, but I thought that all federal laws on this,
> or
> >>anything, have to be in the applicable CFR (Code of Federal
> >>Regulations), in this case CFR Title 37. Like I said I don't know
> much
> >>about it just curious
> >>
> >>do not archive
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Tami Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tools and canopy cover for sale |
Paul, do you have a list of the tools???
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Lein" <pj115(at)journey.com>
Subject: RV-List: tools and canopy cover for sale
>
> I've sold my 6a and have the tools I used to build it and an Orndorf
> silver canopy cover for sale. I am in central MI and will sell cheap
> to whoever comes to pick up this stuff. Everything 40% of new price.
> Show me today's price and we'll know what you will pay.
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The engine breather |
In a message dated 6/6/05 9:13:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM writes:
> run it into a bottle or other container
>
> Yes. Works for me.
>
> Harry Crosby
> RV-6 N16CX, 88 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts |
> Just wondering, if you ever need to replace the canopy, how do you get it
> off? Do you smash it and grinding the remnance off or is there some kind of
> remover for the glue?
>
>
>>I used SikaFlex 295UV adhesive to attach my canopy to the frame, and then
>
I've read that the technique is to push a piece of thin safety
wire between the canopy and frame, and pull it along, cutting
the glue. Probably not too easy. I guess some box cutters,
chain maille gloves, and a lot of time would also work.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Lein <pj115(at)journey.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tools and canopy cover for saletools and canopy cover for |
sale
I'll try to make a list and take some digital photos tomorrow and get
back to you all. I will ship the canopy cover but the rest is very
heavy - bucking bars, clecos, etc. so I won't ship that stuff.
cheers,
Paul
Paul Lein
1555 South Brinton Road
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858-9628
Tel. 989 644-2451
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | The engine breather |
0.11 HTML_TAG_EXIST_TBODY BODY: HTML has "tbody" tag
Rich,
I put this type of oil/air separator on my RV-6A. I mounted the separator
on the top right
side of the firewall (so that it was higher than the engine) and ran the oil
return into a
modified oil return line off of #3cyclinder. The modified return line is
just 3/8" "T" in the
line with a short nipple for the oil return line to attach.
Fred stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second offender!
From: "Crosley, Rich" < RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM
>
Subject: The engine breather
0.38 FROM_NO_LOWER From address has no lower-case
characters
RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM >
What are you doing with the breather pipe? I set mine up per the
directions, ran it down above the exhaust pipe. But....I still get
oil on
the belly. My current thought is to buy the $40.00 Spruce air-oil
separator, open it up and put in the scrub pad and mount it on the
firewall.
If I do that.......what do I do with the oil? Run it back in the
engine
(not sure I like that option), run it into a bottle or other
container, or
overboard, but then how do I keep it off the airplane? Run a line to
the
tail? What's working for everyone?
Rich Crosley
RV8, N948RC
Rosamond, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Filter Bypass Door |
Yep, I missed that. I must have installed the door differently than what
Van's specs now as it's not mounted in fiberglass.... Interesting....
The other issue I have with the door opening up into the lower cowl is
that it bypasses any Carb heat that comes off the exhaust muff (if you have
that). I've found in past testing that the heated air in the lower cowl is
not sufficient to prevent carb ice, especially in IFR conditions. My filter
bypass door always takes air from the air box, not the lower cowl, always
allowing for unfiltered carb heated air to be available......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender!
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Reynolds [mailto:rvreynolds(at)macs.net]
Subject: Re: Filter Bypass Door
Ahh, the first sentence says "RV-6A".
Richard Reynolds
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR wrote:
> Richard,
>
> What type of plane? My bypass door is mounted into the metal
> plate on the
> bottom of the air filter on the RV-6A... No fiberglass involved...
>
> Fred Stucklen
>
> I just finished my annual on my RV-6A (N841RV) after 160 hours. When I
> removed the VA-131-A Air Box to service the air filter, I noticed the
> VA-191A Magnet Retainer was gone. The AN426AD3.5 flush rivets had
> pulled
> through the thin fiberglass shell of the Air Box. Fortunately, the
> VA-191M
> Magnet had fallen down and attached itself to one of the nut plates
> of the
> nose wheel fairing cover. The Magnet Retainer was no where to be
> found. I
> inspected the throat of the carburetor to make sure it was not
> lodged in the
> throat. I fabricated a new Magnet Retainer with the body running
> longitudinally , the Magnet on the aft end and two 1/8 pop rivets with
> backing washers forward of the VA-191B Filter Bypass Door. I had
> noticed on
> engine run ups in the last few hours before the annual with
> carburetor heat
> pulled, the RPMS did not drop as much and the carburetor
> temperature did not
> rise as much. I thought it was just the warmer weather. I plan to send
> report this to Vans Aircraft. Richard Reynolds
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The engine breather |
Rich,
First check the archives for this list again. My advise is:
-If your engine is healthy very little actual oil comes out of the breather
-Oil comes from leaks into the bottom of the cowl as well and blow by from the
breather
-Most of the stuff coming out of the breather is water with a little oil
-Try no breather and use the burn it off the exhaust pipe method at first
-If you must use a oil separator, don't stuff pot scrubbers in it, unless you can
clean it.
-Breather/post scrubber, equals more back pressure, higher internal engine crank
pressure
-The breather restrictions cause more caustic crud stays in engine.
-I had a oil separator on my RV-4, most of the stuff was a nasty mix of water,
very little oil
-The amount of volume of stuff collected from the air/oil separator was not small
-If you do use a air/oil separator don't route it back to the engine, collect it
and dispose.
-If you must use a separator collect in a little plastic or metal bottle
-The M20 air/oil is a ridiculous piece of way way over priced hype
Cheers George
>From: "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY(at)HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
>Subject: RV-List: The engine breather
>
>What are you doing with the breather pipe? I set mine up per the
>directions, ran it down above the exhaust pipe. But....I still get oil
>on the belly. My current thought is to buy the $40.00 Spruce air-oil
>separator, open it up and put in the scrub pad and mount it on the
>firewall. If I do that.......what do I do with the oil? Run it back in the
>engine (not sure I like that option), run it into a bottle or other container,
>or overboard, but then how do I keep it off the airplane? Run a line to
>the tail? What's working for everyone?
>
>Rich Crosley
>RV8, N948RC
>Rosamond, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV 7 Slider rear skirts-removing Sika adhesive |
There is one hole in my canopy...the hole for the canopy latch handle. As such,
there isn't much stress from which to propogate a crack. I'm sure there are
other things that cause a canopy to fail, but I'm not liking to visualize those
scenarios...In the highly unlikely event that you'd have to remove the canopy
from the frame, you would use a fine wire (a small "E" guitar string would
do nicely) and push it through the adhesive, then pull it along the frame. My
choice would just be to redo the frame, I'm not sure you'd get the bonding surface
you'd want on top of the old adhesive'd area. Timemoney.
Bob
RV7A
Wiring Trutrak ADI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
I believe the Garmin 480 is again the exception. With the 480, you can pick an
alternate with a GPS approach--if the RAIM is calculted to be within acceptable
values--rarely is not.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of SCOTT SPENCER
Subject: RV-List: Re: What's a "VOR" ???
True. However, one thing to keep in mind is that GPS approaches are NOT authorized
for use when picking an alternate airport -which is a very important point
when flying IFR (gotta' have a back door! -both in practicality and legality
as well, depending on the conditions...) SOooo... you either have to pick an alternate
in 'guaranteed' VFR weather that allows you to proceed from the enroute
IFR structure to the surface VMC (certainly a gamble) ... OR... you must have
another form of nav onboard and pick an alternate not predicated on a GPS
approach.
Bottom line... if you go flying IFR with just a GPS onboard you're foolish (read
'stupid')... and depending on whether or not you have RAIM, the weather being
below mins and your requiring an alternate, you could be screwed. All this not
even considering a failure of your onboard equipment. Like a few others on
this list, I fly IFR for a living, and as wonderful as they are, there's no way
I'd consider going off into the muck with just a GPS.
Scott N4ZW
most
correvt. A Garmin 480 is certified for primary nav and needs no "land based backup".
-----Original Message----- From
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Filter Bypass Door |
I might not be understanding this correctly, but are we talking about the
same door? The carb heat door on my 6 is mounted in the top (metal) plate
of the carb air box. The magnetic door in the bottom is for emergency in
case of air flow stoppage in the filter. It is mounted in fiberglass. The
bottom magnetic door is for emergency. If it opens to allow unfiltered,
unheated air in, the alternative was engine stopage. Seems like a
reasonable trade off.
Has van's changed the design of this? Curious
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR
Date: 06/07/05 07:15:08
Subject: RV-List: RE: Filter Bypass Door
Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com>
Yep, I missed that. I must have installed the door differently than what
Van's specs now as it's not mounted in fiberglass.... Interesting....
The other issue I have with the door opening up into the lower cowl is
that it bypasses any Carb heat that comes off the exhaust muff (if you have
that). I've found in past testing that the heated air in the lower cowl is
not sufficient to prevent carb ice, especially in IFR conditions. My filter
bypass door always takes air from the air box, not the lower cowl, always
allowing for unfiltered carb heated air to be available......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender!
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Reynolds [mailto:rvreynolds(at)macs.net]
Subject: Re: Filter Bypass Door
Ahh, the first sentence says "RV-6A".
Richard Reynolds
On Jun 7, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR wrote:
> Richard,
>
> What type of plane? My bypass door is mounted into the metal
> plate on the
> bottom of the air filter on the RV-6A... No fiberglass involved...
>
> Fred Stucklen
>
> I just finished my annual on my RV-6A (N841RV) after 160 hours. When I
> removed the VA-131-A Air Box to service the air filter, I noticed the
> VA-191A Magnet Retainer was gone. The AN426AD3.5 flush rivets had
> pulled
> through the thin fiberglass shell of the Air Box. Fortunately, the
> VA-191M
> Magnet had fallen down and attached itself to one of the nut plates
> of the
> nose wheel fairing cover. The Magnet Retainer was no where to be
> found. I
> inspected the throat of the carburetor to make sure it was not
> lodged in the
> throat. I fabricated a new Magnet Retainer with the body running
> longitudinally , the Magnet on the aft end and two 1/8 pop rivets with
> backing washers forward of the VA-191B Filter Bypass Door. I had
> noticed on
> engine run ups in the last few hours before the annual with
> carburetor heat
> pulled, the RPMS did not drop as much and the carburetor
> temperature did not
> rise as much. I thought it was just the warmer weather. I plan to send
> report this to Vans Aircraft. Richard Reynolds
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Lein <pj115(at)journey.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tools and canopy cover for sale |
I have a set of the titanium tie downs with ropes and canvas bag for
sale in unused condition. Anybody know what these are going for now?
I can't find my records for this particular purchase.
Paul Lein
1555 South Brinton Road
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858-9628
Tel. 989 644-2451
Fax 989 644-6098
pj115(at)journey.com
"If you can blame people getting shot on guns, then I can blame
misspelled words on my pencil."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | Filter Bypass Door |
Yes, we are talking the same door, but I also made reference to the Carb
Heat flap/door on the top
of the air box. On my air box, there is no opening between the bottom of the
air filter, through the
fiberglass air box shell, into the lower cowl area. Instead, all filter
bypass air comes from within
the airbox.
The filter bypass door is located on an oval shaped plate on the bottom of
the air filter. It opens
upward towards the carburetor.
Since ALL carb air - filter bypassed or not - comes through the airbox,
the normal alternate air
(Carb heat) can still be used when needed to eliminate carb ice.
If the air filter bypass air is sourced from the lower cowl, then the carb
heat function is lost if the
bypass is open. This could be a dangerous situation while flying in outside
air conditions that
could allow carb ice to form, as the lower cowl air temps are not high
enough. (I think that
somewhere in Part 23 of the FAR's it states that Alternate Air should be
capable of a 20*C
rise above ambient.) If this filter bypass door opened, for a filter that
was plugged with snow,
having an additional carb ice situation is very definite possibility.
I know from my own experiences flying RV-6's ( 2400+ Hrs, and LOTs of
IFR) that using
Alternate air that is only sourced from the lower cowl, will eventually
result in a carb ice
situation. (Been there, done that). I currently have a home made alternate
air muff the
encompasses the Vetterman exhaust crossover pipes with a muff. To increase
the alternate
air temp rise above ambient, I've added additional heat exchange techniques
(.032 stainless safety wire wound on a dowel with a drill, to make a spring
that can be
wound around, and secured to, the exhaust pipes). This feeds into the airbox
using
Van's standard flap technique....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender (2008 Hrs)!
flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
I might not be understanding this correctly, but are we talking about the
same door? The carb heat door on my 6 is mounted in the top (metal) plate
of the carb air box. The magnetic door in the bottom is for emergency in
case of air flow stoppage in the filter. It is mounted in fiberglass. The
bottom magnetic door is for emergency. If it opens to allow unfiltered,
unheated air in, the alternative was engine stopage. Seems like a
reasonable trade off.
Has van's changed the design of this? Curious
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:04:01 AM PDT
Subject: RE: Filter Bypass Door
Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com>
Yep, I missed that. I must have installed the door differently than what
Van's specs now as it's not mounted in fiberglass.... Interesting....
The other issue I have with the door opening up into the lower cowl is
that it bypasses any Carb heat that comes off the exhaust muff (if you have
that). I've found in past testing that the heated air in the lower cowl is
not sufficient to prevent carb ice, especially in IFR conditions. My filter
bypass door always takes air from the air box, not the lower cowl, always
allowing for unfiltered carb heated air to be available......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | RV fuel discount @ KAAT |
Todd Ehlinger (RV-6A) mentioned that I should forward this info along. Any
RV fueling up at Alturas Muni (KAAT) gets 20 cents off per gallon. Might
make a good fuel stop on the way to/from Homecoming...
http://www.airnav.com/airport/AAT
I spoke to Tom at Alturas Aero and he confirmed it. He said if he's not
around when you're fueling, tell his wife or son that Tom said this is
valid.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: Tubing Bender And Flare Tools |
The "normal/standard" flare of a plumbing tool is 45 degrees. AN fittings
are "aviation/racing" flare and are 37 degrees. They are NOT
interchangeable. Have never seen a 37 degree flaring tool or fittings at
Lowes, Home Deport, Ace, etc. I was only a plumbing/air conditioning
contractor for 25 years & have not been in every hardware store in the
country. HOWEVER if the flaring tool does not specifically state it's
aviation, AN, 37 degree it probably is not. Also have not seen 37 degree
"cheapo" flaring tools. Lots of low costs 45 degree units. In this case
"Ya'll get what you pay for". Remember when you bend tubing you harden it.
The outside of the bend will create a "hard" spot. Since most tubing is
shipped in a coil, plan ahead and do not straighten out tubing before
bending. We have & used tubing benders but most of the tubing on N561FS was
bent bare handed by me, hey with 25+ years experience ya do get pretty good
with your hands. This is another place where you DO NOT assemble
fittings/tubing under any stress. Bend it to perfectly fit. KABONG 8*)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy DeBauw" <Randy(at)abros.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Tubing Bender And Flare Tools
> --> RV10-List message posted by: "Randy DeBauw"
>
> Check the flare. I think it will be the wrong deg. Flare. I can't
> remember the flare deg but 1 is 37 deg and one is 45 deg and they are
> not interchangeable. For instance I have a flare tool for automotive
> flares for brake lines and it will not work for aviation. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony <afmeroth(at)yahoo.com> |
Anyone here inc heyenne wyoming that would mind me
looking at their projects? I am still on the fence
about which kit to do, although I have it narrowed
down and am just trying to gain some experience ins
eeingone of these planes go together. I can do menial
tasks and labor and beer fetching. -Tony 307 631 9097
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
Hi All,
I've modified a W&B calculator which graphically and numerically
displays the W&B information of your aircraft based upon the Max Gross
weight and Nose/Tail & Main Gear weights. It also calculates your W&B
at landing depending upon the amount of fuel used. Fairly handy. There
is one for the RV-7A (my choice) and the RV-7 (Dan's choice).
It will also indicate if you are Over Gross, Outside/Inside Utility
Category Limits, Outside/Inside Aerobatics Category Limits, and if
you have more than 100 loaded in baggage as well.
It's fun to check out "what if" scenarios.
DISCLAIMER: This is not to be used for flight. You as the pilot are
solely responsible for calculating your own W&B information. Don't
rely on *anything* I say or build for safety of flight. I mean it.
Let me know if you have any problems with the spreadsheet. Feel free
to download it and modify it for your needs. I have used Van's
numbers for all moment arms.
http://rv7-a.com/tools/RV-7A-Weight-Balance.xls
http://rv7-a.com/tools/RV-7-Weight-Balance.xls
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net> |
Walter,
Your W&B calculator is great!
Can you (or someone) post some (average?) main and nose gear weights?
Thanks,
Mark Burns
RV-7A EMP, Wings due in a few weeks.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Walter Tondu
Subject: RV-List: W&B calculator
Hi All,
I've modified a W&B calculator which graphically and numerically
displays the W&B information of your aircraft based upon the Max Gross
weight and Nose/Tail & Main Gear weights. It also calculates your W&B
at landing depending upon the amount of fuel used. Fairly handy. There
is one for the RV-7A (my choice) and the RV-7 (Dan's choice).
It will also indicate if you are Over Gross, Outside/Inside Utility
Category Limits, Outside/Inside Aerobatics Category Limits, and if
you have more than 100 loaded in baggage as well.
It's fun to check out "what if" scenarios.
DISCLAIMER: This is not to be used for flight. You as the pilot are
solely responsible for calculating your own W&B information. Don't
rely on *anything* I say or build for safety of flight. I mean it.
Let me know if you have any problems with the spreadsheet. Feel free
to download it and modify it for your needs. I have used Van's
numbers for all moment arms.
http://rv7-a.com/tools/RV-7A-Weight-Balance.xls
http://rv7-a.com/tools/RV-7-Weight-Balance.xls
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B calculator |
On 06/07 9:08, Mark Burns wrote:
> Can you (or someone) post some (average?) main and nose gear weights?
Mine came out to 294 lbs or 26.2% of the total weight. Unfortunately,
I don't have any other weights to compare it too.
Perhaps some other nose dragger folks will post that information for you.
Mine is a bit light due to the Whirlwind 200RV prop and very light
EFIS panel. Some of it is countered by the Ram Air and associated
fiberglass work. I'm guessing my nose gear weight to be about 10-15
pounds less than the average nose dragger with a standard config.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Van's Tach Doctor Needed |
I've got .5 hours on the 2 1/4" tach and tach
generator that Van sells. My mechanic buddy found the
generator loose during first-flight inspection and
tightened it with a big wrench. Soon after the tach
died.
I get 12+ volts from I to GND, and 8.68 volts from S
to GND (whether my drill is revving the drive or not).
Now I'm wondering if my drill should be set to
reverse, not forward.
Any ideas on how to diagnose this thing(s)?
Thanks.
Greg
Honolulu
__________________________________
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: W&B calculator |
My -6A nose wieght came out at 256. That is with a O-320, wood prop and a
standard six pak panel.
L main 393, R main 379
Scott
N162RV
Flying
>From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: W&B calculator
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 22:43:39 -0400
>
>
>On 06/07 9:08, Mark Burns wrote:
>
> > Can you (or someone) post some (average?) main and nose gear weights?
>
>Mine came out to 294 lbs or 26.2% of the total weight. Unfortunately,
>I don't have any other weights to compare it too.
>
>Perhaps some other nose dragger folks will post that information for you.
>Mine is a bit light due to the Whirlwind 200RV prop and very light
>EFIS panel. Some of it is countered by the Ram Air and associated
>fiberglass work. I'm guessing my nose gear weight to be about 10-15
>pounds less than the average nose dragger with a standard config.
>--
>Walter Tondu
>http://www.rv7-a.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Cole <jcole(at)rangroup.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 6/6A Partial Kit |
I am new to this list because I am trying to help a good friend of mine
who died unexpectedly in March. (34 years old).
I've been cleaning out his shop for his Mom and one of the things we
found was an empennage and wing kit, with completed gold anodized
spars for a 6 or 6A. I've done a little research and believe at current
prices it would be over $7500 Canadian and I think it around $5,000
Canadian would be a good deal for someone. It's still in the shipping
boxes and we have the builder certificate and # from Vans. If anyone is
interested or knows someone who might be, the kit is near Barrie,
Ontario and you can reach me at 705-458-9669.
Thanks
Jim Cole
Jim Cole
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
| Subject: | RE: The engine breather |
Linn,
Makes sense to me. Fortunately, I'm a high time flyer, so I shouldn't see
that kind of problem. On the first RV, I put the 2008 Hs on in less than 9
years. So far on this one, I've got almost 400 Hrs in just 20 months. And
that includes a 3 month down time for another unrelated problem....
With the Lycoming issue of usually blowing out the first quart of oil out
the breather (assuming 8 Qts at start), I'm finding that I have
significantly less oil on the belly, and use only 1-2 Qts per 25 Hrs
(depending on how hard I push the engine). I partly attribute the oil return
technique to this kind of oil usage....
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender!
-----Original Message-----
From: linn walters [mailto:lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com]
Subject: Re: The engine breather
Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR wrote:
I can't say scientifically what problems returning the oil can cause.
But I ran one engine
(using this return technique) over 2000 Hrs without any problems. I've now
run a second
engine 395 Hrs with no issues....
Assuming the return oil is more acidic (which I wouldn't know until I test
it), what does
that really mean relative to engine performance or life??????
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
395 Hrs
Second Offender!
Not a bad (engine) lifetime. Flying often and for an hour or so each time
will be the best treatment for longevity. However, a lot of owners don't
fly often .... and the engine sits with that acidic water/oil mix in the
sump. Normal temperature cycles sitting on the ramp or in a hangar will
cause that to condense in the upper areas of the engine, and that causes
etching of the valve followers and the cam lobes. Lycomings are more
subject to this failure mode than Continentals. The rough followers chew up
the cam lobes requiring a teardown way before TBO. This is why buying an
older airplane with low time will usually result in an early engine major.
Think how many of your fellow owners on the airport come down, fly a few
laps around the pattern and then put the airplane to bed!
Other components ..... cylinder walls and rings are also etched in the same
way, but cam lobes get the worst beating.
Linn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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The engine breather |
In a message dated 6/7/05 9:58:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:
> >I don't recommend (actually strongly oppose) returning the reclaimes
> >junk to the crankcase. I've seen the 'output' run through a long loop
> >of plastic hose to contain the crud, and the hose is periodically
> >emptied. this is in lieu of a small jar to catch the drippings which
> >can also be periodically emptied.
>>>>>
I like the litmus test idea too- very interesting, have to get some strips!
For anyone interested, I've created a website though the excellent services
of Rob Riggen at Expercraft- see:
http://www.expercraft.com/index.php
Amazing service- sign up today!
Regarding breather tubes, this is what I did and it has worked quite nicely
for almost 200 hours so far- virtually NO oil on the belly, just the lightest
of films so thin that I can hardly detect it. I will pull the pot scrubbers
and inspect for crud accumulation at 200 hour oil change and report findings.
I'd imagine rinsing the stuff would suffice, but replacement would be even
easier- See:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5172
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5173
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5174
(Click on the images for higher res.)
This entry shows oil drained at 100 hours- it's about 3 times the usual
amount due to many bad attempts to do decent aileron rolls, and still very little
oil on bottom. Engine has about 1000 hours on it at this time.
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5261
My new home page is:
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
Y'all come visit & please sign the Guestbook!
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips - N51PW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Didn't get much of a response over on the -10 list so I thought I
would try over here.
So, the recent conversation on alodining skins over on the RV-10 List
has me wondering about something else. When painting aircraft most
paint shops will acid wash, alodine, and then go through the painting
steps, right? This brings up the questions:
1) How do they keep acid and alodine out of cracks and crevices
2) How can they make sure they reasonably get every bit of acid and
alodine off
3) What kind of damage would either do if wicked inside of a skin for
instance
4) How do they capture and dispose of the alodine when spraying it on.
Also, I have been considering filling my rivet lines with filler for
that nice flush appearance. I know it's not necessary, and I can hear
some people gasping at this moment, but, ignoring any weight issues from
the filler, it would look slick and I know other people have done it.
So ignoring all of the usual "why would you do that" stuff, does anyone
have any real reasons that someone shouldn't? I know it would be much
more difficult to remove a skin if necessary, but that would suck either
way.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352
Elevators
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 6/8/05 8:10:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
rvbuilder(at)sausen.net writes:
> When painting aircraft most
> paint shops will acid wash, alodine, and then go through the painting
> steps, right?
>>>>>
My painter (Bobby Potts @ TCL) has not done the above for many years (ever,
possibly, but didn't ask) for the reasons you've cited among other things, and
had done paint most of his life. He washes the skin thoroughly, then scrubs
with Scotchbrite and acetone, IIRC, then primes etc. Dupont Chromabase
color/clearcoat system. Excellent results and the rivets look pretty darn good,
IMHO... Ask again in 20 years for my $.02- may be different in 2025....
(well, inflation alone will probably push it over a dime by then!)
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight and Balance |
| From: | "Adams Stephen - Doctors Hosp Augusta" <Stephen.Adams(at)HCAhealthcare.com> |
I found a nice W+B calculator on-line. You can enter all the W+B info for you aircraft. You can change the load and fuel using little sliding graphs and it shows a W+B chart depicting you CG. It also shows the change in CG as fuel is burned off. It's hard to explain, but it is really handy for quickly exploring the entire W+B envelope, especially if you have an RV-10. The site is http://www.skybound.nl/cgi-bin/service/wb/login.cgi.
Steve Adams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
From AIM chapter 1 "...For TSO-C129/129A users, any required alternate airport
must still have an approved instrument approach procedure other than GPS that
is anticipated to be operational and available at the estimated time of arrival,
and which the aircraft is equipped to fly..."
and...
"NOTE-
Coincident to the WAAS commissioning, the FAA will begin removing the 'A N/A' (Alternate
minimums not authorized) symbol from the select RNAV (GPS) and GPS approach
procedures so they may be used by approach approved WAAS receivers at
alternate airports. This does not change the above requirements for users of GPS
TSO-C129/129A Airborne equipment..."
So... I guess he answer lies in whether or not your specific piece of equipment
meets what TSO... if it's 129A then it's required you have a non-GPS alternate
-if an alternate is required.
In addition, the place to go for 'all you ever wanted to know about GPS but were afraid to ask for fear of flames' can be found in AC 90-94... just go to www.faa.gov and do a search for advisory circulars. Type 'GPS' in the search window for lots of results.
No flame wars about this regulatory stuff without quoting references please.
Scott
N4ZW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's a "VOR" ??? |
After reading TSO C146 at www.faa.gov I am led to believe that *even if * your unit is certified under this TSO then you still need to be in an area where WAAS applies to use it's capabilities. So your 430's and 530's will still need non-GPS alternates until WAAS is implemented. And FWIW you're always gonna have to have predictive RAIM *no matter what* to use one for approaches of any type.
...from TSO C146... "PURPOSE. This technical standard order (TSO) prescribes the
minimum performance standard that stand alone airborne navigation equipment
using the Global Positioning System (GPS) augmented by the Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS) must meet in order to be identified with the applicable TSO
marking."
Scott
N4ZW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Oliver <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
| Subject: | Newbie Dimpling Question |
I am pretty early on in my tail construction and am getting ready to
dimple my first holes. Last night I played around dimpling some scrap
and I was surprised to see how much larger the #30 hole I had just
drilled became after dimpling. I didn't measure, but I would estimate
the hole to be 1/64" larger in diameter after dimpling and the -4 rivet
really swam around in the dimpled hole. I took a SportAir sheet metal
class back in March, but all we did was -3 rivets and I don't recall
how much larger (if at all) the holes became after dimpling.
I also tried some -3 last night, and sure enough the holes became
larger, but it sure seems like a lot on those -4s.
In short... is this normal? I assume if it is the squeezed rivet will
just fill up the void.
Thanks,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 | N609BC Reserved
Livermore, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David E. Nelson" <david.nelson(at)pobox.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Dimpling Question |
15, 2004) at 06/08/2005 12:25:15 PM,
Serialize by Router on MailServ59-US/AUS/H/NIC(Release 6.5.3FP1|December
15, 2004) at
06/08/2005 12:25:18 PM,
Serialize complete at 06/08/2005 12:25:18 PM
Hi Brad,
Welcome to the RV building community. Yes, this normal. The rivet will expand
and fill the hole quite nicely.
Regards,
/\/elson
Austin, TX
Wings - Ailerons and Flaps
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Brad Oliver wrote:
>
> I am pretty early on in my tail construction and am getting ready to
> dimple my first holes. Last night I played around dimpling some scrap
> and I was surprised to see how much larger the #30 hole I had just
> drilled became after dimpling. I didn't measure, but I would estimate
> the hole to be 1/64" larger in diameter after dimpling and the -4 rivet
> really swam around in the dimpled hole. I took a SportAir sheet metal
> class back in March, but all we did was -3 rivets and I don't recall
> how much larger (if at all) the holes became after dimpling.
>
> I also tried some -3 last night, and sure enough the holes became
> larger, but it sure seems like a lot on those -4s.
>
> In short... is this normal? I assume if it is the squeezed rivet will
> just fill up the void.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad Oliver
> RV-7 | N609BC Reserved
> Livermore, CA
>
>
--
~~ ** ~~ 4 out of 3 people have problems with fractions ~~ ** ~~
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Dimpling Question |
There tends to be some growth in the hole, which is why many of us
drill our holes very slightly undersized (#31 instead of a #30 drill
bit, for instance). There will be some filling of the hole,
depending on just how much rivet swimming is going on.
It's possible you're over-dimpling. If you're concerned, you can
probably find a tech advisor in your area who can check your technique.
-Joe
On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Brad Oliver wrote:
> I am pretty early on in my tail construction and am getting ready to
> dimple my first holes. Last night I played around dimpling some scrap
> and I was surprised to see how much larger the #30 hole I had just
> drilled became after dimpling. I didn't measure, but I would estimate
> the hole to be 1/64" larger in diameter after dimpling and the -4
> rivet
> really swam around in the dimpled hole. I took a SportAir sheet metal
> class back in March, but all we did was -3 rivets and I don't recall
> how much larger (if at all) the holes became after dimpling.
>
> I also tried some -3 last night, and sure enough the holes became
> larger, but it sure seems like a lot on those -4s.
>
> In short... is this normal? I assume if it is the squeezed rivet will
> just fill up the void.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Newbie Dimpling Question |
In a message dated 6/8/05 12:03:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
brad(at)rv7factory.com writes:
> In short... is this normal? I assume if it is the squeezed rivet will
> just fill up the void.
>>>>>
Sounds pretty normal- look closely at the dimpled hole to make sure there are
no cracks radiating out from the edge- if the hole is deburred correctly,
this should not happen. As an experiment, you can take a riveted part and
carefully grind away to the center of the rivet to see the cross-section of the
joint for a look at what happens here. It should be a good tight fit with the
rivet filling the available space...
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Oliver <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
| Subject: | Newbie Dimpling Question |
Thanks to all that have responsed.
Hmmm #31... that sounds like a good idea.
As far as over-dimpling goes, I have wondered about that concept. How
is it possible to over-dimple when the dies are fixed surfaces? If I
sit and ponder this for a minute... does over-dimpling squeeze aluminum
out from between the dies, resulting in a decrease in the thickness of
the aluminum (around the hole), thus making it weaker and suseptible to
cracking? Is that what happens when you over-dimple?
In my case I am using a DRDT-2 dimpling frame, so unless I were to
really bare down on the lever with all my weight, I imagine my chances
of over-dimpling are somewhat mitigated.
Regards,
Brad
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Newbie Dimpling Question
> From: Joe Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org>
> Date: Wed, June 08, 2005 10:40 am
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> There tends to be some growth in the hole, which is why many of us
> drill our holes very slightly undersized (#31 instead of a #30 drill
> bit, for instance). There will be some filling of the hole,
> depending on just how much rivet swimming is going on.
>
> It's possible you're over-dimpling. If you're concerned, you can
> probably find a tech advisor in your area who can check your technique.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Brad Oliver wrote:
>
> > I am pretty early on in my tail construction and am getting ready to
> > dimple my first holes. Last night I played around dimpling some scrap
> > and I was surprised to see how much larger the #30 hole I had just
> > drilled became after dimpling. I didn't measure, but I would estimate
> > the hole to be 1/64" larger in diameter after dimpling and the -4
> > rivet
> > really swam around in the dimpled hole. I took a SportAir sheet metal
> > class back in March, but all we did was -3 rivets and I don't recall
> > how much larger (if at all) the holes became after dimpling.
> >
> > I also tried some -3 last night, and sure enough the holes became
> > larger, but it sure seems like a lot on those -4s.
> >
> > In short... is this normal? I assume if it is the squeezed rivet will
> > just fill up the void.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bradley Kidder <sparksnmagic(at)usa.net> |
| Subject: | F O R S A L E - RV-6 Empennage Kit |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID558JFHTdg0063X36
1.34 GAPPY_SUBJECT Subject: contains G.a.p.p.y-T.e.x.t
For Sale:
Pre-drilled RV-6/6A empennage kit. Includes construction manual, preview
plans, and optional electric trim kit.
Some riveting done, perhaps 15%.
Asking price is $950 (paid $1435 7/98).
Absolutely undamaged and safely stored.
Located in Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Pictures available.
><((((=BA>`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>
=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.. ><((((=BA>`=B7.=B8=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>
Brad Kidder .=B7=B4=AF`=B7...=B8><((((=BA>
N188FW AA-1 #124 "Hawg One"
AOPA (ASN/KSLG) - EAA - Angel Flight
.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.. ><((((=BA>
. , . .=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.=B8.=B7=B4=AF`=B7.. ><((((=BA>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | brake pad part number ?? |
Anyone recall what brakes Van was selling & what the pad #'s are for
rv4 kits sold in the late '80s? I thought I had a spare set of pads but
I can't find them & the labels on both calipers have had their data
polished off almost completely. I can read the FAA tso # (30-9) & I've
got some Cleveland #44011 pads with 2 rivet holes that line up with the
originals (3 holes in the originals) but the 44011's width (inner radius
to outer radius) is about 1/4" bigger than the originals.
I'd like to order from a vender close enough to get them next day w/o
having to pay air freight charges.
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Start-up Help |
Hey guys, I'm looking for engine help. I have an IO-360-A1A with one mag
and one lightspeed electronic ignition. Sunday, the plugs were gapped and
the timing was set with the help of a local A&P. Last night I started the
engine for the first time. The engine ran rough, was hard to start, and
sounded terrible. I ran it for a couple of minutes and shut down. Looking
at the exhaust pipes it was obvious that #2 & #4 ran (slightly discolored
from the heat), #1 & #3 still look shiney and new. I believe that I was
only running on two cylinders. As I said, it was late last night (about 11
PM) so I didn't do much else. For the initial run up I was locked on the
oil temp and pressure, so I didn't collect many readings.
What is my next step, how do I begin to track this down? I intend to go
back this afternoon after work and collect some readings BUT I think that
the CHT and EGT numbers will just verify what was visibly obvious, that only
two cylinders ran. With the mag and electronic ignition I have two
completely independent systems. It seems that if one of them was
malfunctioning, the other should have still fired #1 & #3. I did swap the
leads to the CDI's as lightspeed suggests and it really got worse (wouldn't
start, backfired, etc.) So I put them back.
Where do I go from here?
Vince Welch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Mcmahon" <rv6(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Start-up Help |
Your lightspeed is reversed,swap your coax leads..
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Engine Start-up Help
>
>
> Hey guys, I'm looking for engine help. I have an IO-360-A1A with one mag
> and one lightspeed electronic ignition. Sunday, the plugs were gapped and
> the timing was set with the help of a local A&P. Last night I started the
> engine for the first time. The engine ran rough, was hard to start, and
> sounded terrible. I ran it for a couple of minutes and shut down.
> Looking
> at the exhaust pipes it was obvious that #2 & #4 ran (slightly discolored
> from the heat), #1 & #3 still look shiney and new. I believe that I was
> only running on two cylinders. As I said, it was late last night (about
> 11
> PM) so I didn't do much else. For the initial run up I was locked on the
> oil temp and pressure, so I didn't collect many readings.
>
> What is my next step, how do I begin to track this down? I intend to go
> back this afternoon after work and collect some readings BUT I think that
> the CHT and EGT numbers will just verify what was visibly obvious, that
> only
> two cylinders ran. With the mag and electronic ignition I have two
> completely independent systems. It seems that if one of them was
> malfunctioning, the other should have still fired #1 & #3. I did swap the
> leads to the CDI's as lightspeed suggests and it really got worse
> (wouldn't
> start, backfired, etc.) So I put them back.
>
> Where do I go from here?
>
>
> Vince Welch
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony <afmeroth(at)yahoo.com> |
Sorry if this has been asked before, been having
issues with my email address, if anyone is in the
cheneyye/fort collins area and building an RV or a
rocket I would like to check it out. -Tony 307 631 9097
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV canopy/panel-top swivel mount for PDA or tablet PC? |
I'm currently looking seriously at AnywhereMap/AnywhereWx running on
either a PDA or (preferably) the nice tablet PC they can bundle. I'd be
using this setup now to replace my Garmin 295 as my MM and for in-flight
Wx. To by it, a requirement is to be able to use it easily in the RV
when it's completed as well. (I want a portable soln because it's
cheaper and has a better display and because I'll continue to rent
4-seaters occasionally.)
What would be just perfect would be some sort of mount for the tablet
(or the PDA if that's all there is) that would allow me to hang it from
the top or side of the canopy or perhaps mount it on top of the panel.
Does such a thing exist?
~Paul
~9A #1176 prep work
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV canopy/panel-top swivel mount for PDA or tablet PC? |
I'd check out RAM, they have quite a selection of ways to mount
electronic gizmos.
http://www.ram-mount.com/
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV canopy/panel-top swivel mount for PDA or tablet PC? |
I have been using AWM for several years and have addressed the same
questions.
First, the tablet PC that you refer to is Control Vision's "Raven". I
sounds good on paper but I placed an order for one in JANUARY and they tell me
I
won't get it until next FALL. I figure by the time I finally get it, the
technology will be outdated!! So don't hold your breath.... I really think they
misrepresent it when they advertise "now shipping".
There are a couple options for portability. In my RV9 I "hard wired" the
GPS antenna and power supply into the plane, but used a RAM mount for the iPaq
and velcro to hold it on the panel. It works great. Also, the
ControlVison web site will show a "Citadel mount" that works as you describe.
It is
similar to a RAM mount but the swivel ball is smaller. I mounted a couple RAM
mount balls in my plane - one on the top of teh dash, another on my center
consule - to hold a RAM articulated arm for GPS/radio/pop can, etc.
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | james freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV canopy/panel-top swivel mount for PDA or tablet PC? |
On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:51 PM, Paul Folbrecht wrote:
> What would be just perfect would be some sort of mount for the tablet
> (or the PDA if that's all there is) that would allow me to hang it from
> the top or side of the canopy or perhaps mount it on top of the panel.
> Does such a thing exist?
>
Try:
http://airgator.com/NAVAir_Accessories.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tony <afmeroth(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV canopy/panel-top swivel mount for PDA or tablet PC? |
also check out cycoactive.com, they have alot of shock
isolated mounts that can be adapted to the ram
fittings should ram not offer wat you need completely,
especially useful for people who also use the
handhelds on a car or motorcycle.
--- Jeff Point wrote:
>
>
> I'd check out RAM, they have quite a selection of
> ways to mount
> electronic gizmos.
>
> http://www.ram-mount.com/
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee WI
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | A real time saver |
Hi Everyone,
For those of you who are in the midst of construction and have not decided or worked
on the Pitot/Static system do yourself a real favor and buy the Safeair1
kit. This kit has all of the fittings and colored coded tubing you will need.
The fittings are quick disconnect and are set up to install in any instrument
requiring pitot static connections. Not only is the initial install quick and
easy the quick disconnects make future maintenance a breeze.
Not only is it a real bargain in price but the time savings is substantial. Contact Safeair1 at www.safeair1.com These guys are great to work with.
I have no connection to the company other than being a satisfied customer.
Darwin N. Barrie
P19
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
There are several RVs at FNL, which is near the I-25. If you are
flying there are a couple dozen at FTg and many in the Denver area.
Also some at Laramie.
Denis Walsh
On Jun 9, 2005, at 8:45 AM, Tony wrote:
>
> Sorry if this has been asked before, been having
> issues with my email address, if anyone is in the
> cheneyye/fort collins area and building an RV or a
> rocket I would like to check it out. -Tony 307 631 9097
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Anyone who might have any Terra avionics of any kind, as cores, scrap, I'm looking
for project material... any shape... email me off the list.
Darrell
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The engine breather |
In a message dated 6/8/2005 9:33:51 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
Despite all the claims of the air/oil separators it is hard getting pure oil
out of the separator drain. Go ahead and route the oil back to the engine in
a clear tube or collect it. I think you will be surprised how nasty it is.
Also there is very little oil, most of it is water. My clear bottle showed 3
layers. Water 80%, milky oil 15% and a layer of yellow foam crud floating on
top. The amount of oil in my collection jar was may be 1oz of oil between oil
changes. My engine used about a 1 to 1.5 qt between 25 hour oil changes. My
new project will not use a separator.
=============================================
I always hate to argue with George's posts because he makes good sense most
of the time. My experience differs from his.
I have the $40 ACS oil breather/separator with the stainless pot scrubber
mod installed. Works great. My first run engine produces nothing but clean
oil out of the separator, which I collect in a Matco clear polycarbonate
(Lexan) bowl type brake fluid reservoir equipped with one of the sump drain
fittings and drop the outlet line right over the exterior of my right exhaust
pipe.
All I ever get out of the collection drain is oil....nice clean clear oil.
No water, froth, butterfat or complex amino acids indicating life...nada.
Now, I have not pH tested it, but I could. at the start of each hundred
hour period I collect the drained condensate/coalescent at each oil change to
see how much there is and endeavor to quantify any significant change in this
volume. I get somewhere around 2 to 3 fluid ounces of oil drained from the
separator every 100hr. Aircraft belly stays free of oil. Admittedly this is
very good running engine, so your results may differ. This setup works for me
and I would use it again.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 752hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The engine breather |
>gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
>Despite all the claims of the air/oil separators it is hard getting pure oil
>out of the separator drain. Go ahead and route the oil back to the engine in
>a clear tube or collect it. I think you will be surprised how nasty it is.
>Also there is very little oil, most of it is water. My clear bottle showed 3
>layers. Water 80%, milky oil 15% and a layer of yellow foam crud floating on
>top. The amount of oil in my collection jar was may be 1oz of oil between
>oil
>changes. My engine used about a 1 to 1.5 qt between 25 hour oil changes. My
>new project will not use a separator.
>
>
>=============================================
>
>I always hate to argue with George's posts because he makes good sense most
>of the time. My experience differs from his.
>
>I have the $40 ACS oil breather/separator with the stainless pot scrubber
>mod installed. Works great. My first run engine produces nothing but clean
>oil out of the separator, which I collect in a Matco clear polycarbonate
>(Lexan) bowl type brake fluid reservoir equipped with one of the sump drain
>fittings and drop the outlet line right over the exterior of my right
>exhaust pipe.
>All I ever get out of the collection drain is oil....nice clean clear oil.
>No water, froth, butterfat or complex amino acids indicating life...nada.
>
>Now, I have not pH tested it, but I could. at the start of each hundred
>hour period I collect the drained condensate/coalescent at each
>oil change to
>see how much there is and endeavor to quantify any significant change in
>this
>volume. I get somewhere around 2 to 3 fluid ounces of oil drained from the
>separator every 100hr. Aircraft belly stays free of oil. Admittedly
>this is
>very good running engine, so your results may differ. This setup works
>for me
>and I would use it again.
>
>GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 752hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
Listers,
The amount of water found in the separator will vary depending on engine
condition (rings) and also the climate. I suspect that Gary would find more
water if he flew down here in humid SE Florida.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared3(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: brake pad part number ?? |
Charile
I just did this, the old part number is 66-2, the new part number is
66-106. You also can look it up in the Aircraft Spruce Catalog, they have
an exploded view of the cleveland brake and 30-9 is the part number for my
brakes. In the catalog they will tell you what brake linings to use.
As for time, you can order from Vans, it will take 10 days (UPS ground). I
ordered from Aircraft Spruce and it took 2 days with UPS ground. Also if
you don't have it, buy their brake lining rivet setting tool, I got the
deluxe model and it works great!
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
At 08:01 PM 6/8/05, you wrote:
>
>Anyone recall what brakes Van was selling & what the pad #'s are for
>rv4 kits sold in the late '80s? I thought I had a spare set of pads but
>I can't find them & the labels on both calipers have had their data
>polished off almost completely. I can read the FAA tso # (30-9) & I've
>got some Cleveland #44011 pads with 2 rivet holes that line up with the
>originals (3 holes in the originals) but the 44011's width (inner radius
>to outer radius) is about 1/4" bigger than the originals.
>
>I'd like to order from a vender close enough to get them next day w/o
>having to pay air freight charges.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
"'owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com '"(at)roxy.matronics.com
Greg,
signal should be a squarewave 5V if I remember correctly, eight cycles per
rev. Voltage may be higher though. What's important is the digital signal.
DVOM won't see this at drill speed unless it has a dwell/frequency counter.
Reading it on the AC setting may show a voltage though.
O Scope is best way to see it.
You should be able to hook up power and ground with the DVOM on signal and
turn it slowly, by finger, say one rev per ten seconds, and see the
switching action though.
W
From: Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Van's Tach Doctor Needed
I've got .5 hours on the 2 1/4" tach and tach
generator that Van sells. My mechanic buddy found the
generator loose during first-flight inspection and
tightened it with a big wrench. Soon after the tach
died.
I get 12+ volts from I to GND, and 8.68 volts from S
to GND (whether my drill is revving the drive or not).
Now I'm wondering if my drill should be set to
reverse, not forward.
Any ideas on how to diagnose this thing(s)?
Thanks.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Static System Connections] |
The ports look like the ones we installed. The thing I question is the 5
tee's and the 5 bolt/nut combo's. It looks like the tee has a tab or "ear"
that I would assume is for mounting. This is better than what we used to
attach to the ribs. The 90 degree elbows was the one thing I liked about our
methods and the kit has them. If I had to do again (and I will) I'd buy the
kit. I'm going to save your post and add it to the RV lists. KABONG
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry" <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Static System Connections]
> I was sorting through my RV emails and I re-read this on. I am about to
> order a static port system. I am considering the system from safe air
> here <http://www.safeair1.com/index.htm>. They are similar to the ACS
> ports, they are threaded for a hard elbow. I can purchase the two ports
> for $23.95 or an entire kit including fitting and tubing for $79.95. Any
> opinion on these ports. Also, the kit will make things simpler, do you
> think there is value in it?
>
> Larry Rosen
> Emp almost complet
> Waiting on QB wings.
> Long & detailed on an old subject. Worth the read if your working on the
> static system.
> We used the ACS part# 15160 static port (page# 337) and Nylo-seal
> fittings ACS part# 269-N 04X02 male elbow (page 110) and the 264-N 04
> union tee for the totally enclosed part of the static system on HRII
> N561FS. These ports have a raised center that fits thru a 1/4" hole in the
> side. It sticks thru far enough to still be raised off the surface after
> painting. Why did we spend the extra $38.00 bucks for these parts ?.
> First, the machined port looks like a machined part rather than the
> head of a "pop" rivet.
> Second, (and the most important) was it allows the use of the 90 degree
> elbow fitting that's takes ALL the stress off the port (pop
> rivet end) and the required bend in the tubing. We could have used
> the "regular" hose & tube fitting (page 111) but since we only open this
> area for annual "conditional inspections" we felt better about
> the mechanical joint/ no stress connections.
> Third, the tubing is not stretched over a barb which can cause the tube
> to split at some later date.
> Fourth, we were building Rocket and wanted it to look like a Rocket.
> Did we use "pop" rivets on the Rocket ?. Of course BUT not where
> is shows. 8*)
> If you have read any of my other posts you know that I believe in KISS
> (Keep It Simple Stupid) method BUT in my not so humble opinion, the use of
> the above fittings both here & in the rest of the Rocket make service
> and/or replacement Simple only because you can easily take the system
> apart and then put it back together. I wouldn't do that with the barb ends
> IF you can get them apart in the first place.
> This is only my opinion. Your circumstances/mileage may vary. No
> offence Jerry, we used lots of your suggestions while building N561FS. You
> taught this Old Dog some new tricks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks
Dan Krueger
RV6A Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
> I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
> really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
> of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
> comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks
> Dan Krueger
> RV6A Flying
I bought them last summer, and would not consider using a folding chart
again. There are two books for the US sectionals, and the pages overlap
generously, which is nice. Good product.
Alex Peterson
RV6A N66AP 624 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Bienkowski <joeb47(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
I'd used the charts from Air Chart for a number of years.
The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
Dan Krueger wrote:
>
>I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
>really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
>of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
>comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LML Klingmuller" <l_klingmuller(at)earthlink.net> |
Tony,
too bad I did not got your message this last weekend as I drove right through
Cheyenne ( On/from Guernsey). The next couple of weekends I will be out of town.
If you are available during the week, I possibly could just fly up and show
you my RV.
Better, come to Front Range Airport, Near /Watkins on I-70, the weekend of June
25 - 26 when we have the regional EAA Rocky Mountain fly in. By car it will
take less than two hours. There will be lots of experimentals and you will get
so nanny opinion that you will go back to WY all confused!
Lothar, greater Denver area. RV-6A, tip up, 500 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
Anybody have a web link for this product?
Tim
DNA
-------Original Message-------
From: Joe Bienkowski
Date: 06/10/05 13:22:38
Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Chart Systems
I'd used the charts from Air Chart for a number of years.
The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
Dan Krueger wrote:
>
>I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
>really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
>of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
>comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
This should work.
www.airchart.com/
-----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: Air Chart Systems
Anybody have a web link for this product?
Tim
DNA
-------Original Message-------
From: Joe Bienkowski
Date: 06/10/05 13:22:38
Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Chart Systems
I'd used the charts from Air Chart for a number of years.
The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
Dan Krueger wrote:
>
>I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
>really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
>of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
>comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
>appreciated.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
Thanks for all the great endorsements - looks like more money out of my
beer fund.
Dan Krueger
>
>
> Anybody have a web link for this product?
> Tim
> DNA
>
> www.airchart,com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com> |
does anyone have a diagram of the internal working of a keyed ignition switch?
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
I don't see a WAC product anymore, only VFR Sectional Atlas. Did they
discontinue the WAC version?
http://www.airchart.com/index.html
Randy Lervold
> The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
> change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
> some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
>
> Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
>
> Dan Krueger wrote:
>
> >
> >I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
> >really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
> >of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
> >comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
> >appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
Dan:
I used their WAC chart book (called Topographic Atlas on their web site)
one-year. It has its good and bad points. When there is some weather, you
are on the ground at an FBO, want to plan your flight around the weather, I
was unable to keep what page I needed to turn to straight in my head. I
also could not find a good place to store and hold open it in my airplane.
I went back to WAC chart subscription service.
I find the WAC charts easier to do flight planning at an FBO by opening them
up on the floor looking at the entire leg of the flight. It is easy to
open, read, fold, and store the WAC charts. Turn on the autopilot, and do
what you need with the chart.
Just my opinion. Give it a try for a year and develop your own opinion.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,684 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Air Chart Systems
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 14:23:57 -0500
I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks
Dan Krueger
RV6A Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derrick Aubuchon <n184da(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
It is still available,, they call it the "Topographical Atlas."
Derrick L. Aubuchon
RV-4: N184DA
Jackson/Westover -Amador County (O70)
n184da(at)volcano.net
On Jun 10, 2005, at 4:40 PM, Randy Lervold wrote:
>
> I don't see a WAC product anymore, only VFR Sectional Atlas. Did they
> discontinue the WAC version?
> http://www.airchart.com/index.html
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
>> The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
>> change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
>> some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
>>
>> Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
>>
>> Dan Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
>>> really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is
>>> tired
>>> of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes.
>>> Any
>>> comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
It is there. They call it an aviation topographic atlas. Hope this helps.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randy Lervold
Subject: Re: RV-List: Air Chart Systems
I don't see a WAC product anymore, only VFR Sectional Atlas. Did they
discontinue the WAC version?
http://www.airchart.com/index.html
Randy Lervold
> The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
> change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
> some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
>
> Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
>
> Dan Krueger wrote:
>
> >
> >I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
> >really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
> >of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
> >comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
> >appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Air Chart Systems |
Apparently their Topographic Atlas is the WAC charts. This is from their
description:
Terry
The Topographic Atlas contains full color, full-scale reproductions of NOS
World Aeronautical Charts (WACs) for the entire contiguous United States. In
addition, all 30 Class B airspace and 130-plus Class C airspace are
reproduced from FAA/NACO Sectional charts and organized alphabetically by
city in a separate section of the Atlas.
I don't see a WAC product anymore, only VFR Sectional Atlas. Did they
discontinue the WAC version?
http://www.airchart.com/index.html
Randy Lervold
> The one I liked the most was the book of WAC charts. Not every
> change is a single page turn. Sometimes it was 4 pages back or
> some number of pages forward. In general I liked the system.
>
> Joe Bienkowski, Bowling Green, OH
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: brake pad part number ?? |
Thanks to all who replied; I ordered the pads yesterday & they arrived
this afternoon.
I'll attempt to pass along the favor by mentioning a vendor with
excellent service.
If you are near the center of the country, give Linda Lou in Memphis TN
a try for most things that might be found on certified a/c. She has
reasonable prices & same day shipping so if you are within the UPS
Ground 1 day shipping radius from Memphis, you can get very quick
service. 800.824.9912.
Charlie
(no relation except...etc etc..)
Bob wrote:
>
>Charile
>
>I just did this, the old part number is 66-2, the new part number is
>66-106. You also can look it up in the Aircraft Spruce Catalog, they have
>an exploded view of the cleveland brake and 30-9 is the part number for my
>brakes. In the catalog they will tell you what brake linings to use.
>
>As for time, you can order from Vans, it will take 10 days (UPS ground). I
>ordered from Aircraft Spruce and it took 2 days with UPS ground. Also if
>you don't have it, buy their brake lining rivet setting tool, I got the
>deluxe model and it works great!
>
>Bob
>RV6 NightFighter
>
>At 08:01 PM 6/8/05, you wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Anyone recall what brakes Van was selling & what the pad #'s are for
>>rv4 kits sold in the late '80s? I thought I had a spare set of pads but
>>I can't find them & the labels on both calipers have had their data
>>polished off almost completely. I can read the FAA tso # (30-9) & I've
>>got some Cleveland #44011 pads with 2 rivet holes that line up with the
>>originals (3 holes in the originals) but the 44011's width (inner radius
>>to outer radius) is about 1/4" bigger than the originals.
>>
>>I'd like to order from a vender close enough to get them next day w/o
>>having to pay air freight charges.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Charlie
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com> |
I'm considering selling my RV-6A, located in Granby, Colorado. If you're
interested or know anyone who might be, please call 970 887-2194 (home) or
970 887-2207 (work).
Here's a link with some pictures and details:
http://www.buildersbooks.com/rv_6a_for_sale.htm
Andy Gold
Builder's Bookstore
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
Dan I love it. Gee, even famous astronauts, WWII fighter pilots and airshow performers
endorse it. I bought mine in the 1999-2000 year. I had the VFR Atlas
(discontinued I see) and VFR Topo Atlas. The Topo Atlas is really just color
US Gov sectionals chopped up and placed into the book. In the back are excerpts
of Terminal charts. That is one thing I would never do is go into any terminal
area, like LAX area, VFR with out a terminal chart, even with a GPS. I just
like having the paper in hand. The only thing I can say negative is sometimes
the page breaks are in bad places, take LAX area for example, it is not central
on a page but is divided in 1/2 N-S, which is a little pain. They are receptive
to customer input and no doubt revise and improve the page "pagination".
No big deal but just a little pain sometimes if the palce you want to look at
is split between pages.
The VFR Atlas was like a monochrome IFR enroute chart (no topo) with airways, VORs,
all airports (VFR or IFR), ATC freq and airport diagram for selected airports.
I really did not use it much since I used GPS direct most of the time. That
is why they likely discontinued it. The IFR Atlas is probably near equivalent.
The nice thin g about the VFR Atlas was the ATC freqs and data was easier
to see without the Topo info.
My recommendation is buy it (VFR Topo), at least once, you will use it. However
for me with color GPS and terrain it is kind of redundant, but it is nice to
have the paper for back-up and planning.
If you are really going to travel the USA, anywhere the wind blows, it is a good
deal vs buying individual (VFR) sectionals or (IFR) enroute charts. Also if
weather of change of plans calls for a detour you are covered. I recall you got
updated for one year with the purchase price. However weh I had it I recall
the updates (28 days) are done manually by NOTAM and with pen and a revision log.
This keeps the cost down while still keeping you legal.
Looking at their site I see they have a new revision service for extra cost? If
you are a local 2, 3 , 4 state flyer than maybe this system is overkill, but
I think a one time purchase is a fine idea. Personally now I buy WAC's or sectional
charts as I needed, check NOTAMS by the WEB & Flt Service and update my
GPS data-base as needed. For me the things that can get you into trouble are
things that happen real fast and are disseminated by NOTAM: local, Distant, FDC.
Airspace restrictions, towers, runway closure, GPS out of service can come
out before the 28 day cycle, so any chart system is not a sure thing. I have
always been impressed (intimidated) by how much data a pilot really needs to
study to be truly legal. We do the best we can. Don't laugh I am an ATP, CFI,
CFII and MEI and even airlines miss it. An Airline, no names please, flew a route
to the pacific rim and use Guam as an alternate. Guam is permanently closed/dismantled,
D'oh.
I fly VFR in my RV, but I might be a little more rigorous if I was IFR, but I do
all the IFR I want at work.
I think you will like it, especially if you plan on lots of travel in the near
term. You will get your money out of it. Even though my Air Chart System is not
current it makes a nice reference.
Cheers George
From: Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Air Chart Systems
Date: Jun 10, 2005
I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks
Dan Krueger
RV6A Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Memory Card GX-50 |
Anyone know of a USB memory card reader/writer that will work with the flash card
in a Garmin (aka. Apollo) GX-60? Jeppesen has one but they want a 'whopping
$150 plus shipping" for what should be a $10 item.... I'm having trouble swallowing
that kind of expense.
Any suggestions would be appreciated. I've seen 12-in-1 USB flash card reader/writers
advertized for about $10 bucks on E-Bay, but don't know if they are compatible
with the Jeppesen databases/GX-50 flash cards.
Thanks in advance,
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A flying (N174JL)
www.jacklockamy.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | safetying AFP split ring |
I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
1/4-20 bolts.
My AFP unit is about 5 years old. Has AFP since corrected this by
supplying drilled head bolts? What have other builders done? I am not
willing to depend on a lock washer in this area.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, cowing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | nose gear interferes with FAB |
Mounting the FAB (vertical induction engine) on an RV-6A for the first
time, I discover that the aft part of the FAB hits the nose gear. I
can't get it back far enough to mount it to the the AFP air/fuel
controller. Looks like I'll have to glass in a recess in the aft end of
the FAB to get it mounted.
Is this typical, or am I missing something?
--
Tom Sargent RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: nose gear interferes with FAB |
Yes Tom, interference is normal on the 6A.
The FAB box must be releived to clear the front gear on the 6A. I marked
the airbox for the width necessary to clear the gear leg then cut a opening
in the box a little wider and long enough to clear the gear. Remember there
is going to be some engine shake. Then lay a piece of plastic pipe in the
slot and lay up new glass cloth inside the airbox. Makes a nice round recess
for the gear. Be careful on the length of the cut into the floor of the box
as the airfilter must rest flat on the box floor.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: nose gear interferes with FAB |
Hi Tom,
Heat gun, short length of one inch pipe. Heat area, press pipe into FAB.
Tidy up by sanding, apply epoxy if needed.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: nose gear interferes with FAB
>
> Mounting the FAB (vertical induction engine) on an RV-6A for the first
> time, I discover that the aft part of the FAB hits the nose gear. I
> can't get it back far enough to mount it to the the AFP air/fuel
> controller. Looks like I'll have to glass in a recess in the aft end of
> the FAB to get it mounted.
>
> Is this typical, or am I missing something?
> --
> Tom Sargent RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: safetying AFP split ring |
Hi Tom,
When in this situation, I Drill the supplied bolt heads.
Get a good 1/16th" drill, some cutting fluid and keep the drill speed fairly
low or moderate.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: safetying AFP split ring
>
> I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
> Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
> used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
> shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
> the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
>
> It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
> get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
> were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
> safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
> 1/4-20 bolts.
>
> My AFP unit is about 5 years old. Has AFP since corrected this by
> supplying drilled head bolts? What have other builders done? I am not
> willing to depend on a lock washer in this area.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, cowing.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: safetying AFP split ring |
Tom,
My FAB came with safetying tabs which according to the instructions should
be used to safety those bolts.
I'm not that far yet, so haven't done it . . . but read ahead!?
Good Luck,
Bob
On 6/11/05, sarg314 wrote:
>
>
> I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
> Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
> used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
> shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
> the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
>
> It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
> get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
> were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
> safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
> 1/4-20 bolts.
>
> My AFP unit is about 5 years old. Has AFP since corrected this by
> supplying drilled head bolts? What have other builders done? I am not
> willing to depend on a lock washer in this area.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, cowing.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | safetying AFP split ring |
> I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
> Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
> used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
> shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
> the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
>
> It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
> get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
> were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
> safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
> 1/4-20 bolts.
>
> My AFP unit is about 5 years old. Has AFP since corrected this by
> supplying drilled head bolts? What have other builders done? I am not
> willing to depend on a lock washer in this area.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, cowing.
Tom, I used some blue (was it?) Loctite. Maybe the red, I can't remember
right now. Anyway, it was the removable type. I don't think there would be
room for safety wiring, as the socket head doesn't stick out much. Clean
the parts in solvent to remove any oils prior to applying the Loctite.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 624 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | safetying AFP split ring |
> I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
> Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
> used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
> shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
> the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
>
> It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
> get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
> were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
> safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
> 1/4-20 bolts.
>
> My AFP unit is about 5 years old. Has AFP since corrected this by
> supplying drilled head bolts? What have other builders done? I am not
> willing to depend on a lock washer in this area.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A, cowing.
>
Tom, I just re-read your message, and my last post was in error. The four
bolts you describe are not in the induction path. Those four plate to ring
mounting bolts come from the top, and are outside the induction path. I
incorrectly assumed you were talking about the split ring (one each) bolt,
which is in the induction path.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 624 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: safetying AFP split ring |
>
>
>>Tom, I just re-read your message, and my last post was in error. The four
>>bolts you describe are not in the induction path. Those four plate to ring
>>mounting bolts come from the top, and are outside the induction path. I
>>incorrectly assumed you were talking about the split ring (one each) bolt,
>>which is in the induction path.
>>
>>Alex Peterson
>>RV6-A N66AP 624 hours
>>Maple Grove, MN
>>
Alex:
I had the split ring upside down! The split ring isn't addressed in
the AFP manual because it is RV-specific, I guess. The circa 1999 Van's
documentation on the FAB only references connecting to a carbuerator, so
I was guessing. Thanks very much.
--
Tom Sargent RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Selective Radio Reception |
Howdy listers-
Odd problem here- In communicating with dozens of other aircraft in the last
year and a half, all report hearing me loud and clear, and I receive most of
their transmissions just fine whether they are in the pattern with me or 50
miles away.
But there are TWO aircraft out of all of them that I can just barely hear-
one (another RV) is broken and staticky, and another (a rental Cherokee where
I'm based) I can't hear at all, just a slight change in background noise when
they are transmitting. These two aircraft report they can hear me fine.
Distance between and relative postion or orientation do not change this behavior.
Other a/c and unicom report hearing both of us fine as well. My radio is
Microair 760, bent whip bottom of fuse, and it doesn't matter whether I'm plugged
direct to the radio or through a Softcomm portable intercom when I've got a
co-pilot.
Any ideas?
Signed- Selective Reception in Columbia
(Mark Phillips)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
For you guys using and liking the AvCharts, how are you plotting a long
track line that crosses several pages?
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Air Chart Systems
>
> Dan I love it. Gee, even famous astronauts, WWII fighter pilots and
> airshow performers endorse it. I bought mine in the 1999-2000 year. I had
> the VFR Atlas (discontinued I see) and VFR Topo Atlas. The Topo Atlas is
> really just color US Gov sectionals chopped up and placed into the book.
> In the back are excerpts of Terminal charts. That is one thing I would
> never do is go into any terminal area, like LAX area, VFR with out a
> terminal chart, even with a GPS. I just like having the paper in hand. The
> only thing I can say negative is sometimes the page breaks are in bad
> places, take LAX area for example, it is not central on a page but is
> divided in 1/2 N-S, which is a little pain. They are receptive to customer
> input and no doubt revise and improve the page "pagination". No big deal
> but just a little pain sometimes if the palce you want to look at is split
> between pages.
>
> The VFR Atlas was like a monochrome IFR enroute chart (no topo) with
> airways, VORs, all airports (VFR or IFR), ATC freq and airport diagram for
> selected airports. I really did not use it much since I used GPS direct
> most of the time. That is why they likely discontinued it. The IFR Atlas
> is probably near equivalent. The nice thin g about the VFR Atlas was the
> ATC freqs and data was easier to see without the Topo info.
>
> My recommendation is buy it (VFR Topo), at least once, you will use it.
> However for me with color GPS and terrain it is kind of redundant, but it
> is nice to have the paper for back-up and planning.
>
> If you are really going to travel the USA, anywhere the wind blows, it is
> a good deal vs buying individual (VFR) sectionals or (IFR) enroute charts.
> Also if weather of change of plans calls for a detour you are covered. I
> recall you got updated for one year with the purchase price. However weh I
> had it I recall the updates (28 days) are done manually by NOTAM and with
> pen and a revision log. This keeps the cost down while still keeping you
> legal.
>
> Looking at their site I see they have a new revision service for extra
> cost? If you are a local 2, 3 , 4 state flyer than maybe this system is
> overkill, but I think a one time purchase is a fine idea. Personally now I
> buy WAC's or sectional charts as I needed, check NOTAMS by the WEB & Flt
> Service and update my GPS data-base as needed. For me the things that can
> get you into trouble are things that happen real fast and are disseminated
> by NOTAM: local, Distant, FDC. Airspace restrictions, towers, runway
> closure, GPS out of service can come out before the 28 day cycle, so any
> chart system is not a sure thing. I have always been impressed
> (intimidated) by how much data a pilot really needs to study to be truly
> legal. We do the best we can. Don't laugh I am an ATP, CFI, CFII and MEI
> and even airlines miss it. An Airline, no names please, flew a route to
> the pacific rim and use Guam as an alternate. Guam is permanently
> closed/dismantled, D'oh.
>
> I fly VFR in my RV, but I might be a little more rigorous if I was IFR,
> but I do all the IFR I want at work.
>
> I think you will like it, especially if you plan on lots of travel in the
> near term. You will get your money out of it. Even though my Air Chart
> System is not current it makes a nice reference.
>
> Cheers George
>
> From: Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com>
> Subject: Air Chart Systems
> Date: Jun 10, 2005
>
>
> I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
> really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is tired
> of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
> comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Thanks
> Dan Krueger
> RV6A Flying
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: safetying AFP split ring |
By the way, around those 4 bolts is where the airbox plate cracks. I
fabricated an .060" reinforcing ring about 1" wide, to fit around the
controller and under the bolt heads. This spreads the loads that are
otherwise concentrated at the bolts, causing cracking.
Dave -6 So Cal
sarg314 wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Tom, I just re-read your message, and my last post was in error. The four
>>>bolts you describe are not in the induction path. Those four plate to ring
>>>mounting bolts come from the top, and are outside the induction path. I
>>>incorrectly assumed you were talking about the split ring (one each) bolt,
>>>which is in the induction path.
>>>
>>>Alex Peterson
>>>RV6-A N66AP 624 hours
>>>Maple Grove, MN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>Alex:
> I had the split ring upside down! The split ring isn't addressed in
>the AFP manual because it is RV-specific, I guess. The circa 1999 Van's
>documentation on the FAB only references connecting to a carbuerator, so
>I was guessing. Thanks very much.
>--
>Tom Sargent RV-6A
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Derrick Aubuchon <n184da(at)volcano.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
I do my initial planning using an on-line flight planner,, find out the
magnetic course/distances,, the transfer that data to each page of
the Atlas.
For really LONG flights,, as in California to OSH, I make removable &
numbered tabs
for each sequential page using small sticky notes.
Derrick L. Aubuchon
RV-4: N184DA
Jackson/Westover -Amador County (O70)
n184da(at)volcano.net
On Jun 11, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Richard Sipp wrote:
>
> For you guys using and liking the AvCharts, how are you plotting a
> long
> track line that crosses several pages?
>
> Dick Sipp
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Air Chart Systems
>
>
>>
>> Dan I love it. Gee, even famous astronauts, WWII fighter pilots and
>> airshow performers endorse it. I bought mine in the 1999-2000
>> year. I had
>> the VFR Atlas (discontinued I see) and VFR Topo Atlas. The Topo
>> Atlas is
>> really just color US Gov sectionals chopped up and placed into the
>> book.
>> In the back are excerpts of Terminal charts. That is one thing I
>> would
>> never do is go into any terminal area, like LAX area, VFR with out a
>> terminal chart, even with a GPS. I just like having the paper in
>> hand. The
>> only thing I can say negative is sometimes the page breaks are in bad
>> places, take LAX area for example, it is not central on a page but is
>> divided in 1/2 N-S, which is a little pain. They are receptive to
>> customer
>> input and no doubt revise and improve the page "pagination". No
>> big deal
>> but just a little pain sometimes if the palce you want to look at
>> is split
>> between pages.
>>
>> The VFR Atlas was like a monochrome IFR enroute chart (no topo) with
>> airways, VORs, all airports (VFR or IFR), ATC freq and airport
>> diagram for
>> selected airports. I really did not use it much since I used GPS
>> direct
>> most of the time. That is why they likely discontinued it. The IFR
>> Atlas
>> is probably near equivalent. The nice thin g about the VFR Atlas
>> was the
>> ATC freqs and data was easier to see without the Topo info.
>>
>> My recommendation is buy it (VFR Topo), at least once, you will
>> use it.
>> However for me with color GPS and terrain it is kind of
>> redundant, but it
>> is nice to have the paper for back-up and planning.
>>
>> If you are really going to travel the USA, anywhere the wind
>> blows, it is
>> a good deal vs buying individual (VFR) sectionals or (IFR) enroute
>> charts.
>> Also if weather of change of plans calls for a detour you are
>> covered. I
>> recall you got updated for one year with the purchase price.
>> However weh I
>> had it I recall the updates (28 days) are done manually by NOTAM
>> and with
>> pen and a revision log. This keeps the cost down while still
>> keeping you
>> legal.
>>
>> Looking at their site I see they have a new revision service for
>> extra
>> cost? If you are a local 2, 3 , 4 state flyer than maybe this
>> system is
>> overkill, but I think a one time purchase is a fine idea.
>> Personally now I
>> buy WAC's or sectional charts as I needed, check NOTAMS by the WEB
>> & Flt
>> Service and update my GPS data-base as needed. For me the things
>> that can
>> get you into trouble are things that happen real fast and are
>> disseminated
>> by NOTAM: local, Distant, FDC. Airspace restrictions, towers, runway
>> closure, GPS out of service can come out before the 28 day cycle,
>> so any
>> chart system is not a sure thing. I have always been impressed
>> (intimidated) by how much data a pilot really needs to study to be
>> truly
>> legal. We do the best we can. Don't laugh I am an ATP, CFI, CFII
>> and MEI
>> and even airlines miss it. An Airline, no names please, flew a
>> route to
>> the pacific rim and use Guam as an alternate. Guam is permanently
>> closed/dismantled, D'oh.
>>
>> I fly VFR in my RV, but I might be a little more rigorous if I was
>> IFR,
>> but I do all the IFR I want at work.
>>
>> I think you will like it, especially if you plan on lots of
>> travel in the
>> near term. You will get your money out of it. Even though my Air
>> Chart
>> System is not current it makes a nice reference.
>>
>> Cheers George
>>
>> From: Dan Krueger <pndkrueg(at)mchsi.com>
>> Subject: Air Chart Systems
>> Date: Jun 10, 2005
>>
>>
>> I looked at their charts at Sun n Fun, but it was to busy for me to
>> really get a feel for using their VFR Sectional Atlas. My wife is
>> tired
>> of folding sectionals. Their product seams ideal for our planes. Any
>> comments on the ease of using the VFR Atlas would be greatly
>> appreciated.
>> Thanks
>> Dan Krueger
>> RV6A Flying
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | safetying AFP split ring |
Tom,
I was puzzling about the same thing until I realized that the rounded part
of the donut goes down, into the air stream, and the bolts then come through
the flat aluminum plate and into the donut from the top. So, if they work
loose, they are completely outside the filtered air box.
It is possible that they did it differently earlier, but mine is maybe 3
years old.
Be aware that you are probably going to have to build a new oval shaped
mounting plate to offset the FAB back toward the centerline of the cowl
scoop, since the AFP controller is not centered. After several tries, I
found that moving it 3/8" to the side cleared the cowling and left room
inside the FAB for the filter.
Terry
RV-8A Aero Sport Superior IO-360-B1B with Airflow Performance injection
I am working on my FAB which is attached to an AFP air/fuel controller.
Those who have the AFP system are familiar with the split ring that is
used to grip the controller's intake. That bolts to an elliptical
shaped plate which is screwed to the FAB. Four 1/4-20 bolts go through
the elliptical plate and into blind tapped holes in the split ring.
It occurs to me that if one of those bolts were to work loose, it would
get sucked into the engine. Yet, the short 1/4-20 stainless bolts that
were supplied by AFP do not have drilled heads, so they can't be
safetied. My local aircraft parts place doesn't have any drilled head
1/4-20 bolts.
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, cowing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Air Chart Systems |
Richard Sipp wrote:
>
>For you guys using and liking the AvCharts, how are you plotting a long
>track line that crosses several pages?
>
>Dick Sipp
>
I've been using old sectionals to plot the course & note the successive
pages in the book. I've been borrowing a neighbor's book for the few
cross countries I've flown over the last year or so & it's a little more
difficult to use the book if you can't mark it up.
I'll probably break down & buy my own pretty soon, & try to find some
erasable markers to mark my course in the book.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Selective Radio Reception |
I saw you also posted this question to the aeroelectric list. Logically
this seems too simple to me. (I am not an expert but I have completed my
own plane and I have Garmin however.) You do not mention how you/(and the
other two) are received by or receive ATC and CT transmissions. I think you
are being too kind to your two friends. Do they not have reception problems
with other planes besides yours? Have you actually been in those other
planes or just taken their word on this? And you say, you receive all
other planes loud and clear close by and 50 miles away. DAAA.........This
is one of those things about whos problem this is. It is not yours (yours
works with the rest of the world), it is theirs. I don't know why it seems
little annoying problems are being reported by owners of the Microair 760.
It must be close to being marginally ok but when it comes in contact with
someone else that is marginally ok there is a problem. Is this a
possibility??? Kindly suggest it might be a good thing for all three of
you to get radios/antennas work done to stop the problem.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
>
> Howdy listers-
>
> Odd problem here- In communicating with dozens of other aircraft in the
> last
> year and a half, all report hearing me loud and clear, and I receive most
> of
> their transmissions just fine whether they are in the pattern with me or
> 50
> miles away.
>
> But there are TWO aircraft out of all of them that I can just barely hear-
> one (another RV) is broken and staticky, and another (a rental Cherokee
> where
> I'm based) I can't hear at all, just a slight change in background noise
> when
> they are transmitting. These two aircraft report they can hear me fine.
> Distance between and relative postion or orientation do not change this
> behavior.
> Other a/c and unicom report hearing both of us fine as well. My radio is
> Microair 760, bent whip bottom of fuse, and it doesn't matter whether I'm
> plugged
> direct to the radio or through a Softcomm portable intercom when I've got
> a
> co-pilot.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Signed- Selective Reception in Columbia
> (Mark Phillips)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Card GX-50 |
Cant you put the card in a PCMCIA slot? I heard you can find free downloads
that way.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
200 hours
Chicago/Louisville
May 31, 2005 - June 12, 2005
RV-Archive.digest.vol-qy