I believe the original lying thing was done by commercial pilots who lied to
keep from being disqualified from and out of a job. They were not just
risking their own lives, but all the passengers and crew. The insurance
carrier would have fun with that one if they had 300 deaths to settle with.
Same rules, different perspectives.
Indiana Larry
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From:
<Oldsfolks(at)aol.com>
Subject:
Re:Lying on Medical
>
> I wonder what the fine would be for flying with NO medical ??
> Might be worth trying it out. Might accumulate a bunch of hours for
> free.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re:Lying on Medical
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
Check out the pilot's in the Northwest Airline Crash in Hibbing, Minnesota
about 10 years ago. I'm still trying to figure out why he was allowed to
fly. But he did.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> LarryRobertHelming
> Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 7:25 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Lying on Medical
>
>
> -->
>
> I believe the original lying thing was done by commercial
> pilots who lied to
> keep from being disqualified from and out of a job. They
> were not just
> risking their own lives, but all the passengers and crew.
> The insurance
> carrier would have fun with that one if they had 300 deaths
> to settle with.
> Same rules, different perspectives.
>
> Indiana Larry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject:
Re: Lying on medical
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
Re this report, I think I saw it on AvWebb newsletter, but posibly on Aopa newsletter.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)speedyquick.net>
Subject:
Lying on medical
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
It also amazes me that the potential fine is 8X the fine levied on the city
of Chicago when an elected official illegally destroyed a federal airport
under the cloak of darkness.
Ed Bundy
> Yeah ain't it amazing how it's OK with the FAA for marginal
> manic/depressive/AADD/depressed etc to fly without the aide of
> modern pharmaceuticals on threat
> of losing the ability to do so more safely?
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re:Lying on Medical
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
> FAA allows a tremendous number of drugs. Antidepressants
> aren't on the list. Easy to check the list. I had a student
> who was taking a mild antidepressant. He was able to get his
> medical. He had to be off the medication for 90 days and get
> cleared by his doctor. (Flying was such a high that he no
> longer needed the medication ;) Sailed through - with all
> the proper disclosures.
>
As I said, ostensibly, the reason for the anti-depressants isn't so much the
condition being treated, but the side effects of the medication. It would be
nice to have some enlightenment on mental health issues reach the FAA at
some point because the current policy is rooted in the days of "Titticut
Follies". A good place to start would be continuing the disqualifying
nature of the drug for a period of time -- 6 months perhaps -- while doctors
evaluate whether there are any side effects in the individual and, if not,
so stating them.
The one-size-fits-all method is antiquated and it would be enlightened if
the FAA medical department could see fit to extent evaluations based on
individual situations, just as it does for virtually every OTHER aspect of a
pilot's medical.
But I'm not holding my breath.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
Subject:
Re: >Re:Lying on Medical
I made the mistake of sending my paperwork in about 3 weeks before the LSA
was approved,with the dastardly medical denied clause. Been denied so no LSA.
Flying with no medical,no insurance,no biennial = cheaper flying ???
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (Bob Collins)
Subject:
Re:Lying on Medical
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
I felt the same way when I was 35, Paul. 8 years later I had a fainting spell due
to the heart I thought was -- and my doctor told me was -- perfect.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
>
> Yeah, that's exactly how the rule ended up being written.
>
> Also, the way the forms are submitted electronically now, once you go in
> to the AME there's no backing out. The FAA will know you were there and
> if you end up having a disqualifying condition, you're SOL.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Glass Cockpit Options
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
From:
"Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
I posted this on the aeroelectronics board, but want to also get
RV-specific opinions.
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
From:
Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject:
Re: Glass Cockpit Options
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
As a former USAF dude thanks for your service to the US even if you were
Navy.
Does Option 1 provide a legal CDI functionality?
In both options you appear to not have IFR GPS capability. Is that acceptable?
Note that with both options you may be able to fly a VOR approach with
GPS inputs providing "situational awareness."
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
From:
"Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject:
looking for a nice RV-4
I'm looking to purchase a nice, clean, and basic RV-4.
I posted this on the Rocket-List a few weeks ago and now
have a couple of contenders, but most aircraft I have
looked at are something under a 6 or 7 out of ten. I'm
looking for a 7 or better; preferably an 8 or better.
Additional preferences include: O-320, FI, CS, no
inverted systems, clean interior, clean paint, basic VFR
or soft IFR. Things outside this are still considered;
my primary consideration is build quality and current
condition. If anyone knows of a -4 like this, I'd love
to talk with them. Please feel free to email me
directly at larry(at)ncproto.com or call 206-633-3111.
Thanks a ton.
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
Subject:
Re: looking for a nice RV-4
Date:
Dec 09, 2005
Ditto!!!!!!
I have a good friend looking for the same thing, except he wants a 180 hp
with C/S prop, good instrumentation and radio. He's an Airline Pilot and
will be using it to commute to and from Home Base. If you know of one
contact me off line at:
mannanj(at)alltel.net
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject: RV-List: looking for a nice RV-4
>
> I'm looking to purchase a nice, clean, and basic RV-4.
> I posted this on the Rocket-List a few weeks ago and now
> have a couple of contenders, but most aircraft I have
> looked at are something under a 6 or 7 out of ten. I'm
> looking for a 7 or better; preferably an 8 or better.
> Additional preferences include: O-320, FI, CS, no
> inverted systems, clean interior, clean paint, basic VFR
> or soft IFR. Things outside this are still considered;
> my primary consideration is build quality and current
> condition. If anyone knows of a -4 like this, I'd love
> to talk with them. Please feel free to email me
> directly at larry(at)ncproto.com or call 206-633-3111.
> Thanks a ton.
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
looking for a nice RV-4
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
"Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
Here is a 2003 RV-4 with ~220 hours. Very clean and excellent panel. No
FI and no C/S. Built light & right as they say. I photographed & created
this site today so it is still not 100% populated. A lot of photos so I
hope you have a High Speed connection. I would normally hold off to sell
this in March when pilots begin to thaw but I have my eye on another RV
and my wife will never understand a 4th plane.
http://www.painttheweb.com/rv/
Robin
RV-4 220 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<flyingrv(at)cox.net>
Subject:
Grove Intersection Fairings Available
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Good Morning,
I now have available upper and lower intersection fairings for the -8 with
Grove airfoil fairings. They look almost identical to my standard fairings.
Prices are" one set of upper intersection fairings $115 and one set of lower
intersection fairings is $125.
Happy Holidays
Bob Snedaker
Fairings-Etc
623-203-9795
www.fairings-etc.com
bob@fairings-etc.com
Sincerely,
Bob Snedaker
Fairings-Etc
PO Box 5488
Goodyear, AZ 85338
623 203 9795
Sincerely,
Bob Snedaker
Fairings-Etc
PO Box 5488
Goodyear, AZ 85338
623 203 9795
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject:
Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
grips with welded on tips,
the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
sqeezer?
EMP on the way , shop under construction,
Can't sleep,
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Split your money between both camps. They both deserve the support of RV
builders.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>
>
>
> Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
> so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
> Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
> grips with welded on tips,
> the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
> order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
> sqeezer?
> EMP on the way , shop under construction,
> Can't sleep,
> Dan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject:
Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Get both the hand and air squeezer. Sometimes you'll need the control of
the hand squeezer, and sometimes it's just more convenient and easier to
grab and use.
Some say that Cleveland has better dimple dies. I have almost all my tools
from Avery and they seem to work fine. Either way, both companies give
excellent customer service. Can't go wrong either way.
John Jessen
~40328 (RV-10 EmpCone)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Getting ready to order my tools for my QB, so Cleavland or Avery? I like to
looks of the Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice grips with
welded on tips, the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I order an
air squeezer will I still need a hand sqeezer?
EMP on the way , shop under construction, Can't sleep, Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Smitty" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
I have no complaints whatsoever with my Avery Tools. I especially like the
incredibly fast delivery that I get (almost always next day). The vise grip
tools are very precise. If you are going to get the RV Tool Kit, you can
save a lot of money, rather than buying individual tools a few at a time.
Smitty's RV-9A
http://SmittysRV.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>
> Split your money between both camps. They both deserve the support of RV
> builders.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
>> Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 10:05 AM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
>> so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
>> Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
>> grips with welded on tips,
>> the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
>> order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
>> sqeezer?
>> EMP on the way , shop under construction,
>> Can't sleep,
>> Dan
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
"Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com>
Subject:
Avery or Cleavland tools ?
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
All my dimple dies are either cleveland and avery. They are pretty equal on quality
of dies. Just make sure you stay away from ATS.
ATS tools and dies have been horrible and I have been slowly replacing them. The
hand squeezer is big, combersome, and the yokes are
too thick to squeeze flanges (you need to grind it down). As for service, I have
had good service with both of them. I do like the poster
that Cleveland gives you with their catalog that shows all the specifications on
rivets, bolts, drills, etc.
- Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:40:35 -0500
Subject: RE: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>
> Get both the hand and air squeezer. Sometimes you'll need the control
> of
> the hand squeezer, and sometimes it's just more convenient and easier
> to
> grab and use.
>
> Some say that Cleveland has better dimple dies. I have almost all my
> tools
> from Avery and they seem to work fine. Either way, both companies give
> excellent customer service. Can't go wrong either way.
>
> John Jessen
> ~40328 (RV-10 EmpCone)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>
>
> Getting ready to order my tools for my QB, so Cleavland or Avery? I
> like to
> looks of the Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice grips
> with
> welded on tips, the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I order
> an
> air squeezer will I still need a hand sqeezer?
> EMP on the way , shop under construction, Can't sleep, Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dane Sheahen" <dane(at)mutualace.com>
Subject:
Glass Cockpit Options
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Paul
Before you decide take a look at OP Technologies EFIS. I am installing one
in my RV8a now. After flying my RV8a for 3 years I decided it was time for
a change. Take a look on "vansairforce dot net" they just posted a quick
article I wrote. If you're interested in discussing other options please
feel free to call.
Dane 847-727-0026
N838RV RV8a
Fastpilotrv8(at)aol.com
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Gary Cole <cole_gary(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Avery or Cleavland tools ?
I have bought from both and up until earlier this year I would have agreed with
you about their customer service.
Not that long ago I placed an order with Avery for a countersink and gave them
the last four of my credit card number. Thinking all was well I waited for
about a week and a half, no countersink!!
I called Avery to find out what the problem was and after a brief conversation
found out that I had given them the wrong last four of the credit card that
they had on file.
OK, that is not such a big deal as I have a couple of cards.
The big deal to me was that I had to call them after a week and a half to find
out that there was a problem. There is no excuse for that kind of customer service.
I cancelled the order and will not buy from them again.
Gary
HRII Slow build
John Jessen wrote:
Get both the hand and air squeezer. Sometimes you'll need the control of
the hand squeezer, and sometimes it's just more convenient and easier to
grab and use.
Some say that Cleveland has better dimple dies. I have almost all my tools
from Avery and they seem to work fine. Either way, both companies give
excellent customer service. Can't go wrong either way.
John Jessen
~40328 (RV-10 EmpCone)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Getting ready to order my tools for my QB, so Cleavland or Avery? I like to
looks of the Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice grips with
welded on tips, the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I order an
air squeezer will I still need a hand sqeezer?
EMP on the way , shop under construction, Can't sleep, Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Smitty" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ? (not processed: message
from valid local sender)
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
I agree with Matt. I wasted my money on some of the ATS tools. I have had to
replace just about all of them. I bought the ATS rivet squeezer and can only
use it on small rivets. The Avery hand squeezer is GREAT! Also a pneumatic
squeezer will save you a lot of grief on the larger rivets.
Smitty's RV-9A
http://SmittysRV.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ? (not processed: message
from valid local sender)
>
> All my dimple dies are either cleveland and avery. They are pretty equal
> on quality of dies. Just make sure you stay away from ATS.
> ATS tools and dies have been horrible and I have been slowly replacing
> them. The hand squeezer is big, combersome, and the yokes are
> too thick to squeeze flanges (you need to grind it down). As for service,
> I have had good service with both of them. I do like the poster
> that Cleveland gives you with their catalog that shows all the
> specifications on rivets, bolts, drills, etc.
>
> - Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
> To:
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:40:35 -0500
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>
>>
>> Get both the hand and air squeezer. Sometimes you'll need the control
>> of
>> the hand squeezer, and sometimes it's just more convenient and easier
>> to
>> grab and use.
>>
>> Some say that Cleveland has better dimple dies. I have almost all my
>> tools
>> from Avery and they seem to work fine. Either way, both companies give
>> excellent customer service. Can't go wrong either way.
>>
>> John Jessen
>> ~40328 (RV-10 EmpCone)
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
>>
>>
>> Getting ready to order my tools for my QB, so Cleavland or Avery? I
>> like to
>> looks of the Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice grips
>> with
>> welded on tips, the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I order
>> an
>> air squeezer will I still need a hand sqeezer?
>> EMP on the way , shop under construction, Can't sleep, Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Dan wrote:
>
>Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
>so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
>Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
>grips with welded on tips,
>the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
>order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
>sqeezer?
>EMP on the way , shop under construction,
>Can't sleep,
>Dan
>
Both obviously sell good products, so no strong preference.
Don't discount the vicegrip stuff, though. Especially the fluting tool,
which allows repeatable flute depth.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Subject:
[ Les Featherston ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From:
Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Les Featherston
Lists: RV-List,Rocket-List
Subject: Harmon Rocket
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Morocketman@aol.com.12.10.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Subject:
[ Scott Lewis ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From:
Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Scott Lewis
Lists: RV-List,RV3-List,RV4-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List,Rocket-List
Subject: PiRep - Deluxe Fuel Caps
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/rv10@tpg.com.au.12.10.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
"Joseph Czachorowski" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
New Item for RV's
Guys,
Dave just came up with another item for RV's that some may be interested
in. In addition to the "Silver Bullet" tail wheel linkage and control arm,
the latest item is a CNC Polished Aluminum Canopy Handle. Dave will also engrave
the "curved surface" of the handle. Pretty slick.
Speaking of engraving, he told me that he would also engrave fuel caps, data
plates or just about anything else that will fit on the CNC table. Anything you
want. Give him a call to be sure. He also has a few other items in the works.
I love when engineers think "outside the box."
http://www.rivethead-aero.com/
Zack
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
You can get the job done without a hand squeezer. I have both and like the
hand type squeezer for some work. A friend has only the pneumatic type and
has managed to make it to the fuselage stage. So far so good. If you go
with Avery, the same heads are used (interchangeable) on each type. I like
having two types just for having the heads more readily available without
the need to switch heads.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
>
> Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
> so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
> Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
> grips with welded on tips,
> the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
> order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
> sqeezer?
> EMP on the way , shop under construction,
> Can't sleep,
> Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mark & Kelly" <eyedocs1(at)swbell.net>
Subject:
Re: Glass Cockpit Options
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Paul,
Thanks for the write-up. A couple of questions, do you know if the OP units
will give vertical guidance to ANY type of approach, such as a GPS approach
based on min altitudes for the approach? I thought that is a great feature
of the Cheltons & GRT. The other question is do you know if the EFIS will
give lateral guidance when doing a full procedure through the Procedure Turn
or Hold?
Thanks,
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dane Sheahen" <dane(at)mutualace.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> Paul
>
> Before you decide take a look at OP Technologies EFIS. I am installing one
> in my RV8a now. After flying my RV8a for 3 years I decided it was time
> for
> a change. Take a look on "vansairforce dot net" they just posted a quick
> article I wrote. If you're interested in discussing other options please
> feel free to call.
>
> Dane 847-727-0026
> N838RV RV8a
> Fastpilotrv8(at)aol.com
>
>
> After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> 7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
> Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
> The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> and the SL30.
>
>
> I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
> So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> - of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> "their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> 661-400-3640
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dave Sundberg" <david_fs(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Light Speed Ignition Switch Connection
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
I checked the archive and saw where another poster had the same problem but
there were no replies. I have an XP-360 with a Slick impulse mag on the left
and LightSpeed Plasma II+ on the right, both connected to a key switch. The
P-lead from the LS is connected to the R terminal on the switch and the
shield is connected to the GRN terminal directly beside the R terminal with
no jumper between them. P-lead from the mag connects to the L terminal and
the center GRN terminal goes direct to the airframe ground block. Engine
runs fine on the mag but dies when I switch to the LS.
Anyone have any suggestions I can try before I call LS Monday? I was hoping
for my 1st flight tomorrow or Monday. Thanks for the
help...................
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject:
Light Speed Ignition Switch Connection
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
It's not a p-lead. The Lightspeed wants switched +12 volts. I think
Klaus has a setup to run the ignition from a key switch, but he usually
recommends running it from a toggle switch.
Klaus is a little gruff sometimes, but I've found him to be helpful.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Sundberg
Subject: RV-List: Light Speed Ignition Switch Connection
I checked the archive and saw where another poster had the same problem
but
there were no replies. I have an XP-360 with a Slick impulse mag on the
left
and LightSpeed Plasma II+ on the right, both connected to a key switch.
The
P-lead from the LS is connected to the R terminal on the switch and the
shield is connected to the GRN terminal directly beside the R terminal
with
no jumper between them. P-lead from the mag connects to the L terminal
and
the center GRN terminal goes direct to the airframe ground block. Engine
runs fine on the mag but dies when I switch to the LS.
Anyone have any suggestions I can try before I call LS Monday? I was
hoping
for my 1st flight tomorrow or Monday. Thanks for the
help...................
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
What is the recommended primer? I like the description of Marhyde in
Vans catalog, but haven't found a source. Some parts, like the HS Spar
definitely need to be primed, but should the skins be primed too? (I
live in Nevada - corrosion is not a problem - but who knows where the
plane will end up.)
All comments welcomed.
Dan Beadle
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleaveland tools ?
Dan,
Both companies sell excellent tools. However, buy your hand squeezer from
Avery, as their unit's yokes also fit the various pneumatic squeezers as
well. Buy the yokes from Avery or P.A.R.T.S. (see
http://www.rivettools.com/ Stay away from their dimple dies, however.)
Cleaveland sells the Tatco brand hand squeezers. While these are a first
rate product, the yokes are not interchangeable with the Chicago Pneumatic
(and clone) powered squeezers. The Tatco products are also more expensive.
The vice grip edger & fluting pliers that Cleaveland sells are far
superior to the less expensive Avery unit. I prefer the Cleveland dimple
dies, but the Avery units are very good products. Just a personal
preference of mine. Make sure you purchase the "small" female dimple dies
for both the 3/32" & 1/8" sizes. You will need to purchase the "pop rivet"
or "close quarters" dimple dies as well. Spend the extra money for cobalt
drill bits. They are more expensive, but stay sharp 5 times longer.
Stay away from ATS stuff, as has been suggested by other listers.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
>so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
>Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
>grips with welded on tips,
>the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
>order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
>sqeezer?
>EMP on the way , shop under construction,
>Can't sleep,
>Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
"Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com>
Subject:
Question for QB Fuse builders...
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
When you get the QB fuse the F-721B Aft Canopy Deck is already riveted the whole
length of the longerons with final AN426AD3 rivets
(DWG-25 and DWG-18) and the F-705G angle brackets are not rivted on yet (DWG-20).
How are you supposed to rivet the F-705G to the F-
705 Bulkhead assembly with the F-721B in place? I removed the F-757 which was pop
riveted in place so I could get better access, but the
F-721B flange is still in the way.
Hopefully someone will know what I am talking about as this has me stumped...
- Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Subject:
Re: Primers
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
> What is the recommended primer? I like the description of Marhyde in
> Vans catalog, but haven't found a source. Some parts, like the HS Spar
> definitely need to be primed, but should the skins be primed too? (I
> live in Nevada - corrosion is not a problem - but who knows where the
> plane will end up.)
Take a look here Dan:
http://www.pflanzer-aviation.com/F1RocketProject.html#The%20Great%20Primer%20Debate
I started out priming almost everything (I do live "almost" on the coast)
but I think Randy's thoughts on this are right on. If you look at the
quality of his building it's easy to tell he knows what he is talking about!
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
I have purchased tools from both, and both great to deal with.
Since the good folks from Cleveland are kind enough to load all their stuff
up and drag it all the way to Washington State for the Arlington Fly-in (and
one of the few who do) I'm inclined to give them my business...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Primers
Marhyde is a great product! I've used it on RV parts since the early 1990's. O'Reilly's
Auto Parts can get it for you. The local store here stocks it. The Sherwin
Williams self etching primer also sold in a Napa label is a great product
also. Don't waste your time priming the skins.
Darrell
Dan Beadle wrote:
What is the recommended primer? I like the description of Marhyde in
Vans catalog, but haven't found a source. Some parts, like the HS Spar
definitely need to be primed, but should the skins be primed too? (I
live in Nevada - corrosion is not a problem - but who knows where the
plane will end up.)
All comments welcomed.
Dan Beadle
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Primers
Try to get your primer local. With the classification changes of "hazardous chemicals"
the freight charges can go through the roof!
Darrell
Dan Beadle wrote:
What is the recommended primer? I like the description of Marhyde in
Vans catalog, but haven't found a source. Some parts, like the HS Spar
definitely need to be primed, but should the skins be primed too? (I
live in Nevada - corrosion is not a problem - but who knows where the
plane will end up.)
All comments welcomed.
Dan Beadle
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject:
Re: Primers
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
> What is the recommended primer? I like the description of Marhyde in
> Vans catalog, but haven't found a source. Some parts, like the HS Spar
> definitely need to be primed, but should the skins be primed too? (I
> live in Nevada - corrosion is not a problem - but who knows where the
> plane will end up.)
> All comments welcomed.
Dan, after two RV airframes here are my thoughts...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works/Airframe/airframe.htm#Primer
Best,
Randy Lervold
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Cylinder Kits? Which to buy...?
Looking for input from users of ECI or Superior Cylinders Kits in the past year
or so? I'm about ready to purchase. Any comments?
Thanks in advance.
Darrell
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleavland tools ?
From:
James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Linn,
I have a smal business where I often have customers that are not
local. When they give me a credit card over the phone that does not
work, I call them right away and tell them it did not work. If I waited
for them to call me for a lack of delivery, I lost that customer.
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 10, 2005
From:
Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject:
Tool kits
Thanks for all the post on the tools Very helpfull !!
Mike Crowe thanks for the post it was the best,
I will use both company
Sound likes both company are #1 customer service
expecially Avery,
These are the kind of people I want to work with,
I also wanted to support Clevland cause they are at
AWO EAA Flyin
-8 tail kit on the way !
Dan
Snohoimish Wa
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ron Schreck" <ronschreck(at)alltel.net>
Subject:
Handheld Comm
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
I'd like to find a handheld comm radio that has jacks for the headset phone and
mic to use as a backup to my panel mounted radio. Is this a standard feature
of most handhelds? Any suggestions?
Ron Schreck
RV-8 (painting)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"b.e.isham" <b.e.isham(at)cox.net>
Subject:
Tool Kits
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Dan,
Before you make a final decision on purchasing your tools check out
www.planetools.com as you will find high-quality name-brand tools (Snap-On,
Klein, PROTO and many others), excellent customer service and very
competitive pricing.
Glenna
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Smitty" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com>
Subject:
RV-9A Ride
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
I took my first ride in a RV-9A yesterday. I was totally blown away. My
pre-convieced ideas of what it would be like were way off. After flying a
C-172 for 18 years, flying this RV-9A was like stepping into a hot sports
car aftering driving a chevy station wagon. We were cruising about 175 mph
and I actually felt like I was moving over the ground. The RV-9A owner did a
stall for me and my first reaction was "That was a stall?". It reminded me
of stories I'd heard about Aircoupes, where is the practically no stall. The
nose of the RV-9A dipped slightly then started flying again.
I've never flown a stick before and I have to say that I LUV IT! I was
immediately thinking "This is the way it was meant to be". We took a steep
turn to the right and I looked up through the canopy I saw a vista like I've
never seen before. I described it to my wife as being like going to the IMAX
theater. "HOLY MOLY!". Returning to the airport was like transitioning from
a jet to piper cub. Here we were, screaming through the air to the airport
and then going straight to slow flight in the pattern. I don't know of any
general aviation aircraft that has such a wide variety of speeds and flight
characteristics.
I have to say that I am now more "movitated" than ever to finish my RV-9A. I
think the words "driven" or "obsessed" are more descriptive now. Thanks
Clay!!!
Ya'll have a goodun!
Smitty's RV-9A
http://SmittysRV.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
"Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Cylinder Kits? Which to buy...?
FWIW, I was told by an "expert", who sold them all, and whose name would be
recognizable on this list, that he had never had a "problem" with ECI
Cylinders, and that he couldn't say that about the other's (Superior and
Lycoming) . . . ECI seemed to be his product of choice. That was 18 mos
ago at OSH.
However, I'm sure they are both good products . . . I ended up with a TXM360
(mostly ECI) . . . it seemed to me to be an equivalent engine at a more
competitive price. (but I'm not flying yet)
Good Luck,
Bob Christenen
RV-8 Bldr - Se Iowa
On 12/10/05, Darrell Reiley wrote:
>
>
> Looking for input from users of ECI or Superior Cylinders Kits in the past
> year or so? I'm about ready to purchase. Any comments?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject:
Handheld Comm
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
My several year old Yeasu has an adapter. I assume most/all sold today have
it as well. Today, I'd get an Icom. IMO, don't waste your money on
something with NAV abilities.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Schreck [mailto:ronschreck(at)alltel.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 4:19 AM
> To: RV-List
> Subject: RV-List: Handheld Comm
>
>
> I'd like to find a handheld comm radio that has jacks for the
> headset phone and mic to use as a backup to my panel mounted
> radio. Is this a standard feature of most handhelds? Any
> suggestions?
>
> Ron Schreck
> RV-8 (painting)
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Cylinder Kits? Which to buy...?
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Darrell
Give Robbie Attaway at www.attawayair.com a call. He has given me great info
and help in regards to my engine decision.
Frank @ SGU and SLC
>From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: RV-List
>Subject: RV-List: Cylinder Kits? Which to buy...?
>Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:42:54 -0800 (PST)
>
>
>Looking for input from users of ECI or Superior Cylinders Kits in the past
>year or so? I'm about ready to purchase. Any comments?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Darrell
>
>
>---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Aart van't Veld" <avtveld(at)tiscali.nl>
Subject:
Andair condensation trap
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Have any of you been using the Andair CT850 condensation trap yet?
Andair states that it is used to extract the water from the oil when used in
conjunction with the Andair Oil / Air Separator. I haven't got the faintest
idea how this thing works and if it is beneficial to the "normal" oil-air
separator setup. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Aart
RV7 finish
<http://websites.expercraft.com/PHVII> http://websites.expercraft.com/PHVII
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Sportypilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: Question for QB Fuse builders... (not processed: message
from valid local sender)
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
tipup or slider ?
>
> When you get the QB fuse the F-721B Aft Canopy Deck is already riveted the
> whole length of the longerons with final AN426AD3 rivets
> (DWG-25 and DWG-18) and the F-705G angle brackets are not rivted on yet
> (DWG-20). How are you supposed to rivet the F-705G to the F-
> 705 Bulkhead assembly with the F-721B in place? I removed the F-757 which
> was pop riveted in place so I could get better access, but the
> F-721B flange is still in the way.
>
> Hopefully someone will know what I am talking about as this has me
> stumped...
>
> - Matt
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Fly n Low" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net>
Subject:
Digital Tach and Manifold Pressure
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Hello Group;
I am planning and starting to build my panel. I am using old fashioned
instruments, because I already have most of them and money is an object
here. I am interested in a Digital Tach and a Digital Manifold Pressure. Can
someone point me in the right direction. Keeping in mind that money is an
object.
Thanks
Bud Silvers
RV-8
Colorado Springs, CO
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: Cylinder Kits? Which to buy...?
Darrell,
I've spoken with several well known engine builders about this. The short
version is that ECI's cylinders are better for aircraft which are not flown
a lot. The barrel surface treatment they use resists rust better than
Superior or Lycoming. Superior markets 2 versions of it's Millennium
cylinders. The Millennium II cylinders use investment cast heads. The
others use sand cast heads. Investment casting is much stronger and more
resistant to cracking. It's like comparing the aluminum castings from a
1960s vintage Harley Davidson to a modern Honda. The new Japanese bikes use
investment casting. The old HDs and Triumphs used sand casting. These
Millennium II heads have ports and combustion chambers that are CNC
machined, so the ports and combustion chambers volumes do not vary in size.
This means that you'll get more even power, CHTs and EGTs using these
cylinders. The investment cast heads also resist cracking better. For an
owner more concerned with high performance and/or extended cylinder life,
the Superior Millennium II is a great choice. (providing you fly regularly)
Charlie Kuss
>On 12/10/05, Darrell Reiley wrote:
> >
> >
> > Looking for input from users of ECI or Superior Cylinders Kits in the past
> > year or so? I'm about ready to purchase. Any comments?
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Darrell
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject:
Re: Handheld Comm
>I'd like to find a handheld comm radio that has jacks for the headset
>phone and mic to use as a backup to my panel mounted radio. Is this a
>standard feature of most handhelds? Any suggestions?
I have an ICOM something. I bought two accessories. One provides a
push to talk switch and jack for my headset. Then another allows me
to connect the ICOM antenna port to another switch that uses my normal
antenna.
I will provide part numbers if I can. So what you want is possible.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org>
Subject:
Re: Andair condensation trap
Check the Andair web site:
http://www.andair.co.uk
There is a brief description of the system here:
http://www.andair.co.uk/system/index.html
Aart van't Veld wrote:
>
> Have any of you been using the Andair CT850 condensation trap yet?
>
> Andair states that it is used to extract the water from the oil when used in
> conjunction with the Andair Oil / Air Separator. I haven't got the faintest
> idea how this thing works and if it is beneficial to the "normal" oil-air
> separator setup. Any ideas?
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
RV9 320 w/AFP
If you flying an RV9 with a 320 and AFP, I would like to ask a few questions
please...
Darrell
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For reference,
the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16 - bottom. These
are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear spar web to the center
of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the question...The center measurement
seems to be off on mine. When I install the rudder, I am only able to get the
bottom and top bolt in...the center rod end bearing is off by a good 3/16"
(too short). Has anyone else experienced this? I could just turn the center
bearing out a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of threads holding it in.
Does anyone know if the measurements on the plans are correct or do they need
to be modified. By the way, the movement in the rudder looks to be spot on with
the bottom and top bolts in place. Any help? Thanks,
Darin Hawkes
N619PB (reserved)
RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Darin,
Double check your measurements. I used a brass rod with both ends
sharpened to a point along the center axis and long enough to go through
all three rod end bearings. This allows one to obtain very accurate
measurements when the point is located as close as possible to the rod
end bearing. The brass rods (3/16" diameter and other sizes) are
available at Home Depot and True Value Hardware stores. The dimensions
you stated are correct.
Bill
RV-7 Finish
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gerns25(at)netscape.net
Subject: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16
- bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear
spar web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the
question...The center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I
install the rudder, I am only able to get the bottom and top bolt
in...the center rod end bearing is off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has
anyone else experienced this? I could just turn the center bearing out
a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of threads holding it in. Does
anyone know if the measurements on the plans are correct or do they need
to be modified. By the way, the movement in the rudder looks to be spot
on with the bottom and top bolts in place. Any help? Thanks,
Darin Hawkes
N619PB (reserved)
RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Glass Cockpit Options
Paul,
Have you looked at the Blumountain stuff?
www.bluemountainavionics.com
They are similar to what you mention only it also provides an HSI display
that connects digitally to your SL-30, as well as a moving map.
I have the G3/lite and love it. The brightness of the display is second to
none - not even the units selling for $50k. Two G3 lites would make a nice
IFR panel with a backup for everything for a very low price. The E1 would
add the benefit of unparalleled 3-D terrain mapping.
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6
On 12/9/05, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
>
> I posted this on the aeroelectronics board, but want to also get
> RV-specific opinions.
>
>
> After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> 7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
> Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
> The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> and the SL30.
>
>
> I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
> So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> - of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> "their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> Ridgecrest, CA
>
> 661-400-3640
>
>
--
Dave Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.htmlhttp://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject:
Re: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Darin, I did not experience your problem when fitting my RV7 rudder to VS.
Keep in mind, I did this portion of the kit about 24 months ago. Mine fit
within a 16th of an inch as I seem to remember (not perfect per plans in
other words). I suggest you talk with Vans foremost. Consider you look at
where you are to insure the gap seems to be uniform top to bottom and adjust
it as needed accordingly. I would not be too concerned about it right now.
You will need to do some fitting for sure on the bottom of the rudder for
the fiberglass fairing/housing that holds the tail light when you fit that
to the fuselage. You have begun the process and what an experience you
have before you and the flights -- oh yes, the flights.........
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
>
> I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
> reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16 -
> bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear
> spar web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the
> question...The center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I install
> the rudder, I am only able to get the bottom and top bolt in...the center
> rod end bearing is off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has anyone else
> experienced this? I could just turn the center bearing out a bit but then
> I don't have a whole lot of threads holding it in. Does anyone know if
> the measurements on the plans are correct or do they need to be modified.
> By the way, the movement in the rudder looks to be spot on with the bottom
> and top bolts in place. Any help? Thanks,
>
> Darin Hawkes
> N619PB (reserved)
> RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Dynon Failure Mode Revisit
I think this calls for a 100% customer satisfaction replacement unit...!
Darrell
Larry Pardue wrote:
Greetings:
A few weeks ago I reported on a failure I had on my Dynon D-10A. The
altitude sensor had failed, according to Dynon, and it was showing
incorrect altitude, airspeed, ROC as well as an incorrect and
drifting attitude indication. Dynon was responsive and fast in
repairing the unit and returning it to me.
Today was my third flight since reinstalling the unit and the mission
was to calibrate the heading indicator, as that calibration had been
lost during the repair service. When I started up I noticed that the
rate of turn indicator was showing maximum deflection to the right
and cycling the power on and off did not change it. My thought was
that this was annoying as that indicator is of great use during the
ground calibration portion. As soon as I was in flight I noticed
that the attitude indicator was not functioning correctly. It was
drifting into different positions with no relationship to actual
attitude.
This appears to be a different failure than before as altitude and
airspeed are fine this time.
I hope people understand why I am reporting these problems. I wish
nothing but the best for Dynon, but when I bought mine I may not have
had a realistic attitude about reliability and failure modes.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject:
Re: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
You can also use dental floss, fishing line, etc. Stretch the string
through the center of the holes in the rod end bearings and make sure
they're all aligned. Do the same with the holes in the hinge brackets on
the VS. It's unlikely the hinge brackets would be misaligned on a VS that
was built from match-drilled stuff.
Those "computer generated" numbers on the plans are just a starting point in
my opinion. Make it work! Split the difference with the ends and the
middle one, or whatever. As long as the rudder moves freely and doesn't rub
the VS skin edges before hitting the stops, and as long as the counterweight
arm parallels the top of the VS, then you're good to go imho.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (721 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>
> Darin,
>
> Double check your measurements. I used a brass rod with both ends
> sharpened to a point along the center axis and long enough to go through
> all three rod end bearings. This allows one to obtain very accurate
> measurements when the point is located as close as possible to the rod
> end bearing. The brass rods (3/16" diameter and other sizes) are
> available at Home Depot and True Value Hardware stores. The dimensions
> you stated are correct.
>
> Bill
> RV-7 Finish
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> gerns25(at)netscape.net
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>
>
> I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
> reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16
> - bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear
> spar web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the
> question...The center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I
> install the rudder, I am only able to get the bottom and top bolt
> in...the center rod end bearing is off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has
> anyone else experienced this? I could just turn the center bearing out
> a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of threads holding it in. Does
> anyone know if the measurements on the plans are correct or do they need
> to be modified. By the way, the movement in the rudder looks to be spot
> on with the bottom and top bolts in place. Any help? Thanks,
>
> Darin Hawkes
> N619PB (reserved)
> RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
> Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
> Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
> http://mail.netscape.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
From:
Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject:
Re: Dynon Failure Mode Revisit
Darrell Reiley wrote:
>
> I think this calls for a 100% customer satisfaction replacement unit...!
>
> Darrell
And I suspect that is precisely what will happen.......provided Larry
hasn't totally burned all bridges by publishing this issue on a public
forum before giving Dynon a chance to repair/replace his obviously
defective EFIS...
Sam Buchanan
========================
>
> Larry Pardue wrote:
> I hope people understand why I am reporting these problems. I wish
> nothing but the best for Dynon, but when I bought mine I may not have
> had a realistic attitude about reliability and failure modes.
>
> Larry Pardue
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net>
Subject:
Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Darin,
Be sure you are measuring to the spar web.
Remember the doubler is on the rod end side of the web on the lower one.
You have to do some math on that one.
Mark
N781CM (reserved)
RV-7A Wings almost done.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gerns25(at)netscape.net
Subject: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16 -
bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear spar
web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the question...The
center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I install the rudder, I am
only able to get the bottom and top bolt in...the center rod end bearing is
off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has anyone else experienced this? I could
just turn the center bearing out a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of
threads holding it in. Does anyone know if the measurements on the plans
are correct or do they need to be modified. By the way, the movement in the
rudder looks to be spot on with the bottom and top bolts in place. Any
help? Thanks,
Darin Hawkes
N619PB (reserved)
RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
RV4WGH(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Subject:
FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
I am in the finishing kit stages of an RV-4 and have a couple of questions:
1) Facet fuel pump instructions say to mount the pump on a 45 degree angle.
Knowing this pump is an automotive pump, is this also important in an
airplane? Seems like the pump will be at a 45 degree angle most of the time in
a
tail dragger, at least for take-off. I had planned to mount it in a manner
that would make it level in normal flight.
2) Where is the suggested mounting location for the outside air temp sensor?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Wally Hunt
Rockford, IL
RV-4 Finishing kit
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Subject:
Re: FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:42:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
RV4WGH(at)aol.com writes:
1) Facet fuel pump instructions say to mount the pump on a 45 degree angle.
Knowing this pump is an automotive pump, is this also important in an
airplane? Seems like the pump will be at a 45 degree angle most of the
time in a
tail dragger, at least for take-off. I had planned to mount it in a manner
that would make it level in normal flight.
2) Where is the suggested mounting location for the outside air temp
sensor?
========================================
1. My understanding is that this is an effort to reduce wear on the
reciprocating plunger, as it is able to rotate easier in the barrel if its axis
is
closer to vertical during normal use.
2. As far from the fuselage as possible.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 770hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Date:
Dec 11, 2005
Darin,
I had to install the rudder bolts top middle bottom, in that order.
Otherwise the middle bolt would'nt go in. I did use Van's measurements for
the rudder, and they worked as I said above. The elevator measurements had
to be massaged a little, but not much. Make sure you got the correct rod
end. good luck,
Jim Bowen
RV-8 QB
Sumner, Wa.
>From: "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:27:34 -0600
>
>
>Darin,
>Be sure you are measuring to the spar web.
>Remember the doubler is on the rod end side of the web on the lower one.
>You have to do some math on that one.
>
>Mark
>N781CM (reserved)
>RV-7A Wings almost done.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gerns25(at)netscape.net
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>
>
>I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
>reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16 -
>bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear spar
>web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the question...The
>center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I install the rudder, I
>am
>only able to get the bottom and top bolt in...the center rod end bearing is
>off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has anyone else experienced this? I
>could
>just turn the center bearing out a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of
>threads holding it in. Does anyone know if the measurements on the plans
>are correct or do they need to be modified. By the way, the movement in
>the
>rudder looks to be spot on with the bottom and top bolts in place. Any
>help? Thanks,
>
>Darin Hawkes
>N619PB (reserved)
>RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
>Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
>Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
>http://mail.netscape.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
gerns25(at)netscape.net
Subject:
Re: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
I got it figured out thanks to all you guys. I was omitting the fact that the
bottom nutplate is riveted to the aft side of the rear spar...well, all measurements
are given from the web of the rear spar. I have adjusted it and it is
much better, will still need a tiny bit of tweeking, half turn here half turn
there, but at least it is in the ballpark now. Thanks to all who replied!
Darin
RV7 N619PB Reserved
-----Original Message-----
From: JAMES BOWEN <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
Darin,
I had to install the rudder bolts top middle bottom, in that order.
Otherwise the middle bolt would'nt go in. I did use Van's measurements for
the rudder, and they worked as I said above. The elevator measurements had
to be massaged a little, but not much. Make sure you got the correct rod
end. good luck,
Jim Bowen
RV-8 QB
Sumner, Wa.
>From: "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:27:34 -0600
>
>
>Darin,
>Be sure you are measuring to the spar web.
>Remember the doubler is on the rod end side of the web on the lower one.
>You have to do some math on that one.
>
>Mark
>N781CM (reserved)
>RV-7A Wings almost done.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gerns25(at)netscape.net
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Rudder Hinge Bolt Measurements
>
>
>I am installing my Rudder to check the measurements as per plan. For
>reference, the measurements are: 51/64 - top, 59/64 - Center and 1 1/16 -
>bottom. These are the measurements per plan as measured from the rear spar
>web to the center of the rod end bearing thru hole. Now the question...The
>center measurement seems to be off on mine. When I install the rudder, I
>am
>only able to get the bottom and top bolt in...the center rod end bearing is
>off by a good 3/16" (too short). Has anyone else experienced this? I
>could
>just turn the center bearing out a bit but then I don't have a whole lot of
>threads holding it in. Does anyone know if the measurements on the plans
>are correct or do they need to be modified. By the way, the movement in
>the
>rudder looks to be spot on with the bottom and top bolts in place. Any
>help? Thanks,
>
>Darin Hawkes
>N619PB (reserved)
>RV7 (Empennage almost complete)
>Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
>Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
>http://mail.netscape.com
>
>
Try the New Netscape Mail Today!
Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List
http://mail.netscape.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
Subject:
E Mag
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
John, you'd have better results addressing your question at the Lycoming and
aeroelectric lists (I am copying my post onto lycoming(at)yahoogroups.com and
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com).
I myself am inclined for the PMag but have not firmed up my decision.
Concensus seems to be that it is the best compromise: it is electronic
ignition, it is simple and it does not depend on external power above
700RPM. Only down side seems to be lack of a track record.
This having being said, there are planes out there which fly with
eMag/pMags.
Michele
RV8 - Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Furey
Subject: RV-List: E Mag
I need to order an engine soon and need to decide between a Mag/Lightspeed
system or an E Mag/P Mag. Any input would be appreciated.
John Furey
RV6A
F1 in process
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject:
Re: FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
If you can get your hands on an RV7 firewall drawing sheet, you would see
that Vans places the fuel pump on the FW at a 45 degree angle flowing from
lower left to upper right (when viewed from cockpit). I have no idea what
the RV-4 plans suggest if anything.
2) mount it under one of the wings a couple feet away from exhaust and
close to one of the maintenance access panels under the wing for ease of
installation.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV4WGH(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
>
> I am in the finishing kit stages of an RV-4 and have a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1) Facet fuel pump instructions say to mount the pump on a 45 degree
> angle.
> Knowing this pump is an automotive pump, is this also important in an
> airplane? Seems like the pump will be at a 45 degree angle most of the
> time in a
> tail dragger, at least for take-off. I had planned to mount it in a
> manner
> that would make it level in normal flight.
>
> 2) Where is the suggested mounting location for the outside air temp
> sensor?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Wally Hunt
> Rockford, IL
> RV-4 Finishing kit
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mark Doble" <mark.doble(at)mddesigns.com>
Subject:
Extra instrument panel available?
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Hi,
I'm looking for a worn out, or used, mis-cut, or not needed RV 6 or 7
instrument panel with the right hand part of the panel fairly intact (eg.
able to have a 6" (horiz) x 7" (vertically) cutout made.
I'm making up a demo for an engine monitor my company developed to show at
Sun-n-Fun....
I want to have the engine monitor mounted in a panel....but didnt really
want to buy a new one :)
you can email me directly at mark(at)stratologic.net.
thanks,
Mark.
---
Mark D Doble mark(at)stratologic.net
StratoLogic LLC creators of Cyclops EMX Engine Monitor Extreme!
check out the details at www.StratoLogic.net
1-800-619-5304 Toll Free
(919) 386-0262 Office
(978) 359-5630 Fax
________________________________________________________________________________
Mike from Cleaveland Tool here. Thanks for the comments Charlie and others.
It makes my Monday to see all the positive comments about us. We all make
mistakes, and we try to go out of our way to resolve them quickly and
fairly.
I wanted to clairfy on the squeezers. We no longer carry the Tatco brand of
squeezer. We have designed our own hand squeezer that works with the
standard pneumatic yokes. Our squeezer is all Aluminum and very light
weight, it also takes 30% of the force (22# vs 65#) at the end of the
handles to squeeze an 1/8" rivet. See it on our website at
http://www5.mailordercentral.com/clevtool/prodinfo.asp?number=SCH22 . More
expensive than other squeezers, but I have not heard of anyone that was
unhappy with the purchase.
Another clarification I have wanted to address for some time, but I try to
keep commercial stuff off of the list... Bob Avery and I have discussed
this and do not quite know how to address it, as we don't really want to
throw dirt at anyone. Until late last year, or early this year we were
listed on Isham's Plane tools website as a tool supplier along with Avery
and Brown and others. After several attempts this listing was finally
removed. Avery's and Cleaveland have never sold tools to them. Brown, last
I knew had quit doing business with them. The logos they use on their
website "Snap-On" & "Klein" are a bit deceiving. Snap-On industrial bought
a company called ATI (as well as Sioux Tools). ATI is a major supplier to
the aerospace industry and is our suppler for bucking bars, rivets sets, and
a few other items. I imagine (I do not know this for a fact) that Avery's
and Brown get items from them too. So one could say that we all sell
"Snap-On". This is not the same Snap-On as far as finish and warranty that
you would find on "the truck". As for Klein, they make great electricians
tools. For their "aircraft line" they simply buy and brand other tools.
The wire twisters are made by Milbar, the Unibit is Irwin, the Hand Seamer
is Imperial... You may find good tools and prices there, just watch for
mis-representation.
Again I appoligize for this on the list.
I appreciate everyone's support and comments,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Avery or Cleaveland tools ?
>
> Dan,
> Both companies sell excellent tools. However, buy your hand squeezer from
> Avery, as their unit's yokes also fit the various pneumatic squeezers as
> well. Buy the yokes from Avery or P.A.R.T.S. (see
> http://www.rivettools.com/ Stay away from their dimple dies, however.)
> Cleaveland sells the Tatco brand hand squeezers. While these are a first
> rate product, the yokes are not interchangeable with the Chicago Pneumatic
> (and clone) powered squeezers. The Tatco products are also more expensive.
> The vice grip edger & fluting pliers that Cleaveland sells are far
> superior to the less expensive Avery unit. I prefer the Cleveland dimple
> dies, but the Avery units are very good products. Just a personal
> preference of mine. Make sure you purchase the "small" female dimple dies
> for both the 3/32" & 1/8" sizes. You will need to purchase the "pop rivet"
> or "close quarters" dimple dies as well. Spend the extra money for cobalt
> drill bits. They are more expensive, but stay sharp 5 times longer.
> Stay away from ATS stuff, as has been suggested by other listers.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>>
>>Getting ready to order my tools for my QB,
>>so Cleavland or Avery? I like to looks of the
>>Cleavland tools the seamers ect are not just vice
>>grips with welded on tips,
>>the rivit squeezers look more high tech, And If I
>>order an air squeezer will I still need a hand
>>sqeezer?
>>EMP on the way , shop under construction,
>>Can't sleep,
>>Dan
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
"Matt Johnson" <matt(at)n559rv.com>
Subject:
Re: Question for QB Fuse builders...
(not processed: message from valid local sender)
Tip-up...
- Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Sportypilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com>
> To:
> Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:49:13 -0600
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Question for QB Fuse builders... (not
> processed: message from valid local sender)
>
> >
> > tipup or slider ?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > When you get the QB fuse the F-721B Aft Canopy Deck is already
> > riveted the
> > > whole length of the longerons with final AN426AD3 rivets
> > > (DWG-25 and DWG-18) and the F-705G angle brackets are not rivted on
> > yet
> > > (DWG-20). How are you supposed to rivet the F-705G to the F-
> > > 705 Bulkhead assembly with the F-721B in place? I removed the F-757
> > which
> > > was pop riveted in place so I could get better access, but the
> > > F-721B flange is still in the way.
> > >
> > > Hopefully someone will know what I am talking about as this has me
> > > stumped...
> > >
> > > - Matt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleaveland tools ?
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Hi Mike ...
I just read the above subject note with interest and I appreciate Cleaveland
tools by having bought several of your tools over the past years.
I have a possibly useable suggestion for you. Since you have created a very
nice all aluminum squeezer for rivets you may be interested in an idea to
extend the usefulness of this squeezer.
Create a die that can be inserted for squeezing wire terminals. It will
take a seperate die for each the red, blue, yellow sizes. I can visualize
creating a color coded gapping plug to use as a test gage to set-up the
squeezer. Once the squeezer is set up, the red, blue or yellow die could
possibly work for the terminal size matching the die. It would have to be
re-gaged for each color but the adustable throw on this tool would do that.
It wouldn't cost much to experiment with this. The down side might be
overloading and breaking the squeezer.
Mike, if you like this idea ... run with it ... I'm not asking for anything
for the idea. I just like to create stuff that helps.
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Cordless bandsaw
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
To the tool freaks on the list:
Has anybody tried the Stout cordless bandsaw? How does it work on aluminum?
Inquiring mind wants to know if I need to put it on my Christmas list.
Here is web site for tool. http://www.stouttool.com/
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Cordless band saw
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
I've used a Milwaukee electric band saw (corded) for years and it's great
for cutting the ss tubes in the kit but not suitable to replace an upright
band saw for most other work. Limited throat depth if nothing else but the
lack of a table to hold material is a negative.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"b.e.isham" <b.e.isham(at)cox.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleaveland tools ?
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Glenna from Planetools.com. I think that competition is good for consumers
and for companies. I think that Mike's statements from Cleaveland Tool are
-- well, let's just say competition is tough when you're on the receiving
end of it. Someday a post like this will be titled "Re: Planetools.com,
Avery or Cleaveland tools?" I believe that the customers of our tools and
RV tool kits are the best people to rate us. I believe in our company
mission statement to "Provide high-quality tools at a lower price than our
competitors and always put the customer first." will cause us to be
successful and will be a benefit to RV builders around the world. Glenna
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
Brad Oliver <brad(at)rv7factory.com>
Subject:
Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Couldn't find an answer in the archives, so here goes...
I have been using PPG DP48LF epoxy primer and have been quite happy with
it. That being said, I started thinking about the very long term
proposition of painting the airplane, and how I will deal with the
parts that were epoxy primed months or years prior. To get the paint
to properly adhere to those parts that have been epoxy primed, I have
been told that I (or the paint shop) will need to sand (not just scuff)
the primed parts, spray another coat of DP48LF followed quickly (within
a day) by the paint.
Knowing this, I am starting to wonder if a primer switch, for the few
exterior facing parts part left, is in order. Looking at the flap
brace, I can see where it will be extremely difficult if not impossible
to get in between the brace and spar to sand/prime/paint. Maybe you
could reach through the lightening holes in the brace, but I am not
sure.
Is this even an issue? Should I consider a switch for the exterior
parts which will eventually get painted (e.g. flap brace, flap/aileron
spars)? Just looking for tips or advice from those that have been
there before. Maybe this will be easy to deal with when the time comes
to paint, but I guess I would rather ask questions now.
Thanks,
Brad Oliver
RV-7 | Wings
www.RV7Factory.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Dynon Failure Mode Revisit
If the problem is software, replacing a unit only adds aggravation to the
customer.
I suspect they will want to know about the problem, study it (is it a one of
a kind or do all units of a certain "persuasion" exhibit this problem?),
develop a fix (for his singular problem OR for the "masses" that MIGHT have
the problem.
So I would suspect that Dynon will "do the right thing", given the chance to
understand that a problem exists somewhere. Seems that that is how they have
worked so far.
James
On 12/11/05, Darrell Reiley wrote:
>
>
> I think this calls for a 100% customer satisfaction replacement unit...!
>
> Darrell
>
> Larry Pardue wrote:
>
> Greetings:
>
> A few weeks ago I reported on a failure I had on my Dynon D-10A. The
> altitude sensor had failed, according to Dynon, and it was showing
> incorrect altitude, airspeed, ROC as well as an incorrect and
> drifting attitude indication. Dynon was responsive and fast in
> repairing the unit and returning it to me.
>
> Today was my third flight since reinstalling the unit and the mission
> was to calibrate the heading indicator, as that calibration had been
> lost during the repair service. When I started up I noticed that the
> rate of turn indicator was showing maximum deflection to the right
> and cycling the power on and off did not change it. My thought was
> that this was annoying as that indicator is of great use during the
> ground calibration portion. As soon as I was in flight I noticed
> that the attitude indicator was not functioning correctly. It was
> drifting into different positions with no relationship to actual
> attitude.
>
> This appears to be a different failure than before as altitude and
> airspeed are fine this time.
>
> I hope people understand why I am reporting these problems. I wish
> nothing but the best for Dynon, but when I bought mine I may not have
> had a realistic attitude about reliability and failure modes.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Avery or Cleaveland tools ?
b.e.isham wrote:
>
>Glenna from Planetools.com. I think that competition is good for consumers
>and for companies. I think that Mike's statements from Cleaveland Tool are
>-- well, let's just say competition is tough when you're on the receiving
>end of it. Someday a post like this will be titled "Re: Planetools.com,
>Avery or Cleaveland tools?" I believe that the customers of our tools and
>RV tool kits are the best people to rate us. I believe in our company
>mission statement to "Provide high-quality tools at a lower price than our
>competitors and always put the customer first." will cause us to be
>successful and will be a benefit to RV builders around the world. Glenna
>
>
>
And I believe that all of these types of discussions should have do not
archive attached to them.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Good advise would be not to prime the exterior until just before painting.
If you're worried about corrosion under rivet heads, get a rattle can of
zinc chromate and squirt the rivet lines. Alternately just get a can of ZC
and dab it into the holes with a Q-tip. Otherwise, priming the exterior of
the plane prior to paint is just going to add weight in extra primer, cost
of extra primer, and aggrivation from weight, cost, and extra work...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com>
Subject: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
>
> Couldn't find an answer in the archives, so here goes...
>
> I have been using PPG DP48LF epoxy primer and have been quite happy with
> it. That being said, I started thinking about the very long term
> proposition of painting the airplane, and how I will deal with the
> parts that were epoxy primed months or years prior. To get the paint
> to properly adhere to those parts that have been epoxy primed, I have
> been told that I (or the paint shop) will need to sand (not just scuff)
> the primed parts, spray another coat of DP48LF followed quickly (within
> a day) by the paint.
>
> Knowing this, I am starting to wonder if a primer switch, for the few
> exterior facing parts part left, is in order. Looking at the flap
> brace, I can see where it will be extremely difficult if not impossible
> to get in between the brace and spar to sand/prime/paint. Maybe you
> could reach through the lightening holes in the brace, but I am not
> sure.
>
> Is this even an issue? Should I consider a switch for the exterior
> parts which will eventually get painted (e.g. flap brace, flap/aileron
> spars)? Just looking for tips or advice from those that have been
> there before. Maybe this will be easy to deal with when the time comes
> to paint, but I guess I would rather ask questions now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Oliver
> RV-7 | Wings
> www.RV7Factory.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jim Pellien" <jim(at)pellien.com>
Subject:
Popular Mechanics Article - 1 Week Sport Pilot School
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Popular Mechanics has sent an editor to take the 1-Week Sport Pilot School
at the Sky Bryce Airport in Basye, VA. Davin Coburn is writing a daily
"blog" of his learning experience at the Popular Mechanics main webpage:
www.popularmechanics.com <http://www.popularmechanics.com/>
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: Cleaning out the hanger sale
Brian
Just a quick note to given my shipping address again.
Charlie Kuss
3000 S. Ocean Blvd. Apt. # 103
Boca Raton, Florida
33432-8330
(561)338-9373 home
(561)212-7785 cell
>
>I have finally gotten around to gathering up some odds and ends that have
>accumulated that I will sell to a good home for the right price. As always,
>email me direct at brian(at)engalt.com, not to the entire list. You can also
>call me at 904-536-1780. Here is what I have at the moment:
>
>Midget Mustang, 109 hours TT, O-200 with about 1,100 hours SMOH, 174 MPH
>cruise, new Imron paint job, custom stainless exhaust, VFR day/night -
>$22,000 OBO
>
>Sonerai II, 450 hours TT, 1835 VW with 55 hours SMOH, good flying
>condition - $9,000 OBO
>
>KR-2, 45 hours TT, Revmaster 2100 turbo with 45 hours TT, was flying, but
>one wing water damaged, have new spars to build another. Whole plane -
>$8,000, engine only with Hegy prop - $3,500, will sell cowl, engine mount,
>and rest of firewall forward package for $500 with engine, brand new Grove
>gear and mounting brackets $1,100. Will not sell gear separate unless
>someone else buys the plane without it.
>
>Vacuum pump, mounting bracket for VW, filter, regulator, vacuum gauge,
>attitude indicator, and heading indicator - $1,000.
>
>Brand spanking new Garmin GTX 320A transponder in original box with tray and
>all connectors - $1,000.
>
>Nice small IFR radio package including Terra TX720 com radio, Terra TN200
>nav receiver with ILS and glideslope, Arnav 20 loran, Terra Trinav C display
>with digital CDI for nav or loran, ILS indicator, and glideslope indicator,
>ICS intercom with 3 light marker beacon - $3,000 for complete package with
>all trays and wiring harnesses.
>
>Bendix TR-641 A transponder with brand spanking new ACK encoder already
>wired to it - $700.
>
>RT-359A transponder with brand new ACK encoder already wired to it - $700.
>
>Sportys SP-200 handheld with headset adaptor cables - $220.
>
>Garmin GPS-90 aviation handheld GPS with yoke mount, external power cord,
>external antenna suction cup mount, original manual, and cigarette lighter
>plug $120.
>
>1965 bomber emergency parachute with C9 canopy freshly certified and
>repacked - $400.
>
>
>All located in Jacksonville, FL.
>
>And no, I am not getting out of flying, just need more room at the moment.
>Once two of the planes go the other one comes off the market until I get my
>KR-2S done.
>
>Brian Kraut
>Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
>www.engalt.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
Subject:
RV8 tail kit
From:
David L Ahrens <daviddla(at)juno.com>
Hello all; This is just a shot in the dark. I have found a partially
started rv-8 tail kit in Snohomish, Washington. Does anyone on the list
live nearby that could take a look at it for me? I live in Bakersfield,
Calif and I am trying to help my son in law find a rv-8 to build. Any
help would be appreciated.
Thanks, David Ahrens, RV-6A, 165hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 12, 2005
From:
Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject:
Re: RV8 tail kit
David,
I live in Snohomish,
I'm getting geared up to build an -8
I e-mailed this guy, a few weeks ago but got no
response ,,?
SO I ordered a new one, I never did try to call him,I
really wanted to start fresh with the factory anyway,
he only wanted $700.00 for it and he had some of it
complete, SO it is a great deal,
I wanted to see if he had any tools which he may want
to sell also, I'm just getting ready to order a tool
kit.
I'd be glad to go see it and talk to him , I can
compare it to my new kit which I havn't see yet
ordered on the 5th, other then that I've never seen
one before "YET",
I'm out of town Friday till Monday, then home for the
Holiday's
Dan Hatch
dan(at)rdan.com
425-754-0112
-8 Tail on the way !!
--- David L Ahrens wrote:
>
>
> Hello all; This is just a shot in the dark. I have
> found a partially
> started rv-8 tail kit in Snohomish, Washington. Does
> anyone on the list
> live nearby that could take a look at it for me? I
> live in Bakersfield,
> Calif and I am trying to help my son in law find a
> rv-8 to build. Any
> help would be appreciated.
> Thanks, David Ahrens, RV-6A, 165hrs.
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> provided
> www.buildersbooks.com,
> Admin.
> _->
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
rv6n6r(at)comcast.net
Subject:
Re: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
Been there, done that.
I wouldn't worry too much about the parts you can't get to/aren't visible -- the
same thing that makes it hard to get to will also make it hard for sun/weather
to have an effect (plus no one can see if the paint flakes off there so who
cares? :-)
But in general you should avoid priming parts that will have a topcoat on them
for the reasons you describe -- most paint systems are designed to go over compatible
primer that's relatively fresh to provide a chemical bond as well as mechanical.
One thing NOT to do is let someone convince you that you have to take the epoxy
off since it may not be compatible with the overcoat. Also been there done that,
and found that nothing short of a blowtorch or many hours with sandpaper will
take a good coat of epoxy off. Aircraft paint remover won't touch it (at least
the stuff I used). I think most paint systems will go okay over epoxy as
long as it's been roughed up, but do try a test patch to make sure.
Before I got wise to all this I primed the whole interior of my plane with Courtaulds
epoxy primer then a year or so later shot polyurethane topcoat without
sanding in between. There are a few chips but no more than to be expected from
the rough treatment the baggage compartment gets.
Also I painted my entire empenage with epoxy. I hired out the exterior paint and
the painter was a bit concerned about it, but we roughed it up with scotch-brite
and shot a thin coat of primer over it, then the topcoat. It went on beautifully
and has held up just fine.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
> Couldn't find an answer in the archives, so here goes...
>
> I have been using PPG DP48LF epoxy primer and have been quite happy with
> it. That being said, I started thinking about the very long term
> proposition of painting the airplane, and how I will deal with the
> parts that were epoxy primed months or years prior. To get the paint
> to properly adhere to those parts that have been epoxy primed, I have
> been told that I (or the paint shop) will need to sand (not just scuff)
> the primed parts, spray another coat of DP48LF followed quickly (within
> a day) by the paint.
>
> Knowing this, I am starting to wonder if a primer switch, for the few
> exterior facing parts part left, is in order. Looking at the flap
> brace, I can see where it will be extremely difficult if not impossible
> to get in between the brace and spar to sand/prime/paint. Maybe you
> could reach through the lightening holes in the brace, but I am not
> sure.
>
> Is this even an issue? Should I consider a switch for the exterior
> parts which will eventually get painted (e.g. flap brace, flap/aileron
> spars)? Just looking for tips or advice from those that have been
> there before. Maybe this will be easy to deal with when the time comes
> to paint, but I guess I would rather ask questions now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Oliver
> RV-7 | Wings
> www.RV7Factory.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject:
Re: FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
Wally - I think the 45 deg referees to left and right not fore and aft. (Its
that way on a -9) I also think the reason is to ensure air does not become
trapped within it. Steve
Steve
RV4 Kit No.4478
RV-9A G-IINI (sold)
PA18-150 G-BVMI
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV4WGH(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: FACET FUEL PUMP AND OUTSIDE AIR TEMP QUESTIONS
>
> I am in the finishing kit stages of an RV-4 and have a couple of
> questions:
>
> 1) Facet fuel pump instructions say to mount the pump on a 45 degree
> angle.
> Knowing this pump is an automotive pump, is this also important in an
> airplane? Seems like the pump will be at a 45 degree angle most of the
> time in a
> tail dragger, at least for take-off. I had planned to mount it in a
> manner
> that would make it level in normal flight.
>
> 2) Where is the suggested mounting location for the outside air temp
> sensor?
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.
>
> Wally Hunt
> Rockford, IL
> RV-4 Finishing kit
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject:
Not exactly RV related but...
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
What's that website that shows near real time aircraft position over a map?
thx,
lucky
What's that website that shows near real time aircraft position over a map?
thx,
lucky
________________________________________________________________________________
http://flightaware.com/
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
lucky wrote:
>
>What's that website that shows near real time aircraft position over a map?
>
>thx,
>lucky
>
>What's that website that shows near real time aircraft position over a map?
>
>thx,
>lucky
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject:
Instrument approach power settings
A week or two ago someone asked what I used during my instrument training.
The following is what my instructor recorded and may be different for you.
My plane: 180 HP RV6A, fixed pitch prop.
RPM Airspeed (KTS) VSI (FPM)
Climb 2400 105 800
Cruise 2550 130 000
Cruise Descent 2300 135 500
Approach 2150 100 000
Approach Descent 1650 90 500
Non-precision descent 1100 90 800
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject:
FW: VNY FSDO weirdness - (partial) Resolution
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
Howdy All,
We received our new airworthiness certificate and operating limitations
this afternoon from the Van Nuys FSDO after about 3 weeks of
negotiation. At issue was a memo in which the former manager of the FSDO
prohibited experimental aircraft from operating at 4 airports within
their geographical jurisdiction. When I raised a ruckus about it, they
backed down and, after we negotiated a new test flight area, agreed to
issue the new oplims. As part of my ruckus raising I brought the EAA in
as advocate and advisor. In fact, it was after Randy Hansen the EAA rep
called my airworthiness inspector that he started backpedaling. The memo
in question has not been rescinded, at least not yet. It contains a
paragraph which allows for, at the FSDO manager's discretion,
experimental aircraft which have already been approved to operate at one
of these airports to continue to do so. Although they didn't
specifically say so, I'm sure that's why they dropped their objection
and granted the new oplims. I asked for and was given a copy of the
memo. If you would like to see it, e-mail me off list and I'll send it
to you. The EAA has stated their intention to challenge the memo. We'll
see how that goes.
I'm still outraged about that memo and its prohibition of experimental
aircraft at 4 airports. Although they are apparently grandfathering our
aircraft, I'm concerned about the precedent which this memo may set if
allowed to stand. I can imagine a future in which airports a various
locations around the country would be off limits to transient as well as
local aircraft at the whim of the local FSDO. It could make both local
and cross country flight difficult, inconvenient and potentially more
dangerous.
Thanks to those of you who offered advice support. Round 2 coming up.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Holyoke [mailto:bicyclop(at)pacbell.net]
Subject: VNY FSDO weirdness
Howdy folks,
We've applied at the VNY FSDO for a new set of operating limitations
based on the latest version being offered by the FAA so that we can
equip and operate our RV-6a as an IFR aircraft. I had an appointment to
pick up our amended oplims today, but the inspector just called to tell
me that experimental aircraft are not allowed at VNY, BUR and WHP (where
we're based) and some other airports as well. I objected to this
vehemently and requested that he show me chapter and verse in the
regulations where it says that they have any authority to prohibit
certain types of aircraft from specific airports. He said he'd do some
research and get back to me, but canceled our appointment for this
afternoon.
I had heard that VNY FSDO had tried this tack in the past, but thought
they had been shown the light. Has anybody else run into this kind of
bull? How did it shake out?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
"Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject:
Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
________________________________________________________________________________
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
>
> I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
> my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
> "light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
> keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
> satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
> better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
> version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
> horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
> imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
> identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
> solution.
>
> My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
> available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
> All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
> like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
> interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
> asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
> interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
> of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
> tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
> limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
> thank you in advance,
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA HR2
>
>
>
>
>
>
yeah, call GRT and talk to them as their website doesn't state/show all they really
have to offer. They do have a flush mounted panel and it's easy to add a
display to the rear seater (display is low profile). I've heard of this config
in a RV8.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Larry E. James" larry(at)ncproto.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James"
I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
solution.
My current conundrum comes f
rom the EFIS units currently
available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
thank you in advance,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
link below to find out more about
=========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
"Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> 0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
Subject:
Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.3072 1.0000 -0.3180
The Dynon D10A has a bracket that allows flush mount. Don't know about
the D100, though.
Dick Tasker
Larry E. James wrote:
>
>I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
>my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
>"light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
>keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
>satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
>better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
>version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
>horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
>imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
>identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
>solution.
>
>My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
>available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
>All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
>like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
>interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
>asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
>interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
>of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
>tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
>limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
>thank you in advance,
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: Painting (not RV related)
Yes - try an aviation museum gift shop.
George in Langley BC
Ron Lee wrote:
>>Several years back I came across a painting of a USAF
>>B1 Bomber. It was a painting from the front of the plane and you could
>>see the water being sucked up behind the aircraft. I also think I
>>remember seeing one similar to this of an F-15.
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
"Wentz, Don" <don.wentz(at)intel.com>
Kyle is absolutely right, DON'T prime the exterior skins.
They are alclad and will not corrode in the time it takes to finish it.
Most that prime during construction, end up with scratchs in the primer
and end up having a lot of extra work to do.
Not to mention that the eventual paint may not 'play nice' with the
primer you used 'years before'.
When it is time to finish paint, use a very good etching primer so the
paint will stick.
We used this when we painted my -6 and the paint holds up great, while
some of my friends have paint peeling from around screws, seams, etc.
Dw
94 RV-6 918hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Boatright
Subject: Re: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
-->
Good advise would be not to prime the exterior until just before
painting.
If you're worried about corrosion under rivet heads, get a rattle can of
zinc chromate and squirt the rivet lines. Alternately just get a can of
ZC and dab it into the holes with a Q-tip. Otherwise, priming the
exterior of the plane prior to paint is just going to add weight in
extra primer, cost of extra primer, and aggrivation from weight, cost,
and extra work...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com>
Subject: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
>
> Couldn't find an answer in the archives, so here goes...
>
> I have been using PPG DP48LF epoxy primer and have been quite happy
with
> it. That being said, I started thinking about the very long term
> proposition of painting the airplane, and how I will deal with the
> parts that were epoxy primed months or years prior. To get the paint
> to properly adhere to those parts that have been epoxy primed, I have
> been told that I (or the paint shop) will need to sand (not just
scuff)
> the primed parts, spray another coat of DP48LF followed quickly
(within
> a day) by the paint.
>
> Knowing this, I am starting to wonder if a primer switch, for the few
> exterior facing parts part left, is in order. Looking at the flap
> brace, I can see where it will be extremely difficult if not
impossible
> to get in between the brace and spar to sand/prime/paint. Maybe you
> could reach through the lightening holes in the brace, but I am not
> sure.
>
> Is this even an issue? Should I consider a switch for the exterior
> parts which will eventually get painted (e.g. flap brace, flap/aileron
> spars)? Just looking for tips or advice from those that have been
> there before. Maybe this will be easy to deal with when the time
comes
> to paint, but I guess I would rather ask questions now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Oliver
> RV-7 | Wings
> www.RV7Factory.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
James Clark <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3072 1.0000
-0.3180
Comments below ...
James
On 12/13/05, Larry E. James wrote:
>
>
> I'm coming close to having to make final decisions for
> my panel and order units. My flight mission includes
> "light" IFR capability and my personal preference is to
> keep a simple more/less old-fashioned scan. If I cannot
> satisfy myself that one of the current "new" products is
> better; I'll stick with an all electric six-pack. My
> version of the six-pack would include an electric gyro
> horizon with a Sandel below. That being said, I can
> imagine that by simply replacing the AH and CDI with
> identical EFIS display units could be a rather elegant
> solution.
>
> My current conundrum comes from the EFIS units currently
> available. First, I'm not a fan of their packaging.
> All other instruments mount flush with the panel; I'd
> like these to also. Second, none have the ability to
With the Grand Rapids Technologies unit, you can get a "flush mount"
optional packaging. Call and ask Todd about it.
interface with another of the same. While at Oshkosh I
I am not sure of what you are saying but the GRT units have the ability for
one display to "talk" to another. In your Rocket you could have a dual
display system with the same or different data being displayed on each unit.
Is this what you were looking for??
asked both Dynon and BMA about this and neither was
> interested. Additionally, I could see the possibility
> of placing a third display in the backseat (Rocket;
> tandem). But alas, my knowledge on all of this is very
There are those out there with 3-display GRT units flying now.
limited. Can anyone offer some sound advice ??
> thank you in advance,
If I am either not responding to the questions you are asking or giving
answers to things that you knew already, please disregard.
James
--
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA HR2
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
From:
G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: Instrument approach power settings
Hi Ron
My 0-320 6A with fixed pitch prop needs between 1400 - 1600 RPM on the
glideslope at 90 Kt clean and is hard to slow down if high or in wind
shear. Interestingly, after my last IFR ride (not pretty but acceptable)
the inspector suggested that there is no reason that I could not use
category B limits and fly the aircraft faster (91 - 120 kt) on approach.
More power and stability at the higher speed. My aircraft seems to get
light in pitch at 90 Kts.but I only seem to notice it under the hood!.
If memory serves me correctly at one time approach category was based on
stall speed but now is based on approach/manouver speed.
George in Langley BC
Ron Lee wrote:
>
>A week or two ago someone asked what I used during my instrument training.
>
>The following is what my instructor recorded and may be different for you.
>My plane: 180 HP RV6A, fixed pitch prop.
>
>
> RPM Airspeed (KTS) VSI (FPM)
>Climb 2400 105 800
>Cruise 2550 130 000
>Cruise Descent 2300 135 500
>Approach 2150 100 000
>Approach Descent 1650 90 500
>Non-precision descent 1100 90 800
>
>Ron Lee
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject:
RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Hi all,
I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the RV8.
Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the needed
parts.
Thanks
Paul
RV8QB Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bradley Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com>
Subject:
Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Date:
Dec 13, 2005
Thanks for the help guys!
Sorry, in hindsight I wasn't too clear ;-) I wasn't questioning whether or
not I should prime the skins; I know well enough not to do that now. What I
was referring to are the parts that typically get primed during
construction, and that are somewhat (but not really) exposed. Parts such as
the HS rear spar, rear wing spars and the flap & aileron braces are good
examples.
Someone else pointed out to me that these parts may not even receive paint,
so my original question may be somewhat moot.
Thanks,
Brad Oliver
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wentz, Don
Subject: RE: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
Kyle is absolutely right, DON'T prime the exterior skins.
They are alclad and will not corrode in the time it takes to finish it.
Most that prime during construction, end up with scratchs in the primer
and end up having a lot of extra work to do.
Not to mention that the eventual paint may not 'play nice' with the
primer you used 'years before'.
When it is time to finish paint, use a very good etching primer so the
paint will stick.
We used this when we painted my -6 and the paint holds up great, while
some of my friends have paint peeling from around screws, seams, etc.
Dw
94 RV-6 918hrs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kyle Boatright
Subject: Re: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
-->
Good advise would be not to prime the exterior until just before
painting.
If you're worried about corrosion under rivet heads, get a rattle can of
zinc chromate and squirt the rivet lines. Alternately just get a can of
ZC and dab it into the holes with a Q-tip. Otherwise, priming the
exterior of the plane prior to paint is just going to add weight in
extra primer, cost of extra primer, and aggrivation from weight, cost,
and extra work...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Oliver" <brad(at)rv7factory.com>
Subject: RV-List: Painting Over Cured Epoxy
>
> Couldn't find an answer in the archives, so here goes...
>
> I have been using PPG DP48LF epoxy primer and have been quite happy
with
> it. That being said, I started thinking about the very long term
> proposition of painting the airplane, and how I will deal with the
> parts that were epoxy primed months or years prior. To get the paint
> to properly adhere to those parts that have been epoxy primed, I have
> been told that I (or the paint shop) will need to sand (not just
scuff)
> the primed parts, spray another coat of DP48LF followed quickly
(within
> a day) by the paint.
>
> Knowing this, I am starting to wonder if a primer switch, for the few
> exterior facing parts part left, is in order. Looking at the flap
> brace, I can see where it will be extremely difficult if not
impossible
> to get in between the brace and spar to sand/prime/paint. Maybe you
> could reach through the lightening holes in the brace, but I am not
> sure.
>
> Is this even an issue? Should I consider a switch for the exterior
> parts which will eventually get painted (e.g. flap brace, flap/aileron
> spars)? Just looking for tips or advice from those that have been
> there before. Maybe this will be easy to deal with when the time
comes
> to paint, but I guess I would rather ask questions now.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad Oliver
> RV-7 | Wings
> www.RV7Factory.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject:
Re: Instrument approach power settings
I believe that my numbers were with some flaps..hence the higher power setting.
I prefer flying the approach without flaps and at a higher speed.
The category is based upon 1.3 x Vso but you use the category based upon
actual speed. The RV meets Category A but I fly at B usually. 90 knots feels
slow.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<groves(at)epix.net>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Hi Paul,
Try looking at John Hufts web site, you can find it at vans website under links.
Kirk
>
> From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed AM 01:33:43 EST
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the RV8.
> Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the needed
> parts.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
> RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
version=3.0.3
Here is one...
http://www.lazy8.net/hinges.htm
John
Paul Rice wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the RV8.
>Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the needed
>parts.
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul
>RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
Nels Hanson <pa201950(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Instrument approach power settings
For what it is worth: I have an 0-320 with a fixed
pitch Sterba prop in my RV-6. I like to get it to 80
mph indicated over the FAF. Then I put on one notch of
flaps when I start the descent for landing. My plane
stalls at 52 mph indicated so I get it down to around
70 coming down the glide slope. If I have two people
on board I use 75 mph indicated. This slower speed
lets me control my glide a lot easier using throttle
and I don't have to worry about trying to slow the
plane up when the runway appears. Of course,if it is
bumpy and there is other circumstances involved,I
would use a slightly higher speed. My general feeling
is that most of us don't do enough slow flight and
stalls so we feel a little uncomfortable at the slower
speeds.
I have a lot of friends who come down final at 80 or
so and then float down the runway.
--- G McNutt wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ron
>
> My 0-320 6A with fixed pitch prop needs between 1400
> - 1600 RPM on the
> glideslope at 90 Kt clean and is hard to slow down
> if high or in wind
> shear. Interestingly, after my last IFR ride (not
> pretty but acceptable)
> the inspector suggested that there is no reason that
> I could not use
> category B limits and fly the aircraft faster (91 -
> 120 kt) on approach.
> More power and stability at the higher speed. My
> aircraft seems to get
> light in pitch at 90 Kts.but I only seem to notice
> it under the hood!.
>
> If memory serves me correctly at one time approach
> category was based on
> stall speed but now is based on approach/manouver
> speed.
>
> George in Langley BC
>
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>
> >
> >A week or two ago someone asked what I used during
> my instrument training.
> >
> >The following is what my instructor recorded and
> may be different for you.
> >My plane: 180 HP RV6A, fixed pitch prop.
> >
> >
> > RPM Airspeed
> (KTS) VSI (FPM)
> >Climb 2400
> 105 800
> >Cruise 2550 130
> 000
> >Cruise Descent 2300 135
> 500
> >Approach 2150 100
> 000
> >Approach Descent 1650 90
> 500
> >Non-precision descent 1100 90
> 800
> >
> >Ron Lee
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> provided
> www.buildersbooks.com,
> Admin.
> _->
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com>
Subject:
RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Paul,
Check John Huft's web sight through Van's Web sight links. Clean design but
a little bit of work.
>From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
>Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:33:43 -0500
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the RV8.
>Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the
>needed
>parts.
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul
>RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject:
Re: Instrument approach power settings
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Nels,
I don't disagree with your statement about most of us needing to do more
slow flight practice. Just want to provide a slightly different
perspective.
In my RV-7 (200hp C/S), I have flown 30 instrument approaches (267
approaches, ~200 hours instrument time in total). Not a heck of a lot, so
take my perspective with a grain of salt.
I fly the ILS at 120 KIAS.
I fly non-precision approaches at 100 KIAS.
Rationale? The plane feels more stable at higher airspeed, the controls are
stiffer, and it rides through turbulence better (imho). Corrections in
course are accomplished more quickly, which means I can use smaller heading
corrections, and I'm less prone to over-control the plane on approach.
I fly slightly slower on non-precision approaches because 100 KIAS is very
close to the 110 MIAS first-20-degrees flap extension speed. With a slight
throttle reduction and/or slight pitch, I'm at flap speed.
Now...if I *know* the ceiling is high and I'm going to break out well before
DH, then I fly much faster at 120-140 KIAS. This gives me stiff controls,
faster correction ability, and a better ride through the bumps. I do this
when I know I will have enough room below the clouds to maneuver and
decelerate to flap speed.
If I had a fixed pitch prop, I would almost definitely fly on the slower
side. Having the "braking" ability that the C/S prop affords opens up the
door on approaches to using higher airspeeds (imho).
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (722 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nels Hanson" <pa201950(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Instrument approach power settings
>
> For what it is worth: I have an 0-320 with a fixed
> pitch Sterba prop in my RV-6. I like to get it to 80
> mph indicated over the FAF. Then I put on one notch of
> flaps when I start the descent for landing. My plane
> stalls at 52 mph indicated so I get it down to around
> 70 coming down the glide slope. If I have two people
> on board I use 75 mph indicated. This slower speed
> lets me control my glide a lot easier using throttle
> and I don't have to worry about trying to slow the
> plane up when the runway appears. Of course,if it is
> bumpy and there is other circumstances involved,I
> would use a slightly higher speed. My general feeling
> is that most of us don't do enough slow flight and
> stalls so we feel a little uncomfortable at the slower
> speeds.
> I have a lot of friends who come down final at 80 or
> so and then float down the runway.
>
> --- G McNutt wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ron
>>
>> My 0-320 6A with fixed pitch prop needs between 1400
>> - 1600 RPM on the
>> glideslope at 90 Kt clean and is hard to slow down
>> if high or in wind
>> shear. Interestingly, after my last IFR ride (not
>> pretty but acceptable)
>> the inspector suggested that there is no reason that
>> I could not use
>> category B limits and fly the aircraft faster (91 -
>> 120 kt) on approach.
>> More power and stability at the higher speed. My
>> aircraft seems to get
>> light in pitch at 90 Kts.but I only seem to notice
>> it under the hood!.
>>
>> If memory serves me correctly at one time approach
>> category was based on
>> stall speed but now is based on approach/manouver
>> speed.
>>
>> George in Langley BC
>>
>>
>> Ron Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >A week or two ago someone asked what I used during
>> my instrument training.
>> >
>> >The following is what my instructor recorded and
>> may be different for you.
>> >My plane: 180 HP RV6A, fixed pitch prop.
>> >
>> >
>> > RPM Airspeed
>> (KTS) VSI (FPM)
>> >Climb 2400
>> 105 800
>> >Cruise 2550 130
>> 000
>> >Cruise Descent 2300 135
>> 500
>> >Approach 2150 100
>> 000
>> >Approach Descent 1650 90
>> 500
>> >Non-precision descent 1100 90
>> 800
>> >
>> >Ron Lee
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> provided
>> www.buildersbooks.com,
>> Admin.
>> _->
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Parker Thomas" <me(at)parkerthomas.com>
Subject:
Bay Area RV 6 or 7
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Hello Builders -
I'm wondering if any of you have a completed RV 6, 7 or 9 near San Francisco
or Oakland that I could come look at. I'm trying to convince a friend to
join me on my second RV project. He is 6' 5" and a little concerned about
whether he would fit without his head sticking out.
Just being able to sit in one would be a big help. We could probably do it
this weekend sometime.
Many thanks,
Parker Thomas
RV-8 N321PT built, flown for 300 wondrous hours and, unfortunately, sold
____________________________________
F. Parker Thomas
ShredFirst
phone 510-433-0200
fax 510-217-5976
parker(at)shredfirst.biz
www.shredfirst.biz
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Subject:
Paint vs decals
From:
"Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
these demensions...)
Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
High end vinyl graphics are good for 7 years 24/7 in the weather/sun. Its a lot
of labor painting it on, wait til you see the cost? The graphics should cost
about 30~50 bucks each plus installation. If you have graphics made make sure
you get the high end stuff.
I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
these demensions...)
Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
cell 858-395-5094
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
"Stan Jones" <stan.jones(at)xtra.co.nz>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge version=3.0.3
Try this one too
http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
Stan
-------Original Message-------
From: John Huft
Date: 12/15/05 03:53:24
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge version3.0.3
Here is one...
http://www.lazy8.net/hinges.htm
John
Paul Rice wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the RV8.
>Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the
needed
>parts.
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul
>RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels(at)fmtc.com>
Subject:
RV-9
I have decided to sell my RV-9A project. It includes all the kits
including finish kit, duel steps, tip up, landing lights, electric
elevator trim, and the 0-320 out of my Cherokee 140 that was destroyed
in a windstorm. High time but was good and strong. The price is about
the cost of the kits and extras plus about core price on the engine. The
first $26,500 takes it. The tail kit is done and the wings are mostly
done but not closed.
I was building it for my wife around all my other projects but she is
just too busy with grand kids and such, besides I already built her one
plane that she still has and does not fly that much.
Ontario Oregon location. Contact off list for more information.
DNA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)bresnan.net>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Check this out:
http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
They have a very liberal sample policy. I requested two (2) of the aluminum
ones and I had them in a couple of days.
Mauri
RV-8 Fuse
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
>
> Hi all,
>
> I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the
> RV8.
> Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the
> needed
> parts.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
> RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<groves(at)epix.net>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Hi Larry,
I met you this year at Osh right after you got there, you have a great looking
plane. I am also painting my 8 with a P-51 scheme with invasion stipes, and from
what I have found in my research is the stick on ones are fine but you will
feel a sharp edge. After looking at RVs around I have decided that I will pay
the extra to have everything painted on, its just personal but I really don't
like the hard sharp edges on vinyl decals. I am even having my nose art painted
on!(I don't even want to think about the bill)
All the Best,
Kirk Groves "Dakota Queen" finishing
>
> From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 01:01:26 EST
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Paint vs decals
>
>
> I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
> going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
> stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
> stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
> and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
> probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
> dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
> these demensions...)
>
> Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
> was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Hi Larry
Call a sign shop, or try 3M website. Like everything else there are
different grades and the good stuff will last a long time without fade.
My vinyl is like new after three years but that is really not a test
because the aircraft is hangared.
If you do go with vinyl it is easier to put the long strips on fusalage
before the wings go on.
George in Langley BC
Larry Bowen wrote:
>
>
>Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
>was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Larry, my decals are 3.5 yrs and 400 hrs old and looking good. Got them at
Aircraft Spruce.
Dick -RV6A
At 01:01 PM 12/14/2005, you wrote:
>
>I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
>going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
>stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
>stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
>and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
>probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
>dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
>these demensions...)
>
>Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
>was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
>
>--
>Larry Bowen
>Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>http://BowenAero.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject:
Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Hmmm, I haven't considered the sharp edge. My scheme is relatively straight
forward, so they were going to charge me the same price decals or paint.
Another factor I had not considered was putting these decals on over fuse or
wing skin seams. What's the routine there? Get the decal as tight to the
seam as possible and hope it doesn't peal up? Or put it in place and then
cut it at the seam so it lays flatter?
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: groves(at)epix.net [mailto:groves(at)epix.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 5:50 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Paint vs decals
>
>
> Hi Larry,
> I met you this year at Osh right after you got there, you
> have a great looking plane. I am also painting my 8 with a
> P-51 scheme with invasion stipes, and from what I have found
> in my research is the stick on ones are fine but you will
> feel a sharp edge. After looking at RVs around I have decided
> that I will pay the extra to have everything painted on, its
> just personal but I really don't like the hard sharp edges on
> vinyl decals. I am even having my nose art painted on!(I
> don't even want to think about the bill)
> All the Best,
> Kirk Groves "Dakota Queen" finishing
> >
> > From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
> > Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 01:01:26 EST
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RV-List: Paint vs decals
> >
> >
> > I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my
> RV-8. I'm
> > going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
> > stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could
> paint the
> > stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than
> decals as they
> > wear and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a
> living so
> > he probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me
> to give him
> > dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I
> don't have
> > these demensions...)
> >
> > Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either
> > route was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence.
> Thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Larry Bowen
> > Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> > http://BowenAero.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
"Joseph Czachorowski" <zackrv8(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Larry,
I would definitely paint the stripes, stars and bars if possible. More durable.
However, I do have some decals on my plane that are holding up well. It's
called "High Performance Vinyl."
If you decide to go the paint route, I had a local sign company make up "scale"
(for the RV8) stars-n-bars paint masks and would be happy to put you in touch
if interested. I also have the dimensions for the invasion stripes. They
will also do the large letters that go on either side of the stars and bars (per
8th AF).
Zack
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
Yes, any dimensional type specs you can give me would be appreciated. The
paint shop asked for those specs...wasn't sire where to go for them.
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Czachorowski [mailto:zackrv8(at)verizon.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:41 PM
> To: RV-List(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Paint vs decals
>
> -->
>
> Larry,
>
> I would definitely paint the stripes, stars and bars if
> possible. More durable. However, I do have some decals on
> my plane that are holding up well. It's called "High
> Performance Vinyl."
>
> If you decide to go the paint route, I had a local sign
> company make up "scale" (for the RV8) stars-n-bars paint
> masks and would be happy to put you in touch if interested.
> I also have the dimensions for the invasion stripes. They
> will also do the large letters that go on either side of the
> stars and bars (per 8th AF).
>
> Zack
>
>
> Photoshare, and much much more:
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Windshield to roll bar shims.
Here is a tip that I haven't seen written up anywhere so thought I would
pass it on.
Vans instructions for the windshield to roll bar shims says to use
"neatly cut pieces of aluminum or a stack of AN960-6 washers".
It is difficult handling the washers unless glued together.
Easier by far is to cut spacers from the scrap Plexiglass from the edges
of the canopy. Because of the way the canopy stretches during formation
the thickness in various areas varies by over 1/16th inch allowing for
custom thickness spacers.
I mark out 1/2 X 1/2 inch spacers, drill 9/64 hole and then cut on
band-saw. If to thick slim it down on belt sander before cutting.
George in Langley BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"lancenewman" <lancenewman(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Cordless band saw
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
I have the same Millwaukee saw and your right about the throat depth being
shallow, but I just offset the cutting angle for clearance and bolt a piece
of heavy iron plate to the bottom and I have a nice base. I also made a
small table out of scrap metal and a debris catcher. Now it is the smallest
cuts anything like butter. Harbor freight has it's clone for about 100.00.
I don't know about the quality of it though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cordless band saw
>
> I've used a Milwaukee electric band saw (corded) for years and it's great
> for cutting the ss tubes in the kit but not suitable to replace an upright
> band saw for most other work. Limited throat depth if nothing else but the
> lack of a table to hold material is a negative.
> Albert Gardner
> Yuma, AZ
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 14, 2005
From:
Gerald Richardson <gerric(at)shaw.ca>
Subject:
Windshield to roll bar shims.
George:
Do you have any photos that you could show me. Please email me of list
at gerric(at)shaw.ca
Thank you
Gerald Richardson
Medicine Hat, Alberta
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of G McNutt
Subject: RV-List: Windshield to roll bar shims.
Here is a tip that I haven't seen written up anywhere so thought I would
pass it on.
Vans instructions for the windshield to roll bar shims says to use
"neatly cut pieces of aluminum or a stack of AN960-6 washers". It is
difficult handling the washers unless glued together.
Easier by far is to cut spacers from the scrap Plexiglass from the edges
of the canopy. Because of the way the canopy stretches during formation
the thickness in various areas varies by over 1/16th inch allowing for
custom thickness spacers.
I mark out 1/2 X 1/2 inch spacers, drill 9/64 hole and then cut on
band-saw. If to thick slim it down on belt sander before cutting.
George in Langley BC
--
12/13/2005
--
12/13/2005
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
Jim Brown <acrojim(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Larry
We have vinyl decals that were installed on a composite airplane in
2000.They look as good today as when they were installed. The plane is
hanagered.
We have flown in rain, and at 600 + hours on the a/c there is no peeling
of the vinyl. I would do it again.
Jim Brown
RV 7A flying, 36 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
"Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Mauri,
Please let us know what you think after you receive them . . . will two do
the job? . . . how do you plan to mount them?
Thanks,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 Bldr - SE Iowa
On 12/14/05, Mauri Morin wrote:
>
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.guden.com/display-chh.asp
>
> They have a very liberal sample policy. I requested two (2) of the
> aluminum
> ones and I had them in a couple of days.
>
> Mauri
> RV-8 Fuse
> Polson, MT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
>
>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the
> > RV8.
> > Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the
> > needed
> > parts.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul
> > RV8QB Fuselage
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Kosta Lewis" <mikel(at)dimensional.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
>What I have found in my research is the stick-on ones are fine but you
will
>feel a sharp edge. After looking at RVs around I have decided that I
will >pay the extra to have everything painted on. I really don't like
the hard >sharp edges on vinyl decals.
You will have a sharp edge with paint also as most trim is going to have
to be masked off unless it is hand painted, like the old pinstripes. The
edge may not be has high as vinyl but still there. It can actually be a
higher edge as the paint can "pool" along a mask line, especially at the
bottom of a stripe. And the paint edge won't be as visibly sharp either
as some paint will leak under the tape. I know of one builder who masked
off where he was painting trim when he put on the main color so there
wouldn't be an edge. That took some doing. A little
obsessive-compulsive, perhaps. I don't think anyone will notice the edge
of the vinyl and if they do and don't like it, have them go look at
someone else's airplane. No one has ever mentioned my vinyl edges. I
have had people get close and ask if they are vinyl, not being able to
tell the difference, even close up.
>I am even having my nose art painted on.
I would do that as vinyl may not be as detailed, depending on the
scheme.
Suzie Q has vinyl letters and "stars and bars" that were obtained at the
local sign shop 7 years ago and shown no signs of wear. Didn't know what
"high end vinyl" was at the time so am not sure what I got, though it
was 3M something. They are also black, which means they are going to
absorb more heat/light than a lighter color. She is hangared, however,
but is exposed to OSH weather for 2 weeks every year and all the wear
and tear of normal flying and occasional times on the tie down line. I
would have invasion stripes painted and consider vinyl for the other.
Vinyl masks for the trim is also handier than tedious (expensive)
masking masking masking.
IMHO
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
BaronRose Design Website Sale
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
"Stephanie Marshall" <smarshall(at)enid.org>
1.76 HTML_TAG_EXIST_MARQUEE BODY": rv-list(at)matronics.com
Hey Everyone,
With the end of the year approaching we are offering a website design sale. We
are a team of professionals with over 6 years of experience in web site design
and development, graphic design, search engine optimization and corporate branding
for small businesses and organizations.
Complete design or re-design of up to 6 pages for $300. This is a great way to
show off your plane and share your project with the world.
Check out some of my current projects at: http://www.baronrose.4t.com
Cheers,
Stephanie Marshall
smarshall(at)enid.org
580-234-0400 X-3030
w <http://www.rv-8a.4t.com> ww.rv-8a.4t.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<groves(at)epix.net>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
Very valid points, but I have seen paint jobs on friends RVs and you just can't
feel the lines and I like that. I know it will cost more money and time, but
hey I am only doing this once!
All the best
Kirk
>
> From: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel(at)dimensional.com>
> Date: 2005/12/15 Thu AM 10:15:16 EST
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Paint vs decals
>
>
>
> >What I have found in my research is the stick-on ones are fine but you
> will
> >feel a sharp edge. After looking at RVs around I have decided that I
> will >pay the extra to have everything painted on. I really don't like
> the hard >sharp edges on vinyl decals.
>
> You will have a sharp edge with paint also as most trim is going to have
> to be masked off unless it is hand painted, like the old pinstripes. The
> edge may not be has high as vinyl but still there. It can actually be a
> higher edge as the paint can "pool" along a mask line, especially at the
> bottom of a stripe. And the paint edge won't be as visibly sharp either
> as some paint will leak under the tape. I know of one builder who masked
> off where he was painting trim when he put on the main color so there
> wouldn't be an edge. That took some doing. A little
> obsessive-compulsive, perhaps. I don't think anyone will notice the edge
> of the vinyl and if they do and don't like it, have them go look at
> someone else's airplane. No one has ever mentioned my vinyl edges. I
> have had people get close and ask if they are vinyl, not being able to
> tell the difference, even close up.
>
> >I am even having my nose art painted on.
>
> I would do that as vinyl may not be as detailed, depending on the
> scheme.
>
> Suzie Q has vinyl letters and "stars and bars" that were obtained at the
> local sign shop 7 years ago and shown no signs of wear. Didn't know what
> "high end vinyl" was at the time so am not sure what I got, though it
> was 3M something. They are also black, which means they are going to
> absorb more heat/light than a lighter color. She is hangared, however,
> but is exposed to OSH weather for 2 weeks every year and all the wear
> and tear of normal flying and occasional times on the tie down line. I
> would have invasion stripes painted and consider vinyl for the other.
> Vinyl masks for the trim is also handier than tedious (expensive)
> masking masking masking.
>
> IMHO
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels(at)fmtc.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Only doing it once. Are you kidding. I am working on number 6. Its like
a bad addictive drug, only more expensive. Remember that you should not
have anything to trip the boundary layer in the first third of the wing,
and decal or paint line will trip it. There are tricks to no having a
paint that leaves no ridges. You can minimize the ridge by pulling the
tape while the paint is still wet allowing the paint to sluff the ridge
off. I do this by putting a final fine line tape just over the main
masking so I can just pull the that tape without having to unmask the
entire area. This eliminates most of the ridge, and then the light
sanding before a clear coat helps more. Another trick is after striping
on a paint that you are not putting a clear coat on, you can clean the
few little spots were paint got under the tape like by a rivet by using
a sharpened wood stick if you get it before it cross links. Painting is
very time consuming, but is a lot of fun.
groves(at)epix.net wrote:
>
> Very valid points, but I have seen paint jobs on friends RVs and you just can't
feel the lines and I like that. I know it will cost more money and time, but
hey I am only doing this once!
> All the best
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
BK <ltwdg(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: VNY FSDO weirdness - (partial) Resolution
Having some experience with fsdo despots I can say the best thing you
can do is not back down. If there is no progress, or unacceptable
progress, go over their head, go to Region; if that doesnt work go to
Flight standards in DC.
If they think that they are lowering their political/legal risks by not
allowing certain legal operations, tell them what they are doing is
actally increasing their legal risks as they are exceeding the limits
of their job function which puts them outside of the faa's bubble and
into an area where your lawyer can do some damage.
They assume you are not informed, or unwilling to push.
Trust me, people like this, they will go with their same old story
until you let them you you are not *&
%(*& around.
Sounds like you made some progress. Its a major PITA, they are counting
on that, but keep pushing.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
From:
scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
You will also have a edge with paint Unless you use a base coat clear coat system.
Hi Larry,
I met you this year at Osh right after you got there, you have a great looking
plane. I am also painting my 8 with a P-51 scheme with invasion stipes, and from
what I have found in my research is the stick on ones are fine but you will
feel a sharp edge. After looking at RVs around I have decided that I will pay
the extra to have everything painted on, its just personal but I really don't
like the hard sharp edges on vinyl decals. I am even having my nose art painted
on!(I don't even want to think about the bill)
All the Best,
Kirk Groves "Dakota Queen" finishing
>
> From: "Larry Bowen"
> Date: 2005/12/14 Wed PM 01:01:26 EST
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Paint vs decals
>
>
> I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
> going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
> stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
> stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
> and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
> probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
> dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
> these demensions...)
>
> Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
> was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
cell 858-395-5094
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject:
Re: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
Paul,
The type hinge you need is a standard hardware item. It will have an (hard
to describe) offset leaf and a straight leaf. You will be able to buy them
from McMaster/Carr a large mail order industrial supplier. You should be
able to find them on the web by typing in the above name. I used this type
hinge on my aluminum oil access door. I didn't like the crude look of Vans
oil door with cam locks and hinges sticking out all over on that nice smooth
cowl.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV8 Baggage Door Hinge
>
> Hi all,
>
> I remember reading something about a hidden baggage door hinge for the
> RV8.
> Can anyone lead me to the sight I saw this or have the planes for the
> needed
> parts.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
> RV8QB Fuselage
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 15, 2005
Larry,
I have on my RV8, polished aluminum, Decals. I used them originally because
I was not sure what scheme I wanted. I am now on my second set in 1250
hours flying time. I was to aggressive with the first set when polishing
the aluminum and polished the ink off of the decals. Now , I polish by
hand next to the art work and that works fine. No decal wear and it looks
good. I took a picture to my local sign company of the emblem I wanted and
they digitized it an made decals that nicely fit the size of the airplane.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: RV-List: Paint vs decals
>
> I visited the local paint shop to inquire about painting my RV-8. I'm
> going to go with a modified 8th Air Force, stars and bars, invasion
> stripes, Mustang sort of scheme. The painter said he could paint the
> stars/bars emblems and this would be much better than decals as they wear
> and weather too easily. (Uh, OK...he does this for a living so he
> probably knows more than me on the topic. He wants me to give him
> dimensions for the emblems so he can have stencils made. I don't have
> these demensions...)
>
> Anyway, are modern day vinyl decals that fragile? I thought either route
> was fine, and decals win out due to the convienence. Thoughts?
>
> --
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Listers-
For those of you who wish to upgrade from the flammable MIL-H-5606 hydraulic
brake fluid to the more flame resistant MIL-PRF-83282, be advised that you
can buy a 1 gallon can from ACI at a price of $18.00 plus shipping. It is
compatible with all Buna-n (Nitrile) and Viton (Fluorocarbon) seals and the old
5606 fluid can be drained and the system refilled with 83282 without
extensive flushing. Minimum Flash Point for 83282 is 401 deg F vs 275 deg F for
5606. The MIL-Spec and the QPL can be had at:
_http://assist2.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/_
(http://assist2.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/)
Royal Royco 782 meets the spec and can be ordered from:
_http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7_
(http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
From:
sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Thanks for the heads-up, Gary. Now for the newbie-type question: are the original
seals in our Van's-supplied brake systems Buna-n, Viton, or "something less"?
I'd like to switch to nonflamable fluid, but first I want to know what might need
replacing.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Listers-
For those of you who wish to upgrade from the flammable MIL-H-5606 hydraulic
brake fluid to the more flame resistant MIL-PRF-83282, be advised that you
can buy a 1 gallon can from ACI at a price of $18.00 plus shipping. It is
compatible with all Buna-n (Nitrile) and Viton (Fluorocarbon) seals and the old
5606 fluid can be drained and the system refilled with 83282 without
extensive flushing. Minimum Flash Point for 83282 is 401 deg F vs 275 deg F
for
5606. The MIL-Spec and the QPL can be had at:
_http://assist2.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/_
(http://assist2.daps.dla.mil/quicksearch/)
Royal Royco 782 meets the spec and can be ordered from:
_http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7_
(http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
From:
Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
If you go to your nearest Wal-Mart, buy a quart of Mobil 1 Synthetic
Automatic Transmission Fluid. The specs (I checked) are nearly the same as
the Aeroshell MIL-PRF-83282 non-flammable 5606 replacement, which has a
higher flash-point than does the 5606. I wonder how many brakes have caught
on fire from using 5606.
Has worked great in mine and a couple other RV's in my area for years. The
last time I checked a quart that would probably fill up the brake systems of
five RV's was $3-something.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid DOT-5?
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
While on the subject of brake fluid;
Does anybody out there have any experience with DOT-5 synthetic brake fluid?
Pros and Cons?
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> Having experienced one of those "rare" brake fires (and they are not as
> rare as you may think) in June of this year, I can personally tell you why
> the concern.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
From:
"Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
I stole this post, from Randy Lervold, and thought it was worth putting
here. Im dumbfounded by this piece of information. Thought you all might
like to read it.
======
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595
There has been some confusion about Aerobatic gross weight on the RV-3
ever since the new B wings were introduced in 1998. I spoke with Van
himself twice this week on this issue, he in turn discussed with his
staff internally, and have now clarified it. Aerobatic gross weight for
the RV-3 (all models, all wings) is 1,050 lbs. (no confusion on this).
This figure however does NOT include fuel in WING tanks which is what
was not clear. Note that any fuel in a fuselage tank WOULD be included
in the Aerobatic gross.
Interestingly, he confirmed that this method applies to any RV model. As
an RV-8 builder/pilot I interpreted Van's W&B instructions to mean that
fuel WAS included in Aerobatic Category gross weight calculations as
well as Utility/Normal Category gross weight operation. In fact that is
erroneous -- as long as the fuel is in wing tanks it may be excluded
from the Aerobatic calculation and limit. Of course Van's points out
that weight has other deleterious effects on aerobatic handling and
encourages pilots to use good judgement when loading their aircraft for
aerobatics.
I have updated the summary of all RV-3 weight & balance data and issues
on my web site...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works
Informationally,
__________________
Randy Lervold
RV-3B, finish kit, www.rv-3.com
RV-8, 368 hrs, sold, www.rv-8.com
www.eaa105.org
======
Mike Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"David Wentzell" <DWentzell(at)wi.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: Paint vs decals
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
Just this week I applied a vinyl decal (which we screen printed on 3M
Premium grade vinyl) with their corporate logo to a Citation Jet (based on
our local field) that the company recently had repainted. On the original
new paint they also used a screen printed vinyl decal which they had in
place for 6 years. The jet flies daily all over the country, which equates
to quite a harsh environment on the exterior surfaces. Obviously,
significantly higher & faster than our birds! Vinyl was used by Cessna on
the new jet, the corporation decided to use vinyl again on the repainted
jet, because . . . it works!
Out of curiousity, I had to ask: "So, what is the price tag for a paint
job on an airplane like this?" - $50,000 was the reply!
David Wentzell
Racine, Wisconsin
RV6 233DW (45 hours & lovin it!)
Yup, used vinyl on mine, some screen printed, some computer
cut. I'm happy with the results and it gets a lot of compliments! I figure
as long as I'm careful to keep my speeds (and altitudes) below the Citation
Jets it ought to last an adequately long time!
________________________________________________________________________________
AeroElectric AeroElectric
From:
Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject:
WX-900 Antenna
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4981 1.0000 0.0000
My WX-900 antenna is not repairable. It failed after approximately
170 tach hours.
L-3 Communications Avionics Systems has not retuned it per my request
of Nov 9, 2005.
Question:
Has any one had good service experience with the WX-900 antenna?
Has any one had good service experience with L-3 Communications
Avionics Systems?
Richard Reynolds
Norfolk, VA
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject:
WX-900 Antenna
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
Send them a bill for your confiscated antenna. 75 percent of the cost of a
new one sounds fair.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Reynolds
Subject: RV-List: WX-900 Antenna
My WX-900 antenna is not repairable. It failed after approximately
170 tach hours.
L-3 Communications Avionics Systems has not retuned it per my request
of Nov 9, 2005.
________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you, Cathy Jensen. Hope you don't mind that I share this with all our flying
friends.
And to all a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Mauri.
The Night Before Christmas - Aviation Style
'Twas the night before Christmas, and out on the ramp,
Not an airplane was stirring, not even a Champ.
The aircraft were fastened to tie downs with care,
In hopes that -- come morning -- they all would be there.
The fuel trucks were nestled, all snug in their spots,
With gusts from two-forty at 39 knots.
I slumped at the fuel desk, now finally caught up,
And settled down comfortably, resting my butt.
When the radio lit up with noise and with chatter,
I turned up the scanner to see what was the matter.
A voice clearly heard over static and snow,
Called for clearance to land at the airport below.
He barked his transmission so lively and quick,
I'd have sworn that the call sign he used was "St. Nick."
I ran to the panel to turn up the lights,
The better to welcome this magical flight.
He called his position, no room for denial,
"St. Nicholas One, turnin' left onto final."
And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a Rutan-built sleigh, with eight Rotax Reindeer!
With vectors to final, down the glideslope he came,
As he passed all fixes, he called them by name:
"Now Ringo! Now Tolga! Now Trini and Bacun!
On Comet! On Cupid!" What pills was he takin'?
While controllers were sittin', and scratchin' their heads,
They phoned to my office, and I heard it with dread,
The message they left was both urgent and dour:
"When Santa pulls in, have him please call the tower."
He landed like silk, with the sled runners sparking,
Then I heard, "Left at Charlie," and "Taxi to parking."
He slowed to a taxi, turned off of three-oh,
And stopped on the ramp with a "Ho, ho-ho-ho..."
He stepped out of the sleigh, but before he could talk,
I ran out to meet him with my best set of chocks.
His red helmet and goggles were covered with frost,
And his beard was all blackened from Reindeer exhaust.
His breath smelled like peppermint, gone slightly stale,
And he puffed on a pipe, but he didn't inhale.
His cheeks were all rosy and jiggled like jelly,
His boots were as black as a cropduster's belly.
He was chubby and plump, in his suit of bright red,
And he asked me to "fill it, with hundred low-lead."
He came dashing in from the snow-covered pump,
I knew he was anxious for drainin' the sump.
I spoke not a word, but went straight to my work,
And I filled up the sleigh, but I spilled like a jerk.
He came out of the restroom, and sighed in relief,
Then he picked up a phone for a Flight Service brief.
And I thought as he silently scribed in his log,
These reindeer could land in an eighth-mile fog.
He completed his pre-flight, from the front to the rear,
Then he put on his headset, and I heard him yell, "Clear!"
And laying a finger on his push-to-talk,
He called up the tower for clearance and squawk.
"Take taxiway Charlie, the southbound direction,
Turn right three-two-zero at pilot's discretion"
He sped down the runway, the best of the best,
"Your traffic's a Grumman, inbound from the west."
Then I heard him proclaim, as he climbed thru the night,
"Merry Christmas to all! I have traffic in sight."
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
From:
Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Very interesting information! I'm guessing that Van's
aerobatic gross weight limitations are based on spar
load calculations and the spar root & possibly carry
through structure load calculations. Weight carried
in the wings would not affect the loading of the spar
root and the carry through structure...in fact, weight
in the wings should offset some of the bending loads
due to wing lift.
This is great news, if it's true!
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction.
--- "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
wrote:
> (ISS Atlanta)"
>
> I stole this post, from Randy Lervold, and thought
> it was worth putting
> here. Im dumbfounded by this piece of information.
> Thought you all might
> like to read it.
> ======
>
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595
>
> There has been some confusion about Aerobatic gross
> weight on the RV-3
> ever since the new B wings were introduced in 1998.
> I spoke with Van
> himself twice this week on this issue, he in turn
> discussed with his
> staff internally, and have now clarified it.
> Aerobatic gross weight for
> the RV-3 (all models, all wings) is 1,050 lbs. (no
> confusion on this).
> This figure however does NOT include fuel in WING
> tanks which is what
> was not clear. Note that any fuel in a fuselage tank
> WOULD be included
> in the Aerobatic gross.
>
> Interestingly, he confirmed that this method applies
> to any RV model. As
> an RV-8 builder/pilot I interpreted Van's W&B
> instructions to mean that
> fuel WAS included in Aerobatic Category gross weight
> calculations as
> well as Utility/Normal Category gross weight
> operation. In fact that is
> erroneous -- as long as the fuel is in wing tanks it
> may be excluded
> from the Aerobatic calculation and limit. Of course
> Van's points out
> that weight has other deleterious effects on
> aerobatic handling and
> encourages pilots to use good judgement when loading
> their aircraft for
> aerobatics.
>
>
> I have updated the summary of all RV-3 weight &
> balance data and issues
> on my web site...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3works
> Informationally,
>
> __________________
> Randy Lervold
> RV-3B, finish kit, www.rv-3.com
> RV-8, 368 hrs, sold, www.rv-8.com
> www.eaa105.org
> ======
>
> Mike Stewart
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
The interesting thing here is that Van's has published (Via the RVator) that
the weak point for the RV-4 and RV-6 wing is just outboard of the fuel tank.
I believe the same thing holds true for the RV-7 and RV-8 (isn't that where
the factory RV-8's wing failed?). Fuel in the wing tanks does result in
higher bending moments in the portion of the wing outboard of the tank, so
I'd have assumed that fuel should be considered when calculating aerobatic
weight.
I'm confused.
KB
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
Just a guess, but if I were the designer, I don't think I would publish this
in too wide-spread fashion either. That + - 200lb fudge factor might keep
ham-fisted knuckleheads like myself from busting their a--. Might just
prevent a few lawsuits too!
Mannan Thomason
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skylor Piper" <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
>
> Very interesting information! I'm guessing that Van's
> aerobatic gross weight limitations are based on spar
> load calculations and the spar root & possibly carry
> through structure load calculations. Weight carried
> in the wings would not affect the loading of the spar
> root and the carry through structure...in fact, weight
> in the wings should offset some of the bending loads
> due to wing lift.
>
> This is great news, if it's true!
>
> Skylor
> RV-8 QB
> Under Construction.
>
> --- "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> wrote:
>
>> (ISS Atlanta)"
>>
>> I stole this post, from Randy Lervold, and thought
>> it was worth putting
>> here. Im dumbfounded by this piece of information.
>> Thought you all might
>> like to read it.
>> ======
>>
> http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595
>>
>> There has been some confusion about Aerobatic gross
>> weight on the RV-3
>> ever since the new B wings were introduced in 1998.
>> I spoke with Van
>> himself twice this week on this issue, he in turn
>> discussed with his
>> staff internally, and have now clarified it.
>> Aerobatic gross weight for
>> the RV-3 (all models, all wings) is 1,050 lbs. (no
>> confusion on this).
>> This figure however does NOT include fuel in WING
>> tanks which is what
>> was not clear. Note that any fuel in a fuselage tank
>> WOULD be included
>> in the Aerobatic gross.
>>
>> Interestingly, he confirmed that this method applies
>> to any RV model. As
>> an RV-8 builder/pilot I interpreted Van's W&B
>> instructions to mean that
>> fuel WAS included in Aerobatic Category gross weight
>> calculations as
>> well as Utility/Normal Category gross weight
>> operation. In fact that is
>> erroneous -- as long as the fuel is in wing tanks it
>> may be excluded
>> from the Aerobatic calculation and limit. Of course
>> Van's points out
>> that weight has other deleterious effects on
>> aerobatic handling and
>> encourages pilots to use good judgement when loading
>> their aircraft for
>> aerobatics.
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
In a message dated 12/16/2005 7:16:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sportav8r(at)aol.com writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, Gary. Now for the newbie-type question: are the
original seals in our Van's-supplied brake systems Buna-n, Viton, or
"something less"?
==================================
The Clevelands are stock with Buna-n (Nitrile) seals.
As has already been said, the MIL-PRF-83282 fluid is available, higher temp
and fully compatible with systems/seals designed for MIL-H-5606 fluid. Read
the MIL-Spec and the history of the development of the newer fluid with the
Military. This is a no-brainer folks.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 16, 2005
From:
Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
That's absolutely true! However, one would assume that
Van's load calculations are based on both full and
empty fuel tank cases to cover the full range of
loading possibilities...if that's the case, aerobatic
gross + full fuel tanks should not necessarily have
too much impact on the mid span spar loads.
I seem to recall that some speculation of N58RV's
failure centered around the possibility of over G AND
roll input. My memory is suspect, though.
Skylor
--- Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>
> The interesting thing here is that Van's has
> published (Via the RVator) that
> the weak point for the RV-4 and RV-6 wing is just
> outboard of the fuel tank.
> I believe the same thing holds true for the RV-7 and
> RV-8 (isn't that where
> the factory RV-8's wing failed?). Fuel in the wing
> tanks does result in
> higher bending moments in the portion of the wing
> outboard of the tank, so
> I'd have assumed that fuel should be considered when
> calculating aerobatic
> weight.
>
> I'm confused.
>
> KB
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<sears(at)searnet.com>
Subject:
RV-7 center section question
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
I'm working on the F-704 center section bulkhead of my RV. As I was working
on the cover plate brackets (F782 and F783), I found that the two bottom
holes for the longer of the brackets were obstructed by very large rivets.
There were supposed to be holes there for bolts. Has anyone else
encountered this? Right now, I'm deciding to just cut off the flange of
the bracket to go around the rivet or to drill out the rivet. I don't
relish the idea of the drilling. I have to see what all the brackets
support, first. Maybe the fuel selector? I'll check that out at my next
building session. It seems that's all it was used for in my -6A.
Jim Sears in KY
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject:
MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
Last year I switched to ATF, based on info from this list, where it seemed
to have great reviews. Unfortunately due to a way too busy year I never had
time to fly again until early this winter, but first I wanted to put on new
tires and needed to purge the brake system. It was -15C on the day I was
doing this (outside - no hangar) and there was absolutely no way I could get
the ATF to flow in the brake lines. The next day I brought an air compressor
and put a shrader fitting in place of the fluid reservoir vent. It took
120psi of air to finally force the ATF out. I then flushed out the system
using gas-line anti freeze (I have Viton o-rings) then completely flushed it
out with a litre of DOT5. The DOT5 is working great now and I'm sure that
ATF may work great in the south, but for anyone up in the colder
climates(Jim?), I'd recommend avoiding it. Dot5 seems to be working great
though
just my $.02
RV9, 13Bturbo
Todd
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ron Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
DOT-5 Brake Fluid
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
While on the subject of brake fluid;
Does anybody out there have any experience with DOT-5 synthetic brake fluid?
Pros and Cons?
Jim in Kelowna
Jim,
Nearly ALL Velocities use DOT5 since they feature Datsun/Nissan master
cylinders (which won't work with 5606) and MATCO calipers. Some folks have
converted the MATCOs to Clevelands. DOT5 works fine - just a bit expensive
at $30 a quart (NAPA).
Ronnie Brown
N713MR - Velocity RG
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Douglas Kohser" <dckoh(at)mindspring.com>
Subject:
FW: RV-4 for sale
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
1.43 HTML_TINY_FONT RAW: body contains 1 or 0-point font
I'm posting this for a friend of a friend. It is located in the Atlanta, GA area.
I'm not sure but there might even be some tools involved. O time on engine
since overhaul. I believe the engine is 160 HP, but not positive. Contact
Jere as listed below for more information.
Douglas Kohser
dckoh(at)mindspring.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jere Rosser
Subject: Charlie,s RV-4
RV-4 airframe 90% completed, overhauled 0-320 with Prince Prop, all VFR instruments,
Panel Mount GPS(Garmin), Transponder with Mode C, Com, and Antennae. All
support equipment included, tech data and etc. Have to sell due to poor health.
$21,000.00. Contact Jere Rosser at 770-592-1943.
What do you think Doug?
Jere
Let fate take it's course directly to your email.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
RV-7 center section question
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
Jim: Doublecheck that you have not inadvertently reversed the forward
center section with the aft center section. At tht spot on the aft center
section, there is a rivet in place. Apologies if you've already done that.
Bob
St. Paul
> brackets were obstructed by very large rivets. There were
> supposed to be holes there for bolts. Has anyone else
> encountered this? Right now, I'm deciding to just cut off
> the flange of
> the bracket to go around the rivet or to drill out the rivet.
> I don't relish the idea of the drilling. I have to see what
> all the brackets support, first. Maybe the fuel selector?
> I'll check that out at my next building session. It seems
> that's all it was used for in my -6A.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
From:
"Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject:
Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
On 4:35:32 2005-12-17 "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
wrote:
> Oh Im sure we will hear from yee ole "it saved a lot of lives' folks.
> Bottom line is this little tid bit of information is revolutionary for
> every RV owner. AND it might just be the happiest most annoying piece
> of information I have ever heard. Its like adding 250# of acro gross
> weight to every acro rv built.
This is probably why Van never published this "tidbit" of information.
Because many of the armchair aeronautical engineers on this list, who can
build amazingly beautiful airplanes but don't know a load distribution from
a hole in their backside will immediately assume this means they can carry
an additional 200-250 lb anywhere in the plane when they fly acro. (not
saying this applies to you, Michael, but your wording comes dangerously
close to suggesting that).
With full tanks on an RV, the weight in the tanks will (in a positive-G
manoeuver) lessen the load on the wing attach points, because you've
increased the weight of the wing. However, it will *increase* the load on
the spar just outboard of the fuel tank.
I don't know what control deflection Van assumed when he designed the wing
for G-loading. But if you happen to combine a large aileron deflection
with a full tank, you'll be concentrating the control loads at the inboard
end of the aileron, and the extra weight from your fuel tank at the
outboard end of the tank. I don't have the plans in front of me, but I
seem to recall that the points are pretty close together along the span of
the spar, maybe 1 bay apart? The stress concentration could easily fold
your wing.
If you move some of that 250# into the cabin (so you have some room to take
your light friend with you), you will be increasing the load on the wing
attach points, and decreasing the load on the spar outboard of the tank.
Which again is a good recipe for folding a wing if you screw up a manouever.
Just my $0.02. I will be following Vans' published recommendations for
aerobatic weights.
-Rob Prior
(trained as an Aeronautical Engineer, but not working in that field)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
> As has already been said, the MIL-PRF-83282 fluid is available, higher
> temp
> and fully compatible with systems/seals designed for MIL-H-5606 fluid.
> Read
> the MIL-Spec and the history of the development of the newer fluid with
> the
> Military. This is a no-brainer folks.
Neither Spruce or Van's carry it, anyone know a source?
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
From:
Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Reference the Mobile 1 Synthetic ATF fluid, here is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/8wj8q
Data sheet at bottom. I am concerned about the post about a problem
at -15 Deg C. Of course not flying it for several seasons is not ideal
for the plane.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
From:
Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
If you got the lines to flow at 120psi with compressed air, then still not a
problem with using ATF. Perhaps you had some junk in the system? A friend
of mine was curious to what the brake line pressures were, so he hooked a
tee on the caliper to a pressure gauge. 300psi with someone in the cockpit
pushing as reasonably hard as they could on the brakes. The reason for the
exercise was to check the suitability of nylaflow brake lines, which BTW
also work fine.
I really don't understand why folks want to make it more complicated than it
is.
If the synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I wouldn't think that
there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque
converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
Subject:
[ George McNutt ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From:
Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: George McNutt
Lists: RV-List,RV7-List
Subject: Roll Bar Shims
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/gmcnutt@shaw.ca.12.17.2005/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
Van had to make a bunch of assumptions when he determined spar
bending loads vs gross weight. He only recommends engines up to the
weight of an Lycoming IO-360, so you can be sure that he assumed the
wing would be supporting no more than that engine, plus a Hartzell,
plus normally expected avionics and instruments. Adding weight in
the fuselage has a much more significant effect on spar bending loads
than adding fuel.
I strongly recommend that anyone who has an engine/prop combination
that is heavier than a counterweighted IO-360 plus Hartzell should
not do aerobatics at greater than 1550 lb gross weight unless they
clear it with Van's.
Kevin Horton
On 17 Dec 2005, at 15:46, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
>
> License to abuse the plane? How about a license to add 250lbs to all
> weights we have been calculating? Seems that is now the case.
> Im no design engineer, but the manufacturer just gave me license to
> add
> another major chunk of weight in my fuse. I would say that's a pretty
> big deal. Oh, and lets not forget that this for the gross weight also.
>
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
>
>
>> Just my $0.02. I will be following Vans' published recommendations
> for
>> aerobatic weights.
>
> Ditto. I don't necessarily think it's a positive thing that this "new
> information" has come to light. It's not a license to abuse your
> aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
From:
"Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject:
Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
On 12:46:18 2005-12-17 "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
wrote:
> License to abuse the plane? How about a license to add 250lbs to all
> weights we have been calculating? Seems that is now the case.
> Im no design engineer, but the manufacturer just gave me license to
> add another major chunk of weight in my fuse. I would say that's a
> pretty big deal. Oh, and lets not forget that this for the gross
> weight also.
This is exactly why armchair engineers should resign themselves to sitting
in their armchairs.
Van's wording, as reported in the original email, says nothing about being
able to add weight to your fuselage, and nothing about increasing overall
gross weight. It definitely does not say that you can add 250lb to all of
the weights you've been calculating.
Van has given you nothing. All you have is the word of someone on the
RV-List who claims to have talked to Van (*), and claims that we can
magically carry full fuel into an aerobatic flight when previously that was
believed to be unwise.
Until you have *in writing from Van*, a statement that you can add 250lb to
your fuselage, or to your wings while doing acro, I suggest that you accept
the numbers you were given when you bought your kit. There is no free
lunch and these airplanes are as safe as they are because people aren't
pushing them to their limits on every flight.
If you want to magically believe that your airplane just got 10% stronger
overnight, that's your decision.
-Rob
* - Not to say that the original poster didn't talk to Van, or that this
wasn't what Van said. Just a word to the wise that you should take
everything you read on the 'net with a grain of salt unless it's backed up
with some proof.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Source for : MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
Randy,
Here is the web site where I ordered mine. I could only find it in gallon
quantities $18.00, you may have better luck .
http://commerce.lubes.com/
click Hydraulic Fluids on the menu to the left and you should see Royco
782-1GL Anderol
MIL-PRF-83282
Hydraulic Fluid, 1 Gallon
$18.00
That's the stuff you want - trade name in this case is Royco 782-1G.
Oh, yes, it comes in one of those cans you have to punch a hole in so you
probably want to have a suitable container to put the remainder in after
opening it.
Ed
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
>> As has already been said, the MIL-PRF-83282 fluid is available, higher
>> temp
>> and fully compatible with systems/seals designed for MIL-H-5606 fluid.
>> Read
>> the MIL-Spec and the history of the development of the newer fluid with
>> the
>> Military. This is a no-brainer folks.
>
> Neither Spruce or Van's carry it, anyone know a source?
>
> Randy Lervold
> www.rv-3.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 17, 2005
> Had breakfast with Van this morning and he comfirmed he talked to Randy
> about it.
> His only comment was that he hoped Randy posted it correctly and knowing
> Randy
> I believe he did.
>
> Jerry
Thanks Jerry. If anyone's curious here's exactly what I said...
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4595
While I didn't run the exact language by Van I feel confident I have
captured exactly what they meant. Note that there is no mention of any
change to any Normal/Utility gross weight figure for any RV, it ONLY impacts
the Aerobatic gross weight calculation method. Also please note the comments
on the "deleterious effects of weight on aerobatic handling" and "encourages
pilots to use good judgement when loading their aircraft for aerobatics"
statements.
Randy Lervold
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
Where is this 'new information' from VANS published? I would be interested
to read what they have actually said. Thanks, Steve.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
>
> Van had to make a bunch of assumptions when he determined spar
> bending loads vs gross weight. He only recommends engines up to the
> weight of an Lycoming IO-360, so you can be sure that he assumed the
> wing would be supporting no more than that engine, plus a Hartzell,
> plus normally expected avionics and instruments. Adding weight in
> the fuselage has a much more significant effect on spar bending loads
> than adding fuel.
>
> I strongly recommend that anyone who has an engine/prop combination
> that is heavier than a counterweighted IO-360 plus Hartzell should
> not do aerobatics at greater than 1550 lb gross weight unless they
> clear it with Van's.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> On 17 Dec 2005, at 15:46, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> License to abuse the plane? How about a license to add 250lbs to all
>> weights we have been calculating? Seems that is now the case.
>> Im no design engineer, but the manufacturer just gave me license to
>> add
>> another major chunk of weight in my fuse. I would say that's a pretty
>> big deal. Oh, and lets not forget that this for the gross weight also.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Checkoway
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
>>
>>
>>> Just my $0.02. I will be following Vans' published recommendations
>> for
>>> aerobatic weights.
>>
>> Ditto. I don't necessarily think it's a positive thing that this "new
>> information" has come to light. It's not a license to abuse your
>> aircraft.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
> on behalf of the London Business School community.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
HI Bob-
Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit
pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I
wouldn't think that
there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque
converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc."
You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some
automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic
tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on
springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can
develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut
butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals?
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes.
I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I
had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it
was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I purged
and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be
suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the frozen
north.
not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might be a
factor in your decision.
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
>
> HI Bob-
>
> Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit
> pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I
> wouldn't think that
> there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque
> converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc."
>
> You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some
> automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic
> tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on
> springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can
> develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut
> butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals?
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
"Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
On 16:49:21 2005-12-17 Jerry Springer wrote:
> Had breakfast with Van this morning and he comfirmed he talked to
> Randy about it. His only comment was that he hoped Randy posted it
> correctly and knowing Randy I believe he did.
Could you ask Van to put a notice of some kind on the Vans website that
clarifies this? A "service bulletin" or "techical update" or something?
If they're not willing to do that, then perhaps an explanation why not, if
it's really something safe to do?
I believe Van said it, but as any lawyer will tell you: if it's not in
writing, it doesn't exist. If Van will stand behind it with a published
written clarification, it makes me a lot more confident.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
Subject:
Re: Aerobatic weight calculation. No Fuel?
Hi All,
A consideration on the aerobatic weight calculation. It could be a very bad
assumption to say the wing spar will always fail first.
A long time ago I used to do stress analysis. I made some basic assumptions
about the RV-3 spar. I ran the calculations for the RV-3 standard dry wing,
and for the optional 12.5 gallon tank in each wing.
Again, this was a long time ago. I remember that the addition of 150 pounds
in the wing allowed a 100 pound increase in the gross weight.
However, I wasn't willing to assume that the wing spar was the first failure
point. Since I didn't have a finite element analysis program available at
that time to analyze the complete airframe, I took the following very
simplistic approach.
Van designed the RV-3 around a 170 pound pilot. Easy for him. Impossible
for me.
Assuming the pilots seat is the first point of failure, I did the following
calculation.
Standard pilot weight divided by my weight. This is the pilot weight factor.
In my case, something less than 1.
Multiple 6 G's by the pilot weight factor.
Whichever number is less becomes your aircraft's aerobatic G factor.
For my RV-3 with me in it, I had a 4 G RV-3.
This is a phantasm fact I developed for myself and my RV-3.
Since I haven't pulled more than 3 G's doing aerobatics, it worked for me.
(I used to pull 4 G's regularly, so I wouldn't be the leader in "follow the
leader". But that's another story.)
Regards,
Jim Ayers
Phantasm - Something that doesn't exist, but seems real in the mind.
RV-3 sn 50 N47RV
In a message dated 12/18/2005 8:17:17 AM Pacific Standard Time,
shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
Just a quick question. How many guys are out there pulling 6 g's? I'll bet
most aren't pulling more than 4, which gives a nice margin of safety on
structural limits if you may have somehow overloaded your plane.
do not archive
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
235 hours
Chicago/Louisville
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> (Hydraulic) Fluid
Subject:
Re: ATF as brake fluid was MIL-PRF-83282 Brake
(Hydraulic) Fluid
At 09:57 AM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>HI Bob-
>
>Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit
>pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I
>wouldn't think that
>there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your torque
>converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc."
>
>You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some
>automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic
>tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on
>springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you can
>develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to peanut
>butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals?
>
>Glen Matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
Glen,
Automatic transmissions are all positive pressure devices. From
experience, I can tell you that they don't like to work hard in extremely
cold weather till the fluid comes up to operating temperature. This is why
most vehicles use the radiator as an transmission oil cooler. The radiator
also helps to speed heating of the ATF during cold weather.
Comparison of ATF's use in the device it was intended for with use as a
"disc" brake fluid is an apples to oranges comparison. I believe that the
issue with poor cold temperature viscosity is POTENTIALLY valid. With drum
brakes, the shoes are mechanically retracted by strong springs, which in
turn drive the pistons of the wheel cylinders back. In a disc brake system,
the ONLY retraction mechanisms are the suction caused by the retreating
master cylinder piston and the slight stretching of the caliper O-ring.
Cars and trucks use a square shouldered caliper bore O-ring. With the
standard round O-rings used by Cleveland and Matco, I doubt that those
O-rings would even offer any retraction due to O-ring stretch. The
combination of thick fluid with this less than stellar retraction method of
the caliper piston could lead to dragging brakes upon landing during cold
weather operations. Not an issue to folks who live in Florida or
California, but of great concern to Canadians, New Yorkers and folks from
Wisconsin or Minnesota.
I'm old enough to remember the disc brake problems that occurred with the
Dodge Aspens and similar Plymouths. The Chrysler engineers thought that
they could eliminate the problem of pistons sticking in the caliper due to
rusting. They would also save weight and more importantly, money! The
composite pistons were cheaper to make.
Rusting occurs when owners don't flush their glycol based brake fluids
every two years, like they should. When DOT 3 or 4 fluids are used for
longer than this period of time in a humid climate, the fluid can no longer
retain all of the absorbed moisture. Water precipitates out and sinks to
the bottom of the master cylinder and caliper. The piston and iron caliper
bore rust together, causing seized brakes.
Chrysler's engineers made the piston out of a composite material,
theorizing that it couldn't rust. However, the thermal expansion and
contraction rates of the iron and the new piston material did not match.
Additionally, although the composite pistons did not rust, they were
relatively soft. The rust on the iron bore would embed itself into the
pistons. The result was that the brake calipers were seizing while the cars
were still under warranty. It occurred most during the winter months. I was
living and working in Buffalo, NY at the time. The Great Lakes region of
the country is both humid year round and cold during the winter. This area
was a worst case scenario for this problem. This was one of those "better
ideas" that wasn't. I rebuilt a lot of those calipers.
My point here is that disc brake calipers can hang up quite easily from
any number of causes. I have no experience using ATF as a brake fluid. I
"would" however, expect the newer synthetic ATFs to be less affected by
temperature extremes, than the mineral oil variety. I think someone using
ATF who lives in a Northern climate could comment on this best.
Charlie Kuss
One repeatable experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: DOT-5 Brake Fluid
At 08:09 AM 12/17/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>While on the subject of brake fluid;
>
>Does anybody out there have any experience with DOT-5 synthetic brake fluid?
>Pros and Cons?
>
>Jim in Kelowna
>
>Jim,
>
>Nearly ALL Velocities use DOT5 since they feature Datsun/Nissan master
>cylinders (which won't work with 5606) and MATCO calipers. Some folks have
>converted the MATCOs to Clevelands. DOT5 works fine - just a bit expensive
>at $30 a quart (NAPA).
>
>Ronnie Brown
>N713MR - Velocity RG
Jim,
I've never used DOT 5 in an aircraft. I have used it in automobiles and
motorcycles.
Pros
High dry boiling point 500 degrees F
Does not burn
Drop in replacement for 5606 No modifications needed.
Because DOT 5 (not to be confused with DOT 5.1) is silicone based, it
doesn't attack Buna N seals, like glycol based DOT 3, 4 or 5.1 fluids will.
This makes it a drop in replacement for our RV brakes. It's high boiling
point gives improved resistance to brake fade during extreme brake usage.
Cons
Does not absorb moisture
Reduced lubrication qualities compared to both mineral oil based (5606,
83282 & ATF) fluids and glycol based (DOT 3, 4 & 5.1) fluids.
Can entrain (cavitation) air bubbles with repeated rapid pedal application.
(Probably not relevant to aircraft usage)
Glycol based brake fluids absorb moisture. This is actually a good thing.
DOT 3, 4 & 5.1 fluids with 2 to 4% moisture content will not freeze below
-40F It is also why they must periodically be flushed and new fluid
installed. After 1 to 2 years (depending on climate) the glycol becomes
saturated with moisture. The moisture precipitates out and bad things start
to happen. Since DOT 5 fluid will not absorb moisture, the following bad
things will start to happen right away.
Free water sinks to the low points of both the master cylinder and caliper.
This free water will start to corrode the metals of these units. This
causes premature failure of these units. Free water boils at 212F at sea
level. It boils at even lower temps for you Rocky Mountain folks. Water
boiling in your brake fluid (regardless of the fluid's chemistry) will
cause brake fade at the boiling point of water (altitude dependent). Some
auto racers use DOT 5 fluid. However, they flush the fluid weekly or
monthly to remove moisture. I doubt that you want to chain yourself to this
sort of maintenance schedule.
My personal experiences with DOT 5 fluid when used like DOT 4 or 4
(flushed every year or two) is that it caused rapid wear of the master
cylinder bore. The bore would bell mouth at the far end. Since motorcycle
master cylinders are expensive, I went back to Super DOT 4 fluid like ATE
Super Blue for my cars and bikes. See
http://www.247-parts.com/leyline/ate_super_blue.shtml
Glycol based brake fluids do not burn. They are gygroscopic, absorbing
moisture which enters the system through the reservoir vent hole. They can
only hold a finite amount of moisture in suspension. Because of this, they
must be flushed out with clean, new fluid periodically.
Glycol based fluids are not compatible with the Buna N O-rings found in
our brake components. A switch would require replacement of all rubber
parts with a material compatible with this fluid. There are several
available. One of the best is 75 durometer Viton GLT. This material is
compatible with all the above mentioned aviation brake fluids, ATF, DOT 5
and all the automotive glycol based brake fluids. You can use any of these
fluids with it. It also has superior high temperature performance when
compared to the stock Buna N (aka Nitrile) O-rings in our brakes. See
operating range comparison below
Buna N Viton GLT EPDM (used in cars)
-35F to 248F -31F to 392F -65F to 302F
See links below for source data
http://www.marcorubber.com/buna.htmhttp://www.marcorubber.com/viton.htm
Scroll down to 4th variant on page
http://www.marcorubber.com/viton.htm
EPDM is listed to compare Viton's capabilities with one of the most common
materials used in automobiles. EPDM is NOT compatible with mineral based
hydraulic fluids, such as 5606 or ATF. Interestingly, it is good for use
with Skydrol. However Skydrol has draw backs which make it less than ideal
for light aircraft use. (Toxic, not readily available at small airports,
expensive, and burns at an elevated level)
Your results with DOT 5 will vary depending on how humid your local climate
is, and how often you flush out the old fluid with new (to remove any
moisture present).
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject:
Test, Ignore...
Just a system test, please igore.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Insurance and Brake Fluid
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than
hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related
accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they
knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
> Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes.
>
> I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I
> had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it
> was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I
> purged
> and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be
> suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the
> frozen
> north.
>
> not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might
> be a factor in your decision.
>
> Ed A
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
>
>>
>>
>> HI Bob-
>>
>> Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit
>> pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I
>> wouldn't think that
>> there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your
>> torque
>> converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc."
>>
>> You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some
>> automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic
>> tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on
>> springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you
>> can
>> develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to
>> peanut
>> butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals?
>>
>> Glen Matejcek
>> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
Ed Anderson wrote:
>
> One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than
> hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related
> accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they
> knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts.
Interesting point but I think one would have a hard time proving that
there is any such thing as "approved" brake fluid in an aircraft with an
experimental certificate.
Using "Flintstone" brakes in an RV (they were common in early
ultralights!) may not be very smart, but I don't think they would be
considered illegal.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
Subject:
ATF@-15C
Todd,
ATF freezing up at -15C (+5f)? This begs the question: Why do cars with auto
transmissions operate at that temp? I experienced -20f in E. Washington once
for a few days and cars operated fine once you got them started... Not to
mention other kinds of hydraulic fluid... You'd think that if the ATF was
frozen up, you would bust the tranny for sure. Not doubting, just wondering.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:14:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Last year I switched to ATF, based on info from this list, where it seemed
to have great reviews. Unfortunately due to a way too busy year I never had
time to fly again until early this winter, but first I wanted to put on new
tires and needed to purge the brake system. It was -15C on the day I was
doing this (outside - no hangar) and there was absolutely no way I could get
the ATF to flow in the brake lines.
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
>>
>> One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other
>> than
>> hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related
>> accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming
>> they
>> knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts.
>
>
> Interesting point but I think one would have a hard time proving that
> there is any such thing as "approved" brake fluid in an aircraft with an
> experimental certificate.
>
> Using "Flintstone" brakes in an RV (they were common in early
> ultralights!) may not be very smart, but I don't think they would be
> considered illegal.
>
> Sam Buchanan
Probably right, Sam. Certainly not illegal from an FAA perspective, but
figured if an insurance company wanted to show that you had access to
readily available "aircraft" brake fluid and decided to used olive oil
instead - the insure company lawyers could probably find some "reasonable
person wouldn't..." type defense.
Not going to worry about it myself, but just thought I would throw the
thought on the fire {:>)
Ed Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: ATF@-15C
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
Jerry, Todd posted this message to another list and I posted it to the RV
list for information relative to someone having experience actually using
the stuff.
However, it was not that the ATF froze, it just became very, very thick and
would not bleed from his lines at those temps. Perhaps auto transmission
have relief valves to prevent damage at low temps until transmission temps
warm up?
Ed /a
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: ATF@-15C
>
>
> Todd,
>
> ATF freezing up at -15C (+5f)? This begs the question: Why do cars with
> auto
> transmissions operate at that temp? I experienced -20f in E. Washington
> once
> for a few days and cars operated fine once you got them started... Not to
> mention other kinds of hydraulic fluid... You'd think that if the ATF was
> frozen up, you would bust the tranny for sure. Not doubting, just
> wondering.
>
> Jerry Cochran
> Wilsonville, OR
>
> In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:14:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
>
> Last year I switched to ATF, based on info from this list, where it
> seemed
> to have great reviews. Unfortunately due to a way too busy year I never
> had
> time to fly again until early this winter, but first I wanted to put on
> new
> tires and needed to purge the brake system. It was -15C on the day I was
> doing this (outside - no hangar) and there was absolutely no way I could
> get
> the ATF to flow in the brake lines.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
Ed,
It wouldn't surprise me if an insurance company tried this ruse. However,
I doubt that unless you bungled the brake installation, that they would
have a case. Glycol based fluids are non flammable, have boiling points
which are above the flash point of any Mil Spec mineral oil approved for
light aircraft. Providing you flush the old fluid regularly (and document
it in the log books), where is the performance downside?
This area is no different than any other relating to OBAM aircraft. You
could conceivably have a claim denied due to any number of "non stock"
decisions you've made in regards to the building of your RV (or any other
experimental aircraft type).
I can understand why aircraft which fly into the flight levels might
require a fluid which will not freeze at temperatures below -40F. If you
feel you need that kind of performance and are willing to forgo using a non
flammable brake fluid to get it, go ahead. After all, this IS experimental
aviation. We are all allowed to use the materials we feel are best. I still
haven't decided on what fluid I will use.
It seems to me, the best way to short circuit this issue, is to make the
insurance company aware of any and all modifications you've made to the
stock design, prior to signing the contract. Honesty, after all, is the
best policy.
Charlie
>
>One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other than
>hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related
>accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming they
>knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts.
>
>Ed Anderson
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
>
>
> >
> > Here is a quote from a Canadian friend who tried ATF in his brakes.
> >
> > I tried using ATF, as I'd also read good reports on it, however recently I
> > had to fill the system after changing the tires & brakes and found that it
> > was impossible to fill the system at -15C, so with great difficulty I
> > purged
> > and flushed the ATF out of the system and am now using DOT5. ATF may be
> > suitable for use in warmer climates, but didn't cut it up here in the
> > frozen
> > north.
> >
> > not that may of us are "blessed" with -15C weather (thankfully), but might
> > be a factor in your decision.
> >
> > Ed A
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> HI Bob-
> >>
> >> Re: "300psi with someone in the cockpit
> >> pushing as reasonably ...if synthetic ATF didn't work in cold climates, I
> >> wouldn't think that
> >> there would be many vehicles being driven around in the winter. Your
> >> torque
> >> converter wouldn't work, the transmission wouldn't shift, etc."
> >>
> >> You raise an interesting point. My question, and I'm sure we have some
> >> automotive experts on the list who can answer it, is does an automatic
> >> tranny only operate on positive pressure, or does some function rely on
> >> springs in the absence of pressure? The reason I ask is that while you
> >> can
> >> develop the pressure to apply the brakes when your ATF has turned to
> >> peanut
> >> butter, will they release fully when you get off the pedals?
> >>
> >> Glen Matejcek
> >> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
From:
Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
Charlie Kuss wrote:
> It seems to me, the best way to short circuit this issue, is to make the
> insurance company aware of any and all modifications you've made to the
> stock design, prior to signing the contract. Honesty, after all, is the
> best policy.
They will have to pry my experimental airworthiness certificate out of
my cold, cold hands before I would ever agree to telling the insurance
carrier of the mods in my RV-6!
IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!
The FAA and the laws of this land clearly state that I can have whatever
mods I want in my experimental aircraft. If a carrier has a problem
with this situation, they can do as many carriers have and stop insuring
experimental aircraft. But if an insurer agrees to insure an
experimental aircraft registered per the FARS, they have NO right to put
restrictions on the airworthiness certificate that aren't placed there
by the FARS, or to make insurability conditional on their interpretation
of the FAA's experimental certificate.
Having said that, I have no doubt that some insurers would LOVE to be
able to dictate their ideas of how to manufacture a "safe" experimental
aircraft. But this whole idea of letting our experimental aircraft slip
toward a "standard" concept is scary. This is precisely what has
happened in many European nations and why those builders must have every
modified rivet approved by the powers that be.
We must fight via every avenue available to us any effort to
"standardize" our experimental aircraft! I am dismayed by the reports we
have seen on this list of DAR's or FAA inspectors that want to add
"their" pet requirements to the registration process. If we sit idly by
and let busy-body inspectors or insurers begin enforcing personal
modifications to the FARS as they see fit, we are well on our way to
seeing the tremendous freedoms we possess under the experimental
certification disappear.
There.......I feel better.............
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"randall" <rv6n6r(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
Date:
Dec 18, 2005
How is this different than using a non-"approved" (by Lycoming) engine/prop
combination? I wouldn't worry.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
PS. I know ZIP about brake fluid. Just commenting on the
"insurance/approved" part of it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid
>
> One factor you may want to consider is what if you use something other
than
> hydraulic fluid approved for aircraft brakes and have a brake related
> accident? Would the typical insurance company cover the claim assuming
they
> knew about the switch? I personally have my doubts.
>
> Ed Anderson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject:
ATF@-15C
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Thanks for fielding this one for me Ed, but I should add a few points as
well. First let me say that this was not synthetic ATF. I considered trying
this but had decided that there wasn't enough value in pursuing this
experiment any further, so decided to try DOT5. Second, the ATF did not
freeze up. It was just to thick to purge through the system using my purge
system. (which in the summer will easily purge the brakes system with ATF)
Third, I have no doubt that if I'd actually had the system purged and ready
before it got cold, that I'd have been able to apply plenty of braking
power, but I didn't & I couldn't resulting in a wasted day of great flying
weather (severe clear & cold) and a few choice words.
I've lived in the frozen north all of my life and we learn to live with
the
cold, but hydraulic fluids do not perform well when cold. Sure you can
start up your truck at -35C and drop it in gear & go, but your tranny won't
like it, will shift very poorly and won't last long at all. In the very cold
weather forestry operations are in full speed as the frozen ground aids in
efficient harvesting, but heavy equipment is not shut down at all due to the
hydraulic oil becoming cold. Machines will run for months at a time and
breakdowns are handled very quickly and efficiently to get things up and
warm again.
few posts on "ATF as brake fluid" & "DOT-5 Brake Fluid" It's probably the
best info I've seen posted on this list regarding the different types of
brake fluids.
Todd
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
From:
jhelms(at)i1.net
You're wrong, and you're talking about two completely different things.
First, the FAA has absolutely nothing to do with insurance companies. The
insurance company requirements on lots of things are more restrictive than
the FAA because all the FAA has to do is sweep up the parts of your plane
and you and put them in a box. The insurance company has to pay for it,
and up to $1 Million (or whatever upper limit you purchase) for whatever
you might hit with it.
You are right though, in that their option is to not insure experimentals
at all. With only 2 out of 8 companies insuring experimental aircraft,
we're almost there. Is that what all RVers want? With 1100 insured thru
my office, I'd say no.
You're also wrong in that not telling them IS worse than telling them. If
you tell them and they decide not to insure you, then you win (you don't
have to pay for something that won't cover you). If you don't tell them,
have a claim, and they deny coverage, you lose and you had to pay for it.
Anything that was not provided by or recommended in the plans by Van to be
used should be listed or it could very well cause a denial of coverage
(engine not recommended, that you decided to shorten the wings by 6
inches, etc). I can imagine the outrage that would be expressed on this
forum if there were a denial of coverage on the basis of an unknown mod
which was not disclosed.
Phoenix used to pay out for stuff that perhaps they shouldn't have (such
as known unairworthy planes and planes which had car engines that they
were never told of, etc), and their loss ratio was such that they got out.
Now, everybody who wants insurance is paying the price.
My $.02, you're of course going to do what you want. I'm just trying to
advise you and the group how it could affect you individually and as a
whole.
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Light Aircraft Office
>
> Charlie Kuss wrote:
>
>
>> It seems to me, the best way to short circuit this issue, is to make
>> the
>> insurance company aware of any and all modifications you've made to the
>> stock design, prior to signing the contract. Honesty, after all, is the
>> best policy.
>
>
> They will have to pry my experimental airworthiness certificate out of
> my cold, cold hands before I would ever agree to telling the insurance
> carrier of the mods in my RV-6!
>
> IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!
>
> The FAA and the laws of this land clearly state that I can have whatever
> mods I want in my experimental aircraft. If a carrier has a problem
> with this situation, they can do as many carriers have and stop insuring
> experimental aircraft. But if an insurer agrees to insure an
> experimental aircraft registered per the FARS, they have NO right to put
> restrictions on the airworthiness certificate that aren't placed there
> by the FARS, or to make insurability conditional on their interpretation
> of the FAA's experimental certificate.
>
> Having said that, I have no doubt that some insurers would LOVE to be
> able to dictate their ideas of how to manufacture a "safe" experimental
> aircraft. But this whole idea of letting our experimental aircraft slip
> toward a "standard" concept is scary. This is precisely what has
> happened in many European nations and why those builders must have every
> modified rivet approved by the powers that be.
>
> We must fight via every avenue available to us any effort to
> "standardize" our experimental aircraft! I am dismayed by the reports we
> have seen on this list of DAR's or FAA inspectors that want to add
> "their" pet requirements to the registration process. If we sit idly by
> and let busy-body inspectors or insurers begin enforcing personal
> modifications to the FARS as they see fit, we are well on our way to
> seeing the tremendous freedoms we possess under the experimental
> certification disappear.
>
> There.......I feel better.............
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
ATF@-15C
At 04:57 AM 12/19/2005, you wrote:
>
> Thanks for fielding this one for me Ed, but I should add a few
> points as
>well. First let me say that this was not synthetic ATF. I considered trying
>this but had decided that there wasn't enough value in pursuing this
>experiment any further, so decided to try DOT5. Second, the ATF did not
>freeze up. It was just to thick to purge through the system using my purge
>system. (which in the summer will easily purge the brakes system with ATF)
>Third, I have no doubt that if I'd actually had the system purged and ready
>before it got cold, that I'd have been able to apply plenty of braking
>power, but I didn't & I couldn't resulting in a wasted day of great flying
>weather (severe clear & cold) and a few choice words.
> I've lived in the frozen north all of my life and we learn to
> live with the
>cold, but hydraulic fluids do not perform well when cold. Sure you can
>start up your truck at -35C and drop it in gear & go, but your tranny won't
>like it, will shift very poorly and won't last long at all. In the very cold
>weather forestry operations are in full speed as the frozen ground aids in
>efficient harvesting, but heavy equipment is not shut down at all due to the
>hydraulic oil becoming cold. Machines will run for months at a time and
>breakdowns are handled very quickly and efficiently to get things up and
>warm again.
>few posts on "ATF as brake fluid" & "DOT-5 Brake Fluid" It's probably the
>best info I've seen posted on this list regarding the different types of
>brake fluids.
>
>Todd
Todd,
Thanks for giving us "the rest of the story". Tim Olson was kind enough
to provide me with the web link to the data on Mobil 1 synthetic ATF. See below
http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorOil/Other_Products/Mobil_1_Synthetic_ATF.aspx
It's hot & cold weather properties are an improvement over standard mineral
oil based ATF. For those who want to stick with a mineral (albeit
synthetic) fluid, this is better.
To compare Mobil 1 synthetic's properties to 5606 and 83282, look at
AeroShell's document below. AeroShell Type 41 is 5606 and AeroShell Type 31
is 83282. See page 6 for 83282's specs and pages 8 & 9 for 5606
http://193.113.209.166/aeroshell/aeroshellhydraulicfluids.pdf
I hope this helps.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: DOT-5 Brake Fluid
At 02:53 PM 12/18/2005, you wrote:
>
>At 08:09 AM 12/17/2005, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >While on the subject of brake fluid;
> >
> >Does anybody out there have any experience with DOT-5 synthetic brake fluid?
> >Pros and Cons?
> >
> >Jim in Kelowna
> >
> >Jim,
> >
> >Nearly ALL Velocities use DOT5 since they feature Datsun/Nissan master
> >cylinders (which won't work with 5606) and MATCO calipers. Some folks have
> >converted the MATCOs to Clevelands. DOT5 works fine - just a bit expensive
> >at $30 a quart (NAPA).
> >
> >Ronnie Brown
> >N713MR - Velocity RG
>
>Jim,
> I've never used DOT 5 in an aircraft. I have used it in automobiles and
>motorcycles.
>snipped
>Glycol based brake fluids absorb moisture. This is actually a good thing.
>DOT 3, 4 & 5.1 fluids with 2 to 4% moisture content will not freeze below
>-40F
snipped
I just noticed a mistake in the above email. I meant to state that DOT 3,4
& 5.1 fluids will not freeze until you reach temperatures BELOW -40 degrees
F Sorry for the typo
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Parker Thomas" <me(at)parkerthomas.com>
Subject:
Any San Francisco RV 6,7 or 9's?
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Hello Builders -
I'm wondering if any of you have a completed RV 6, 7 or 9 near San Francisco
or Oakland that I could come look at. I'm trying to convince a friend to
join me on my second RV project. He is 6' 5" and a little concerned about
whether he would fit without his head sticking out.
Just being able to sit in one would be a big help. Can anyone help?
Many thanks,
Parker Thomas
RV-8 N321PT built, flown for 300 wondrous hours and, unfortunately, sold
____________________________________
F. Parker Thomas
ShredFirst
phone 510-433-0200
fax 510-217-5976
parker(at)shredfirst.biz
www.shredfirst.biz
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
That wicked riveting "nibble" idea ...
From:
Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
1.66 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP)
1.28 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC)
1.36 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP
addr 1)
I don't know where I saw this idea written up but ...
This weekend I got the top skins pretty much complete on my 9
and made use of this technique to great effect. Where you have
the tab of a rib or bulkhead sticking up so it doesn't lie flat
against the other layers you are riveting together its hard to
hold down the tab and buck the rivet at the same time. If you
don't take action you end up with the shop head partially set
above and below the protruding tab.
Someone came up with the idea of taking a piece of soft plastic
or rubber tubing with a diameter slightly larger than the rivet
shank and twice the length of the un-set shank, placing over
the rivet shank and under the bucking bar face. As you press
the bucking bar against the rivet the tubing compresses and
pushes the tab of alum into place. As the rivet sets the
tubing compresses further.
This is a very effective technique and I wanted to thank its
inventor !! Without him/her and this list I probably would
never have figure it out.
Happy Holidays !!
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
<gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has low flash point.
That is why the military and airlines don't use it. So the approved stuff
is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic) is safer. I can't address the freezing
issue but a little googling I am sure would turn up some answers. I forgot the
spec for the better approved Mil spec aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but it
cost more and available only in larger quantities (I think a gallon). You could
likely get some small amount at a JET FBO. The down side it is not really
compatible with standard brake fluid. I plan on using the better stuff. The argument
is you may not be able to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes
need little maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could get
the Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get, the higher
flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just look at the Matronics
picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Mike Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net>
Subject:
That wicked riveting "nibble" idea ...
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
An even easier idea is to stick a piece of scotch brite on the
protruding rivet side between the rivet (soon to be shop headed) and the
bucking bar. As the bucking bar hits the rivet, it pushes the skin down
nice and tight. Seems hard to believe, but try it. It really works!
You only need to use one layer thick of scotch brite.
-Mike
RV-4 Flying
RV-10 Fuselage
<>
<<
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: RV-List: That wicked riveting "nibble" idea ...
I don't know where I saw this idea written up but ...
This weekend I got the top skins pretty much complete on my 9
and made use of this technique to great effect. Where you have
the tab of a rib or bulkhead sticking up so it doesn't lie flat
against the other layers you are riveting together its hard to
hold down the tab and buck the rivet at the same time. If you
don't take action you end up with the shop head partially set
above and below the protruding tab.
Someone came up with the idea of taking a piece of soft plastic
or rubber tubing with a diameter slightly larger than the rivet
shank and twice the length of the un-set shank, placing over
the rivet shank and under the bucking bar face. As you press
the bucking bar against the rivet the tubing compresses and
pushes the tab of alum into place. As the rivet sets the
tubing compresses further.
This is a very effective technique and I wanted to thank its
inventor !! Without him/her and this list I probably would
never have figure it out.
Happy Holidays !!
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
RV-10 Insurance
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
"Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
Dear Listers,
I recently sold my RV-4 and am considering building an
RV-10. Life is beautiful. Then I called my insurance company...
Considering that I get extra discounts due to the fact I have two other
planes my base insurance rate for an RV-10 insured at $150,000 is going
to run $5,600.00 / year thru Avemco.
My question is:
Are there significantly less expensive ways to insure an RV-10 with that
approximate value?
Are current RV-10 owners paying around that for their insurance?
Any suggestions and discussions are appreciated.
Robin Marks
RV-4 Sold...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
"jim" <jim(at)pellien.com>
Subject:
Re: RV-10 Insurance
Robin,
I'd give Bob Mackey a call at Falcon Insurance.
Jim
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
jim(at)sportsplanes.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:10:26 -0500
>
>Dear Listers,
>
> I recently sold my RV-4 and am considering building an
>RV-10. Life is beautiful. Then I called my insurance company...
>Considering that I get extra discounts due to the fact I have two other
>planes my base insurance rate for an RV-10 insured at $150,000 is going
>to run $5,600.00 / year thru Avemco.
>
> My question is:
>
>Are there significantly less expensive ways to insure an RV-10 with that
>approximate value?
>
>Are current RV-10 owners paying around that for their insurance?
>
>
> Any suggestions and discussions are appreciated.
>
>
>Robin Marks
>
>RV-4 Sold...
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.pellien.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Sure seems high. I think the insurance is a combination of
- Hull value. $150K pays more than $75
- Seats - 4 is about double 2
- Liability (for those on ground)
I pay $8K for C414, 7 seats, $500K hull, $1M smooth. So it seems I am
getting a much better deal.
I had heard RV8 insurance was $800 to $2K range. That is what I am
budgeting for my plane under construction.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Subject: RV-List: RV-10 Insurance
Dear Listers,
I recently sold my RV-4 and am considering building an
RV-10. Life is beautiful. Then I called my insurance company...
Considering that I get extra discounts due to the fact I have two other
planes my base insurance rate for an RV-10 insured at $150,000 is going
to run $5,600.00 / year thru Avemco.
My question is:
Are there significantly less expensive ways to insure an RV-10 with that
approximate value?
Are current RV-10 owners paying around that for their insurance?
Any suggestions and discussions are appreciated.
Robin Marks
RV-4 Sold...
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks(at)charter.net>
Subject:
RV-8 RC Model
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
A friend who does RC modeling asked if I knew of any commercially available
RV-8 model kits. He'd like to build one, but has only found RV-4 kits
available. Anyone know of any RV-8 kits out there? Thanks in advance.
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB N1903P in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"John Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject:
RV-10 Insurance
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
There are only two companies other than AVEMCO which are currently insuring
homebuilts. AVEMCO's coverages have a couple of drawbacks as well. When
comparing their policy and premiums to other companies remember that they
limit their liability by writing your liability coverages as $1 Million per
occurrence sublimited to $100,000 per person. All the companies we work
with limit each passenger to $100,000. This means that AVEMCO limits any
person's bodily injury whether they're inside or outside the plane.
AVEMCO also further sublimits the payout if the injured person is a family
member of yours. (normally to 25% of that sublimit). None of the companies
we deal with limit family members.
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agencies, Inc.
***Notice to All Recipients***
Please be advised that we cannot bind, modify, or cancel coverage via the
Internet, email or voicemail. Please call our office at (877) 475-5860 to
speak with a NationAir Representative. Thank you for your cooperation.
***Confidentiality Notice***
The Information in this email and any attachments therein is intended for
the addressee(s) only and may contain confidential information. If you are
not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or any attachments
thereto is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
notify us immediately by email, attaching the original message, and delete
the original message from your system.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Subject: RV-List: RV-10 Insurance
Dear Listers,
I recently sold my RV-4 and am considering building an
RV-10. Life is beautiful. Then I called my insurance company...
Considering that I get extra discounts due to the fact I have two other
planes my base insurance rate for an RV-10 insured at $150,000 is going
to run $5,600.00 / year thru Avemco.
My question is:
Are there significantly less expensive ways to insure an RV-10 with that
approximate value?
Are current RV-10 owners paying around that for their insurance?
Any suggestions and discussions are appreciated.
Robin Marks
RV-4 Sold...
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Randall Henderson" <rv6n6r(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: RV-10 Insurance
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
[snip]
> my base insurance rate for an RV-10 insured at $150,000 is going
> to run $5,600.00 / year thru Avemco.
>
> My question is:
>
> Are there significantly less expensive ways to insure an RV-10 with that
> approximate value?
Yeah, call someone besides Avemco. I've had them quote me a number of times
over the years and they're consistently way higher than the others (AIG,
USAIG, ...). I go through Skysmith, www.skysmith.com.
Randall Henderson
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za>
Subject:
Bending F-718 Longerons
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
1.74 ROUND_THE_WORLD Received: says mail sent around the world (DNS)
Vans refers to drawing 17A for the "Bending Template" where the section between
stations 38 7/16" and 69 9/32"are shown. Except that the distance between these
stations is incorrect if one puts a tape along the curve - out by +/- 1/2"
Anyone found this and if so which station did you take to be correct?
Trevor
RV-7
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Hi G
The documentation I have says that MIL-H-83282 if fully compatible with your standard
GA brake system including compatible with MIL-H-5606.
If you mix it you simply lower the flash point from the 450F of the MIL-H-5606
to something in-between - based on amount of each fluid in the mixture.
Here is a URL with lots of info : http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm
MIL-H-83282 replaces MIL-H-5606. It is dyed red so it can be distinguished
from incompatible fluids. MIL-H-83282 has a synthetic hydrocarbon
base and contains additives to provide the required viscosity
and antiwear characteristics, which inhibit oxidation and corrosion.
It is used in hydraulic systems having a temperature range of-40=B0F
to +275=B0F. Flash point, fire point, and spontaneous ignition temperature of
MIL-H-83282, which is fire resistant, exceeds that of MIL-H-5606 by more than
200=B0F. The fluid extinguishes itself when the external source of flame
or heat is removed. Hydraulic fluid MIL-H-83282 is compatible with all materials
used in systems presently using MIL-H-5606. It maybe combined
with MIL-H-5606 with no adverse effect other than a reduction of its fire-resistant
properties. MIL-H-83282 is now required in the main systems
of all fleet aircraft previously using MIL-H-5606.
To me, other than the fact that its hard to find in quantities less than a gallon,
that the MIL-H83283 is a no-brainier for swapping out your old 5606 next annual
and replacing it. Its designed for aircraft brake systems, is fire resistant,
and has a 200F higher flash point.
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
>
> The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has low flash point.
That is why the military and airlines don't use it. So the approved stuff
is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic) is safer. I can't address the freezing
issue but a little googling I am sure would turn up some answers. I forgot
the spec for the better approved Mil spec aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but
it cost more and available only in larger quantities (I think a gallon). You
could likely get some small amount at a JET FBO. The down side it is not really
compatible with standard brake fluid. I plan on using the better stuff. The
argument is you may not be able to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes
need little maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could get
the Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get, the higher
flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just look at the Matronics
picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Bill Cary" <williamc(at)RV9Builder.com>
Subject:
Bending F-718 Longerons
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Trevor,
I think if you look closely at the drawing it says that the dimensions
are before bending. See note 2 drawing 18. The outside of the curve will
be longer after bending.
Bill
Vans refers to drawing 17A for the "Bending Template" where the section
between stations 38 7/16" and 69 9/32"are shown. Except that the distance
between these stations is incorrect if one puts a tape along the curve - out
by +/- 1/2" Anyone found this and if so which station did you take to be
correct?
Trevor
RV-7
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Correction: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
> Hi G
>
> The documentation I have says that MIL-H-83282 if fully compatible with
> your standard GA brake system including compatible with MIL-H-5606.
> If you mix it you simply lower the flash point from the 450F of the
> MIL-H-5606 to something in-between - based on amount of each fluid in the
> mixture.
> OOPS!! should have said with the ...450F f of the MIL-H-83283.....
>
> Here is a URL with lots of info :
> http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm
>
> MIL-H-83282 replaces MIL-H-5606. It is dyed red so it can be
> distinguished from incompatible fluids. MIL-H-83282 has a
> synthetic hydrocarbon base and contains additives to provide the
> required viscosity and antiwear characteristics, which inhibit
> oxidation and corrosion. It is used in hydraulic systems having a
> temperature range of-40=B0F to +275=B0F. Flash point, fire point, and
> spontaneous ignition temperature of MIL-H-83282, which is fire resistant,
> exceeds that of MIL-H-5606 by more than 200=B0F. The fluid
> extinguishes itself when the external source of flame or heat is removed.
> Hydraulic fluid MIL-H-83282 is compatible with all materials used in
> systems presently using MIL-H-5606. It maybe combined with
> MIL-H-5606 with no adverse effect other than a reduction of its
> fire-resistant properties. MIL-H-83282 is now required in the
> main systems of all fleet aircraft previously using M!
> IL-H-5606.
>
> To me, other than the fact that its hard to find in quantities less than a
> gallon, that the MIL-H83283 is a no-brainier for swapping out your old
> 5606 next annual and replacing it. Its designed for aircraft brake
> systems, is fire resistant, and has a 200F higher flash point.
>
>
> Ed A
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
>
>
>>
>> The standard aircraft red brake fluid is highly flammable and has low
>> flash point. That is why the military and airlines don't use it. So the
>> approved stuff is the dangerous stuff. ATF (synthetic) is safer. I can't
>> address the freezing issue but a little googling I am sure would turn up
>> some answers. I forgot the spec for the better approved Mil spec
>> aerospace brake fluid stuff is, but it cost more and available only in
>> larger quantities (I think a gallon). You could likely get some small
>> amount at a JET FBO. The down side it is not really compatible with
>> standard brake fluid. I plan on using the better stuff. The argument is
>> you may not be able to get it on a trip. My answer is I find the brakes
>> need little maintenance, except pads and if I had to I am sure I could
>> get the Mil spec stuff. Granted the good old Red stuff is easier to get,
>> the higher flash point of the Mil Spec makes me feel better. Just look at
>> the Matronics picture of the the RV brake fire. Ouch. G
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: RV-8 RC Model
http://www.rchomebuilts.com/
This company has a RV-6/6A model. They are well built
almost ready to fly models. I did a little R and D on
their Velocity kit that a friend of mine had for beta
testing.
Dave
--- Ken Brooks wrote:
>
>
> A friend who does RC modeling asked if I knew of any
> commercially available
> RV-8 model kits. He'd like to build one, but has
> only found RV-4 kits
> available. Anyone know of any RV-8 kits out there?
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Ken Brooks
> RV-8QB N1903P in progress
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject:
Re: RV-8 RC Model
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Haven't seen an RV-8, but there is an RV-4 and a really cool Harmon Rocket
III ARF...
http://www.horizonhobby.com/Shop/ByCategory/Product/Default.aspx?ProdID=SEA3050
I have one, its a blast to fly, very RV-like in it's flight behavior and one
of the coolest looking planes to have on the flight line.
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks(at)charter.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 RC Model
>
> A friend who does RC modeling asked if I knew of any commercially
> available
> RV-8 model kits. He'd like to build one, but has only found RV-4 kits
> available. Anyone know of any RV-8 kits out there? Thanks in advance.
>
> Ken Brooks
> RV-8QB N1903P in progress
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject:
Re: Correction: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
On 19 Dec 2005, at 18:30, Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
> Isn't it kind of strange that the normal suppliers (ACS/Wicks/Van's)
> don't carry MIL-H-83282? I can imagine that getting it on the
> road would be challenging.
But, given that is apparently compatible with MIL-H-5606 fluid, you
could top up with that if required. A small top up with MIL-H-5606
would only have a minor effect on the flash point. If you needed to
add a lot of MIL-H-5606, you could purge it and refill with MIL-
H-83282 fluid once you got home. It looks like you'll have most of a
gallon sitting in the shop, as that is the smallest quantity you can
purchase. :)
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
<erichweaver(at)cox.net>
Subject:
firewall penetration points
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
Greetings
I would like to finish up my RV-7A firewall preparation before my IO-360B1B (updraft)
engine arrives from Aerosport Power. I am a bit concerned about following
the plans on all the firewall penetration points since there is no Vans' firewall
forward kit specific to fuel injected engines with the updraft air induction.
After talking to Bart at Aerosport Power and sharing with him the Vans drawing
showing the firewall penetration points, he was a little concerned about the hole
location for the mixutre control cable. The plans show it on the left side
upper part of the firewall, approximately even with the middle of the recess
box. Can anyone tell me why this is so high up? Bart expected it to be down
in the lower center portion of the firewall, close to the throttle.
Also, do Listers recommend installation of the eyeball assemblys for the throttle,
mixture and prop cable pass-through points? If so, do I need a different
size hole than what the plans call out for these cables(5/8 inch)?
regards,
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
Jamie Painter <jdpainter(at)jpainter.org>
Subject:
Re: Bending F-718 Longerons
Hi Trevor:
I found the same exact thing. The points identified on the curve do not
match the measurements. Yes, the measurements are before bending, but I
marked the measurements on my longeron *before* bending them, then after
bending them the measurements did not line up with the drawing. I
double-checked the measurements and everything was on the money. In my
opinion the drawing is flat out wrong.
Fortunately, if I remember correctly, the difference in the bend point
on the longeron doesn't really matter that much because this is where
the bend is very shallow (almost nil). Getting close counts in
horseshoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons and longeron bending.
Jamie
RV-7A Forward Fuselage
http://rv.jpainter.org
Trevor wrote:
>
>Vans refers to drawing 17A for the "Bending Template" where the section between
stations 38 7/16" and 69 9/32"are shown. Except that the distance between
these stations is incorrect if one puts a tape along the curve - out by +/- 1/2"
Anyone found this and if so which station did you take to be correct?
>Trevor
>RV-7
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject:
Re: Correction: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
>>
>> Isn't it kind of strange that the normal suppliers (ACS/Wicks/Van's)
>> don't carry MIL-H-83282? I can imagine that getting it on the
>> road would be challenging.
>
> But, given that is apparently compatible with MIL-H-5606 fluid, you
> could top up with that if required. A small top up with MIL-H-5606
> would only have a minor effect on the flash point. If you needed to
> add a lot of MIL-H-5606, you could purge it and refill with MIL-
> H-83282 fluid once you got home. It looks like you'll have most of a
> gallon sitting in the shop, as that is the smallest quantity you can
> purchase. :)
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Yes, I have a gallon of the stuff and I've offered all my nearby RV
neighbors what they need for their brakes if they are interested. Its more
than I will use in a decade.
Ed Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject:
Re: Correction: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
A gallon of MIL-H-83232 is way more than I'd need; can I use the extra in my car's
transmission?
Would my car insurance be void if they found out?
-Stormy
well, the way this thread is going, someone was bound to ask it sooner or later
;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Correction: Compatiblity of MIL H 83282 with MIL_H-5606
On 19 Dec 2005, at 18:30, Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
> Isn't it kind of strange that the normal suppliers (ACS/Wicks/Van's)
> don't carry MIL-H-83282? I can imagine that getting it on the
> road would be challenging.
But, given that is apparently compatible with MIL-H-5606 fluid, you
could top up with that if required. A small top up with MIL-H-5606
would only have a minor effect on the flash point. If you needed to
add a lot of MIL-H-5606, you could purge it and refill with MIL-
H-83282 fluid once you got home. It looks like you'll have most of a
gallon sitting in the shop, as that is the smallest quantity you can
purchase. :)
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Off topic FAA user fees
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
If there is anyone out there who thinks user fees might not be a bad idea or something not worth resisting have a look at the current AVWEB lead articles at: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/536-full.html.
According to AOPA and last month's Flying editorial this issue is going to come
up again.
"Once the camel's nose is under the tent"
Dick Sipp
RV4 RV10
do not achieve
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net>
Subject:
where are the 10's....?
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
I see the number of flying RV 10's is up to 18! I am quite sure I have not seen
pictures of more than 5 or 6 flying planes, so the question is where are the
rest? I want to see as many pictures as possible. There are some very good builder
logs on the web that I reference a lot, but the more pictures I can get my
beady little eyes on the more intuitive my plans become. Not to mention the
paint schemes......
Cheers...
Evan Johnson
www.evansaviationproducts.com
(530)247-0375
(530)351-1776 cell
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
From:
"JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net>
Subject:
Need input
"rocket-list" ,
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210;INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
My son (wife & two grandsons) is now living in Everett, Washington. I'm
looking for a source in that area for him to continue with flight training.
He has not flown except with me or Tom in the Rocket in 8-10 years. I'm
going up there for Christmas & think flight training/ground school etc would
make a great Christmas gift. Need input from someone in that area.
KABONG HRII N561FS
MERRY CHRISTMAS.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Bending F-718 Longerons
From:
Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
The variation from plane to plane is kinda built into the
process - when you get to the point of puting together the
forward cabin section you trim the forward end of the longeron
to fit ... don't worry about it - move right along ...
g
g
>
>
> Hi Trevor:
>
> I found the same exact thing. The points identified on the
> curve do not
> match the measurements. Yes, the measurements are before
> bending, but I
> marked the measurements on my longeron *before* bending them,
> then after
> bending them the measurements did not line up with the drawing. I
> double-checked the measurements and everything was on the money. In my
> opinion the drawing is flat out wrong.
>
> Fortunately, if I remember correctly, the difference in the bend point
> on the longeron doesn't really matter that much because this is where
> the bend is very shallow (almost nil). Getting close counts in
> horseshoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons and longeron bending.
>
> Jamie
>
> RV-7A Forward Fuselage
> http://rv.jpainter.org
>
>
> Trevor wrote:
>
> >
> >Vans refers to drawing 17A for the "Bending Template" where the section between
stations 38 7/16" and 69 9/32"are shown. Except that the distance between
these stations is incorrect if one puts a tape along the curve - out by +/-
1/2" Anyone found this and if so which station did you take to be correct?
> >Trevor
> >RV-7
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
________________________________________________________________________________
Charlie are you sure about the Skydrol? We were on a flight test in a
DHC8-400 a while back which blew a propeller governor seal and sprayed the
fuse with fluid. We had a mechanic on board and he was talking about
skydrol and how it was (if I recall correctly) surfactant based. He talked
about how you could tell if it was skydrol by putting a little bit on your
tongue and that the manufacturer bragged about how NON TOXIC it is. I
hadn't heard anyone mention skydrol until you did but have been wondering if
maybe IT is the ideal brake fluid for use in our aircraft (my understanding
was that it was NON toxic and NON flammable which, to me, sounds ideal, even
with the extra cost, lets just hope it's hygroscopic also). Maybe an A&P
with experience on large commercial aircraft can clear up my confusion?
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
No airframe/engine parts left in the FWF kit (still some wiring though)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: DOT-5 Brake Fluid
..... Interestingly, it is good for use with Skydrol. However Skydrol has
draw backs which make it less than ideal for light aircraft use. (Toxic, not
readily available at small airports, expensive, and burns at an elevated
level)
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with you 100% Sam (even though my plane is 99.999% per Van's plans).
But...I caution everyone on an episode I heard about concerning major mods
made AFTER THE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED! If I recall correctly
the aircraft was a Varieze and the owner had replaced the original propeller
with one of a different design and manufacturer. This was with the old
operating limitations before the FAA let experimental owners put themselves
back into a 5 hour flight test phase(phase 1, after a post certification
major mod) and then re-certify the aircraft safe for flight after the 5 hour
test. Back then.... the Varieze owner should have contacted the FAA who
would have then told him to go back into flight test phase and reworked his
paperwork on the experimental cert. Since the varieze owner did not do that
and the new prop was not specified on his airworthiness certificate, the
insurance company would NOT PAY when the prop came apart and he had to
dead-stick into a field. With the new operating limitations we ARE allowed
to perform major mods (after obtaining our airworthiness certificates)
without contacting the FAA. But, we MUST log the change, PLACE OURSELVES
BACK INTO PHASE 1 FLIGHT TEST AND, sign off the test time just as we did
when we first flew our pocket rockets. Just FYI!!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
All FWF parts are on the airplane(except a bit of wiring)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid
.....They will have to pry my experimental airworthiness certificate out of
my cold, cold hands before I would ever agree to telling the insurance
carrier of the mods in my RV-6!......
IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!
There.......I feel better.............
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Paul Sidey" <psidey(at)msn.com>
Subject:
RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
I just wanted to follow up and ask you to take a look at our new web sites.
www.xelr8.biz/PaulSidey It is so simple to prospect with and I have had
people enroll before Ive even had a chance to call them because they saw
the awesome opportunity to be on the ground floor of this project with the
Star Power of the Nike of Nutrition and the team that is being built.
Best regards,
Paul Sidey
Tel: 303-537-3283
Fax: 303-537-3284
email: psidey(at)msn.com
http://www.xelr8.biz/PaulSideyhttp://www.secretsofthemillionairemind.com/a/dollarsandsensehttp://tomchenault.com
If you don't want to be on this list anymore, just type REMOVE and send
back. I do NOT want to spam you and I promise you won't hurt my feelings.
(Except you, mom) Thanks!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN PSIROPOULOS
Subject: RV-List: RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
Charlie are you sure about the Skydrol? We were on a flight test in a
DHC8-400 a while back which blew a propeller governor seal and sprayed the
fuse with fluid. We had a mechanic on board and he was talking about
skydrol and how it was (if I recall correctly) surfactant based. He talked
about how you could tell if it was skydrol by putting a little bit on your
tongue and that the manufacturer bragged about how NON TOXIC it is. I
hadn't heard anyone mention skydrol until you did but have been wondering if
maybe IT is the ideal brake fluid for use in our aircraft (my understanding
was that it was NON toxic and NON flammable which, to me, sounds ideal, even
with the extra cost, lets just hope it's hygroscopic also). Maybe an A&P
with experience on large commercial aircraft can clear up my confusion?
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
No airframe/engine parts left in the FWF kit (still some wiring though)
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: DOT-5 Brake Fluid
.... Interestingly, it is good for use with Skydrol. However Skydrol has
draw backs which make it less than ideal for light aircraft use. (Toxic, not
readily available at small airports, expensive, and burns at an elevated
level)
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Paul Sidey" <psidey(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Bending F-718 Longerons
Date:
Dec 19, 2005
I just wanted to follow up and ask you to take a look at our new web sites.
www.xelr8.biz/PaulSidey It is so simple to prospect with and I have had
people enroll before Ive even had a chance to call them because they saw
the awesome opportunity to be on the ground floor of this project with the
Star Power of the Nike of Nutrition and the team that is being built.
Best regards,
Paul Sidey
Tel: 303-537-3283
Fax: 303-537-3284
email: psidey(at)msn.com
http://www.xelr8.biz/PaulSideyhttp://www.secretsofthemillionairemind.com/a/dollarsandsensehttp://tomchenault.com
If you don't want to be on this list anymore, just type REMOVE and send
back. I do NOT want to spam you and I promise you won't hurt my feelings.
(Except you, mom) Thanks!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Filby
Subject: Re: RV-List: Bending F-718 Longerons
The variation from plane to plane is kinda built into the
process - when you get to the point of puting together the
forward cabin section you trim the forward end of the longeron
to fit ... don't worry about it - move right along ...
g
g
>
>
> Hi Trevor:
>
> I found the same exact thing. The points identified on the
> curve do not
> match the measurements. Yes, the measurements are before
> bending, but I
> marked the measurements on my longeron *before* bending them,
> then after
> bending them the measurements did not line up with the drawing. I
> double-checked the measurements and everything was on the money. In my
> opinion the drawing is flat out wrong.
>
> Fortunately, if I remember correctly, the difference in the bend point
> on the longeron doesn't really matter that much because this is where
> the bend is very shallow (almost nil). Getting close counts in
> horseshoes, hand grenades, nuclear weapons and longeron bending.
>
> Jamie
>
> RV-7A Forward Fuselage
> http://rv.jpainter.org
>
>
> Trevor wrote:
>
> >
> >Vans refers to drawing 17A for the "Bending Template" where the section
between stations 38 7/16" and 69 9/32"are shown. Except that the distance
between these stations is incorrect if one puts a tape along the curve - out
by +/- 1/2" Anyone found this and if so which station did you take to be
correct?
> >Trevor
> >RV-7
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Subject:
Re: Insurance and Brake Fluid
In a message dated 12/19/2005 5:29:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch writes:
Just curious - does anyone offer an o-ring replacement
kit for RV brakes that would allow us to use DOT3/4/5.1
brake fluid? I guess I could "roll my own", but I'm
pretty lazy.
Just change the O-rings from the standard Nitrile (Buna-n) to EPDM and
you're go to go. The sizes used are 2-110 and 2-113 for the Cleveland masters
and
2-218 for the Cleveland calipers. Just spec these sizes in EPDM. Ace Seal
sells them. Check the Yeller Pages for contact info.
If you have anything else in the lines such as a parking brake valve or
shuttle valves, you're own your own to determine the seal sizes you will need.
How much easier do you want it?
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject:
Modifications, airworthiness and insurance.
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Dean,
You're right except for a few small points:
The new oplims require you to comply with 91.319(b) which
requires one to demonstrate that the aircraft is controllable etc. It's
not strictly speaking phase 1, though.
The new oplims require you to notify the local FSDO of the
location of the proposed test area and obtain concurrence as to the
suitability of the test area. (Note: you do not have to have their
permission to do a modification and you don't need an inspection.) The
notification and concurrence could be as easy as a phone call to the
FSDO if you plan to use the test area that's spelled out in your oplims.
I'd make a note in the maintenance log of who you talked to and the
date/time just to be covered.
If the major change includes a different make or model of engine
or prop, you've got to fill out a revised form 8130-6 application for
airworthiness certificate.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DEAN
PSIROPOULOS
Subject: RV-List: Modifications, airworthiness and insurance.
>With the new operating limitations we ARE allowed
to perform major mods (after obtaining our airworthiness certificates)
without contacting the FAA. But, we MUST log the change, PLACE
OURSELVES
BACK INTO PHASE 1 FLIGHT TEST AND, sign off the test time just as we did
when we first flew our pocket rockets. Just FYI!!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
All FWF parts are on the airplane(except a bit of wiring)
-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance and Brake Fluid
.....They will have to pry my experimental airworthiness certificate out
of
my cold, cold hands before I would ever agree to telling the insurance
carrier of the mods in my RV-6!......
IT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!!!!!!
There.......I feel better.............
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com>
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Subject:
Torque settings for screws?
Please can anyone tell me the recommended torque settings for the various screws
used in the Vans (especially AN515-8R8). I'm sure the info must be somewhere
but I can't find it
Thanks
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
That wicked riveting "nibble" idea ...
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Hi All-
>An even easier idea is to stick a piece of scotch brite....
Shortly after getting started, I had the great god fortune of getting to
know a serious airline tinsmith who showed me more simple, real world
solutions to issues in the shop than you could shake a stick at. One of
them applied to cinching gapped sheets of aluminum. Just put the rivet in
the hole, and give it a light tap, just enough to make the rivet swell to
the point of not falling out of the hole. Move the bucking bar to the
sheet metal adjacent to the rivet shank and give it another light tap, and
listen for the pitch change, much as when a rivet sets tight. The sheet
metal will now stay cinched for the rest of the operation. Put the bucking
bar back on the rivet and drive it home. Poof, you're done! No extra
parts or hands needed.
I hope this helps you guys as much as it helped me-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
firewall penetration points
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Hi Erich-
I'm not building a -7, don't have the same engine you do engine, and didn't
sleep at an HI Express last night. No of that stops me from having an
opinion, tho! I found it to be very valuable, if slightly inconvenient, to
hang the engine before penetrating my firewall. Also, and although those
eyeball penetrations are sexy, they are also relatively expensive and I
have reservations on their performance in an engine fire scenario. I used
Bob Knuckolls / Aeroelectric list shower bar solution, and found it to be
great. It's a homebuilder's version of what Beech seems to use.
I took a SS / handicap shower grab bar and cut the ends off of it just
inboard of the radius. I found a convenient spot at the far left and right
edges of the firewall to bolt them on with the open end pointing
more-or-less towards the center line, and then cut my holes. When final
mounted, they are sealed to the firewall with intumescent caulk. this
gives me a 1 1/4 hole through the fire wall to pass all sorts of stuff,
including all the engine cables, battery cable, MP line, P leads, bowden
cables, etc. The penetration on the other side of the plane gets the
sensor wiring. The open end of the SS tube get trimmed to any convenient
angle to allow for the engine cable runs. There is an appropriately sized
bit of firesleeve with one end clamped on the SS and the other on the wire
bundle. When I'm confident I won't be adding any more stuff to the
bundles, I may well seal the SS tubes up with more intumescent caulk under
the firesleeve.
This solution may not be as pretty as the eyeballs, but it is very cost
effective, versatile, possibly safer, and allows for future expansion
without cutting any more holes in your firewall.
As ever, FWIW, YMMV, etc-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks(at)charter.net>
Subject:
RC RV-8 model
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Thanks to those who responded about the availability of an RV-8 RC model.
Still haven't found one, but came across a survey on rchomebuilts.com that
the company uses to develop and produce new models. Anyone interested in
having them put out an RV-8 should fill out their survey and let them know
that there is a market for it.
http://www.rchomebuilts.com/feedback.htm
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB N1903P
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject:
Re: firewall penetration points
On 12/20 10:18, Glen Matejcek wrote:
> I'm not building a -7, don't have the same engine you do engine, and didn't
> sleep at an HI Express last night. No of that stops me from having an
> opinion, tho! I found it to be very valuable, if slightly inconvenient, to
> hang the engine before penetrating my firewall. Also, and although those
> eyeball penetrations are sexy, they are also relatively expensive and I
> have reservations on their performance in an engine fire scenario. I used
> Bob Knuckolls / Aeroelectric list shower bar solution, and found it to be
> great. It's a homebuilder's version of what Beech seems to use.
In general I agree with what you are saying but as far as the penetration
points for the Throttle, Mixture and Prop, the expensive eyeball
penetration gizmos are very handy, especially if you have to remove, repair or
replace the cables for any reason later down the road (think maintenance)
and no need to remove a bunch of caulking at that time. And I think they
will hold up in a fire quite well as they are pretty beefy. Also, most
builders do not run the throttle, mixture or prop with other electrical
wires/cables through the firewall. I like using the eyeballs, they work for me.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Wings before engine?
Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
for me.
I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
associated plumbing.
Thoughts or comments?
-Geoff
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
Geoff, haven't done it that way, but the tail is awful heavy w/o engine.
Lot depends on whether you're bldg a tail dragger or tri gear. If latter
you'll definitely have to support tail. I would think the main gear would
be more of a prob. on a tail dragger. In both cases I believe the wings
would be a problem for plumbing. I'd put the eng. on first. My opinion is
based on tri gear bldg. Good luck!
Dick RV6A
At 12:02 PM 12/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
>wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
>it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
>construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
>for me.
>
>I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
>making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
>as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
>engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
>sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
>significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
>associated plumbing.
>
>Thoughts or comments?
>
>-Geoff
>RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
From:
Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
I think the process has you mate the wings once to drill the
rear spar attach hole (I'm working on a 9 so your mileage may
vary), drill the wing root fairings and the center section
bottom skin screw holes. At that point you pretty much have to
take them off again to complete the installation of the
platenuts etc.
After that's complete you could put them on permanently if you
wanted to. But why bother ? They consume a lot shoe leather
because you have to keep on walking aaaallll the way round the
plane to pick up that tool you left on the other bench. Also
they're a nice big fat target for dropping a clecoe or a wrench
- they're a lot less of a target when they're stood up in the
wing stand.
g
>
>
> Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with
> installing the
> wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most
> builders do
> it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
> construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not
> really a factor
> for me.
>
> I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I
> want to keep
> making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the
> plane completed
> as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize
> the time between
> engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
> sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
> significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine
> installation and
> associated plumbing.
>
> Thoughts or comments?
>
> -Geoff
> RV-8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
Subject:
Wings before engine?
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Geoff,
I'd wait with the wings as long as possible. They just get in way.
You'll spend a lot of time walking around those wings if they are on.
If everything is set up properly ahead of time it shouldn't take but
half a day to install the wings, hook up wires and hook up pitot tube.
John L. Danielson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Seiders
Subject: Re: RV-List: Wings before engine?
Geoff, haven't done it that way, but the tail is awful heavy w/o engine.
Lot depends on whether you're bldg a tail dragger or tri gear. If latter
you'll definitely have to support tail. I would think the main gear
would
be more of a prob. on a tail dragger. In both cases I believe the wings
would be a problem for plumbing. I'd put the eng. on first. My opinion
is
based on tri gear bldg. Good luck!
Dick RV6A
At 12:02 PM 12/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing
the
>wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most
builders do
>it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
>construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a
factor
>for me.
>
>I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to
keep
>making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane
completed
>as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time
between
>engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
>sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
>significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine
installation and
>associated plumbing.
>
>Thoughts or comments?
>
>-Geoff
>RV-8
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Dave Bristol <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
My advice is to NOT install the wings until everything else is finished.
Even though you're in a hangar, they will definitely be in the way and
about the 400th time you have to walk around them to get from the engine
to the cockpit, you'll wish you'd waited.
Dave Bristol -6 So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Geoff Evans wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
>wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
>it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
>construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
>for me.
>
>I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
>making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
>as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
>engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
>sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
>significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
>associated plumbing.
>
>Thoughts or comments?
>
>-Geoff
>RV-8
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
Just dont run the engine with out the wings. There was one case were the fuse was
tweaked contact Van's for details.........I think that is where I heard it
from.
Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
for me.
I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
associated plumbing.
Thoughts or comments?
-Geoff
RV-8
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
cell 858-395-5094
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Keith Norton <keithnorton(at)mac.com>
Subject:
RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
>Charlie are you sure about the Skydrol?
>...my understanding was that it was NON toxic and NON flammable...
>Maybe an A&P with experience on large commercial aircraft can clear up my confusion?
Skydrol is highly toxic and it is flammable. Also, it is not compatible with hydraulic
seals and hoses designed for 5605 fluid.
See http://www.skydrol.com/pages/glove.asp and http://www.skydrol.com/pages/faqs.asp for all the specifics.
Keith Norton - A&P
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject:
Re: Need input
John,
I liked learning at Harvey Field in Snohomish, just a
few miles east of Everett, Family owned and operated
FBO, Small runway 2,750 x 36 good people and a good
fleet of planes http://www.snohomishflying.com/
In Everett, Pain Field there is Northway Aviation or
Regal Air,
Both good place's
good luck
Dan,
-8 Tail under constuction
--- JOHN STARN wrote:
>
>
> My son (wife & two grandsons) is now living in
> Everett, Washington. I'm
> looking for a source in that area for him to
> continue with flight training.
> He has not flown except with me or Tom in the Rocket
> in 8-10 years. I'm
> going up there for Christmas & think flight
> training/ground school etc would
> make a great Christmas gift. Need input from
> someone in that area.
> KABONG HRII N561FS
> MERRY
> CHRISTMAS.
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
Wings before engine?
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
>
>
> Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with
> installing the wings before doing anything with the engine?
> It seems like most builders do it the other way around, but
> perhaps that's because they have limited construction space.
> I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor for me.
Geoff,
I see many replies to your above message, but I'm not sure we understand the
question. When you say "install the wings", do you mean temporarily to fit
up things like flaps, root fairings, belly skin overlap area, fuel and vent
lines, upper gear leg intersection (if a trike, I see yours is a TD),
aileron rigging, etc.? Or, do you mean final installation? If you want to
delay engine purchase (a good thing), there is a fair amount of work related
to fitting the wings which could be done now if you haven't already done so.
Once all this is completed, it is easy to remove and store the wings so as
to not have to walk around them.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 702 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
firewall penetration points
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
I think the eyeballs are the way to go as long as they are steel. The
single hole version ACS sells is aluminum and will melt very fast. Another
way is the penetrations that are available from www.EPM-av.com I sed these
for wire penetrations and they work great, They are stainless and the only
draw back is the price. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Walter Tondu
Subject: Re: RV-List: firewall penetration points
On 12/20 10:18, Glen Matejcek wrote:
> I'm not building a -7, don't have the same engine you do engine, and
didn't
> sleep at an HI Express last night. No of that stops me from having an
> opinion, tho! I found it to be very valuable, if slightly inconvenient,
to
> hang the engine before penetrating my firewall. Also, and although those
> eyeball penetrations are sexy, they are also relatively expensive and I
> have reservations on their performance in an engine fire scenario. I
used
> Bob Knuckolls / Aeroelectric list shower bar solution, and found it to be
> great. It's a homebuilder's version of what Beech seems to use.
In general I agree with what you are saying but as far as the penetration
points for the Throttle, Mixture and Prop, the expensive eyeball
penetration gizmos are very handy, especially if you have to remove, repair
or
replace the cables for any reason later down the road (think maintenance)
and no need to remove a bunch of caulking at that time. And I think they
will hold up in a fire quite well as they are pretty beefy. Also, most
builders do not run the throttle, mixture or prop with other electrical
wires/cables through the firewall. I like using the eyeballs, they work for
me.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject:
Vortex generators
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
I looked thru archives and nothing about any Rv's with the Lexan V G's from land
shorter. Anybody have them, or know anyone who does? Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject:
Rv's in Fayettville/Drake
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
anybody know what RV's might be in Fyetv Ark ? I seem to remember at least one
is there. Charlie heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com>
Subject:
RE: Wings before engine?
Alex Peterson wrote:
>>>
When you say "install the wings", do you mean temporarily to fit
up things like flaps, root fairings, belly skin overlap area, fuel and vent
lines, upper gear leg intersection (if a trike, I see yours is a TD),
aileron rigging, etc.? Or, do you mean final installation?
<<<
I meant final installation. Everything else is done.
From the sound of these responses, I guess it's time for me to pony up the
$$$ and order the engine!
Thanks.
-Geoff
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"The Hall's" <halljp(at)comcast.net>
Subject:
Re: RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Charlie, I agree with Keith. I spent 38 years with UAL in aircraft
maintenance. You do not want anything to do with Skydrol. It is one of the
nastiest fluids in the aviation industry. Adding to what Keith said, it will
remove paint, create coking if in contact with exhaust stacks, is very
irritating to the skin and is very painful if you get it in your eyes.
Jim Hall A&P RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Norton" <keithnorton(at)mac.com>
Subject: RV-List: RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
>
>>Charlie are you sure about the Skydrol?
>>...my understanding was that it was NON toxic and NON flammable...
>>Maybe an A&P with experience on large commercial aircraft can clear up my
>>confusion?
>
> Skydrol is highly toxic and it is flammable. Also, it is not compatible
> with hydraulic seals and hoses designed for 5605 fluid.
>
> See http://www.skydrol.com/pages/glove.asp and
> http://www.skydrol.com/pages/faqs.asp for all the specifics.
>
> Keith Norton - A&P
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/20/2005 2:42:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dan(at)rdan.com writes:
I liked learning at Harvey Field in Snohomish, just a
few miles east of Everett, Family owned and operated
FBO, Small runway 2,750 x 36 good people and a good
fleet of planes http://www.snohomishflying.com/
========================
And, IIRC a good restaurant on the field. Harvey is a very airplane
friendly airport.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject:
Re: RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
Mr, Hall,
I think you are confusing who said what, in regards to Skydrol. My
original comment regarding Skydrol related to the fact the EPDM is a
suitable sealing material for it's use. I never endorsed it's use for our
RVs. See original comment below.
The subject line of my post was DOT-5 Brake Fluid.
EPDM is listed to compare Viton's capabilities with one of the most common
materials used in automobiles. EPDM is NOT compatible with mineral based
hydraulic fluids, such as 5606 or ATF. Interestingly, it is good for use
with Skydrol. However Skydrol has draw backs which make it less than ideal
for light aircraft use. (Toxic, not readily available at small airports,
expensive, and burns at an elevated level)
Dean P replied to my comments, regarding Skydrol being toxic. I believe
that Dean was questioning me on a point of semantics. I used the word
TOXIC. Dean correctly challenged my use of the word toxic, as it regards to
Skydrol. From the data I've read, it would be more accurate to call it a
tissue irritant. From your description, it is a rather nasty one. At that
point, everyone else jumped in. Please correct me if you can show me where
in any recent email "I" suggested anyone use Skydrol in light aircraft. I'm
not trying to start an argument. I'm simply trying to keep who said what,
straight. I do appreciate hearing about your experiences with this fluid.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Charlie, I agree with Keith. I spent 38 years with UAL in aircraft
>maintenance. You do not want anything to do with Skydrol. It is one of the
>nastiest fluids in the aviation industry. Adding to what Keith said, it will
>remove paint, create coking if in contact with exhaust stacks, is very
>irritating to the skin and is very painful if you get it in your eyes.
>Jim Hall A&P RV-6A
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Keith Norton" <keithnorton(at)mac.com>
>To:
>Subject: RV-List: RE: Brake fluid-Skydrol
>
>
> >
> >>Charlie are you sure about the Skydrol?
> >>...my understanding was that it was NON toxic and NON flammable...
> >>Maybe an A&P with experience on large commercial aircraft can clear up my
> >>confusion?
> >
> > Skydrol is highly toxic and it is flammable. Also, it is not compatible
> > with hydraulic seals and hoses designed for 5605 fluid.
> >
> > See http://www.skydrol.com/pages/glove.asp and
> > http://www.skydrol.com/pages/faqs.asp for all the specifics.
> >
> > Keith Norton - A&P
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Subject:
Re: RV's in Fayetteville/Drake
Charles;
The EAA Chapter in Northwest Arkansas is:
_http://www.eaa732.org/eaa_732_home.asp_
(http://www.eaa732.org/eaa_732_home.asp)
You should be able to get info there.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Subject:
Re: >Re: Vortex Generators
The Micro systems Vortex generators is what I have on our RV-4. I got them
from Larry Vetterman 605-745-5932 , the exhaust system man.
Mine are aluminun,curved to wing contour and only 1/2 " tall. I love them
for the lower stall speed and the stable handling at minimun speed. I lost
nothing at top speed. I painted them to match my paint.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
Hi Geoff,
Follow the directions in order, they haven't lead me down the wrong path yet.
At least put them on and fit them as well as run the nec. wiring to them with
connectors. Then take them off and move them out of the way.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Geoff Evans
Subject: RV-List: Wings before engine?
Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
for me.
I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
associated plumbing.
Thoughts or comments?
-Geoff
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
Date:
Dec 20, 2005
From:
Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject:
Re: Wings before engine?
I personally like "stick this lollypop up you butt, and you can pay your rent with
it"
good humor
D~
Paul Rice wrote:
Hi Geoff,
Follow the directions in order, they haven't lead me down the wrong path yet. At
least put them on and fit them as well as run the nec. wiring to them with connectors.
Then take them off and move them out of the way.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Geoff Evans
Subject: RV-List: Wings before engine?
Does anyone have any experience, positive or negative, with installing the
wings before doing anything with the engine? It seems like most builders do
it the other way around, but perhaps that's because they have limited
construction space. I'm building in a hangar, so that's not really a factor
for me.
I haven't ordered my engine yet (for monetary reasons), and I want to keep
making forward progress. I also want to have as much of the plane completed
as possible before starting on the engine, so as to minimize the time between
engine delivery and actual flying (my building schedule is somewhat
sporadic). However, I don't want to put the wings on if it's going to
significantly hinder access or be an inconvenience to engine installation and
associated plumbing.
Thoughts or comments?
-Geoff
RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject:
firewall penetration points / fire safety
Date:
Dec 21, 2005
Hi All-
Those are good observations, Dan. And, as with all we do with our
projects, there is lots of room for applying personal risk assessment
techniques to this topic.
First, and to answer Mark's question, I know of 2 homebuilts with fire
suppression systems. One is an -8A with a NASCAR style AFFF tank sitting
on the floor in the bottom of the fwd baggage hold. The other is a One
Design with a hand held HALON extinguisher in the cockpit. They are both
plumbed to FWF nozzles, and I believe the HALON bottle can be separated
from it's plumbing for use as a hand held.
Something to bear in mind is that the firewall isn't meant to be absolutely
bullet proof indefinitely, rather it's meant to keep you alive until the
fire is out or you can get away from it.
WRT FWF fires, a fundamental accident investigation technique is to look
for solidified droplets of aluminum on aircraft surfaces downstream of the
fire site. Their presence is a clear indication that there was fire prior
to impact. It is also clear indication that a fuel fire fed by free stream
airflow will easily generate the heat required to melt aluminum. So, what
is going to burn? Well, oil might. I will keep the FW clean, and I use
firesleeved SS braided hoses from Earl's. Of course, gasoline will burn.
More firesleeved SS hoses. So much for fire prevention.
WRT fire suppression, the fire's duration will be limited by fuel quantity.
Step one: fuel valve off. In the various fire suppression equipped
aircraft I'm familiar with, you wait 5 sec from closing valves to using the
first bottle, and then 30 sec before firing the second, assuming there are
still indications of fire. This implies to me that once the valves are
closed, the flow stops pretty quick. Having said that, I'm quite confident
that 30 sec under actual fire conditions would seem like an eternity, and
allow ample time for several bodily functions to occur autonomously.
WRT fire proofing, I believe that the somewhat localized nature of the
intense fire means that should the fire impinge upon an Al eyeball fitting,
it will most likely fail. That leaves a pretty big hole in the FW.
Likewise an Al heat box. (Mine is 100% SS) Should the fire impinge upon a
rivet line, then yes, they are also subject to failure. The question I
have is whether the sheet Al will fail before the more massive rivet. This
leads to 2 points, as I see it. The first is that even if the whole lower
FW rivet line fails, there are a whole lot more elsewhere, plus the steel
at the engine mount attach points. I don't think the FW is going anywhere.
The other point is what about the flames under the belly? The -8 has a
double floor in this area, which should be a great help. I'm contemplating
a layer of fiberfrax (sp?) in the cooling outflow area of my belly for
fireproofing, as well as thermal / acoustic insulation from the normal
exhaust stream. Has anyone done this before?
None of this is meant to flame anyone, and the extremely low incidence of
inflight fires is just what makes this whole exercise so academic. If we
have any tin kickers on the list, I'd love to hear more input on the topic.
Kevin?
>Ditto. And I wonder how all those *aluminum* rivets are gonna hold up in
>the event of a fire. I hear people yappin' about heat flapper valves and
>bulkhead fittings and eyeballs and all that, and I don't disagree. But
>nobody mentions how the firewall will basically be trying to "fall off" if
>the aluminum rivets melt in a fire. I don't know what I'm talking about,
>not speaking from experience, just kind of philosophizing here. But I
>wonder about all dem aluminum rivets. If a fat aluminum eyeball melts,
>surely the rivets will as well, right?
Dan,
I was wondering the same thing just last night. I'm just starting on the
firewall. Do certified aircraft use stainless rivets on the firewall? I was
an A&P years ago but can't remember. I don't think I ever repaired any
firewall rivets.
I had decided not to worry about it since it seemed everyone was using
aluminum rivets. And Don has the right idea...do everything right, to avoid
a fire.
Has anyone installed a fire extinguishing system on the engine in an RV?
Seems like it would be relatively simple. Mount a small halon extinguisher
somewhere where it could be reached. Then run a hose out to the top front of
the engine.
Some Cessna twins have a bottle in the wing root that is electrically
activated.
And a hose (stainless braided) runs to the front of the engine. This is from
memory from years ago...
Just a thought.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks(at)charter.net>
Subject:
RV-8 RC Model
Date:
Dec 21, 2005
McCaffrey Aviation has a plans-built RV-8 RC model for those of you who
might be interested. Photo and information can be found at:
http://home.att.net/~mgmccaffrey/ma/vansrv8.htm
It uses an 8-cell electric motor and is aerobatic. Plans are $20 and can be
previewed on their website.
Ken Brooks
Roscoe, IL
Full-scale RV-8 in Progress
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Date:
Dec 21, 2005
Subject:
Re: Vortex Generators
Hi Bob,
Do you have any test data you could share with us? I've tried to find data
in the past on VG's, but seems to be very little.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
From: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Subject: RV-List: >Re: Vortex Generators
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
The Micro systems Vortex generators is what I have on our RV-4. I got
them
from Larry Vetterman 605-745-5932 , the exhaust system man.
Mine are aluminun,curved to wing contour and only 1/2 " tall. I love them
for the lower stall speed and the stable handling at minimun speed. I lost
nothing at top speed. I painted them to match my paint.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
From:
"Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com>
Subject:
Re: Vortex Generators
Date:
Dec 21, 2005
I tried Micro Systems VGs on my 6A. Putting them on exactly as directed, I
didn't like them and took them off after about 10 hours.
Stall speed and the feel of the break didn't change at all (maybe 1 mph).
Cruise dropped 5-6 mph. There might have been a little more positive
control in slow flight, but that is hard to measure. I don't remember
notticing any change in takeoff performance. What it did do is increase
roll response noticeably. It was surprising on the first flight, and I
would describe it as almost twitchy, but after a few minutes I got used to
it and sort of liked it. But not enough to sacrifice the cruise for, so off
they went.
I'm told that Larry Vetterman's larger VGs are better, and that I might have
done better with the Micro's by positioning further forward than the
instructions suggested.
Andy
Builder's Bookstore
www.buildersbooks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject:
Re: Vortex Generators
Date:
Dec 21, 2005
From:
"Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Andy,
It's a very interesting observation that cruise speed seemed to suffer
from application of the VGs. This is contrary to virtually every
observation, at least with canards. I would doubt that the RV is
significantly different as far as the effect of the VGs. Very
interesting. Are there other similar roconfirming observations out
there?
Chuck
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Aircraft Technical Book Company
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 3:29 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators
>
>
>
> I tried Micro Systems VGs on my 6A. Putting them on exactly as
directed,
> I
> didn't like them and took them off after about 10 hours.
>
> Stall speed and the feel of the break didn't change at all (maybe 1
mph).
> Cruise dropped 5-6 mph. There might have been a little more positive
> control in slow flight, but that is hard to measure. I don't remember
> notticing any change in takeoff performance. What it did do is
increase
> roll response noticeably. It was surprising on the first flight, and
I
> would describe it as almost twitchy, but after a few minutes I got
used to
> it and sort of liked it. But not enough to sacrifice the cruise for,
so
