RV-Archive.digest.vol-rn

December 21, 2005 - January 02, 2006



      > 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
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      > 
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Air Bubbles in Fuel
Date: Dec 21, 2005
Having just poured 5 gallons of fuel from a can into my wing tank, I proceeded to pump the fuel back into the can using the boost pump. Watching the fuel flow through the clear plexiglass of the fuel filter which is just prior to the boost pump inlet, I observe an occasional air bubble come into the filter inlet & get whisked out the outlet. The bubble size is small, about 1/32 inch I'd guess. The frequency is erratic ranging from one in 20 seconds to one in a minute or more. So, my question is could these bubbles be coming from the fuel or do they indicate an air leak? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Date: Dec 21, 2005
On 21 Dec 2005, at 13:30, Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote: > > > 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. Terry Jantzi tried Larry Vetterman's VGs on his RV-6. He temporaily mounted a pitot boom with a swivleing pitot head to try to get more accurate stall speeds. He found about a 3 kt reduction in stall speed with full flap, and a five knot loss of TAS in cruise. The stall speeds were measured at aft CG. With the VGs installed, he ran out of aft stick before getting a stall break at forward CG. It seems like there wasn't much of a reduction in stall speed at forward CG. More info at: http://ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Date: Dec 21, 2005
On 21 Dec 2005, at 15:45, Chuck Jensen wrote: > > > 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? Imagine the aircraft as being stationary, with the wind moving around it, as if it was in a wind tunnel. The air molecules that are touching the aircraft skin have zero relative speed to the skin. The speed of the air increases as you move away from the skin, until it finally reaches the full velocity at some small distance from the skin. These speed changes occur in the boundary layer. The air that is close to the aircraft's skin is moving very slowly, and it doesn't take much to cause it to separate from the skin. This is what happens at the stall. VGs work by sticking up through the boundary layer to grab the higher velocity air that is present a little ways from the skin. The edge of the VG generates a tiny vortex that brings higher speed air down close to the skin. This high speed air resists separating from the skin, so the stall is delayed until a higher angle of attack (and hence a lower speed). VGs will cause a drag increase, as they are sticking out into the higher speed air. They also bring higher speed air closer to the skin. The amount of drag will depend on the number of VGs, their height, and the speed of the air at that location. Some aircraft only need a small number of VGs to help sort out an airflow problem in a small location. In this case the amount of extra drag might be difficult to measure. And, it is theoretically possible that the new airflow pattern downstream of the VGs might even be beneficial, so that the drag could be reduced. This is probably the case at high angle of attack (i.e. at an angle of attack such that the wing would have stalled without VGs). But it isn't likely in the cruise case if the VGs are used on the wing to reduce stall speed. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Camloc Group Buy
From: "" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2005
All, I posted this on the Vansairforce site, but I wanted to offer it up here for those that may not check that site. Let me know via email if ou are interested...I'll follow up with more details once I have a count. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=4671THanks,Scott7A Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 21, 2005
Subject: Re: Air Bubbles in Fuel
In a message dated 12/21/2005 4:26:54 PM Central Standard Time, dreel(at)cox.net writes: So, my question is could these bubbles be coming from the fuel or do they indicate an air leak? >>> Possibly from some trapped air pockets in high areas of fuel system? If that's all that's getting through, I'm sure it will exit out the carb vent and wouldn't worry about it. If real leaks are a concern, they will likely show up when you fill the tanks full, which is the next step anyway, eh? Mark Phillips -6A N51PW 260 hrs (and yeah, I had the clear filters in both wingroots just because I wanted to watch for what you are now seeing plus how much crud I'd left in the tanks! No gascolator, neither...) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 21, 2005
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Wings before engine
I agree with Gerry, don't do it Geoff. I put my wings on my RV-6A a year ago and it has indeed been a pain in the feet walking from the front of the hangar (where I'm working on FWF), around the wing tips to the back of the hangar where workbench and the tools are :-( I installed the wings before installing the engine because I wanted to install the main landing gear and the only way to do that permanently on an RV-6 tri-gear is with the wings on (the main gear mounts bolt directly to the main spar in the RV-6 not the carry through structure like the -7/8/9, simple but a hassle). I tried to do as much airframe stuff as I could with the wings off and that included the gear leg fairings and wheel pants. It's easy to lift the fuselage by hand (when wings and engine are not installed) and put it on saw horses in the level position (with the wheels off the ground) so you can install the fairings and pants properly. This is not exactly a trivial job, you'll need to do it sooner or later anyway, and I would be a bit nervous about jacking the airplane and letting it sit that way for long periods with the weight of engine and other items hanging on. And, if you can, build your panel and wire as much of the fuse and wings as possible right now, that makes it easier to get in and out of certain places here too. Just my experience, good luck and happy building. Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Wiring! ---------Original message----------------- Subject: Re: RV-List: Wings before engine? From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> 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... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 21, 2005
Subject: Re: >Re:Vortex Generators
I really like the slow speed stability and lower stall speed with my VG's. My 1100' grass strip requires approach between trees @ about 35' AGL , so I can't watch airspeed there. My landing & takeoff distance is only about half the runway now. I haven't been able to get enough time with them for more definitive testing. My med ran out & I have been denied a special issuance so flying is on hold now. My 62 hr. RV-4 sits and waits. Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor Charleston,Arkansas Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: orange peel
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Hello Listers, I am just starting to paint some of my interior parts with a HVLP spray gun and on sometimes get more orange peel than others. Is this due to an air issue or paint issue, ie to much or to little. Thanks for any help. Paul Rice RV8QB Almost ready to install wings ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Wings before engine
I made wood false spar stubs and inserted them where the spars would go. I drilled the wood to match the bolt pattern - Then I was able to attach the main gear. I can take pictures and already have some contact me off list. Ralph Capen RV6AQB N822AR N06 90% 90% -----Original Message----- >From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> >Sent: Dec 21, 2005 11:35 PM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Wings before engine > > >I agree with Gerry, don't do it Geoff. I put my wings on my RV-6A a year >ago and it has indeed been a pain in the feet walking from the front of the >hangar (where I'm working on FWF), around the wing tips to the back of the >hangar where workbench and the tools are :-( I installed the wings before >installing the engine because I wanted to install the main landing gear and >the only way to do that permanently on an RV-6 tri-gear is with the wings on >(the main gear mounts bolt directly to the main spar in the RV-6 not the >carry through structure like the -7/8/9, simple but a hassle). I tried to >do as much airframe stuff as I could with the wings off and that included >the gear leg fairings and wheel pants. It's easy to lift the fuselage by >hand (when wings and engine are not installed) and put it on saw horses in >the level position (with the wheels off the ground) so you can install the >fairings and pants properly. This is not exactly a trivial job, you'll need >to do it sooner or later anyway, and I would be a bit nervous about jacking >the airplane and letting it sit that way for long periods with the weight of >engine and other items hanging on. And, if you can, build your panel and >wire as much of the fuse and wings as possible right now, that makes it >easier to get in and out of certain places here too. Just my experience, >good luck and happy building. > >Dean Psiropoulos >RV-6A N197DM >Wiring! > > >---------Original message----------------- >Subject: Re: RV-List: Wings before engine? >From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> > >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... > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Subject: Re: orange peel
Paul, Orange peel can be caused by several things. I'm using PPG's Delta (one step up their product line from the very popular Concept) paints. I will get orange peel if I do not properly reduce the paint. Urethane and Polyurethane paints are rather viscous. Cool shop temperatures will also prevent the paint from flowing out normally. Orange peel is simply the paint not flowing out properly. It tends to pool, leaving high and low areas you perceive as orange peel. The last issue is if I try to keep spraying the paint after it has started to "set up" in the gun. I've had this happen when I mixed to much paint in one batch. Due to workload or less than idea weather, I had not used all of the paint batch before the 2 hour "pot life" limit for Delta. Exceeding the "pot life" is readily apparent. As you exceed the recommended spray time, the paint becomes thicker. This makes it more difficult for the paint to exit the gun. It also prevents the paint from flowing out properly. My experience (and that of several other builders) with Delta is that if you simply leave it alone, the paint will slowly "level out" over a period of 4-6 months and the orange peel will disappear all by itself. This only applies if the original cause of the orange peel was NOT that you exceeded the pot life time. I've had a number of items of my interior which showed noticable orange peel soon after painting. Over time, I could actually watch the paint level out. A part that looked badly orange peeled would look better the next day, better yet after a week, than a month. After 4-6 months the orange peel was completely gone. I don't know what paint you are using. My advise is to not get to freaked out about the orange peel unless it's still there 6 months from now. You can always rub or buff it out later. Contact me off list with a contact phone number if you'd like to discuss this via phone. Charlie Kuss ---- Paul Rice wrote: > > Hello Listers, > > I am just starting to paint some of my interior parts with a HVLP spray gun > and on sometimes get more orange peel than others. Is this due to an air > issue or paint issue, ie to much or to little. Thanks for any help. > > Paul Rice > RV8QB > Almost ready to install wings > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Brad Gould <brad20j(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
I used to have a Beech Baron with VGs. They kept falling off when it snowed on the wings, so I removed them because I was worried about asymmetrical stall characteristics when one wing lost an outboard group of adjacent VGs. When I removed them, I noticed a higher stall speed (don't know how much), and a higher cruise speed by about 3 or more kts. I also noticed slightly less responsiveness in the ailerons at slow speed, but I seldom flew the Baron at the very low end of the speed spectrum. I don't know about RVs, but the Baron has basically the same airfoil, so I would expect it to behave similarly. There's a very interesting write-up on experimental data on the effect of VGs on a Bonanza, also with a similar airfoil to the RVs. It used to be on http://www.nar-associates.com/technical-flying/technical_flying.html, but I see it has been removed. The site says you can email the author for info. There were basically two articles: one about effects at each end of the speed spectrum, if I recall. There was also an interesting table showing increased power required for different airspeeds, even at the low speed end. The increased power required at Vy speeds would indicate a decreased climb rate, but I'm not sure I noticed this in the Baron. Hopefully the author of the articles will re-post them. My personal conclusion was that the VGs would be good if you're using very short fields. Otherwise, I'd take the extra few knots in cruise. An additional thought was that with VGs installed, at least maneuvering speed and structural cruising speed should be decreased due to the lowered stall speed, but I could not find any published numbers to use. I presume one could reduce these proportionally to the new stall speed for operational purposes. Brad Waiting for my plane to sell to start on an RV-8 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: linn walters <lwalters2(at)cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: orange peel
I'm no paint expert, but in my mind: Orange peel can be caused by many things. The surface you're painting muxt be CLEAN. Do it twice or three times. Air pressure too low. The paint isn't atomizing fine enough. Experiment. Contamination of the air. Oil and water will wreak havoc on a paint job. I use a 'toilet paper filter'. Paint is too thick. Add some solvent .... be sure it's compatible with your paint. Temperature is important too. The warmer the better. Helps the paint flow and prevents 'hazing'. Linn Paul Rice wrote: > >Hello Listers, > >I am just starting to paint some of my interior parts with a HVLP spray gun >and on sometimes get more orange peel than others. Is this due to an air >issue or paint issue, ie to much or to little. Thanks for any help. > >Paul Rice >RV8QB >Almost ready to install wings > > > > -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Brad Gould <brad20j(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators >Vortex Generators
I successfully Googled the articles on Bonanza VGs that I mentioned in my last post. Fyi, while the RV airfoil is close to a 23013, the Bonanza's varies between a 23016.5 at the root and a 23012 at the tip, so one would expect performance effects to be very similar in an RV: http://web.usna.navy.mil/~dfr/flying/Vgs_stall_wide.pdf https://taupe.site-secure.net/nar-associates/technical-flying/vortex/Vgs_cruise_wide.pdf Brad Waiting for my plane to sell so I can start on an RV-8. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Wings before engine
We used a piece of square alum tubing drilled to match several spar bolt holes and the gear mounts. Worked so well it was used on all 6A's built in our group. At 08:02 AM 12/22/2005, you wrote: > >I made wood false spar stubs and inserted them where the spars would >go. I drilled the wood to match the bolt pattern - Then I was able to >attach the main gear. > >I can take pictures and already have some contact me off list. > >Ralph Capen >RV6AQB N822AR N06 90% 90% > >-----Original Message----- > >From: DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> > >Sent: Dec 21, 2005 11:35 PM > >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > >Subject: RV-List: Wings before engine > > > > > > >I agree with Gerry, don't do it Geoff. I put my wings on my RV-6A a year > >ago and it has indeed been a pain in the feet walking from the front of the > >hangar (where I'm working on FWF), around the wing tips to the back of the > >hangar where workbench and the tools are :-( I installed the wings before > >installing the engine because I wanted to install the main landing gear and > >the only way to do that permanently on an RV-6 tri-gear is with the wings on > >(the main gear mounts bolt directly to the main spar in the RV-6 not the > >carry through structure like the -7/8/9, simple but a hassle). I tried to > >do as much airframe stuff as I could with the wings off and that included > >the gear leg fairings and wheel pants. It's easy to lift the fuselage by > >hand (when wings and engine are not installed) and put it on saw horses in > >the level position (with the wheels off the ground) so you can install the > >fairings and pants properly. This is not exactly a trivial job, you'll need > >to do it sooner or later anyway, and I would be a bit nervous about jacking > >the airplane and letting it sit that way for long periods with the weight of > >engine and other items hanging on. And, if you can, build your panel and > >wire as much of the fuse and wings as possible right now, that makes it > >easier to get in and out of certain places here too. Just my experience, > >good luck and happy building. > > > >Dean Psiropoulos > >RV-6A N197DM > >Wiring! > > > > > >---------Original message----------------- > >Subject: Re: RV-List: Wings before engine? > >From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> > > > >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... > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Revival?
>I just returned from the airport where I found that I had left the master >"ON" and the RB25 battery was dead. Is it possible to resuscitate this >completely dead battery or do I need to order a new one. I revived mine and have been using it for many months but I plan on replacing it soon since it has been in the plane a while. I would check the manufacturer website for their advice on the reliability of your battery now. Also consider the cost if it fails on a cross-country. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: "Don/Marcia Piermattei" <dlpier(at)lamar.colostate.edu>
Subject: RE: orange peel
"Paul Rice" Are you using a turbine or compressed air? The tubine heats the air and the paint does not run out unless the thinner is increased 25-50% over the usual formula Don Piermattei RV-9A 192DP Donald L. Piermattei DVM, PhD 5000 E County Rd 92 Carr, CO 80612 970/568-9047 Fax 970/568-7279 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: orange peel
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Hi, orange peel is caused by too much material and not enough pressure to correctly atomize the paint. Either screw up the pressure, or in your case of HVLP screw back on the material, ie, screw the needle on the rear of the gun a bit further in. Marcel ----- Original Message ----- From: <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: orange peel > > Paul, > Orange peel can be caused by several things. I'm using PPG's Delta (one > step up their product line from the very popular Concept) paints. I will > get orange peel if I do not properly reduce the paint. Urethane and > Polyurethane paints are rather viscous. > Cool shop temperatures will also prevent the paint from flowing out > normally. Orange peel is simply the paint not flowing out properly. It > tends to pool, leaving high and low areas you perceive as orange peel. > The last issue is if I try to keep spraying the paint after it has started > to "set up" in the gun. I've had this happen when I mixed to much paint > in one batch. Due to workload or less than idea weather, I had not used > all of the paint batch before the 2 hour "pot life" limit for Delta. > Exceeding the "pot life" is readily apparent. As you exceed the > recommended spray time, the paint becomes thicker. This makes it more > difficult for the paint to exit the gun. It also prevents the paint from > flowing out properly. > My experience (and that of several other builders) with Delta is that if > you simply leave it alone, the paint will slowly "level out" over a period > of 4-6 months and the orange peel will disappear all by itself. This only > applies if the original cause of the orange peel was NOT that you exceeded > the pot life time. > I've had a number of items of my interior which showed noticable orange > peel soon after painting. Over time, I could actually watch the paint > level out. A part that looked badly orange peeled would look better the > next day, better yet after a week, than a month. After 4-6 months the > orange peel was completely gone. > I don't know what paint you are using. My advise is to not get to freaked > out about the orange peel unless it's still there 6 months from now. You > can always rub or buff it out later. > Contact me off list with a contact phone number if you'd like to discuss > this via phone. > Charlie Kuss > > > ---- Paul Rice wrote: >> >> Hello Listers, >> >> I am just starting to paint some of my interior parts with a HVLP spray >> gun >> and on sometimes get more orange peel than others. Is this due to an air >> issue or paint issue, ie to much or to little. Thanks for any help. >> >> Paul Rice >> RV8QB >> Almost ready to install wings >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Revival?
I should have noted that my battery is an Odyssey PC680 which may or may not react differently than yours. Ron Lee >I revived mine and have been using it for many months but I plan on >replacing it soon since it has been in the plane a while. > >I would check the manufacturer website for their advice on the reliability >of your battery now. Also consider the cost if it fails on a cross-country. > >Ron Lee > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Yes it is hard to get accurate data. People who sell them will tell you all kind of things but here is where the NO FREE LUNCH rule comes in. You can expect about 3kts lower stall and about 3 kts lower, less top speed: http://www.iwantarocket.com/rv6/index.html select hyper text: vortex generators and you can see the results here or go direct here: http://ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm Besides the Terry Jantzi above, who sells VG's, here are folks who will sell you VG's: http://www.pnwaero.com/ http://www.microaero.com/ http://www.landshorter.com/index.html Again you gain on the low you loose on the top. It is the conservation of the NO FREE LUNCH RULE. Expect to loose top end about the same as you gain on the bottom. Most VG manufactures are fairly honest or just don't really know, but some will also tell you that you will loose no top speed? I doubt that seriously. Some will tell you their VG's are better than VG's from XYZ's. They may be. My conclusion is leave them off. However I know if you want to DOG FIGHT you will have an advantage with VG's. If you do DOG FIGHT with your RV buddies you know it gets into a turning battle and the first to run out of speed. The Lower stall will allow a slight advantage (smaller or slower turn) and you will usually win. DO it enough no one will want to dog-fight you. I personally don't want to loose 3 kts on the top end, and if I can't get into a field with a 3 kt higher stall I don't need to be there. The RV already stalls slow enough and if you can get into a short fields that push your takeoff capability already. Good Luck. If you decide to go for it, try to do some before and after flight test and post the results. George (Just say no to VG's) From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
George, The No F -----Original Message----- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com Subject: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators Yes it is hard to get accurate data. People who sell them will tell you all kind of things but here is where the NO FREE LUNCH rule comes in. You can expect about 3kts lower stall and about 3 kts lower, less top speed: http://www.iwantarocket.com/rv6/index.html select hyper text: vortex generators and you can see the results here or go direct here: http://ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm Besides the Terry Jantzi above, who sells VG's, here are folks who will sell you VG's: http://www.pnwaero.com/ http://www.microaero.com/ http://www.landshorter.com/index.html Again you gain on the low you loose on the top. It is the conservation of the NO FREE LUNCH RULE. Expect to loose top end about the same as you gain on the bottom. Most VG manufactures are fairly honest or just don't really know, but some will also tell you that you will loose no top speed? I doubt that seriously. Some will tell you their VG's are better than VG's from XYZ's. They may be. My conclusion is leave them off. However I know if you want to DOG FIGHT you will have an advantage with VG's. If you do DOG FIGHT with your RV buddies you know it gets into a turning battle and the first to run out of speed. The Lower stall will allow a slight advantage (smaller or slower turn) and you will usually win. DO it enough no one will want to dog-fight you. I personally don't want to loose 3 kts on the top end, and if I can't get into a field with a 3 kt higher stall I don't need to be there. The RV already stalls slow enough and if you can get into a short fields that push your takeoff capability already. Good Luck. If you decide to go for it, try to do some before and after flight test and post the results. George (Just say no to VG's) From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: orange peel
After many years of painting radio control models, I know that too thick paint or high humidity will cause orange peel. Check for both. dave --- Paul Rice wrote: > > > Hello Listers, > > I am just starting to paint some of my interior > parts with a HVLP spray gun > and on sometimes get more orange peel than others. > Is this due to an air > issue or paint issue, ie to much or to little. > Thanks for any help. > > Paul Rice > RV8QB > Almost ready to install wings > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Admin. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
let's try that again; darned laptop will SEND an email right in the middle if my fingers even touch the touchpad... George, the No Free Lunch rule might be evident here, but it's not axiomatic. There are airframes like RV's with a 4:1 speed ratio, and some with better, others with worse. By tweaking aspect ratios, wing loading, airfoil selection, tail volume, horsepower, etc, performance can be altered. The only way to know if VG's would lop off as much from the top end speed as they add to the bottom is to put them on and go fly. It's not a result we can know intuitively beforehand. If a N.F.L. Rule applied already, we'd never have seen an airframe more efficient than the Wright Flyer. I'm fully expecting some clever person to develop a VG-like mod that lowers the stall without penalizing cruise by an equal amount. -Stormy -----Original Message----- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com Subject: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators Yes it is hard to get accurate data. People who sell them will tell you all kind of things but here is where the NO FREE LUNCH rule comes in. You can expect about 3kts lower stall and about 3 kts lower, less top speed: http://www.iwantarocket.com/rv6/index.html select hyper text: vortex generators and you can see the results here or go direct here: http://ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm Besides the Terry Jantzi above, who sells VG's, here are folks who will sell you VG's: http://www.pnwaero.com/ http://www.microaero.com/ http://www.landshorter.com/index.html Again you gain on the low you loose on the top. It is the conservation of the NO FREE LUNCH RULE. Expect to loose top end about the same as you gain on the bottom. Most VG manufactures are fairly honest or just don't really know, but some will also tell you that you will loose no top speed? I doubt that seriously. Some will tell you their VG's are better than VG's from XYZ's. They may be. My conclusion is leave them off. However I know if you want to DOG FIGHT you will have an advantage with VG's. If you do DOG FIGHT with your RV buddies you know it gets into a turning battle and the first to run out of speed. The Lower stall will allow a slight advantage (smaller or slower turn) and you will usually win. DO it enough no one will want to dog-fight you. I personally don't want to loose 3 kts on the top end, and if I can't get into a field with a 3 kt higher stall I don't need to be there. The RV already stalls slow enough and if you can get into a short fields that push your takeoff capability already. Good Luck. If you decide to go for it, try to do some before and after flight test and post the results. George (Just say no to VG's) From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: >Re:Vortex Generators
Bob, I've got one word "Pirate". I love to fly... and I've only been flyin' since 1976. I fly crafts from hang-gliders to anything I can get my hands on. I had friends (still have some of them) who use to let me fly their planes, before I wised-up and got licensed. Some of them have since lost their medicals and are forced into Pirating the skies. I sit shotgun for them whenever I can. They even pay for bi-annuals and stay practiced. They are good pilots and fly very conservatively with the knowledge of the additional risks they are placing on Everyone else (they are not worried about themselves). I don't know your situation, but the folks I'm thinking of have one common denominator "BP". This is life and flyin' is a very important part of life to me and others. I know I'm gonna get flamed, but oh well... asbestos britches on & standing-by. Chuck Oldsfolks(at)aol.com wrote: I really like the slow speed stability and lower stall speed with my VG's. My 1100' grass strip requires approach between trees @ about 35' AGL , so I can't watch airspeed there. My landing & takeoff distance is only about half the runway now. I haven't been able to get enough time with them for more definitive testing. My med ran out & I have been denied a special issuance so flying is on hold now. My 62 hr. RV-4 sits and waits. Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor Charleston,Arkansas Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Andy, If ya' want to sell them, I'll buy 'em. I'm workin' on another RV-4 and love 'em on my current 4 (definitely a believer in routine aerobatics, dog-fightin', and short strips). Chuck Aircraft Technical Book Company wrote: 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 22, 2005
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
There are No Free Lunches...but some come at a nice discount. There is a significant difference in the wing of a Velocity canard and an RV, so it's not totally unexpected that VGs may affect each differently. The RVs/Bonanzas et al seem to consistently report a cruise loss of 3-5kts. In comparison, multiple Velocity drivers report they are not able to see any difference at cruise with the VGs, but that stall is reduced 5-7kts. So, as always, YRMV. Chuck Jensen > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sportav8r(at)aol.com > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:25 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators > > > let's try that again; darned laptop will SEND an email right in the > middle if my fingers even touch the touchpad... > > George, > > the No Free Lunch rule might be evident here, but it's not axiomatic. > There are airframes like RV's with a 4:1 speed ratio, and some with better, > others with worse. By tweaking aspect ratios, wing loading, airfoil > selection, tail volume, horsepower, etc, performance can be altered. The > only way to know if VG's would lop off as much from the top end speed as > they add to the bottom is to put them on and go fly. It's not a result we > can know intuitively beforehand. > > If a N.F.L. Rule applied already, we'd never have seen an airframe more > efficient than the Wright Flyer. I'm fully expecting some clever person > to develop a VG-like mod that lowers the stall without penalizing cruise > by an equal amount. > > -Stormy > > -----Original Message----- > From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com; Jerry2DT(at)aol.com > Subject: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators > > > > Yes it is hard to get accurate data. People who sell them will tell you > all kind of things but here is where the NO FREE LUNCH rule comes > in. > > You can expect about 3kts lower stall and about 3 kts lower, less > top speed: > > http://www.iwantarocket.com/rv6/index.html > select hyper text: vortex generators and you can see the results here > > or go direct here: http://ontariorvators.org/pitot/pitot.htm > > Besides the Terry Jantzi above, who sells VG's, here are folks who > will sell you VG's: > http://www.pnwaero.com/ > http://www.microaero.com/ > http://www.landshorter.com/index.html > > > Again you gain on the low you loose on the top. It is the conservation > of the NO FREE LUNCH RULE. Expect to loose top end about the > same as you gain on the bottom. > > Most VG manufactures are fairly honest or just don't really know, but > some will also tell you that you will loose no top speed? I doubt that > seriously. Some will tell you their VG's are better than VG's > from XYZ's. They may be. > > My conclusion is leave them off. However I know if you want to DOG > FIGHT you will have an advantage with VG's. If you do DOG FIGHT > with your RV buddies you know it gets into a turning battle and the first > to run out of speed. The Lower stall will allow a slight advantage > (smaller or slower turn) and you will usually win. DO it enough no one > will want to dog-fight you. > > I personally don't want to loose 3 kts on the top end, and if I can't get > into a field with a 3 kt higher stall I don't need to be there. > > The RV already stalls slow enough and if you can get into a short > fields that push your takeoff capability already. Good Luck. If you > decide to go for it, try to do some before and after flight test and post > the results. > > George (Just say no to VG's) > > > > > > From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com > Subject: RV-List: 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: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [SoCAL-RVlist] VNY FSDO
Date: Dec 22, 2005
I'm hoping they're at work for all of us. Mark and I got our new oplims and theoretically we're out of the fight now. I pushed on the EAA and AOPA to go to work on this because I don't want anybody else to have to go to the mat with the FAA later. The EAA didn't really need pushing. They were eager to jump on it and just waiting for our oplims to clear so those couldn't be held hostage. They have their yearly summit with the FAA at Oshkosh in January. The memo and differing regional policies are definitely on the agenda. EAA rep Randy told me a FSDO horror story about a guy who bought a homebuilt in southern Florida with 14 hours on it and the phase 1 not complete. He moved it (disassembled) to northern Florida and applied for a new test flight area in August. He had been told to send his original airworthiness certificate and oplims in and they would turn them around in 2 weeks. They lost the paperwork and he had to send copies (do you have copies of all your paperwork in a safe place?). Every 2 weeks, they told him it would be 2 weeks more. As of last week, and the EAA's intervention on the guy's behalf, they had promised to issue the new oplims the next day. I haven't heard if they came through. Part of the problem is that the guy is based in extreme northern Florida and the Miami FSDO says they can't give him a test area overlapping the Atlanta FSDO's area. I guess they couldn't pick up the phone and coordinate something with the other FSDO - no, so the oplims they finally agreed to issue will force the guy to fly off his time to the south only so he can remain in Miami's region. This story of bureaucracy run amok is another example of why the FAA needs to be forced to set some rational national policy and limit the regional FSDOs' authority. The AOPA initially seems a little less interested. I got a call back from a guy there who told me that he had called the FSDO claiming to be an RV-6 pilot planning a trip into Santa Barbara and wanting to know if there was going to be a problem. He was assured that there's no problem and not to worry about the memo. I told the rep that I figure it's all well and good to say that they won't enforce it, but how about later when they change their mind about that. I also told him that the real issue is the local setting of standards which may conflict with those in other areas and a discriminatory restriction on one category of aircraft. He said that there probably wouldn't be much happening about it at AOPA until after the holidays, but that he'd get back to me. Well, it's out in the open now and the lines are drawn. After they issued our new oplims, the question in my mind was: did the current FSDO manager support the former manager's policy or was it just an unwillingness to deal with changing the policy? It's pretty obvious that Swanson is not a friend to homebuilders. He isn't going to make it easy for new homebuilt aircraft in his area. He can't do much about existing ones so he's not going to fight us on that, although they did try to hold up our oplims until I screamed. Doesn't it sound like he's threatening more ramp checks, though? If you are ramp checked, I bet the inspector can find a way to violate you if he wants to bad enough. Read your oplims again, folks. Ours, issued in '98, were definitely more restrictive than the new ones. Make sure that all your required paperwork is in the plane and correct, just in case. Pax, Ed Holyoke * -----Original Message----- From: SoCAL-RVlist(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:SoCAL-RVlist(at)yahoogroups.com] * Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:21 AM Subject: [SoCAL-RVlist] VNY FSDO http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/537-full.html#191233 Looks like the EAA is at work for Ed. _____ * Visit your group "SoCAL-RVlist <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist> " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: SoCAL-RVlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service. _____ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Running a tank dry intentionally
I did this again today to get a better assessment of speed/altitude loss during the tank switch. I had just turned south to improve separation with a CRJ so my speed control was affected. I was also looking for the CRJ so my attention was diverted from immediate fuel starvation monitoring. Once the engine started to stumble I reached down and switched tanks. After about six seconds I turned the fuel pump on and by 13 seconds the engine was running normally. Times are mental counting. Altitude loss was insignificant but I lost 10-15 mph (So I maintained altitude). The prop never stopped. Then on to COS for cheaper fuel and the dry tank again took 18.7 gallons (RV-6A). Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Howard Walrath" <der_Jagdflieger(at)prodigy.net>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators Jerry, I bought mine from Larry Vetterman (of exhaust system fame) who worked with several RV owners including RV-4's and RV-6's. He holds the rights to these and, as I recall, his price was about $400, including shipping. Installation took me about 3 hours, with die-cut templates and very good instructions. Net result was a 9 to 10 knot drop in my 200 HP RV-6A's power-on-stall speed, a much more docile stall, without the "which way is she going to tuck this time?" excitement attendant to Van's 23-foot wing span at very high angles of attack. My normal landing speed is now about 10-knots slower than pre-VG's. When I went through portions of Rich Stowell's Emergency Maneuvers/Recovery From Unusual Attitudes training in California, he remarked that my RV's stall/spin behavior was the best he'd ever experienced in an RV. If the VG's cost me anything in cruise, it is not discernible and less than 1 Knot -- as I compared before and after detailed cruise speeds at the same power settings on longer trips. I am a real believer in them. Howard > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Jerry2DT(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:30 PM > Subject: RV-List: 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: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Running a tank dry intentionally
Date: Dec 22, 2005
> > I did this again today to get a better assessment of speed/altitude > loss > during the tank switch. I had just turned south to improve separation > with a CRJ so my speed control was affected. I was also looking for > the CRJ so my attention was diverted from immediate fuel starvation > monitoring. Once the engine started to stumble I reached down and > switched tanks. After about six seconds I turned the fuel pump on and > by 13 seconds the engine was running normally. Times are mental > counting. > > Altitude loss was insignificant but I lost 10-15 mph (So I maintained > altitude). > The prop never stopped. > > Then on to COS for cheaper fuel and the dry tank again took 18.7 > gallons > (RV-6A). What type of engine? Carburetor or fuel injection? If fuel injection, which one? What kind of prop (wood fixed-pitch, metal fixed-pitch, metal contant-speed or composite constant-speed)? Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Running a tank dry intentionally
> >What type of engine? Carburetor or fuel injection? If fuel >injection, which one? What kind of prop (wood fixed-pitch, metal >fixed-pitch, metal contant-speed or composite constant-speed)? Lycoming O-360, carbureted, fixed-pitch wood prop(Aymar demuth) Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick McCraw" <rmccraw(at)s4t.net>
Subject: Re: Vortex Generators
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Regarding VGs and maneuvering speed: As stall goes down, so does maneuvering speed. This was mentioned briefly in an earlier post, but I thought I'd elaborate since that's a reason I didn't put them onto my Bonanza. Maneuvering speed is calculated from the stall speed. According to a couple of sources I just googled (and this is in line with rather old recollection, too), the formula is Va = sqrt(load factor) * Vs For instance, if you assume the standard category load factor of 3.8 and a stall of 60 mph, Va becomes sqrt(3.8) * 60 = 116mph. If VGs lower stall by 5 mph, Va drops by almost 10mph. Another way to look at it is that the square root of 3.8 is almost 2, so you lose almost twice as much from Va as you gain in stall. Like everything, it's a tradeoff. Rick RV-7 emp ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: LightSPEED headsets
I just got back my LightSpeed 15K ANC headset from the factory. I had returned this seven year old headset for repair because I was only getting audio out of one speaker, and I had also managed to break the plastic stirrup or bow piece in which the ear cup swivels. The mic windscreen was lost long ago. This is the very headset I wear while riding the lawnmower with the tow-behind trail-mower for grooming the grass runway here - a sad way to abuse an aviation accessory, but it's nice to mow in peace and quiet. I would never abuse my 20K set in this way, just the wife's 15K ;-) LightSPEED returned my headset promptly, with all new cabling and jacks, new headband and stirrups, and replacement windscreen; it looks practically new and works 100%. They even threw in a pair of AA alkalines to boot. My cost? Shipping to them. Period. No repair or return shipping charges, nada. No questions asked (except whether I would care to trade them in for $100 toward a set of Thirty-3G's). I can't say enough about their customer service. In the near future I hope to try one of their new MachOne in-ear headsets (or is that a razor?) I'm looking for something that won't scratch the canopy so much, or pop off my head when pulling G's and swiveling my head in a dogfight. Hard to see how you could go wrong with this company - fine people. -Stormy satisfied customer, not a shareholder ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Aubrey" <aprice(at)fastspot.net>
Subject: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 22, 2005
I am building an RV7a with a IO 360 / 200 HP with Turbo Charger. The engine is 40 pounds heavier plus the turbo. Should the battery be moved aft because of the added weight. Aubrey Price N600AP ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Revival?
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Every battery has a limit of reliability and every PIC has a limit on what risks to take with his/her type of flying. The age of the battery and the number of times it has been cycled and temperature plays into the answer. There is no perfect answer short of doing a stress test to see how the battery performs after it is charged up. A battery stress tester at the discharge rate you expect with an alternator failure was discussed recently on the aeroelectric-list. Check their archives for more info. If the battery can still perform to your expectations based on the stress test, regardless of its age and past usage/abusage, it is still good for you. But every battery has........a growing risk until one day its odds will get your attention. Some advocate changing out the battery every year, some every two, some just when it fails to start the plane, some stress testing it every oil change after one year old. 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: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery Revival? > > I should have noted that my battery is an Odyssey PC680 which > may or may not react differently than yours. > > Ron Lee > > >>I revived mine and have been using it for many months but I plan on >>replacing it soon since it has been in the plane a while. >> >>I would check the manufacturer website for their advice on the reliability >>of your battery now. Also consider the cost if it fails on a >>cross-country. >> >>Ron Lee >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Pellien" <jim(at)pellien.com>
Subject: T'was The Night Before Christmas - Sports Planes Style
Date: Dec 22, 2005
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the forum not an EMAIL was posted, not even a note. The stockings were hung by the laptop with care, in hopes that Tom P. soon would be there. The pilots were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of SLSA's danced in their heads. The aircraft in their hangars, and I in my cap, had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap. When out on the tarmac there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter. Away to the window I flew like a flash, tore open the shutter, and threw up the sash. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow gave the lustre of midday to the tie-downs below, when, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a Light Sport Aircraft and eight big EAA 'rs. With a little old pilot, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be Tom P. More rapid than eagles, his coursers they came, and he whistled and shouted and called them by name: "Now Rutan! Now Melville! Now, Fossett and Boyer! On, Lawrence! On, Heintz! On, Van G and Sawyer! To the end of the runway! To the tie-down area Now Shut Down ! Shut Down! Shut Down All Engines" As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky so up to the top of the FBO they flew, with the sleigh full of flight toys, and Tom P. too. And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof the prancing and pawing of each little hoof. As I drew in my head and was turning around, down the chimney Tom P. came with a bound. He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot, and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot. A bundle of new FAA rules he had flung on his back, and he looked like a peddler just opening his pack. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, and filled all the stockings, with SP and LSA Rulings. And laying his finger aside of his nose, and giving a nod, up the chimney he rose. He sprang to his SLSA, completed his preflight, And away he flew like the down of a thistle. But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he flew out of sight, "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!" (An Adaptation of the Classic Poem, "T'was the Night Before Christmas") Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All Jim Pellien Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com www.MASPL.com 703-313-4818 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels(at)fmtc.com>
Subject: Re: LightSPEED headsets
I had the same experience with them. Outstanding service. Great headset. sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote: > >I just got back my LightSpeed 15K ANC headset from the factory. I had returned this seven year old headset for repair because I was only getting audio out of one speaker, and I had also managed to break the plastic stirrup or bow piece in which the ear cup swivels. The mic windscreen was lost long ago. This is the very headset I wear while riding the lawnmower with the tow-behind trail-mower for grooming the grass runway here - a sad way to abuse an aviation accessory, but it's nice to mow in peace and quiet. I would never abuse my 20K set in this way, just the wife's 15K ;-) > >LightSPEED returned my headset promptly, with all new cabling and jacks, new headband and stirrups, and replacement windscreen; it looks practically new and works 100%. They even threw in a pair of AA alkalines to boot. My cost? Shipping to them. Period. No repair or return shipping charges, nada. No questions asked (except whether I would care to trade them in for $100 toward a set of Thirty-3G's). > >I can't say enough about their customer service. In the near future I hope to try one of their new MachOne in-ear headsets (or is that a razor?) I'm looking for something that won't scratch the canopy so much, or pop off my head when pulling G's and swiveling my head in a dogfight. > >Hard to see how you could go wrong with this company - fine people. > >-Stormy > >satisfied customer, not a shareholder > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Running a tank dry intentionally
Date: Dec 22, 2005
I have an IO360 and ran my tank dry last summer. The engine re-lit immediately upon switching tanks and boost pump on. Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 235 hours Chicago/Louisville ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> Subject: RV-List: Running a tank dry intentionally > > I did this again today to get a better assessment of speed/altitude loss > during the tank switch. I had just turned south to improve separation > with a CRJ so my speed control was affected. I was also looking for > the CRJ so my attention was diverted from immediate fuel starvation > monitoring. Once the engine started to stumble I reached down and > switched tanks. After about six seconds I turned the fuel pump on and > by 13 seconds the engine was running normally. Times are mental counting. > > Altitude loss was insignificant but I lost 10-15 mph (So I maintained > altitude). > The prop never stopped. > > Then on to COS for cheaper fuel and the dry tank again took 18.7 gallons > (RV-6A). > > Ron Lee > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: UFOBUCK(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
I think you should put the battery anywhere you want. You've not followed Van's recommendations relative to the powerplant and you damn sure shouldn't call it a RV-7A. I would hope the other RV-7 builders feel the same way. When the airplane bites you in the butt I don't think that they should get painted with the same brush of building and flying an unsound airplane. By the way I said "when" it bites you, not" if"'. BClary RV-6A finished, flown and sold ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 22, 2005
Another helpful, well thought out answer. ----- Original Message ----- From: <UFOBUCK(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > I think you should put the battery anywhere you want. > You've not followed Van's recommendations relative to the powerplant and you > damn sure shouldn't call it a RV-7A. > I would hope the other RV-7 builders feel the same way. When the airplane > bites you in the butt I don't think that they should get painted with the same > brush of building and flying an unsound airplane. > By the way I said "when" it bites you, not" if"'. > > BClary > RV-6A finished, flown and sold > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 23, 2005
hi as mickey suggested, you can wait until finished. Another option is to find someone who is operating a 200HP RV7A with a non turbo engine and ask them for a copy of the weight and balance schedule to get a rough idea of the envelope. If you go this way do of course pay particular attention to the equipment fitted to the aircraft in question as this will also effect balance. I don't know about the 7A, but most 7's tend to be somewhat heavy at the tail, which generally doesn't prove to be problematic, unless you fly at all up weight and you fly the tanks almost empty at which point the C of G runs aft from where you started. So in your final descision calculate the aft of Cof G position at all up weight at departure on a max endurance flight and see where the CofG ends up after say three and a half hours at sea level. When at this position you might find you dont want the battery aft of the rear bulkhead, but on the tunnel on the inside of the firewall, for example. marcel ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Aubrey, The first answer you got may have been a bit harsh, but he was certainly correct about his attitude concerning a turbocharger. When one RV'er hurts himself by going outside the design of the aircraft, it hurts all of us if in no other way than by increased insurance rates. Keeping in mind that a turbo mainly helps at altitude, it will give you much more power than a normally aspirated engine. You might think that's great, but carefully consider the linked article written by none other than Ken Krueger himself from Vans. If you read it thoroughly and thoughfully, you may want to rethink the turbo. I'm basically saying the same thing as BC but being considerably more polite about it :-) http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf Vern ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Hi Aubrey, I'll stay away from the argument of about the whole engine combination and give you my thoughts on Battery Placement. Undoubtedly the airplane is going to lean towards being nose heavy with that configuration. That being said, moving the battery is moving a lot of weight and hence a lot of moment with it. It depends on a couple things before I'd openly recommend just moving it. Are you using a Hartzell C/S or other composite like MT/Whirlwind or Aerocomposites? Are you planning on a Concorde Battery or the lighter Odyssey? Are any other parts of the airplane going to be a little bit heavier than normal besides the firewall forward? Did you mount the ELT in the back? Did you mount the strobe power packs in the back? Autopilot servo in the back? Any additional "stuff" in the back like AHRS boxes, etc...? The above items can/will all affect the W&B more than you might think. That being said, it'll probably end up being a good idea to put it in back anyway. It's better to do that than add ballast - Ballast is an ok solution, but you're then you'll be draggin around even more dead weight. Here's how I'd attack it.....I'd be inclined to at least get the engine/prop hung and do a prelim W&B just to see where you'll be at. Since you're already well outside the normal curve of RV's, it wouldn't be wise just to randomly place the battery someplace without knowing exactly what/where it needs to be. This whole thing could either make your RV a pig to fly or end up being nicely balanced (both statements being relative to standard RV's). Just my 2 cents as usual. Cheers, Stein. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Aubrey > Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 7:20 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > > I am building an RV7a with a IO 360 / 200 HP with Turbo Charger. > The engine > is 40 pounds heavier plus the turbo. Should the battery be moved > aft because > of the added weight. > > Aubrey Price > N600AP > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
LarryRobertHelming wrote: > > I think the plane should be called something other than an > RV7/A. It is not built/equipped as the kit designer specified. OH, and by > the way -- Good luck with getting the airworthiness certificate and > insurance. I hope like type risk takers do not alter my risk category of my > plans built RV7, nor prompt the FAA to come up with more regulations > concerning homebuilt experimental if they kill or harm someone. Builders > like this do us all a disservice in my opinion. I do not want to associate > with them; So, I do not get concerned if they gets mad, is embarrassed, or > what EVER. Wake up! We ain't just kids throwing bigger and bigger rocks > .......... . Interesting thread. I agree the points raised concerning W/B, flutter speed, insurance, and certification all are matters which the builder of a turbocharged RV-7A will need to address. Prudence and consideration for the aviation community dictates that any modifications be carefully considered and vetted for safety and airworthiness problems. But..........are we seeing the demise of "experimental aviation"? Wonder if Van had to tolerate nay-sayers when he decided to modify the wing of his Stits Playboy and install a larger engine, and then had the nerve to call the thing an RV-3? Wonder if all the Harmon and Team Rocket pilots wish their planes had been nipped in the design phase by those who said modifying an RV-4 would result in the death of experimental aviation? Wonder how the Subie brethren view the opinions of those who say a turbocharger has no place in an RV? And........what would have happened if the innovative avionics industry had listened to the very vocal and insistent voices that yelled about solid-state accelerometers having no place in our panels?? And pity the poor guy who is audacious enough to DESIGN HIS OWN PLANE!!! There is no doubt we are seeing pressure being exerted on the experimental aviation community by regulatory and insurance authorities. Our ability to modify their intents may be limited, but I find it interesting that in many cases, the biggest hurdle an innovator has to jump is the objections of fellow "experimental" aviation enthusiasts. Where would we be if folks like Van had decided that modifying/improving existing designs was just too........risky................... Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Very Well Put! and right on. DNA Tim -------Original Message------- From: Sam Buchanan Date: 12/23/05 08:14:52 Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A LarryRobertHelming wrote: > > I think the plane should be called something other than an > RV7/A. It is not built/equipped as the kit designer specified. OH, and by > the way -- Good luck with getting the airworthiness certificate and > insurance. I hope like type risk takers do not alter my risk category of my > plans built RV7, nor prompt the FAA to come up with more regulations > concerning homebuilt experimental if they kill or harm someone. Builders > like this do us all a disservice in my opinion. I do not want to associate > with them; So, I do not get concerned if they gets mad, is embarrassed, or > what EVER. Wake up! We ain't just kids throwing bigger and bigger rocks > .......... . Interesting thread. I agree the points raised concerning W/B, flutter speed, insurance, and certification all are matters which the builder of a turbocharged RV-7A will need to address. Prudence and consideration for the aviation community dictates that any modifications be carefully considered and vetted for safety and airworthiness problems. But..........are we seeing the demise of "experimental aviation"? Wonder if Van had to tolerate nay-sayers when he decided to modify the wing of his Stits Playboy and install a larger engine, and then had the nerve to call the thing an RV-3? Wonder if all the Harmon and Team Rocket pilots wish their planes had been nipped in the design phase by those who said modifying an RV-4 would result in the death of experimental aviation? Wonder how the Subie brethren view the opinions of those who say a turbocharger has no place in an RV? And........what would have happened if the innovative avionics industry had listened to the very vocal and insistent voices that yelled about solid-state accelerometers having no place in our panels?? And pity the poor guy who is audacious enough to DESIGN HIS OWN PLANE!!! There is no doubt we are seeing pressure being exerted on the experimental aviation community by regulatory and insurance authorities. Our ability to modify their intents may be limited, but I find it interesting that in many cases, the biggest hurdle an innovator has to jump is the objections of fellow "experimental" aviation enthusiasts. Where would we be if folks like Van had decided that modifying/improving existing designs was just too........risky................... Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Bell" <DBell(at)ManisteeNational.com>
Subject: RV8 Golf Club Rack
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Fellow builders, A long talked about golf club rack is finally installed on our 8, problem is now that we're snowed in!....well Spring is not that far away. I had this idea for along time and in his spare time my father designed and installed it. We have posted several pictures of the rack on Doug Reeves Site for any that would like to look at it. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?postid=26960#poststop Enjoy and Merry Christmas to all of you. Doug Bell N266WB Manistee, MI ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels(at)fmtc.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Some people are kit plane assemblers, and some enjoy the more challenging experimental aircraft. I have done both, and found building per instructions is much easier, but trying a different engine with my own firewall forward was more satisfying. Insurance is a factor with some now not wanting to cover a non aircraft engine, especially if you designed your own redrive, ignition or other component. If you want to be totally safe stop flying, and experimental aircraft hour per hour is something like 8 times more dangerous than certified aircraft. If you want a plane, and you want it standard go buy a Cessna. Life is short - most of my close friends are already dead , heart attacks - certified plane crash- experimental plane crash- cancer. If you get away from manufactures instructions I think the most important thing to do is park you ego and get input from others that have tried similar things and learn from them, and have them review what you are doing. Kit manufactures HAVE to be very careful about what they say for liability reasons. I have seen some really good work on airplanes, but I have also seen some really poorly thought out and built experimental aircraft. A turbo 7A is really not that much of a stretch. If you live at sea level it might not seem like a good idea, but if you fly off high density altitude airports or fly over the rockies it might just be a good safety idea. Build what you want, build it good, get help, fly safe, be free and enjoy life. IMHO DNA Mickey Coggins wrote: > >I agree. Keep on experimenting, guys! > >Sam Buchanan wrote: > > >>... >>Where would we be if folks like Van had decided that modifying/improving >>existing designs was just too........risky................... >> >> > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 23, 2005
> > I am building an RV7a with a IO 360 / 200 HP with Turbo Charger. > The engine > is 40 pounds heavier plus the turbo. Should the battery be moved > aft because > of the added weight. Mathematics is your friend. You are adding weight ahead of the CG. This creates a nose down moment which is equal to the additional weight, times the distance from that weight to the aircraft's CG. You need to counter that with a nose up moment. This new moment is created by moving something (or somethings) aft. The nose up moment created by each movement is equal to the weight of the item moved, times the distance it is moved aft. You figure your mods add 40 lb to the engine over a normally aspirated IO-360. Figure where the centre of that extra 40 lb is located, and measure the distance from there to the centre of where Van says the CG range is. For the sake of an example, lets say that this is 35 inches (I have no idea if this is the right distance or not). So, the nose down moment is 40 lb X 35 inches = 1400 in-lb. Measure the weight of your battery, or find the weight of the battery you intend to use. Let's say it is 15 lb. You need to move it aft by 1400 in-lb/15 lb = 93 inches. If you can't move it that far aft, then find some additional items to move, or find some weight savings ahead of the CG. A weight savings creates a nose up moment equal to the weight savings times the distance to the CG. Caution - I used fictitious numbers to flesh out the example. Do the math with your numbers to find the answer for your aircraft. I won't get into the argument as to whether a turbo is a good idea or not. If the mod is done properly, with proper consideration of all the issues, properly flight tested, and then flown with due consideration of the RV's design, then it could be a success. If the mod is not properly conceived, or is not adequately tested, or is flown without proper care, then the likelihood of an accident is greatly increased. The devil is in the details. Be careful. Fly safe. Have fun. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Who is ACI and the links no work-ee? Thanks George\\\ 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 --------------------------------- Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, whatever. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 23, 2005
From: "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
All here make good points. I still feel that turbocharging an aircraft that is already capable of flying near it's VNE with a normally aspirated engine may be foolish because the aircraft will then easily fly faster than the airframes VNE (Auburn said nothing about modifying the wings or any part of his RV to increase the VNE of HIS particular aircraft). However, I wasn't intending to have MY opinion discourage him because, as has been noted, this is the Experimental category. What I WAS trying to do was to do my best to alert Aubrey to that particular article by Ken Krueger because Ken directly addresses the issue that Aubrey will have to deal with. If Aubrey truly understands what Ken explained and what the ramifications are, and Aubrey then feels that turbocharging is worth his life in order to dabble with an experiment that violates known laws of physics, then he certainly has the freedom and the right to be a personal witness to having his elevators and ailerons ripped from his aircraft at 10,000 feet. Of course there have been pioneers in Experimental aviation, and Van himself is one of them. But I'm reasonably sure that he didn't just strap on a bigger engine to a Playboy, hop in it, and "Experiment". I'll bet you that he carefully considered wing design and other structural issues before he did that, and modified more than just bolting on a bigger engine. If I am wrong about that, then Van is lucky to be alive and all of us RV owners may be at some risk if that's how Van does things. The only thing Aubrey is doing is to bolt on a engine to fly faster with an existing design that was not designed for it. That's not "Experimental" aviation, that's suicide. I might as well bolt in a turbojet engine that will take my RV to 400mph. Even those who espouse the spirit of "Experimental" aviation would think me foolish, but my 400mph RV and Aubrey's 250mph RV would both be flying beyond established VNE. Both of our flight surfaces will still explode and pop off at the same speed on our way up to our "intended" speed. Let's get real here. Hardly any of us are willing to "Experiment" with our RV's. The reason I'll bet that most of us chose the RV design is because it ISN'T that "experimental" anymore. It's a proven design that, if built to recommended spec, will build fast, fly fast, and fly safely for as long as we own them. Many of us are married (and/or with kids) and don't wish to "experiment" with our lives for the sake of a hobby if we can help it. I'm not landing firmly on either side of the issue other than to hope that anytime someone deviates significantly from the proven RV design, that they do a LOT of research and understand ALL of the possible consequences and do not make ANY assumptions about things of which they may not fully understand. I don't know Aubrey personally, but even then, and with all the insurance and public relations issues aside, I would prefer to see him live out a long and happy life rather than to be a spot in the middle of a corn field and a one-day newspaper headline. Not if it means that he tried something that he didn't fully understand and would not have done had he done all the research and weighed the risks beforehand. Now if Aubrey wants to chime back in and explain how he has done the research in order to modify his wings and empennage and control surfaces to easily accomodate the higher speeds his engine installation will allow, then not only would he have my full support, but I'd like to see him share that info with others so some of us could build an "UberRV7a". If the -8 can be modified to be a Rocket, maybe a modified -7 could be called a Missile. Yea, I like that; we could see the beginning of a safe and really fast airplane called an "RV7Missile". Now THAT tugs at my "Experimental" heart. I can hear it now: "Missile 54Charlie, incoming on downwind for 33". I could say that's my .02, but I'm thinkin' this note was more like a quarter or so :-) Vern ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
I wonder if anyone else has done this so far... seems I read or heard about this, maybe not on the 200HP version however. Hard to imagine where everything goes in these already tight cowlings. Then there is the heat dissipation bugaboo... Do you know about your exhaust routing yet? Pretty neat to be able to pull HP at altitude, though... A friend, George Adkins ,reports pulling 31" in his supercharged Eggenfellner 2.5 Subie above 10,000'. Jerry Cochran Wilsonville, OR In a message dated 12/23/2005 12:13:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: From: "Aubrey" <aprice(at)fastspot.net> Subject: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A I am building an RV7a with a IO 360 / 200 HP with Turbo Charger. The engine is 40 pounds heavier plus the turbo. Should the battery be moved aft because of the added weight. Aubrey Price N600AP ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid
Date: Dec 23, 2005
ACI Lubes was the source I got my MIL-PRF-83282 from. They have it either in gallon containers ($18.00) or you can order a case of 24 quarts (Christmas presents for you flying friends {:>)) for $98.85 Here is there URL http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7 if that doesn't get you to the page, try: http://commerce.acilubes.com/ and click on left menu item "Hydraulic Fluids" Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: MIL-PRF-83282 Brake (Hydraulic) Fluid > > Who is ACI and the links no work-ee? Thanks George\\\ > > > 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 > > > --------------------------------- > Ring in the New Year with Photo Calendars. Add photos, events, holidays, > whatever. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
BC, u sure are a nice, friendly guy. Why don't u just go fly a kite!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Doug Preston RV7 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
In a message dated 12/23/2005 12:26:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, khorton01(at)rogers.com writes: Mathematics is your friend. You are adding weight ahead of the CG. This creates a nose down moment which is equal to the additional weight, times the distance from that weight to the aircraft's CG. You need to counter that with a nose up moment. This new moment is created by moving something (or somethings) aft. The nose up moment created by each movement is equal to the weight of the item moved, times the distance it is moved aft. You figure your mods add 40 lb to the engine over a normally aspirated IO-360. Figure where the centre of that extra 40 lb is located, and measure the distance from there to the centre of where Van says the CG range is. For the sake of an example, lets say that this is 35 inches (I have no idea if this is the right distance or not). So, the nose down moment is 40 lb X 35 inches = 1400 in-lb. Measure the weight of your battery, or find the weight of the battery you intend to use. Let's say it is 15 lb. You need to move it aft by 1400 in-lb/15 lb = 93 inches. If you can't move it that far aft, then find some additional items to move, or find some weight savings ahead of the CG. A weight savings creates a nose up moment equal to the weight savings times the distance to the CG. ======================================= Be careful that you consider the polar moment of inertia problem as well. Think dumbbells vs bowling balls. Both have the cg in the center, but boy oh boy are the spin characteristics different. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com>
Subject: Re: Dynon Failure Modes Revisited
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Howdy, I reported on a failure of the rate-of-turn indicator and attitude indicator of my Dynon EFIS D-10A, shortly after having it returned from service for a hardware failure. Dynon sent me a reset file that I finally was able to try today. It seems to have completely restored proper operation. Nice to not have to send the unit back. Larry Pardue Carlsbad, NM RV-6 N441LP Flying http://n5lp.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGray67968(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Subject: Spraylat removal
I just picked up an RV4 project to (hopefully) finish and fly in a very short time. The canopy was sprayed with 'Spraylat' (I think) and this stuff seems to be tough as nails. Anybody have experience getting this stuff off?? An archive search provided one method that I pasted below. Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10 and F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!! Hi listers, I posted a question a while ago about removing dried out spraylat from an old rv-4 canopy. I didn't get any responses so I assume it is not a common problem. This post is to let any future builders with this problem know how I finally solved it. The canopy with the problem was 11 years old and the coating had dried so bad it was no different than thin dried latex paint. Spraylat and Vans both had no other suggestions than trying to wet the coating with hot soapy water to soften it. This helped but the coating still required scraping which would scratch the canopy surface. Some listers on a Long-eze list mentioned using high pressure air and a small nozzle to blow the coating loose. This was also unsuccessful but gave me an idea! I soaked the canopy in water for 3 days then rented a 3500psi pressure washer and my problem was solved. The pressure washer removed the coating quickly and easily and was welcomed end to a problem that had started to delay the progress on my kit. Pat Perry Dallas, PA RV-4 fuse almost done Engine being rebuilt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Re: Spraylat removal
Date: Dec 23, 2005
There was a message posted to the list on removing old, dried spraylat, a latex rubber like protectorant, from a canopy without scratching the plastic. Pressure washing, soaking in water, air pressure etc. was used to remove it. I had the same problem. Spraylat is supposed to be sprayed on in heavy layers but I brushed it too thin which caused the product to dry out fairly severely over time. Removal was accomplished with less than a quart of "3M Adhesive Remover" obtained from an auto parts store for $8 + or-. The "Remover" is a clear petroleum based product with no abrasive qualities, does not react with Plexiglas, and is clean to work with but smells and seems like fuel oil or a kerosene type product. Squirt it on a small area, leave it sit for a few minutes, and wipe the spraylat off with a clean, soft rag. You may have to repeat the process a couple times to get it all but no mechanical means are needed. My next project will have the same treatment as the plexi had absolutely no scratches and I was able to drag air hoses and extension cords across the plexi as well as drop (accidently) clecoes, rivets, etc. on the plexi with no effect while spraylat shielded the plastic. The spray late was only applied exposed areas of the plexi and not under the aluminum or FG fairings. 3M Adhesive Remover does not harm cured paint but may be difficult to paint over so I painted the canopy frame complete before application. The remover will easily removed dried masking tape residue as well. I highly suggest both products. Dick DeCramer RV6 N500DD 100+ hrs Northfield, MN diesel(at)rconnect.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Spraylat removal
Date: Dec 23, 2005
Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and remove. The new coat should remove the old one. 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 RGray67968(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: Spraylat removal I just picked up an RV4 project to (hopefully) finish and fly in a very short time. The canopy was sprayed with 'Spraylat' (I think) and this stuff seems to be tough as nails. Anybody have experience getting this stuff off?? An archive search provided one method that I pasted below. Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10 and F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!! Hi listers, I posted a question a while ago about removing dried out spraylat from an old rv-4 canopy. I didn't get any responses so I assume it is not a common problem. This post is to let any future builders with this problem know how I finally solved it. The canopy with the problem was 11 years old and the coating had dried so bad it was no different than thin dried latex paint. Spraylat and Vans both had no other suggestions than trying to wet the coating with hot soapy water to soften it. This helped but the coating still required scraping which would scratch the canopy surface. Some listers on a Long-eze list mentioned using high pressure air and a small nozzle to blow the coating loose. This was also unsuccessful but gave me an idea! I soaked the canopy in water for 3 days then rented a 3500psi pressure washer and my problem was solved. The pressure washer removed the coating quickly and easily and was welcomed end to a problem that had started to delay the progress on my kit. Pat Perry Dallas, PA RV-4 fuse almost done Engine being rebuilt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: CG issues, was Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 24, 2005
>Be careful that you consider the polar moment of inertia problem as well. >Think dumbbells vs bowling balls. Both have the cg in the center, but boy oh > >boy are the spin characteristics different. Excellent reminder, Gary! Along those lines, does anybody know whatever became of the fellows that used a 4" or so dia tube through the outboard LE lightening holes as aux fuel tanks? They were at OSH a couple years ago, trying to sell their idea. At the time they hadn't done any spin testing, and didn't seem to have considered roll coupling or the effects of maneuvering on the location of the fuel within the tanks... Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com>
Subject: Re: CG issues, was Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Mabye www.safeair1.com? Ken ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:09:40 -0500 > > >>Be careful that you consider the polar moment of inertia problem as well. >>Think dumbbells vs bowling balls. Both have the cg in the center, but boy >oh >> >>boy are the spin characteristics different. > >Excellent reminder, Gary! Along those lines, does anybody know whatever >became of the fellows that used a 4" or so dia tube through the outboard >LE lightening holes as aux fuel tanks? They were at OSH a couple years >ago, trying to sell their idea. At the time they hadn't done any spin >testing, and didn't seem to have considered roll coupling or the effects of >maneuvering on the location of the fuel within the tanks... > >Glen Matejcek >aerobubba(at)earthlink.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
I found the report of dangers of exeeding VNE at Alt. very sobering. First I new about it. I have unknowingly done it and was thinking about the time I was going downhill from 13500' at redline (realized I was going to overshoot into the Atl class B outer ring) I remember the 296 was showing close to 250mph, and I thought that was a real plus. (6A with 150hp) Lucky for me, air was smooth as glass, and I slowed down when I slipped under the outer ring. Now that I have read Kens report, I wont be doing that again, Charlie Heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: CG issues, was Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 24, 2005
On 24 Dec 2005, at 09:09, Glen Matejcek wrote: > > > >> Be careful that you consider the polar moment of inertia problem >> as well. >> Think dumbbells vs bowling balls. Both have the cg in the center, >> but boy > oh >> >> boy are the spin characteristics different. > > Excellent reminder, Gary! Along those lines, does anybody know > whatever > became of the fellows that used a 4" or so dia tube through the > outboard > LE lightening holes as aux fuel tanks? They were at OSH a couple > years > ago, trying to sell their idea. At the time they hadn't done any spin > testing, and didn't seem to have considered roll coupling or the > effects of > maneuvering on the location of the fuel within the tanks... It is instructive to look at how spins are treated in FAR 23 aircraft. There are two possibilities: Spins are prohibited - one-turn spins are done in every configuration (i.e. all combinations of flap, landing gear, CG, etc). This covers off the case of an inadvertent stall, followed by incipient spin with immediate pilot recovery. Spins are approved - a full matrix of six-turn spin tests are done in the configuration(s) that are approved for spins. One-turn spins are done in the other configurations. If aerobatics are approved, then the full range of spin tests must be done, as there is a very real risk of ending up in a spin due to a botched attempt at an aerobatic manoeuvre. I believe the prudent RV owner of an aircraft with mods that might affect the spin characteristics would do one of two things: 1. Do a full range of spin tests to be sure than any issues are found during the flight test program when you are prepared to deal with it. or, 2. Placard the aircraft as "Aerobatics and spins are prohibited". Do a test program of one-turn spins only. Note: It would be quite acceptable to placard "Aerobatics and spins are prohibited with fuel in the outboard tanks", and then only do the six-turn spin tests with those tanks empty. One turn spin tests should be done with fuel in those tanks. Some of the mods that people propose could have an adverse effect on flight characteristics, including spins. This is OK, as long as the builder does a full flight test program to determine whether the handling is acceptable. I get concerned when I read about builders "flying off the test hours" as if there was no need to do much flight testing, and all they had to do was log 25 or 40 hours so they could close off the Phase 1 test program. If there are handling or performance problems, the test phase is the time to find them. Then you can either modify the aircraft to fix the problems, or determine a reduced flight or weight/CG envelope to avoid the problems, or develop operational techniques/limitations to avoid the problem areas. It is a lot safer to find the problems when you are testing than it is to have them catch you by surprise later. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I am still troubled by the Vne argument. For years, I have talked about density of the air mass - it is molecules that affect the airplane, not speed. At an altitude, more speed = more molecules. That would argue to IAS, not TAS for the Vne limit. An article this month in flying seems to support this thought. They talk about the Vne on Columbia. They set it based at 260K. Flying discusses why the decreasing Vne doesn't make sense at these sub-sonic speeds, but is an artifact of setting Vne at or above the magic number of 260K. Finally, the FAA chart, referenced in the article and shown in FAR 23, shows IAS as the limiting factor, NOT TAS. (Seems like it should be CAS, not IAS, but that is another argument). I don't want the tail falling off, but I also don't want to artificially limit the performance of the airframe. There are a lot of issues on adding horsepower - cg shifts, more weight on the firewall (50# x 9G limit - 450# more on motor mounts/firewall), etc. Can anyone site any definitive references that would add more light on the IAS/TAS issue for Vne. I am not sure Van's is right here. Thanks Dan Beadle -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of charles heathco Subject: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. I found the report of dangers of exeeding VNE at Alt. very sobering. First I new about it. I have unknowingly done it and was thinking about the time I was going downhill from 13500' at redline (realized I was going to overshoot into the Atl class B outer ring) I remember the 296 was showing close to 250mph, and I thought that was a real plus. (6A with 150hp) Lucky for me, air was smooth as glass, and I slowed down when I slipped under the outer ring. Now that I have read Kens report, I wont be doing that again, Charlie Heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Well, it is EXPERIMENTAL. Shemp/Jeff Dowling RV-6A, N915JD 235 hours Chicago/Louisville ----- Original Message ----- From: <UFOBUCK(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > I think you should put the battery anywhere you want. > You've not followed Van's recommendations relative to the powerplant and > you > damn sure shouldn't call it a RV-7A. > I would hope the other RV-7 builders feel the same way. When the airplane > bites you in the butt I don't think that they should get painted with the > same > brush of building and flying an unsound airplane. > By the way I said "when" it bites you, not" if"'. > > BClary > RV-6A finished, flown and sold > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2006
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
At 08:06 AM 12/24/2005, you wrote: > >I found the report of dangers of exeeding VNE at Alt. very sobering. First >I new about it. I have unknowingly done it and was thinking about the time >I was going downhill from 13500' at redline (realized I was going to >overshoot into the Atl class B outer ring) I remember the 296 was showing >close to 250mph, and I thought that was a real plus. (6A with 150hp) Lucky >for me, air was smooth as glass, and I slowed down when I slipped under >the outer ring. Now that I have read Kens report, I wont be doing that >again, Charlie Heathco Note that GPS gives you GROUNDSPEED so with a significant tailwind your airspeed would be mucho lower. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Aubrey: ALTITUDE: First I think the call to NOT call your plane a RV is overkill in my opinion. I like to let the facts speak for themselves. The Turbo only makes more HP at high altitudes, and yes you must observe speed limitations. This is not rocket science or a real big issue, but the pilot needs to understand the effect of more power will have at higher altitudes. RV's can, have and do fly in the FL200's anyway, And yes if you are at FL180 you need to observe that your TAS does not exceed your sea level (IAS) Vne limit Van specifies (or about 170 mph IAS). This is conservative, but of course progressive flight test should be done. WEIGHT: As far as weight 40 lbs for the turbo can be offset but a lighter prop and YES moving the battery aft. You can always use a light composite oil pan, put the Strobe pack in the back and so on. W&B will NOT be an issue. However your gross weight will be higher and thus you may be limited to solo aerobatics (I don't know that but easy enough to check) and you will no doubt have less payload capacity (if you keep the stock 1800 lb gross). Really there are 6 cylinder RV-7/-8's out there. A turbo is a bolt on engine add on. Many a STC has been issued for aftermarket turbos on factory planes. There are plenty single engine factory planes that come in both normally aspirated and turbo versions, planes like C210T, Mooney's and Bonanza's. The airframes are virtually the same. I usually say build it per plans, but I think the call to denounce your plane as NOT RV-7/A is over kill. Yes 40 lbs is a lot of weight, but the aircraft was designed around a heavy IO360 (200HP) engine. You might as well say everyone who puts a Mazda, Subaru engine or modifies their Lycoming engine or uses a clone Lycoming engine in their RV is not a RV. TURBO FOR ME? NO, However if yes for you, you need to be aware of your TAS at altitudes. My opinion is turbo charges are not a panicia for everything, there are lots draw backs I am very aware of. The fact you need to suck O2 and file IFR to take advantage the TURBO, limits it's use. Also without a inter-cooler you are looking at decreasing efficiency and TEMP limits, which will become you new limitation, engine temperature. Even with an inter-cooler turbo piston engines are not a slam dunk. If you want more high altitude power building a slightly pumped up engine (high compression pistons, EI) will give you better altitude performance. Keeping the wight down also helps. As it is now, solo you can cruise right up near FL180 with out a turbo. BATTERY: Here is a list of CG/Empty weights of RV-7's at Dan's web site http://www.rvproject.com/wab/ Using this info and doing some W&B you can play around with the effect of the extra weight has and what effect the batterie'(s) will have moving it (them) aft. You only have really two practical choices of locations: Firewall (under cowl or cabin side) or behind the baggage compartment. The other choice is to use a heavy battery or light battery. My first choice would be stick with plans, but with all the turbo stuff putting the battery on the cooler cabin side of the firewall will give more room for the STUFF (inter cooler, large large oil cooler, lots of hoses and ducts). Aft baggage is a pain and will add overall weight and long battery cables, but it is doable. HERE IS A PICTURE OF TURBO RV-8 http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4687/image439ccea15c0c11d96hp. jpg If you want a turbo plan on very crowded cowl. This is a view of the oil cooler (notice how big!). The inter-cooler is on the other side which also gets air from a NACA scoop on the side of the cowl. Maintenance will be more frequent and it will require more pilot attention and skill to operate properly. As far as insurance that is between you and the insurer. I know they will want a IFR rated pilot and more time. When I was a CFI/II/MEI the members of the club needed way more time to fly the turbo aircraft models we had (Mooney/T210). Why? More pilots got into Weather problems in a higher flying fast plane, thus the IFR rating was required. Bottom line is if you are able to take on a Turbo project you can do some simple W&B exercices and figure where your battery ballast needs to be. Good Luck George Match: #15 Message: #134873 From: "Aubrey" <aprice(at)fastspot.net> Subject: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A Date: Dec 22, 2005 I am building an RV7a with a IO 360 / 200 HP with Turbo Charger. The engine is 40 pounds heavier plus the turbo. Should the battery be moved aft because of the added weight. Aubrey Price N600AP --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
On 24 Dec 2005, at 10:32, Dan Beadle wrote: > > > I am still troubled by the Vne argument. For years, I have talked > about > density of the air mass - it is molecules that affect the airplane, > not > speed. At an altitude, more speed = more molecules. That would > argue to > IAS, not TAS for the Vne limit. > > An article this month in flying seems to support this thought. They > talk > about the Vne on Columbia. They set it based at 260K. Flying > discusses > why the decreasing Vne doesn't make sense at these sub-sonic > speeds, but > is an artifact of setting Vne at or above the magic number of 260K. > > Finally, the FAA chart, referenced in the article and shown in FAR 23, > shows IAS as the limiting factor, NOT TAS. (Seems like it should be > CAS, > not IAS, but that is another argument). > > I don't want the tail falling off, but I also don't want to > artificially > limit the performance of the airframe. There are a lot of issues on > adding horsepower - cg shifts, more weight on the firewall (50# x 9G > limit - 450# more on motor mounts/firewall), etc. > > Can anyone site any definitive references that would add more light on > the IAS/TAS issue for Vne. I am not sure Van's is right here. Van's pronouncements on VNE have me baffled as well. From a practical point of view, there are many factors that the designer and builder should consider when setting VNE. Design issues: Gust loads - air is not always smooth. For a given strength of turbulence, the loads on the structure increase as the airspeed increases. FAR 23 covers this by requiring that the structure be strong enough to sustain a 25 ft/sec vertical gust when the aircraft is flying at VNE. The assumed gusts have a very specific size and shape. The higher the TAS the less time is required to penetrate the gust, so the loads build faster. The higher the EAS, the higher the loads. The result is that the gust loads increase with both EAS and TAS. Windscreen loads - the loads on the windscreen increase as the airspeed increases. If the windscreen is flimsy enough, this may limit VNE. This is probably not an issue with RVs, unless the builder wants to increase VNE to a very large value. Windscreen loads increase with EAS, which is close enough to CAS for speeds less than 250 kt and altitudes lower than 10,000 ft. Wing loads - divergence - if something causes the wing to twist nose up slightly, the increased angle of attack causes the wing to create more lift, which could cause it to twist nose up some more. If the speed is high enough, this can cause a vicious cycle that leads to wing failure. This is called divergence. This may limit VNE on some aircraft. Wing divergence loads go up with EAS. Bird strike - some aircraft have VNE reduced to ensure that collision with a certain sized bird won't cause wing or tail structural failure. Flutter - if you fly fast enough, you enter a region where flutter may occur. There are many different types of flutter, and each type has its own relationship to EAS or TAS. The latest information from Van's seems to suggest that for his designs, he considers TAS as the critical factor. Flight test issues (i.e. something for the builder to determine): It is possible that the aircraft handling qualities may deteriorate as the speed increases. The stick force per g may become dangerously low (this is a general statement, not aimed at RVs). It may be necessary to reduce VNE to ensure that the handling is acceptable inside the approved flight envelope. Note - I am not a structural engineer. There are probably other aspects that I have left out, and my description of the above aspects is incomplete. For a type certificated aircraft, the manufacturer is required to specify VNE such that there are no structural, handling, etc problems inside the approved flight envelope. For lower performance aircraft, it is common to see VNE express as IAS, and that value is good no matter the altitude. For higher performance aircraft, VNE (in IAS) may decrease as the altitude increases. I looked at the wording about VNE in my RV-8 builder's manual. There isn't much there. VNE is mentioned as a marking to put on the airspeed indicator, but there is no mention that VNE (in IAS) should be reduced as the altitude is increased. It is perfectly reasonable for a builder to interpret the information in the builder's manual as suggesting that the recommended VNE in IAS is acceptable at all altitudes. What should we use as VNE for our RVs? Well, we don't have access to all the information needed to answer that question. Only Van's has the information on the structural design, and flutter, etc. Van should provide some clear guidance. He shouldn't expect each builder to do his own flutter ground and flight test program to determine how VNE should vary with altitude. It may be necessary for him to specify that the VNE in IAS is constant up to XXX ft altitude, then it decreases by Y kt per thousand feet increase in altitude. I'll be sending an e-mail to Van's on this subject. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Todd" <motodd(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Vortex Generators: one RV4 experience and cruise penalty discussion
Date: Dec 24, 2005
I posted VG data for my RV4 several years ago on this list but I don't see it in the archives, so I'll summarize it briefly. Testing was done with temporarily installed VG's so I accumulated before and after data times two as carefully as I knew how as an amateur test pilot without special instrumentation. Bottom line is VG's placed at 10% of chord took 12% off the 1G stall TAS. For those who do competition Sportsman acro in their RV's, VG's make for some very nice differences, especially competition spins. As already mentioned in this thread, dogfighting is significantly different. When you have a 20% smaller turning radius than your opponent, it is a pretty dissimilar fight. Assuming pilots with equal skills and thrust/weight, the fight is usually over in two turns or so. I'd encourage some consideration on the issue of cruise speed loss. By cleaning up intersection drag at the wing root, some planes might actually end up with less total drag at cruise when VG's are in place, even though the VG's have got to be adding parasitic drag. I've heard that it is not uncommon in some light twins with VG's to be faster in cruise. I know I couldn't measure a significant difference at 160 kt TAS cruise in my RV4 with my 10% of chord VG placement. In fact, my raw data from flying many GPS wind triangles showed an average 0.5 kt increase with VG's. One pilot, one airplane. Certainly not statistically significant. As they say, your experience may vary. Please remember that if you're trying to minimize drag penalties at cruise airspeeds, you need to place the VG's at the point where the airflow normally converts to turbulent from laminar at that cruise airspeed. Such a VG placement is not going to maximize slow flight effects. I wonder if some of the differing experiences out there with VG's has to do with where the VG's are placed along the chord line. One might expect a difference between, say, placement at 8 versus 10 percent of chord! Parasitic drag is parasitic drag and the faster you go or the further forward you place the VG's, the more you're going to hurt the top end speed. My data doesn't conflict with those who have measured reductions in cruise speeds as long as they're cruising faster than my 160kt TAS or have their VG placement at less than 10% of chord. Mark RV-4 KAWO From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> Subject: RV-List: Re: Vortex Generators Yes it is hard to get accurate data. People who sell them will tell you all kind of things but here is where the NO FREE LUNCH rule comes in. You can expect about 3kts lower stall and about 3 kts lower, less top speed: ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
On 10:02:40 2005-12-24 Kevin Horton wrote: > It is perfectly reasonable > for a builder to interpret the information in the builder's manual as > suggesting that the recommended VNE in IAS is acceptable at all > altitudes. And this would be correct for any FAR23 certified aircraft. Your airframe doesn't know how high it is, or what the air density is. It doesn't care. It only knows what it thinks the airspeed is, and that number comes from your indicated airspeed. True airspeed is only useful for pilots, so they can plan their next fuel stop. It has nothing to do with the structural capabilities of the aircraft. -Rob (I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I am an aeronautical engineer...) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Better review your text books regarding flutter speed. It is related to TAS, since air density influences airframe structural dampening. Regardless of Ken's RVator article, Vne is an INDICATED airspeed. The structural flutter speed is stated as a TRUE airspeed. IMHO, Ken's article was trying to point out the two airspeeds cross over at some altitude. However, they went to great extremes to NOT provide a flutter speed. (Sometimes it's important to notice what wasn't written.) Regards, Jim Ayers PS In the old days :-), RV-3's were flutter tested at 10% over Vne (Vne=210 mph ias) at around 10,000'. When you are going to sit in the seat, there is a tendency to study the text a little closer. In a message dated 12/24/2005 10:35:27 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7(at)b4.ca writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" On 10:02:40 2005-12-24 Kevin Horton wrote: > It is perfectly reasonable > for a builder to interpret the information in the builder's manual as > suggesting that the recommended VNE in IAS is acceptable at all > altitudes. And this would be correct for any FAR23 certified aircraft. Your airframe doesn't know how high it is, or what the air density is. It doesn't care. It only knows what it thinks the airspeed is, and that number comes from your indicated airspeed. True airspeed is only useful for pilots, so they can plan their next fuel stop. It has nothing to do with the structural capabilities of the aircraft. -Rob (I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I am an aeronautical engineer...) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vincent Osburn" <flyby41(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Dynafocal motor mounts
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Has anybody worn out their dynafocal motor mounts? I think mine are shot or nearly so as I have begun to detect a buzzing vibration heretofore undetected. Very light but reminds me of a dune buggy with solid motor mounts but still very light. Under hood inspection seem OK except the mounts look stretched toward that way in which you might expect them to stretch. Airplane flying since 92 with 900 TT. I didn't own it at the time but I think I remember the builder/ owner/ friend saying something about swapping them around once? What was the bestest cheapest mount to replace them with. Any suggestions or input appreciated. Vince ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com>
)
Subject: Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo
7A )
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Listers, This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question when I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont RV-6A N227RV PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if you've already seen it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of RAS Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at the going market value, therefore making profit, Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo 7A) Listers, This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question when I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont RV-6A N227RV PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if you've already seen it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at the going market value, therefore making profit, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com>
)
Subject: Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo
7A )
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Listers, This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question when I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont RV-6A N227RV PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if you've already seen it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com ] On Behalf Of RAS Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at the going market value, therefore making profit, Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo 7A) Listers, This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question when I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont RV-6A N227RV PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if you've already seen it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at the going market value, therefore making profit, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Dynafocal motor mounts
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Vince... Just bought a set from Vans....$55 for each motor mount plus $28.50 for bolt kit. Total was $248.50 plus shipping. They are usually replaced at engine major & in this case a accident after 1400 hours and a mild prop strike but still a prop strike none the less. > Subject: RV-List: Dynafocal motor mounts > > > Has anybody worn out their dynafocal motor mounts? I think mine are shot or nearly so as I have begun to detect a buzzing vibration heretofore undetected. Very light but reminds me of a dune buggy with solid motor mounts but still very light. Under hood inspection seem OK except the mounts look stretched toward that way in which you might expect them to stretch. Airplane flying since 92 with 900 TT. I didn't own it at the time but I think I remember the builder/ owner/ friend saying something about swapping them around once? > What was the bestest cheapest mount to replace them with. Any suggestions or input appreciated. > > > Vince > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
Kevin, your thoughts seem to jive with mine. But Van's makes a big deal about not over-engining a plane because of the Vne issue. You indicated something about flutter and TAS below. It still seems to me that anything aerodynamic would be IAS related. Do you have a source I could dig into further? I am building an RV8. I live at Lake Tahoe - so altitude is always an issue. I am thinking IO360 + CS. My partner wants a turbo-normalized engine. Maybe 180HP, but all the way up to mid teens. That sounds pretty good to me, other than this Vne issue. I normally fly a pressurized twin in the 20's. It would be nice to have plenty of pep to get up to 15000' or so to cross the Sierras. I don't like messing with O2, so we would use that as just a crossing altitude, then drop back down and off of oxygen. We are a ways from engine selection, but we want to avoid "test pilot" as much as possible. Thanks Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. On 24 Dec 2005, at 10:32, Dan Beadle wrote: > > > I am still troubled by the Vne argument. For years, I have talked > about > density of the air mass - it is molecules that affect the airplane, > not > speed. At an altitude, more speed = more molecules. That would > argue to > IAS, not TAS for the Vne limit. > > An article this month in flying seems to support this thought. They > talk > about the Vne on Columbia. They set it based at 260K. Flying > discusses > why the decreasing Vne doesn't make sense at these sub-sonic > speeds, but > is an artifact of setting Vne at or above the magic number of 260K. > > Finally, the FAA chart, referenced in the article and shown in FAR 23, > shows IAS as the limiting factor, NOT TAS. (Seems like it should be > CAS, > not IAS, but that is another argument). > > I don't want the tail falling off, but I also don't want to > artificially > limit the performance of the airframe. There are a lot of issues on > adding horsepower - cg shifts, more weight on the firewall (50# x 9G > limit - 450# more on motor mounts/firewall), etc. > > Can anyone site any definitive references that would add more light on > the IAS/TAS issue for Vne. I am not sure Van's is right here. Van's pronouncements on VNE have me baffled as well. From a practical point of view, there are many factors that the designer and builder should consider when setting VNE. Design issues: Gust loads - air is not always smooth. For a given strength of turbulence, the loads on the structure increase as the airspeed increases. FAR 23 covers this by requiring that the structure be strong enough to sustain a 25 ft/sec vertical gust when the aircraft is flying at VNE. The assumed gusts have a very specific size and shape. The higher the TAS the less time is required to penetrate the gust, so the loads build faster. The higher the EAS, the higher the loads. The result is that the gust loads increase with both EAS and TAS. Windscreen loads - the loads on the windscreen increase as the airspeed increases. If the windscreen is flimsy enough, this may limit VNE. This is probably not an issue with RVs, unless the builder wants to increase VNE to a very large value. Windscreen loads increase with EAS, which is close enough to CAS for speeds less than 250 kt and altitudes lower than 10,000 ft. Wing loads - divergence - if something causes the wing to twist nose up slightly, the increased angle of attack causes the wing to create more lift, which could cause it to twist nose up some more. If the speed is high enough, this can cause a vicious cycle that leads to wing failure. This is called divergence. This may limit VNE on some aircraft. Wing divergence loads go up with EAS. Bird strike - some aircraft have VNE reduced to ensure that collision with a certain sized bird won't cause wing or tail structural failure. Flutter - if you fly fast enough, you enter a region where flutter may occur. There are many different types of flutter, and each type has its own relationship to EAS or TAS. The latest information from Van's seems to suggest that for his designs, he considers TAS as the critical factor. Flight test issues (i.e. something for the builder to determine): It is possible that the aircraft handling qualities may deteriorate as the speed increases. The stick force per g may become dangerously low (this is a general statement, not aimed at RVs). It may be necessary to reduce VNE to ensure that the handling is acceptable inside the approved flight envelope. Note - I am not a structural engineer. There are probably other aspects that I have left out, and my description of the above aspects is incomplete. For a type certificated aircraft, the manufacturer is required to specify VNE such that there are no structural, handling, etc problems inside the approved flight envelope. For lower performance aircraft, it is common to see VNE express as IAS, and that value is good no matter the altitude. For higher performance aircraft, VNE (in IAS) may decrease as the altitude increases. I looked at the wording about VNE in my RV-8 builder's manual. There isn't much there. VNE is mentioned as a marking to put on the airspeed indicator, but there is no mention that VNE (in IAS) should be reduced as the altitude is increased. It is perfectly reasonable for a builder to interpret the information in the builder's manual as suggesting that the recommended VNE in IAS is acceptable at all altitudes. What should we use as VNE for our RVs? Well, we don't have access to all the information needed to answer that question. Only Van's has the information on the structural design, and flutter, etc. Van should provide some clear guidance. He shouldn't expect each builder to do his own flutter ground and flight test program to determine how VNE should vary with altitude. It may be necessary for him to specify that the VNE in IAS is constant up to XXX ft altitude, then it decreases by Y kt per thousand feet increase in altitude. I'll be sending an e-mail to Van's on this subject. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fittings and sealants
Date: Dec 24, 2005
I just want to double-check something on the use of sealant on various plumbing fittings. This pertains to the admonishment not to use any sealant on flared fittings. Am I correct that you're not talking about use the use of sealant on the flare itself (I certainly get that), but you're saying you don't use sealant on any of the threads to which the nut that holds the flare into the fitting threads? In other words, using the fuel valve as an example: you would use EZ Turn on the threads of the fitting that screw into the valve assembly, but you do not use any sealant on the threads at the other end of that fitting, where the nut that holds the fuel line to the fuel valve threads? Thanks for your patience and insight. Bob St. Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP
turbo 7A)
Date: Dec 24, 2005
Think about it. The value of one plane to another will more than double in value by the instruments installed. Your question is not that easily answered. Your value could be actually what some one would buy it from you for. Your insurance value is probably some thing you would want as a minimum in the event it was totaled out by the insurace company which is probably less than the first. . Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can finally enjoy the level you've reached after you've reached it. L R Helming, who thought of it last. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen J. Soule" <SSoule(at)pfclaw.com> Subject: RV-List: Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo 7A) > > Listers, > > This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good > measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question > when > I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? > Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or > insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? > > Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont > RV-6A N227RV > > PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if > you've > already seen it. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > ] On Behalf Of RAS > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:59 AM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at > the going market value, therefore making profit, > > > > > 5.5.2657.73"> > Market value of our RVs (was battery location for 200 HP turbo 7A) > > > Listers, > > > This development reminds me ... I often wonder where we can find a good > measure of the market value of our RVs. Every year I face this question > when I renew my insurance for my flying RV-6A. Any advice out there? > Trade-A-Plane shows me asking prices, but where can I find sale prices or > insurance settlement information about totaled RVs? > > > Stephen Soule in snowy Vermont > > RV-6A N227RV > > > PS - I posted this yesterday, but it didn't go through. Forgive me if > you've already seen it. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RAS > > Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 6:59 AM > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > > ... you have sold on your RV6A,perhaps at > > the going market value, therefore making profit, > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
> > And this would be correct for any FAR23 certified aircraft. > Your airframe doesn't know how high it is, or what the air > density is. It doesn't care. > It only knows what it thinks the airspeed is, and that number > comes from your indicated airspeed. > > True airspeed is only useful for pilots, so they can plan > their next fuel stop. It has nothing to do with the > structural capabilities of the aircraft. > > -Rob > (I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I am > an aeronautical engineer...) I must respectfully disagree with some of what you wrote. The airframe does indeed care about TAS, in two significant ways. One is dealing with compressibility, which obviously doesn't apply to RV's. The other has to do with what Ken wrote about. Flutter is a condition when some natural frequency of a structure is excited by some external forces which happen to be of the same frequency (this is a little simplified, but the idea is the same). For example, say that some turbulence causes the horizontal stabilizer to deflect upward by a small amount (this could be miniscule). The amount of time which will pass between this event and when the same air disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not IAS. If this period of time happens to be resonant with the natural frequency of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator, it could begin being self exciting, with ever increasing amplitude. The structure does not care how low the IAS speed is, only what the TAS is. I suspect that there is some mitigation of flutter risk as IAS drops due to lowering external forces, but what Ken wrote makes complete sense. Watching a slow motion video of HS/elevator flutter is quite alarming, and most end with structural failure. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 702 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
So do I run out and erase the redline marking from my ASI tomorrow? It only displays IAS and is therefore worthless as an aid to avoiding flutter, no? Not questioning your explanation of flutter, just the wisdom of painting red lines on our ASI dials as required by the FAR's. -Stormy -----Original Message----- From: Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. > > And this would be correct for any FAR23 certified aircraft. > Your airframe doesn't know how high it is, or what the air > density is. It doesn't care. > It only knows what it thinks the airspeed is, and that number > comes from your indicated airspeed. > > True airspeed is only useful for pilots, so they can plan > their next fuel stop. It has nothing to do with the > structural capabilities of the aircraft. > > -Rob > (I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I am > an aeronautical engineer...) I must respectfully disagree with some of what you wrote. The airframe does indeed care about TAS, in two significant ways. One is dealing with compressibility, which obviously doesn't apply to RV's. The other has to do with what Ken wrote about. Flutter is a condition when some natural frequency of a structure is excited by some external forces which happen to be of the same frequency (this is a little simplified, but the idea is the same). For example, say that some turbulence causes the horizontal stabilizer to deflect upward by a small amount (this could be miniscule). The amount of time which will pass between this event and when the same air disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not IAS. If this period of time happens to be resonant with the natural frequency of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator, it could begin being self exciting, with ever increasing amplitude. The structure does not care how low the IAS speed is, only what the TAS is. I suspect that there is some mitigation of flutter risk as IAS drops due to lowering external forces, but what Ken wrote makes complete sense. Watching a slow motion video of HS/elevator flutter is quite alarming, and most end with structural failure. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 702 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
Good explanation. The resonate frequency argument does make sense - and that is based on TAS - not IAS. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson Subject: RE: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. > > And this would be correct for any FAR23 certified aircraft. > Your airframe doesn't know how high it is, or what the air > density is. It doesn't care. > It only knows what it thinks the airspeed is, and that number > comes from your indicated airspeed. > > True airspeed is only useful for pilots, so they can plan > their next fuel stop. It has nothing to do with the > structural capabilities of the aircraft. > > -Rob > (I didn't stay at a holiday inn express last night, but I am > an aeronautical engineer...) I must respectfully disagree with some of what you wrote. The airframe does indeed care about TAS, in two significant ways. One is dealing with compressibility, which obviously doesn't apply to RV's. The other has to do with what Ken wrote about. Flutter is a condition when some natural frequency of a structure is excited by some external forces which happen to be of the same frequency (this is a little simplified, but the idea is the same). For example, say that some turbulence causes the horizontal stabilizer to deflect upward by a small amount (this could be miniscule). The amount of time which will pass between this event and when the same air disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not IAS. If this period of time happens to be resonant with the natural frequency of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator, it could begin being self exciting, with ever increasing amplitude. The structure does not care how low the IAS speed is, only what the TAS is. I suspect that there is some mitigation of flutter risk as IAS drops due to lowering external forces, but what Ken wrote makes complete sense. Watching a slow motion video of HS/elevator flutter is quite alarming, and most end with structural failure. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 702 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 24, 2005
-----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. What should we use as VNE for our RVs? Well, we don't have access to all the information needed to answer that question. Only Van's has the information on the structural design, and flutter, etc. Van should provide some clear guidance. He shouldn't expect each builder to do his own flutter ground and flight test program to determine how VNE should vary with altitude. It may be necessary for him to specify that the VNE in IAS is constant up to XXX ft altitude, then it decreases by Y kt per thousand feet increase in altitude. I'll be sending an e-mail to Van's on this subject. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 Kevin: Good luck with Van's. My efforts to extract useful information from Ken Krueger have pretty much come to naught. Either he doesn't think we are intelligent enough to understand or is not inclined to trouble himself. With me, at least, he falls back on dogma without further amplification. With regard to flutter, it would be great to have a good explanation of the flutter margins that the various RV's possess. Ken used the -10 to illustrate the principles he espoused but I don't know if the numbers he used were to be taken literally or he was trying to frighten us into compliance. I can grasp the connection between TAS and flutter even if I can't defend it but to me there is still something wrong with the picture. If the RV's presently flying had narrow flutter margins we should be hearing about airframe failures that are not occuring. I know of one RV-4 that hit 270mph indicated in a maneuver that began at the base of a cumulus cloud above surface elevations at 5000' and more. There was minor airframe damage but no flutter. I tested my -4 to 200kt indicated at about 6000' in smooth air and did not excite the controls. More recently I screwed up a maneuver and saw about 205kt at about 4000' in air that was not smooth. No sign of flutter. How would one improve flutter margins? We balance ailerons to 100%. Would heavier leading edge skins all the way to the tips help? Elevators are balanced to 100% Stiffer stabilizer? How stiff? Higher design load factor airframes? I would really like to know. Flight testing for flutter is scary stuff and one must be prepared to try to evacuate a collapsing airframe. I've been told of methods for mitigating the risk but still have not found in myself the courage to seriously try it. Keep us posted, please. Gordon Comfort N363GC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Fittings and sealants
Date: Dec 24, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Collins Subject: RV-List: Fittings and sealants Since I've been in the HVAC business for 34 years, and too much experience with gas lines and pipe threads, it's a fact that a threaded gas line fitting will leak with just 4 oz. of natural gas pressure, which is the normal pressure of a homes gas line, & no pipe thread sealer is used. I used thread sealer on all of my tapered pipe thread fittings with exception to plastics. Oil lines, as well as brakes. I use a thread sealer that's compatible with about all petroleum products and oxygen, and I would not feel comfortable without it. Flared fittings should just be metal to metal. I just want to double-check something on the use of sealant on various plumbing fittings. This pertains to the admonishment not to use any sealant on flared fittings. Am I correct that you're not talking about use the use of sealant on the flare itself (I certainly get that), but you're saying you don't use sealant on any of the threads to which the nut that holds the flare into the fitting threads? In other words, using the fuel valve as an example: you would use EZ Turn on the threads of the fitting that screw into the valve assembly, but you do not use any sealant on the threads at the other end of that fitting, where the nut that holds the fuel line to the fuel valve threads? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave & Brenda Emond" <d_emond(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Conversion from inches to millibars
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Can anyone help with the conversion for atmospheric pressure, when converting from inches to millibars. Merry Christmas to all. Dave Emond RV 10 - busy on canopy ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2006
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Time in the tanks
>A clock is good. A fuel totalizer is better. Read out the time to >waypoint on the GPS and compare it to the time till empty on the >totalizer then subtract 30 or 45 minutes for reserve. Ed's response to Michael's post is exactly what I do. My RMI engine monitor gives fuel duration (Time). GPS gives time to destination. As long as the GPS time to destination is appropriately less than the engine monitor (fuel totalizer) fuel duration I am fine. Of course my fuel gauges are fairly accurate and knowing my fuel burn rate at normal cruise provides the same functionality and cross-check with instruments. So in a way I actually do use TAS. I just assume that GPS groundspeed is TAS (zero wind assumption) but do not have to calculate it. My ASI does not do it like some will. In 800 hours of flying my RV-6A only once in my recollection have I needed to land short of my preferred fueling location but even that stop was a viable option at all points during the flight. Having the fuel totalizer "TIME TO EMPTY" and GPS time to destination provided clear and accurate decision-making info. Bottom line Michael: I agree with you. And Ed. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2005
From: bertrv6(at)highstream.net
Subject: Medical question
Hi: I would like to know if any one, that has been denied the renewal of medical certificate,has been able to appeal and win? in particular if this is due to Cardiovascular problem? Or once this happens that is it... I have tried to get, the exact requirements or minimums that the FAA would consider acceptable, when referring to Cardio Vascular deficiencies, but I cannot find such page, on the FAA or even AOPA. Bert rv6a. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL.... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Conversion from inches to millibars
From: Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com>
1 Millibar = 0.01450377 lb.?inch squared writes: > > > > > Can anyone help with the conversion for atmospheric pressure, when > converting from inches to millibars. > > Merry Christmas to all. > > Dave Emond > RV 10 - busy on canopy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Medical question
Date: Dec 25, 2005
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
First, there is a difference between denial and deferral. I have been deferred. The bottom line is I was grounded. In deferral, the local AME finds something that he is not happy about - maybe unsure of his knowledge of the standards. He kicks it upstairs to Okalahoma City. They review and either issue or deny. I have had a medical deferred over items that were clearly legal, where the AME had dated information. For me, it was LASIC - he said I could never fly again. After several weeks of agony, I had my medical back, but only due to the proactive efforts of a Senior AME. Having flown for 30 years, I was devastated. Looking back, this was a speed bump. Denial only comes from Oak City. They are issued after review there. So they are harder to unwind. Sometimes they are a result of not providing information they requested. Don't play and they must deny. I suspect that those are easier to fix. Hypothetical example: you disclose condition x. They ask for specialist report about x. You don't send it. So they deny. Give them a satisfactory report and they probably will issue. Cardio issues are tougher, but they seem to be issuing after a reasonable waiting period. I have marginal high blood pressure. In the old days, I would be denied. But with medication, my BP is 120/72, well within standards. They have never denied or deferred me based on that. I have read of people with bypass surgery being issued medicals after a couple years. Check out AOPA pages http://www.aopa.org/members/files/medical/cad.html After 6 months, you can potentially fly after bypass surgery. (This is about the same time that a cardiologist might clear you to play golf!) The key is to find a proactive Senior AME who wants to get you flying. I had a great one who saw his job as keeping me healthy enough to fly. The guy who caused me trouble saw his job as keeping people out of the air. I think both agreed that you should be healthy and safe to fly - but one wanted to help. In the end, he went to bat for me - called Oklahoma City. But he didn't fudge anything. Hope this helps. I know how you must feel. Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bertrv6(at)highstream.net Subject: RV-List: Medical question Hi: I would like to know if any one, that has been denied the renewal of medical certificate,has been able to appeal and win? in particular if this is due to Cardiovascular problem? Or once this happens that is it... I have tried to get, the exact requirements or minimums that the FAA would consider acceptable, when referring to Cardio Vascular deficiencies, but I cannot find such page, on the FAA or even AOPA. Bert rv6a. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Medical question
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Try these guys. http://www.aviationmedicine.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home&navID=1 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 bertrv6(at)highstream.net Subject: RV-List: Medical question Hi: I would like to know if any one, that has been denied the renewal of medical certificate,has been able to appeal and win? in particular if this is due to Cardiovascular problem? Or once this happens that is it... I have tried to get, the exact requirements or minimums that the FAA would consider acceptable, when referring to Cardio Vascular deficiencies, but I cannot find such page, on the FAA or even AOPA. Bert rv6a. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: CG issues, was Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Thanks Ken; That looks like it. >Maybe www.safeair1.com? > >Ken Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Vne is defined by FAR Part 23 as 90% of the design velocity. (Since only one person seems to have referenced FAR Part 23 when they called Van's Aircraft about Ken's RVator article, you can probably guess who that was.) :-) Vne on the RV-3 is 210 mph ias. You'll have to tell me what Van's Aircraft has for the other RV models. But I think it is typically 230 mph ias. Whatever it is, it needs to be placed as a red line at the end of the yellow arc on your airspeed indicator. Flutter speed is an unknown. By implication from Ken's RVator article, if you can achieve Vne at 20,000', you are close to the aircraft flutter speed. Just my guess. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/24/2005 4:34:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, ogoodwin(at)comcast.net writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" I've been following this thread, but may have missed something. My question is: What is the Vne based on? Flutter or gust loads? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject: RV6a fresh air vents
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Tweetybird is chilly inside, hot air not sufecient to overcome leaks around the vent shut off, pluss other drafty openings, such as flap arm openings sucking air thru. I have considered duct taping over the vent entry, or fabricating some type of plug, problem being how to secure the latter. Not sure if the tape would tear off or not, Any suggestions?(I duct tape half the oil cooler intake in winter to get temp up to norm) Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JohnR" <rv7(at)agfp.com>
Subject: Re: RE: [RV7Yahoo] Re: RV10-List: Conversion from inches to millibars
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Try this (inHg32) * 33.8639 = (mb) JohnR _____ From: Dave & Brenda Emond [mailto:d_emond(at)mweb.co.za] Subject: [RV7Yahoo] Re: RV10-List: Conversion from inches to millibars Can anyone help with the conversion for atmospheric pressure, when converting from inches to millibars. Merry Christmas to all. Dave Emond RV 10 - busy on canopy Van's Air Force - World Wide Wing www.vansaircraft.net _____ * Visit your group "RV7and7A <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7and7A> " on the web. * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: RV7and7A-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . _____ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Medical question
Date: Dec 25, 2005
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Bert, The Medical Appeals Section of the FAA in OK City will handle the medical appeal. If the AME didn't issue you the Third Degree, ops, Third Class Certificate on the spot, then he will have sent everything to OK (which is not to be confused with 'everything is Okay because with the Medical Appeals Section, thing rarely are organizationally okay', but I digress). OK should then have sent you a letter requesting certain medical information, for instance they may request a Maxil Stress Test with 12 lead, EKG with an interpretive letter from the attending physician as well as an assessment of your cardio history and prognosis. They'll also probably want a copy of your hospital records and who-knows-what-else. Currently, OK City doesn't even look at Medical Appeals for 90 days; finally after taking vacation, holidays, sick leave, smoke breaks and anything else they can possibly think of to extend the delay, they will look at it and then request additional information. If you start calling at day 100, then by 110-120, you should be getting a response. But know this; if you fail to submit a single thing requested, you will hear a 'GONG' and you will go directly to the FAA Waiting-Jail, do not pass certificate issuance. For instance, if you submit 'computer samples' or copies of your EKG test, you lose. They will require ORIGINAL computer tracings....nothing else. That is the kind of detail that you have to pay attention to. About the only good thing I can say about the process is when you fail to submit the data/documents that should have been included in the original submittal, you don't go to the back of the 120 day line, instead you go into the 30-45 day line. Finally, don't trust doctors, technicians, nurses to put together the information you need. You must take charge. When the doctor gives you his evaluation and prognosis letter, READ IT, don't just submit it. Look at each sentence. Look at the choice of words. If you see something that can be rephrased or reworded, go back to the doctor and discuss it with him and explain the situation. He won't lie for you but he'll accommodate you by putting the information in the best possible light if he can do so and still feel comfortable about it professionally. In the end, some of it depends on what the definition of "is" is. And, if flying is important to you and you don't belong to the AOPA, join and access their medical support personnel. It's just another thing to tilt in your favor. Finally, keep copies of every document, of every phone call of EVERYthing. Document control in OK is less than sterling, so be prepared to resubmit any and every thing. Apply the same detail orientated, focused approach to this Medical Appeals application that you did to build your plane and you have a reasonable chance, depending on your fact specific health situation. Bert, good health and hopefully, good flying. Chuck Jensen Hi: I would like to know if any one, that has been denied the renewal of medical certificate,has been able to appeal and win? in particular if this is due to Cardiovascular problem? Or once this happens that is it... I have tried to get, the exact requirements or minimums that the FAA would consider acceptable, when referring to Cardio Vascular deficiencies, but I cannot find such page, on the FAA or even AOPA. Bert rv6a. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RV6a fresh air vents
Date: Dec 25, 2005
Charlie, You could remove the hose where it attaches to the naca inlet and tape/plug it up there. Remove tape and put the hose back on when it warms up. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of charles heathco Subject: RV-List: RV6a fresh air vents Tweetybird is chilly inside, hot air not sufecient to overcome leaks around the vent shut off, pluss other drafty openings, such as flap arm openings sucking air thru. I have considered duct taping over the vent entry, or fabricating some type of plug, problem being how to secure the latter. Not sure if the tape would tear off or not, Any suggestions?(I duct tape half the oil cooler intake in winter to get temp up to norm) Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 25, 2005
From: brian olofsson <brian060901(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Medical question
9 Min. on standard treadmill, Bruce protocol. No signs of significant ischemia. Normalized B.P./chol/bloodsugar, 6months since last "event" and otherwise normal exam. The FAA has become much more lenient with this than in the past. I have had many patients "recertified" after deferred or denied. Now if your problem is severe cardiomyopathy with markedly decreased ejection fraction or recurrent arrythmia your chances are poor. Brian Olofsson M.D. AME Hi: I would like to know if any one, that has been denied the renewal of medical certificate,has been able to appeal and win? in particular if this is due to Cardiovascular problem? Or once this happens that is it... I have tried to get, the exact requirements or minimums that the FAA would consider acceptable, when referring to Cardio Vascular deficiencies, but I cannot find such page, on the FAA or even AOPA. Bert rv6a. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL.... --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LARRY ADAMSON" <rvhi03(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV6a fresh air vents
Date: Dec 25, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: charles heathco Subject: RV-List: RV6a fresh air vents It seems that with the black plastic eye ball vents I got from Van's, that there was a recommendation to put a silicone bead against the vent door But it's been a few years since I looked at the instructions. Last year I flew in a RV9A with temps of minus 6 degrees F. and the heater vent barely open. Must have been sealed well, and the canopy was doing a good job of creating solar heat. Tweetybird is chilly inside, hot air not sufecient to overcome leaks around the vent shut off, pluss other drafty openings, such as flap arm openings sucking air thru. I have considered duct taping over the vent entry, or fabricating some type of plug, problem being how to secure the latter. Not sure if the tape would tear off or not, Any suggestions?(I duct tape half the oil cooler intake in winter to get temp up to norm) Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Re: RV List...Re: Fresh Air Vents
Date: Dec 25, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 Charles... Here is what I have done to my RV6 for Minnesota winter flight. I only have one year's experience but it has proven okay so far in +17 degree temp on the ground. My OAT is not functioning but it was colder aloft. Rear baggage area...bulkhead closure. Corrugations are filled with foam weather strip material to block air movement from the tailcone which is a real problem. Tonneau cover over the top opening but no other insulation, carpet or upholstery here. Flap pushrod holes are as small as possible with small aluminum extensions on the flaps which cover the holes when flaps are up. Wing root...aileron torque tubes have a heavy nylon ripstop cone shaped sleeve attached to the tube and closing the lightening hole in the fuselage hole forming a seal. Sliding canopy..."D" shaped foam gasket around the aft canopy fairings where the canopy fairing meets the fuselage. Skirts have reinforcing brace from the inside of the canopy side frame to the bottom of the skirt to prevent the canopy sides from being spread open by low pressure air moving around the fuselage. This bracket was not shown on Van's RV6 plans but is standard now on RV7 canopies and very late RV6 prints. Canopy skirts extend 3/4" + or - over the fuselage sides from about 6" aft of the windscreen back to the aft canopy fairing. This is fitted so the last inch of canopy travel as it is being closed brings the skirt in solid contact with the fuselage side skin. UHMW tape is used to prevent chaffing. Surprisingly no leaks have been noticed around the windscreen/canopy joint and I have no gasket there at all but there is a fairly tight fit. Cockpit....No sound deadening material at all ( it doesn't appear to sound any different than those with it when using good headsets) therefore no insulation value either. I have wall upholstery from the main spar bulkhead to the baggage area. No flooring or upholstery material forward of the spar. I have the material and it is one of those things on the "do" list but now I would rather just fly the airplane rather than work on it. Heating system...0-320 with Vetterman exhaust with TWO Rick Robins heat muffs, one on each side. Each with 2" SCAT tubing going to Rick Robins firewall heat valves, one for the pilot & one for the passenger with separate heater valve controls. Separate air sources are from the cool side of the engine baffling and enter the aft side of the muff so air is pushed forward through the muff before gong to the valves. This slows the air flow so it heats better...Robins also builds a baffle in the Inlet side of his muffs for that reason. Results are good heating with ground temps down to about +15. During flight the jacket can be unzipped half way and thin gloves may be used and even removed after everything gets warmed up. Above that the heat can be too much unless the valves are partially closed. Below +15 the ambient temps at lower altitudes would be about 0 and the cold sides of the unupholstered portions of the fuselage near the legs get pretty cold and the heat system cannot keep up...there is only .032 aluminum between you and the subzero air! Someday I will put the floor and the rest of the upholstery in but flying at those temps present other problems such as preheating, preflight inspections and even getting the aircraft which is all doable but very uncomfortable for a guy my age of 63. You young guys can fly then but I would rather stay home. Also bright sun does make heating much easier vs. cloudy days. Dick DeCramer Northfield, MN N500DD RV6 Slider 100 Hrs plus diesel(at)rconnect.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)speedyquick.net>
Subject: RV6a fresh air vents
Date: Dec 25, 2005
I cut a piece of medium density foam (1" thick) in a circle to form a press-fit into the eyeball vent. When not in use they slip between the vent and fuselage. Helps a lot. Making a cockpit-controlled vane to block off the intake of the oil cooler is nice as well. I have a scat tube feeding the cooler, and I made a butterfly valve that is in the intake of the scat tube on the baffle. Cockpit control rotates the valve, and I can set virtually any oil temp I want with OAT from below 0 to 100+ Ed Bundy -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Spraylat removal
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and remove. The new coat should remove the old one. Bruce www.glasair.org bruce is right on. I removed some 2 year old spraylat with two liberal coats of new stuff then peel. Whenever I use it now, I mask the boundary so it doesn't feather near the edge and become a pain to remove. Also I gave up spraylat brand for borden... yup, I ran out and substituted with some of the kids elmers glue. Ever since, I buy it at the art supply store for about 20$ a gallon. I'd swear it's the same stuff...just a tad thinner. Steve DiNieri N221rv ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Common practice on German built composite sailplanes (gliders) is to provide a Vne as an indicated airspeed for low level use with some limitation that it is valid to a particular altitude and then tapers off at a certain percentage per unit of altitude above that. So the placard might read "149 KIAS to 12,000 ft reducing 1.5% per 1,000 above 12,000 ft". (These numbers for illustration purposes only, of course.) One does some math to establish Vne's for 15,000 ft, 18,000 ft, etc. and then you stick a placard with these numbers on it to the side of the cockpit. Really keen sailplane pilots sometimes add some extra "red line" markings to their ASIs. Composite sailplanes are very flexible structure compared to RV class airplanes and do have flutter situations to be aware of so glider pilots do pay attention to these things. (I will modestly admit to having been to 28,000 ft without an engine myself.) The other option is to spend the extra money for an ASI with a moving "barber pole" that shows the limiting Vne at the present altitude. To my knowledge these things use the static pressure input to adjust the barber pole downwards to reflect a lower Vne IAS at altitude and need something in the way of an internal cam mechanism to adjust the barber pole pointer according to some sort of schedule. I think this means that more than a few "extra" dollars would be involved. High performance airplanes also get into compressibility effects on the pitot system and temperature plays a role too. Those who have flown fighter aircraft will know about going out and trying to "cross the needles" at low altitude. That's back when I was young and foolish and I don't do such stuff any more! Jim Oke RV-3, RV-6A, ASW-20 Wpg., MB sportav8r(at)aol.com wrote: > >So do I run out and erase the redline marking from my ASI tomorrow? It only displays IAS and is therefore worthless as an aid to avoiding flutter, no? > >Not questioning your explanation of flutter, just the wisdom of painting red lines on our ASI dials as required by the FAR's. > >-Storm > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Cardiovascular problem
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Hi Bert- Sorry to hear of your difficulties. To answer your questions and get good guidance, I would strongly recommend getting in touch with EAA and finding the Aeromedical Advisors in your area. I've used their (FREE) services, and was quite impressed. These are AME's who are dedicated to your success and volunteer to help us little guys out. Also, I've used some of the same guys who staff Virtual Flight Surgeons (another poster has mentioned them) and can't say enough good about their efficacy. I know none of this answers your direct question, but these references can. Good luck! Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Hi Jim et al- > Vne is defined by FAR Part 23 as 90% of the design velocity. One of the many factors that goes into determining Vne is that it be no more than .9 times Vd, which is actually Design Diving Speed. See http://www.astech-engineering.com/systems/avionics/aircraft/faapart23g.html# General Vd has several criteria to meet, including no flutter and a mathematical relationship to Vc, design cruise speed. As an aside, for those wishing to debate the small vs. large registration number issue, the definition of Vc could be fuel for the fire ; - ). WRT gusts, the plane (again, under part 23...) is to sustain a 25 fps vertical gust at Vd(!) and a 50 fps gust at Vc. This can make for a peculiar V-n diagram, as shown at the bottom of http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-333.html >I've been following this thread, but may have missed something. My question >is: What is the Vne based on? Flutter or gust loads? Yup. Plus more... Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FW: H-6 Performance Numbers
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Anyone care to answer this question? I would be happy to cross post the answers back to the Subie group. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage ________________________________ From: subaruaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:subaruaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of eaainc(at)aol.com Subject: Re: [subaruaircraft] Re: H-6 Performance Numbers OK, Tom just posted RV7A performance in cruise at 8000 feet. We now need the same from another average customer built aircraft with the O-360. The once I have flown in are not close to published ideal performance. Who has flown in one and what do you see on a normal flight Jan -----Original Message----- From: subaruaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:subaruaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com <mailto:subaruaircraft(at)yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Thomas Moore Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance numbers for the H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending on the cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these will give some idea of the performance that can be expected. Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS 7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144 7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165 9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140 9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144 9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160 These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted just forward of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap mufflers. The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see. Tom Moore ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
On 14:54:45 2005-12-24 "Alex Peterson" wrote: > The amount of > time which will pass between this event and when the same air > disturbance passes the elevator is inversely related to the TAS, not > IAS. This is true. However, the effect that disturbance will have on the elevator is directly related to the IAS, not the TAS. As you climb, the effect that disturbance will have as it passes the elevator will be lessened, as the air is less dense and needs to "build up" against the elevator before it will have the same affect as at sea level. If you climb while keeping your TAS constant, any exciting forces that would cause flutter are getting smaller the higher you go. The question is whether the decrease in excitation force is enough to outpace the increase in the frequency of the application of that force. Since the force is related to the dynamic pressure (IAS), which is a "velocity squared" term, and the frequency is related to the TAS, which is a "velocity" term, if your TAS stays constant as you climb, your excitation force drops off rather quickly. So i'm still not convinced that the TAS has anything to do with flutter. Apart from Ken's article, this is the first i've heard about it, and I can't find another reference either on the Internet, in FAR part 23, or in my textbooks, that supports your claim. I'm open to being convinced, however. Do you have, or can you find, a readily available reference that discusses this in more than laymans terms? It appears from other articles that gliders frequently have IAS charts for higher altitudes, there must be some mathematical explanation to back those up? -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is: does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this particular situation. Possibly not. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> Subject: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. > > > Hi Jim et al- > > > Vne is defined by FAR Part 23 as 90% of the design velocity. > > One of the many factors that goes into determining Vne is that it be no > more than .9 times Vd, which is actually Design Diving Speed. > > See > http://www.astech-engineering.com/systems/avionics/aircraft/faapart23g.html# > General > > Vd has several criteria to meet, including no flutter and a mathematical > relationship to Vc, design cruise speed. > > As an aside, for those wishing to debate the small vs. large registration > number issue, the definition of Vc could be fuel for the fire ; - ). > > WRT gusts, the plane (again, under part 23...) is to sustain a 25 fps > vertical gust at Vd(!) and a 50 fps gust at Vc. This can make for a > peculiar V-n diagram, as shown at the bottom of > http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_23-333.html > > >I've been following this thread, but may have missed something. My question > >is: What is the Vne based on? Flutter or gust loads? > > Yup. Plus more... > > Glen Matejcek > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Ken's RVator article was written around extra horsepower and turbocharged engines. The concern is that this would allow IAS (cruise at Vne as an IAS) to remain constant as you increase altitude. With a fixed IAS as the altitude increases, TAS is increasing with altitude. Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:12:01 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7(at)b4.ca writes: if your TAS stays constant as you climb, your excitation force drops off rather quickly. So i'm still not convinced that the TAS has anything to do with flutter. Apart from Ken's article, this is the first i've heard about it, and I can't find another reference either on the Internet, in FAR part 23, or in my textbooks, that supports your claim. I'm open to being convinced, however. Do you have, or can you find, a readily available reference that discusses this in more than laymans terms? It appears from other articles that gliders frequently have IAS charts for higher altitudes, there must be some mathematical explanation to back those up? -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 26, 2005
When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320 required. Cannot program desired service" A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card versus my original 2 meg card. Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc. Now the RANT/RAGE. Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information. NOT a word from them. When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department". If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY MAD. Richard Reynolds RV-6A N841RV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
On 7:40:48 2005-12-26 "Olen Goodwin" wrote: > Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My > question is: does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in > question? Possibly the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't > even enter into this particular situation. Possibly not. I recall being taught in university that the most common failure due to overspeed is the horizontal stabilizer or elevator, followed shortly by the wings. As your (indicated :) airspeed increases, the nose-down pitching moment on the wing also increases... Which requires an increase in the down-force generated by the horizontal stab/elevator to balance it. It's apparently not uncommon for either the elevator or the whole horizontal stab to fail as someone tries to pull out of an oversped dive. When that happens, without that downforce on the tail the plane will instantly pitch nose down, which at that high speed means a failure of the wings due to sudden, high, negative G. My recollection is that this was the failure mode of Steve Whittman's tailwind when he died, but my memory could be fuzzy about that. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor would NOT have to be given out. IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne (IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility of flutter. Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, ogoodwin(at)comcast.net writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is: does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this particular situation. Possibly not. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Richard, I, like you, use the Skybound USB programmer on the card for my GX60, and I bumped into the same exact issue. They replaced my 2mb card with a 4mb card for FREE. You need to go through the process with them if you want to avoid spending money. They overnighted the new card to me and gave me a postage-paid envelope to return the old one. The whole thing took less than 3 days. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (747 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > > When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with > the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: > > "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320 > required. Cannot program desired service" > > A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card > versus my original 2 meg card. > > Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD > AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking > for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc. > > Now the RANT/RAGE. > > Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update > 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my > $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information. > NOT a word from them. > > When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that > they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is > the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department". > > If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY > MAD. > > Richard Reynolds > RV-6A N841RV > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
I too am PO'd to not get any notice of the problem. Jepp has not been particularly good about notifying Skybound users of problems in advance and it took awhile to dig up the notice on their web site. The notice says "Your 2MB card will be exchanged for a 4MB card." This implies at no cost, which is what they should do and the stance I will take as I don't intend to pay them for it. It was certainly poor timing to have this discovery over the holidays but they have not handled it well. I'm also miffed that they seem to have phone staffing to take your money for new orders but shuffle our problem off to the returns line which is not manned over the holiday. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A > > When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend > with the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: > > "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, > 2104320 required. Cannot program desired service" > > A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg > card versus my original 2 meg card. > > Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I > buy a AMD AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in > suppliers looking for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc. > > Now the RANT/RAGE. > > Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update > 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They > have my $350 for the subscription service, my name, and > contact information. > NOT a word from them. > > When I called them, their automatic answering service stated > that they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the > problem is the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns > department". > > If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be > VERRRRY MAD. > > Richard Reynolds > RV-6A N841RV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Done. Ken ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:04:11 EST > > >Ken's RVator article seems to have been written so the limiting factor would >NOT have to be given out. > >IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne >(IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility >of flutter. >Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear. > >Regards, >Jim Ayers > >In a message dated 12/26/2005 7:41:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, >ogoodwin(at)comcast.net writes: > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" > >Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question is: >does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in question? Possibly >the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this >particular situation. Possibly not. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Flight Envelope
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Gentlemen, There have been several lengthy, interesting, and high level discussions from the more learned in our group about Vne, Vc, Va, Vd, flutter, etc. While these are all very informative, my goals are somewhat simpler. Does anyone have an envelope curve for the RV-8A appropriately labeled with velocities and G-loads? I have seen generic curves but nothing specific. I see the general shape of the lines but I don't have enough data to produce the curves exactly. Surely, these must exist somewhere. I understand that my airplane is slightly different than every other RV-8A ever built, but anything is better than what I have now. Vince Welch ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2006
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Rate of climb at higher altitudes
1.89 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date Recently someone west of me was considering a turbocharger (at least his partner was) in an RV8, IO360, CS prop so they could get to 15000' to cross a mountain range then drop down. I can't find the post so here is the info anyway. RV-6A, carbureted O-360, fixed wood prop (Aymar-Demuth) Altitude IAS (mph) Rate of climb (fpm) 13000' 120 600 14000' 120 500 Don't know if that affects your decision but a CS prop should climb better than this. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Date: Dec 26, 2005
IMHO, Ken's RVator article is saying that cruising around at 20,000' at Vne (IAS) does not provide an adequate margin of safety against the possibility of flutter. Regardless of any technical flaws in Ken's article, this message seems clear. Regards, Jim Ayers It is certainly clear. The question is, is it correct? Gordon Comfort N363GC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
The frequency of flow-induced vibration is linearly proportional to the Strouhal number (ref. 1, below), N = S*V/d where N is frequency, S is the Strouhal number, V is (true) airspeed, and d is wing chord. Therefore, for a given Strouhal number, the frequency of flow-induced vibrations will increase linearly with true airspeed. Since, for practical purposes, the natural frequencies of the airplane's structure are constant, you get closer to the vibration-critical airspeed as TAS increases. Now we need to determine what the Strouhal number is at sea level and what it is at, say, FL250, to determine if there is any change to N. The Strouhal number is itself a complex function of the Reynolds number. Reynolds number is calculated as follows. Re = V*d/v where V is (true) airspeed, d is mean wing chord, and v is kinematic viscosity. Kinematic viscosity is nearly constant with altitude, but varies with temperature, so we have to consider the temperature change as well. Assuming a true airspeed of 230 mph (Vne for an RV-6, ref. 5), and wing chord of ~57 inches (ref. 5), the Reynolds number varies from ~10x10 6 at sea level to ~20x10 6 at FL250. Since the horizontal stab could be the limiting factor, we should consider that, too. The HS has a mean chord of about 33 inches (measured from my own RV-6 tail), giving us a Reynolds number of ~6x10 6 at sea level and ~12x10 6 at FL250. So the range of Reynolds number we're interested in is 6x10 6 to 20x10 6. In this range the Strouhal number is virtually constant (ref. 1, Fig. 11-10). Therefore the premise of Ken's article, that the vibration-critical speed is determined by TAS, not IAS, is correct for an RV-6 near 230 mph TAS. References ---------- (1) Engineering Fluid Mechanics, Roberson and Crowe, 1975 (2) U.S. National Barometric Standard, Circ. 564, 1955 (3) The Design of the Airplane, Darrol Stinton, 1983 (4) Digital Dutch Atmospheric Calculator, www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc (5) RV-6 plans from Van's Aircraft Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Owen, You are hitting on the main point that Ken was trying to get at. We don't really know for sure. The point is that there MAY be an area where flutter considerations are the limiting factor in an RV and everyone should be aware of that. The problem with flutter is that it is so unpredictable. While dynamic pressures can be readily calculated, not so with the effects of flutter. And I don't think that ANYONE knows for sure. We do know that flutter will probably occur at some airspeed and TAS MAY be the important airspeed (depending on the mode of flutter). Ken hears about people putting big engines and turbos and says 'Be careful, here is a factor you may want to consider....' I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it Dave Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 On 12/26/05, Olen Goodwin wrote: > > > Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My question > is: > does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in > question? Possibly > the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't even enter into this > particular situation. Possibly not. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A
Date: Dec 26, 2005
> > From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> > Date: 2005/12/23 Fri AM 10:09:00 CST > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Battery on 200 HP Tubro 7A > > > LarryRobertHelming wrote: > > > > I think the plane should be called something other than an > > RV7/A. It is not built/equipped as the kit designer specified. OH, and by > > the way -- Good luck with getting the airworthiness certificate and > > insurance. I hope like type risk takers do not alter my risk category of my > > plans built RV7, nor prompt the FAA to come up with more regulations > > concerning homebuilt experimental if they kill or harm someone. Builders > > like this do us all a disservice in my opinion. I do not want to associate > > with them; So, I do not get concerned if they gets mad, is embarrassed, or > > what EVER. Wake up! We ain't just kids throwing bigger and bigger rocks > > .......... . > > > Interesting thread. I agree the points raised concerning W/B, flutter > speed, insurance, and certification all are matters which the builder of > a turbocharged RV-7A will need to address. Prudence and consideration > for the aviation community dictates that any modifications be carefully > considered and vetted for safety and airworthiness problems. > > But..........are we seeing the demise of "experimental aviation"? > > Wonder if Van had to tolerate nay-sayers when he decided to modify the > wing of his Stits Playboy and install a larger engine, and then had the > nerve to call the thing an RV-3? > > Wonder if all the Harmon and Team Rocket pilots wish their planes had > been nipped in the design phase by those who said modifying an RV-4 > would result in the death of experimental aviation? > > Wonder how the Subie brethren view the opinions of those who say a > turbocharger has no place in an RV? > > And........what would have happened if the innovative avionics industry > had listened to the very vocal and insistent voices that yelled about > solid-state accelerometers having no place in our panels?? > > And pity the poor guy who is audacious enough to DESIGN HIS OWN PLANE!!! > > There is no doubt we are seeing pressure being exerted on the > experimental aviation community by regulatory and insurance authorities. > Our ability to modify their intents may be limited, but I find it > interesting that in many cases, the biggest hurdle an innovator has to > jump is the objections of fellow "experimental" aviation enthusiasts. > > Where would we be if folks like Van had decided that modifying/improving > existing designs was just too........risky................... > > Sam Buchanan I had a conversation with one of the engineers at Van's only a week or so ago about this issue. He said that they have kicked around the idea of refusing to sell to anyone who intends to install anything other than the recommended Lyc. The reason given was that some believe that Van's is the mfgr instead of the actual builder (meaning lawyers looking for deep pockets). This attitude really could be the death of homebuilding as we know it. We should remember that in the eyes of the FAA, each of us is the mfgr of our planes & any other assumption will ultimately have much more negative impact than actual practices by builders. If I get sued for something I did that was stupid, I lose & the rest of you pay slightly higher premiums. If Van's gets sued for something stupid I did, we all may lose the supplier of our kits. In my not so legally qualified opinion, if Van chooses to exercise more & more control over what builders do with RV kits, he is opening the door wider & wider for the lawyers to walk through into his bank accounts, instead of builders' accounts. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt.
Sorry, some of my numbers got mangled. My caret character doesn't seem to translate. The important Reynolds numbers from my post are (using "e" for the exponent, instead of a caret): ~10x10e6 Re for wing at sea level and 250 mph IAS ~20x10e6 Re for wing at FL250 and 250 mph IAS ~ 6x10e6 Re for tail at sea level and 250 mph IAS ~12x10e6 Re for tail at FL250 and 250 mph IAS So the important range of Re is 6x10e6 to 20x10e6. I'm hoping that somebody can independently confirm those numbers, and also the relationship between Strouhal number and Reynolds number. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: PGLong(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Subject: RE: Spraylat removal
I just want to affirm that hi-pressure washing removes Spraylat with little or no labor involved and does not mark the Plexiglas in any way. That was the only solution that worked for me. Pat Long PGLong(at)aol.com N120PL RV4 Bay City, Michigan 3CM Do Not Archive ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Richard Reynolds <rvreynolds(at)macs.net>
Subject: Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Dan, Thanks for the information. If they reopen for business Tuesday morning , I hope I will get the same "free service". Richard Reynolds On Dec 26, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Dan Checkoway wrote: > > Richard, > > I, like you, use the Skybound USB programmer on the card for my > GX60, and I > bumped into the same exact issue. They replaced my 2mb card with a > 4mb card > for FREE. You need to go through the process with them if you want > to avoid > spending money. > > They overnighted the new card to me and gave me a postage-paid > envelope to > return the old one. The whole thing took less than 3 days. > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D (747 hours) > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> > To: "Email RV" > Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > > >> >> When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with >> the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: >> >> "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320 >> required. Cannot program desired service" >> >> A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card >> versus my original 2 meg card. >> >> Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD >> AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking >> for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc. >> >> Now the RANT/RAGE. >> >> Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update >> 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my >> $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information. >> NOT a word from them. >> >> When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that >> they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is >> the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department". >> >> If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY >> MAD. >> >> Richard Reynolds >> RV-6A N841RV >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 26, 2005
I am interested in getting a card too - a spare to carry around - but I don't want to pay their exhorbitant price for it..... Any leads here would be appreciated. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Reynolds" <rvreynolds(at)macs.net> Subject: RV-List: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service > > When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with > the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: > > "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320 > required. Cannot program desired service" > > A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card > versus my original 2 meg card. > > Before I spend any money with Jeppesen/Garmin, where can I buy a AMD > AMC004CFLKA 4 meg card? A google search resulted in suppliers looking > for RFQs, not the usual Newark, etc. > > Now the RANT/RAGE. > > Jeppesen probably has know for a month (since the last update > 11/22/05) that the 2 meg cards were not going to work. They have my > $350 for the subscription service, my name, and contact information. > NOT a word from them. > > When I called them, their automatic answering service stated that > they were experiencing a high volume of call-ins and the problem is > the 2 meg card is too small. Call their "returns department". > > If I truly needed the update to be legal for IFR, I would be VERRRRY > MAD. > > Richard Reynolds > RV-6A N841RV > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill VonDane" <bill(at)vondane.com>
Subject: New ePanel Builder / flash developers...
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Hey all... I have been working hard for the past 6 months on the new ePanel Builder and would like to have it ready for launch sometime in January.....but I could use some help... I am looking for someone who can help with the creation of flash files... If you have any experience with this and can help me out please drop me a line off list... I will also be in need of a few beta testers so if you have done this sort of things before, please let me know... I am only subscribed to the digest version of this list so please contact me off list... Thanks! Bill bill(at)vondane.com www.creativair.com www.epanelbuilder.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Subject: Re: Vne and Control Flutter
In a message dated 12/26/2005 11:52:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wdleonard(at)gmail.com writes: I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it =============================================== During a Van's dinner conversation with Martin Hollman at OSH some years back, he claimed that he had offered to do a flutter analysis of the RV series aircraft some years before and that Van's had turned him down. I don't know whether this actually occurred and, if true, what their reasoning might have been. I am also aware that Martin has a reputation for having a significant BS quotient, but it seems to me that he might know a little something about this subject. I sometimes wish that at least some degree of computer analysis and ground excitation testing had been done and published. I take comfort in the fact that my plane will rarely get in the region that this will be a problem and will leave Dave Anders and the other racers to test the upper boundary. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RGray67968(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Subject: Re: Spraylat removal
Thanks for the replies on the 'Spraylat' removal from an RV4 canopy. This stuff has evidently been on there for quite a few years.....at a glance it appeared to on there for good!! I was very tempted to try the high pressure wash....buts it's cold up here in Ohio and I didn't want to drag the canopy outside. I didn't spray this stuff on so I didn't have anymore to try the 'spray a thicker coat' method. I started off with 'Goo Gone' and it would remove a little of the 'Spraylat' but at the rate I was going I figured it would take about a week of 8 hours days....no joke either. Since the Goo Gone was trying to break down the Spraylat I decided to follow the posted advice of using 3M brand adhesive remover. It cost me $9.96 for a quart. I found that by keeping the surface nice and wet I was able to 'roll back' the Spraylat with my thumbs. It slowly came off....kind of like peeling sunburn from your shoulders. In about 3 hours I removed ALL the Spraylat and used only about 1/4 of the can of 3M adhesive remover. The plexi looks like a million bucks.....so the stuff does work. For the archives!! Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10 and F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!! Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and remove. The new coat should remove the old one. 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 RGray67968(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: Spraylat removal I just picked up an RV4 project to (hopefully) finish and fly in a very short time. The canopy was sprayed with 'Spraylat' (I think) and this stuff seems to be tough as nails. Anybody have experience getting this stuff off?? An archive search provided one method that I pasted below. Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm - RV6 Sold, RV8 project completed, RV10 and F1 Rocket under construction, & RV4 project on the front burner!! Hi listers, I posted a question a while ago about removing dried out spraylat from an old rv-4 canopy. I didn't get any responses so I assume it is not a common problem. This post is to let any future builders with this problem know how I finally solved it. The canopy with the problem was 11 years old and the coating had dried so bad it was no different than thin dried latex paint. Spraylat and Vans both had no other suggestions than trying to wet the coating with hot soapy water to soften it. This helped but the coating still required scraping which would scratch the canopy surface. Some listers on a Long-eze list mentioned using high pressure air and a small nozzle to blow the coating loose. This was also unsuccessful but gave me an idea! I soaked the canopy in water for 3 days then rented a 3500psi pressure washer and my problem was solved. The pressure washer removed the coating quickly and easily and was welcomed end to a problem that had started to delay the progress on my kit. Pat Perry Dallas, PA RV-4 fuse almost done Engine being rebuilt ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: "Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys restricting experimental aircraft? Robin Marks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions
Date: Dec 26, 2005
Robin, See: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/537-full.html#191233 Homebuilts are flying in and out of those airports every day. Operationally speaking, there is no problem at this time. The nature of the FSDO's authority to restrict operations over and above the FARs and national FAA policy remains to be hashed out. The EAA meets with the FAA to discuss policy for the year to come in January. We'll see what happens next. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----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: VNY BUR Experimental Restrictions Can anyone update me (and the list) on the situation in Van Nuys restricting experimental aircraft? Robin Marks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Spraylat removal
Date: Dec 26, 2005
I also found the cause was too thin of a layer but Spraylat was about $12/quart + shipping as well as a delay waiting for it so I used 3M Adhesive remover from NAPA for $8, used only about half the quart, and it just wiped off with a soft rag. Neither product harmed the plexiglas, I was done in one evening and I had coated both inside and out of both the canopy and the windscreen. It was worthwhile, however, as I had no scratches or marks in the plexiglas at all after some two years and literally hundreds of "opportunities" to mare the finish. > Subject: RE: RV-List: Spraylat removal > > > Usually the problem occurs because the original coat was too thin. Recoat > the spraylat with another 2 thick coats, wait 24 hours for final cure and > remove. The new coat should remove the old one. Dick DeCramer N500DD RV6 Flying Northfield, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 26, 2005
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
It has been reported on other email lists as well, and that Jeppeson is replacing the too small cards at no cost. Richard Reynolds wrote: > > When I tried to update my Apollo GX-60 data card this weekend with > the Jeppesen Skybound service, I got the message: > > "Required service is larger than card capacity, 2097152, 2104320 > required. Cannot program desired service" > > A message to their service desk, stated that I need a 4 meg card > versus my original 2 meg card. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Vne and Control Flutter
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
I have run the 8 to 253mphTAS and slap stick test. Every thing hung on. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Vne and Control Flutter In a message dated 12/26/2005 11:52:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wdleonard(at)gmail.com writes: I suggest that anyone who feels the need to rage around at 250mph TAS should either fly a different airframe better suited to the mission, or do the flutter testing at a TAS 10% higher than where he plans to set as a TAS limit. (and let me know what you find - because I am too chicken to do it =============================================== During a Van's dinner conversation with Martin Hollman at OSH some years back, he claimed that he had offered to do a flutter analysis of the RV series aircraft some years before and that Van's had turned him down. I don't know whether this actually occurred and, if true, what their reasoning might have been. I am also aware that Martin has a reputation for having a significant BS quotient, but it seems to me that he might know a little something about this subject. I sometimes wish that at least some degree of computer analysis and ground excitation testing had been done and published. I take comfort in the fact that my plane will rarely get in the region that this will be a problem and will leave Dave Anders and the other racers to test the upper boundary. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 771hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "AYRES, JIMMY L" <JAYRES(at)entergy.com>
Subject: Rv's in Fayettville/Drake
Date: Dec 27, 2005
The folks at Trutrak at Springdale airport have a RV10 that is nearing completion. Very nice people also. Jimmy Ayres -----Original Message----- From: charles heathco [mailto:cheathco(at)junct.com] Subject: RV-List: Rv's in Fayettville/Drake anybody know what RV's might be in Fyetv Ark ? I seem to remember at least one is there. Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org>
Am I right in the math ? With your new reduction unit, your test run from your list at (prop rpm) of 2700 would be almost 7000 RPM at the engine (crank RPM) ??? Even at 2300 prop rpm that's almost 5900 engine RPM. Call me old fashion, but isn't this a little fast to spin the engine for such a long period of time? On my stick shift Saab or wife's Subaru we shift at 2400 to 3400 rpm and cruse at 1900 to 2400 RPM (80 MPH on I-95). I can't even imagine spinning a Subaru, or any other engine at 7000 RPM. ( It's a gas engine not a electric engine ) ------------------------------ Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance numbers for the H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending on the cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these will give some idea of the performance that can be expected. Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS 7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144 7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165 9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140 9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144 9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160 These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted just forward of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap mufflers. The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see. Tom Moore ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. (Steve Whittman's crash)
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org>
I recall the NTSB and EAA stated that the primary cause of Steve's crash was a improper joint/overlap of the LE wing fabric that unraveled or lifted and pealed back the seam/overlap of fabric on the LE in flight. Your comments match the findings of the ABS (American Bonanza Society) on stab/elevator failures and subsequent wing and fuse. Failure........ ---------------------------------- From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> Subject: Re: RV-List: Kens report on exceeding VNE at Alt. On 7:40:48 2005-12-26 "Olen Goodwin" wrote: > Let me be more clear: I know many factors enter into Vne. My > question is: does anyone know the most limiting factor for the RV in > question? Possibly the flutter speed is high enough that it doesn't > even enter into this particular situation. Possibly not. I recall being taught in university that the most common failure due to overspeed is the horizontal stabilizer or elevator, followed shortly by the wings. As your (indicated :) airspeed increases, the nose-down pitching moment on the wing also increases... Which requires an increase in the down-force generated by the horizontal stab/elevator to balance it. It's apparently not uncommon for either the elevator or the whole horizontal stab to fail as someone tries to pull out of an oversped dive. When that happens, without that downforce on the tail the plane will instantly pitch nose down, which at that high speed means a failure of the wings due to sudden, high, negative G. My recollection is that this was the failure mode of Steve Whittman's tailwind when he died, but my memory could be fuzzy about that. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-8 RC Model
Date: Dec 27, 2005
I have been after them to put an RV8 on the market but it seems that they have not perceived enough demand to do so. I'd buy an RV8 RC right away if available. Michele RV8 - Fuselage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Nellis Subject: Re: RV-List: 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. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
> ... On my stick shift Saab or wife's > Subaru we shift at 2400 to 3400 rpm and cruse at 1900 to 2400 RPM (80 > MPH on I-95). I can't even imagine spinning a Subaru, or any other > engine at 7000 RPM. ( It's a gas engine not a electric engine ) Sounds like you are really lugging your engine! :-) Here's an example of what the Subaru can do: http://www.subaru-global.com/about/history/1989-001.html This describes the Subaru Legacy breaking the 100,000 km world speed record. Their average speed was over 223km/h. This includes pit stops for driver changes, tire changes, and fuel, so the speed on the track was higher. The average RPM was probably over 6000, if this car is geared anything like my Subaru Forester. Total time was over 400 hours, and all three cars that started broke the previous record. Full disclosure disclaimer: I'm installing a Subaru in my RV8. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Duane Bentley" <dbentley(at)fuse.net>
Subject: Re:GX-60 Jeppesen Skybound Service
Date: Dec 27, 2005
Chill out a little bit! When you get a hold of Jepessen, they'll get your address, send you a larger 4 MB card and give you instructions on how to send back the 2MB. No cost. I've had mine for a week. Duane Bentley RV6, 160 hrs N515DB West Chester, OH ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
This is a concern that many have raised with the new re-drive gearing. He is just now getting ready to ship the engines with this configuration so there is no data yet on running it at 6900RPM. He also only seems to advocate that setting on the much larger RV-10. Of course all the HP numbers are calculated only. No dyno time to verify. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Condon, Philip M. Subject: RV-List: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF Am I right in the math ? With your new reduction unit, your test run from your list at (prop rpm) of 2700 would be almost 7000 RPM at the engine (crank RPM) ??? Even at 2300 prop rpm that's almost 5900 engine RPM. Call me old fashion, but isn't this a little fast to spin the engine for such a long period of time? On my stick shift Saab or wife's Subaru we shift at 2400 to 3400 rpm and cruse at 1900 to 2400 RPM (80 MPH on I-95). I can't even imagine spinning a Subaru, or any other engine at 7000 RPM. ( It's a gas engine not a electric engine ) ------------------------------ Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance numbers for the H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending on the cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these will give some idea of the performance that can be expected. Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS 7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144 7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165 9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140 9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144 9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160 These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted just forward of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap mufflers. The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see. Tom Moore ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
> Here's an example of what the Subaru can do: > > http://www.subaru-global.com/about/history/1989-001.html They don't say so on the Subaru web site, but at the time it was reported that after 100,000 kilometers at an average speed of 223 kph (448 hours) the engine was still within specification for a NEW engine. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
On my stick shift Saab or wife's > Subaru we shift at 2400 to 3400 rpm and cruse at 1900 to 2400 RPM (80 > MPH on I-95). I can't even imagine spinning a Subaru, or any other > engine at 7000 RPM. ( It's a gas engine not a electric engine ) Just so the Mazda rotary does not get lumped in with the Subaru, I'll add that at least the rotary is meant to spin that fast. My engine RPM stays between 5500 and 6500 with a 2.17:1 reduction drive. Some guys have bigger gear ratios that allow their engines to turn at over 7000. However, it is only the e-shaft that is turning that fast - and it is more or less just a straight piece of steel. The rotors are only turning at 1/3 the e-shaft speed. Red line in an every-day driver RX-8 is 9000 RPM. -- Dave Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html ------------------------------ > > > Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers > > On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance > numbers for the > H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending > on the > cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these > will > give some idea of the performance that can be expected. > > Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS > > 7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144 > > 7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165 > > 9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140 > > 9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144 > > 9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160 > > These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted > just forward > of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap > mufflers. > > The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see. > > Tom Moore > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 27, 2005
That number caught my eye too. I flew the last Sun 100 race at a constant engine RPM of 7250 with a gear ratio of 2.85 : 1. Standing start average speed was 217.58 MPH. But I would have been very nervous if there had been any pistons swapping directions at that speed : ) Tracy Crook Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-4 1523 hours. Am I right in the math ? With your new reduction unit, your test run from your list at (prop rpm) of 2700 would be almost 7000 RPM at the engine (crank RPM) ??? Even at 2300 prop rpm that's almost 5900 engine RPM. Call me old fashion, but isn't this a little fast to spin the engine for such a long period of time? On my stick shift Saab or wife's Subaru we shift at 2400 to 3400 rpm and cruse at 1900 to 2400 RPM (80 MPH on I-95). I can't even imagine spinning a Subaru, or any other engine at 7000 RPM. ( It's a gas engine not a electric engine ) ------------------------------ Subject: [subaruaircraft] H-6 Performance Numbers On my flight to FL from OR in Sept, I recorded these performance numbers for the H6. The most efficient RPM is between 2200 and 2300 prop rpm depending on the cruise altitude. Although I did not get a complet set of numbers, these will give some idea of the performance that can be expected. Alt OAT Rpm MAP F/F KTAS 7.5 73 2220 22.4 6.9 144 7.5 77 2700 22.1 8.5 165 9.5 67 2200 20.7 5.9 140 9.5 62 2300 20.4 6.2 144 9.5 63 2700 20.1 7.8 160 These numbers where with the 3rd lower radiator and oil cooler mounted just forward of the firewall. They are also with the MT prop and the dual SuperTrap mufflers. The new 2.56 reduction unit may change these numbers. We will see. Tom Moore ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject: AoA
Date: Dec 27, 2005
Has anyone experience of using both the AoA in the Dynon D10A and the dedicated systems (Advanced Flight Systems and Lift Reserve Co.). For the money you pay I would hope the later systems are providing a whole lot more info., but I wonder? My only data point is that I have flown with the non audio D10 system and it appeared to give a very repeatable forecast of the stall. Thanks, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Greetings, I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with the empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, going further on my project at this time is out of the question, especially with two kids in college. So, I am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. Please view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for looking. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspagenameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 Dave Nellis Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Bruno <rv4(at)videotron.ca>
Subject: BLUE MOUNTAIN AUTOPILOT INSTALLATION
Hello Listers Happy Holidays to the RV Community. My question: Are there any here on the list who has installed a BMA Autopilot in an RV-4? I have an EFIS LITE G3 in my -4 and I'm contemplating the option of an autopilot. How hard was it to install the servos and where did you install them? Are you satisfied with the performance vs. the price of the unit? If you have any pictures of your installation it will be appreciated. Also if there is anyone with a TRIO autopilot in an RV-4, I would like to know your feelings regarding the performance of this autopilot and ease of installation? Thank you Bruno Dionne RV-4 C-GDBH Rv4(at)videotron.ca ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Subject: Re: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Dave The link won't work for us mere mortals. Could you post the item number on EBay? Charlie Kuss ---- Dave Nellis wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with the > empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since > mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, > going further on my project at this time is out of the > question, especially with two kids in college. So, I > am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. > > I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine > cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. Please > view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you > are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for > looking. > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspagenameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 > > Dave Nellis > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fly n Low" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net>
Subject: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Date: Dec 27, 2005
Tried the link but could not get it to work. Found the item by its item number here is a link that should work. Bud Silvers RV8 finishing http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsea rch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fws%2Fsearch%2FSaleSearch%3Fsofocus%3Dbs%26satitle%3D4599 797102%26sacat%3D-1%2526catref%253DC5%26amp%253Bsspagename%3Dh%253Ah%253Aadv search%253AUS%26from%3DR7%26nojspr%3Dy%26pfid%3D0%26fsop%3D1%2526fsoo%253D1% 26fcl%3D3%26frpp%3D100%26fvi%3D1&item=4599797102 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave Nellis Subject: RV-List: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp Greetings, I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with the empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, going further on my project at this time is out of the question, especially with two kids in college. So, I am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. Please view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for looking. > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspa genameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 Dave Nellis Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RKAlex123(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 27, 2005
Subject: AOA sensor mounting question
A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. Bob Alexander RV7 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Here is the item number. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for looking. Dave 4599797102 --- Dave Nellis wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with > the > empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since > mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, > going further on my project at this time is out of > the > question, especially with two kids in college. So, > I > am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. > > I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine > cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. > Please > view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you > are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for > looking. > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspagenameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 > > Dave Nellis > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AOA sensor mounting question
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Rob (AFS guy) had mentioned at OSH that he really never has any water in it. The hole is so small it is difficult to penetrate with water. I plan on leaving it without a drain hole until I can gauge if it's a problem or not. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RKAlex123(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: AOA sensor mounting question A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. Bob Alexander RV7 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AOA sensor mounting question
I would hardly say there is no clear guidance. The user manual says to add several steps to your checklist. Among those is the statement to drain the AOA water separator reservoir. I would suspect, since the opening is on the top of the wing, that you could expect to get some water in there any time it rains, although I do not have my RV9A completed yet. Dick Tasker. RKAlex123(at)aol.com wrote: > >A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack >indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires >access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill >an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension >wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access >panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear >guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. > >Bob Alexander >RV7 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fly n Low" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net>
Subject: Daves Lamp on Ebay
Date: Dec 27, 2005
Try this link for Daves lamp. Looks pretty neat to me. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Aircraft-Table-Lamp_W0QQitemZ4599797102QQcate goryZ38629QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AOA sensor mounting question
Bob, Frankly, I'm surprised that you can account for neither parts or instructions to install the moisture drain. Its been a few years since I installed a PSS Sport AOA which has since been bought out by Advanced. At the time, my "A" kit came with a sort of spring loaded device that protrudes slightly from the lower wing surface and you merely depress it as you would any fuel drain to release (possible) accumulated moisture. Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. Bob Alexander RV7 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Re: AOA sensor mounting question
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Bob, I drilled a hole underneath and plan to use a piece of plastic as a guide for the wire probe. Just hold the guide under the wing and a mark on the plastic to orientate it and pass the probe through it. Others glue the guide inside the wing. I haven't flown yet and unless I fly through rain or leave it out in the rain. I doubt it will ever collect water. Greg > > A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack > indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires > access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill > an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension > wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access > panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear > guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. > > Bob Alexander > RV7 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Given Tom's info on the H-6 Subie, I thought I might offer the following, based on a couple of light(1020lb.) RV-6's powered by Lycoming's O-320, and both using the Sensenich FP metal prop with 79" pitch - ALTITUDE RPM MAP %HP TAS 2000 ' 2400 24" 75 160 3000 2325 21 65 152 5000 2400 21 65 153 - ave. of 4 runs over triangular course with GPS 6000 2400 20 60 155 7500 2350 18 55 152 8500 2600 21 75 170 ( OAT was 8.9 deg C, KIAS was 155 ) 8900 2450 19.5 62 158 10600 2450 18.5 60 154 The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. I like the rumble of the Lycoming, and I regularly get 6.3 US gallons per hr fuel burn at 55-60% power, so I can't complain about the economy over the past 200 hours either. FWIW Martin in Oz ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
Subject: Re: AOA sensor mounting question
I have had my AOA sport installed and flying for two years. It has set out in two major OSH rainstorms among others. I have never gotten a drop out of the drain. John Greg@itmack wrote: > >Bob, I drilled a hole underneath and plan to use a piece of plastic as a >guide for the wire probe. Just hold the guide under the wing and a mark on >the plastic to orientate it and pass the probe through it. Others glue the >guide inside the wing. > >I haven't flown yet and unless I fly through rain or leave it out in the >rain. I doubt it will ever collect water. > >Greg > > >>A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack >>indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires >>access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill >>an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension >>wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access >>panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear >>guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. >> >>Bob Alexander >>RV7 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: AOA sensor mounting question
Date: Dec 27, 2005
I've never seen water in mine, even after "the storm" last year at OSH. I do have the drain hole access though just in case. I've since made covers for the AOA hole (and fuel caps) from the static cling shade intented for the canopy. - Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: RKAlex123(at)aol.com [mailto:RKAlex123(at)aol.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:39 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV-List: AOA sensor mounting question > > > A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of > Attack indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water > separator which requires access from below to drain any > accumulated water. Did you just drill an access hole in the > lower wing to reach this drain with an extension wire? Or is > water draining needed so infrequently that using an access > panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? > There is no clear guidance in the instructions from Advanced. > Appreciate any advise. > > Bob Alexander > RV7 > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Search for item number 4599797102 for the lamp. Dave --- Dave Nellis wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with > the > empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since > mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, > going further on my project at this time is out of > the > question, especially with two kids in college. So, > I > am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. > > I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine > cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. > Please > view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you > are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for > looking. > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspagenameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 > > Dave Nellis > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 27, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
> The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. As so often happens, this Subaru-RPM issue is in a spiral dive and needs to be brought under control by the application of facts. Eggenfellner's web site lists 5900 RPM as maximum climb and 4600 RPM as cruise. I haven't worked it out for the newer Eggenfellner engine, but for the previous, 2.5-litre engine 4600 RPM would give approximately the same piston speed as a Lycoming has at 2600 RPM. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF (piston speed comment in error
?)
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org>
".....I haven't worked it out for the newer Eggenfellner engine, but for the previous, 2.5-litre engine 4600 RPM would give approximately the same piston speed as a Lycoming has at 2600 RPM......." Tedd, how is that possible? A crank, be it a lycoming crank or a Subaru crank -- spins....one at say 2500 RPM (Lycoming), the other at, say 5000RPM (Subaru). All pistons in question are connected to the cranks via con rods. How can piston speed be the same when the cranks are spinning at vastly different speeds ?? S ....................................................................... .................. From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF > The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. As so often happens, this Subaru-RPM issue is in a spiral dive and needs to be brought under control by the application of facts. Eggenfellner's web site lists 5900 RPM as maximum climb and 4600 RPM as cruise. I haven't worked it out for the newer Eggenfellner engine, but for the previous, 2.5-litre engine 4600 RPM would give approximately the same piston speed as a Lycoming has at 2600 RPM. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fly n Low" <flynlow(at)usaviator.net>
Subject: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF (piston speed comment in error
?)
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Piston speed depends upon stroke. Longer stroke means the piston travels a greater distance each revolution. A shorter stroke means it travels a shorter distance each revolution thus it is moving slower. Bud Silvers RV8 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Condon, Philip M. Subject: RV-List: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF (piston speed comment in error ?) ".....I haven't worked it out for the newer Eggenfellner engine, but for the previous, 2.5-litre engine 4600 RPM would give approximately the same piston speed as a Lycoming has at 2600 RPM......." Tedd, how is that possible? A crank, be it a lycoming crank or a Subaru crank -- spins....one at say 2500 RPM (Lycoming), the other at, say 5000RPM (Subaru). All pistons in question are connected to the cranks via con rods. How can piston speed be the same when the cranks are spinning at vastly different speeds ?? S ....................................................................... .................. From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF > The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. As so often happens, this Subaru-RPM issue is in a spiral dive and needs to be brought under control by the application of facts. Eggenfellner's web site lists 5900 RPM as maximum climb and 4600 RPM as cruise. I haven't worked it out for the newer Eggenfellner engine, but for the previous, 2.5-litre engine 4600 RPM would give approximately the same piston speed as a Lycoming has at 2600 RPM. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF (piston speed comment in error
?) Philip: > Tedd, how is that possible? A crank, be it a lycoming crank or a Subaru > crank -- spins....one at say 2500 RPM (Lycoming), the other at, say > 5000RPM (Subaru). All pistons in question are connected to the cranks > via con rods. How can piston speed be the same when the cranks are > spinning at vastly different speeds ?? S Piston speed depends on stroke length. The stroke of the Subaru engine is a little over half the stroke of the Lycoming. If you cut the stroke length in half the piston speed is cut in half for the same RPM. Or, alternatively, you can rev twice as high at the same piston speed. This is one key reason that auto engines can safely rev much higher than airplane engines. Other reasons are lower piston masses, leading to reduced connecting rod stress, and lower valvetrain masses, leading to higher valvetrain harmonics. And, of course, more rigid crankcases and shorter, stiffer crankshafts. The Subaru engine has particularly low reciprocating masses, even for an auto engine, and has an especially rigid crankcase and crankshaft. These features make it very well suited to sustained high-RPM, high-output applications such as aircraft. --- Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Flyguy6a(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Martin.. I too like the "rumble" of the Lycosaurus. I heard a Sube in an RV9a and thought it was one of those 2-stroke powered flying wing/kite thingies when I first heard it, something like an angry bee. I would want to totally muffle the thing if it were mine, the noise is annoying, IMO, even with the muffler it had. I note the Sube autos are very quiet, I guess you can't fit a big enough muffler on the conversions. OTOH, the Lyco, like Harley bikes, has a pleasing exhaust note, and I would never want to muffle it, part of the charm... Now I'll go along and struggle into my Nomex suit... Jack Lucas From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> Subject: RV-List: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. I like the rumble of the Lycoming, and I regularly get 6.3 US gallons per hr fuel burn at 55-60% power, so I can't complain about the economy over the past 200 hours either. FWIW Martin in Oz ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Chris W <3edcft6(at)cox.net>
Date": is.96.hours.or.more.after.Received:date(at)roxy.matronics.com
Subject: Re: Rate of climb at higher altitudes 1.89 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX
Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date Ron Lee wrote: >Recently someone west of me was considering a turbocharger (at >least his partner was) in an RV8, IO360, CS prop so they could get >to 15000' to cross a mountain range then drop down. I can't find >the post so here is the info anyway. > >RV-6A, carbureted O-360, fixed wood prop (Aymar-Demuth) > >Altitude IAS (mph) Rate of climb (fpm) >13000' 120 600 >14000' 120 500 > > > From that and the other numbers I have seen, unless you are going to seriously overload the plane, I don't see why you need a turbo to get well over any mountain in the 48 states. I think Dan was going to to a climb test with his IO-360 CS prop. Not sure but I think you can get from 0 to 18,000 in a little over 15 minutes. Now if you want to fly at 18,000 with some more speed, then a turbo would be nice but getting there with out one is no problem with an IO-360 and CS prop. Even with a normally aspirated engine your true air speed is going to be pretty good at that altitude. -- Chris W KE5GIX ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 28, 2005
So what is the Specific fuel consumption? We know what the Lycoming burns in pounds per hour per horsepower produced. What does the Subie do? If you do not know, what GPH at what RPM and what Horespower at what RPM? Yes the Subie powered aircraft that is based were I am is also the most noisy aircraft here and makes more noise than the Cessna 337's. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,825 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- From: Flyguy6a(at)aol.com Subject: RV-List: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:32:29 EST Martin.. I too like the "rumble" of the Lycosaurus. I heard a Sube in an RV9a and thought it was one of those 2-stroke powered flying wing/kite thingies when I first heard it, something like an angry bee. I would want to totally muffle the thing if it were mine, the noise is annoying, IMO, even with the muffler it had. I note the Sube autos are very quiet, I guess you can't fit a big enough muffler on the conversions. OTOH, the Lyco, like Harley bikes, has a pleasing exhaust note, and I would never want to muffle it, part of the charm... Now I'll go along and struggle into my Nomex suit... Jack Lucas From: "Martin Hone" <mctrader(at)bigpond.net.au> Subject: RV-List: Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF The H-6 is a real smooth engine, but not sure about 7000 rpm in cruise. I like the rumble of the Lycoming, and I regularly get 6.3 US gallons per hr fuel burn at 55-60% power, so I can't complain about the economy over the past 200 hours either. FWIW Martin in Oz ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV
- WTF > So what is the Specific fuel consumption? I couldn't find that on Eggenfellner's web site, but auto engines typically have slightly lower BSFC than Lycomings, due to less favourable cylinder surface-to-volume ratio. However, water cooling and electronic engine management mean that the Eggenfellner engines can run at an optimized fuel-air ratio all the time (i.e., no richening the mixture for take-off, climb, etc.). > Yes the Subie powered aircraft that is based were I am is also the most > noisy aircraft here and makes more noise than the Cessna 337's. At first I thought you meant T-37, and I was most impressed! I have flown Charlie Walker's Eggenfellner-powered Glastar and was most impressed with how quiet it is. But that's all subjective. I don't have any data on noise levels. There's no question that cruising at 3800-4200 RPM (where Charlie cruises in his Glastar) takes some getting used to. But if you work out the numbers you discover that the important parameters (piston speed, piston acceleration forces, main bearing wear index) are around the same as for a Lycoming at 2400 RPM. Obviously, what sort of sound appeals to you is subjective. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rate of climb at higher altitudes
Date: Dec 28, 2005
I had my little 160 HP CS RV-6 up to 17,800 once over 6 years ago. Was no problem. Still climibing 300 FPM at 100 KIAS. I do not remember the time to climb there but I was still on the tank I took off on and I switch every 30 minutes. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,826 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- From: Chris W <3edcft6(at)cox.net> is.96.hours.or.more.after.Received:date(at)roxy.matronics.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Rate of climb at higher altitudes 1.89 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX Date: is 96 hours or more after Received: date Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:02:14 -0600 Ron Lee wrote: >Recently someone west of me was considering a turbocharger (at >least his partner was) in an RV8, IO360, CS prop so they could get >to 15000' to cross a mountain range then drop down. I can't find >the post so here is the info anyway. > >RV-6A, carbureted O-360, fixed wood prop (Aymar-Demuth) > >Altitude IAS (mph) Rate of climb (fpm) >13000' 120 600 >14000' 120 500 > > > From that and the other numbers I have seen, unless you are going to seriously overload the plane, I don't see why you need a turbo to get well over any mountain in the 48 states. I think Dan was going to to a climb test with his IO-360 CS prop. Not sure but I think you can get from 0 to 18,000 in a little over 15 minutes. Now if you want to fly at 18,000 with some more speed, then a turbo would be nice but getting there with out one is no problem with an IO-360 and CS prop. Even with a normally aspirated engine your true air speed is going to be pretty good at that altitude. -- Chris W KE5GIX ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 28, 2005
On 28 Dec 2005, at 15:13, Tedd McHenry wrote: > >> So what is the Specific fuel consumption? > > I couldn't find that on Eggenfellner's web site, but auto engines > typically > have slightly lower BSFC than Lycomings, due to less favourable > cylinder > surface-to-volume ratio. However, water cooling and electronic engine > management mean that the Eggenfellner engines can run at an > optimized fuel-air > ratio all the time (i.e., no richening the mixture for take-off, > climb, etc.). Tedd, You say "lower SFC". Do you mean lower as in a lower number, or lower as in less good? I would have expected the less favourable cylinder surface to volume ratio to lead to higher fuel consumption, and the optimized fuel-air ratio to lead to lower fuel consumption, with the overall result (i.e. higher or lower fuel consumption) impossible to know without doing some testing. Occasionally I hear reports from some auto-conversion guys quoting lower fuel flows, but I've always had the impression they were making less hp in cruise too. A Lycoming powered RV cruising at low power has low fuel flow too. It would be very interesting to see what happens when a Lycoming powered RV and a Subie powered RV go off on a cross country trip together, cruising at the same speeds. I wonder who will burn less fuel. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Ok, lots of problems with Ebay as this is the first item I have sold, bought lots of stuff, never sold. My bad. The item has been relisted, item 4599797102. I have an email in to support asking that they change the ad to show 6 items left to sell. Yes, I have one sold. Sorry for the Ebayineptitude. Thank you for your patience. Dave --- Dave Nellis wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with > the > empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since > mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, > going further on my project at this time is out of > the > question, especially with two kids in college. So, > I > am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. > > I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine > cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. > Please > view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you > are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for > looking. > > > > > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item4599797102&sspagenameADME%3AL%3ALCA%3AUS%3A31 > > Dave Nellis > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EMAproducts(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Subject: Re Storm @ OSH '05
RVer's As everyone who was at OSH in '05 knows Monday night we had a big blow. Unfortunately, my album of photos was nearly totally destroyed by moisture when our 2 10X20 tents blew down. Many of the photographs were originals and sadly I had no duplicates. Between this and a computer hard drive failure I have lost a large number of photos from my customers. I am unable to contact many due to e-mail address changes, moving etc. If you have the RiteAngle installed on your aircraft please send me either via e-mail or postal a copy if you would. I lost many photos going back over 10 years from our R&D days. Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Elbie Elbie Mendenhall EM Aviation, LLC 13411 NE Prairie Rd Brush Prairie, WA 98606 360-260-0772 _www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV
- WTF > You say "lower SFC". Do you mean lower as in a lower number, or > lower as in less good? Sorry, yes, that's exactly what I meant. Poor use of terminology on my part. I think auto engine SFC is about 0.45 lb/hp-h for a modern engine like the Subaru, as opposed to 0.42 for a properly-leaned Lycoming. But those numbers are just from memory. Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Tedd: Anyone can say anything. How about some FACT and sources to back up actual DATA. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,825 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> Subject: RE: RV-List: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:13:31 -0800 (PST) > So what is the Specific fuel consumption? I couldn't find that on Eggenfellner's web site, but auto engines typically have slightly lower BSFC than Lycomings, due to less favourable cylinder surface-to-volume ratio. However, water cooling and electronic engine management mean that the Eggenfellner engines can run at an optimized fuel-air ratio all the time (i.e., no richening the mixture for take-off, climb, etc.). > Yes the Subie powered aircraft that is based were I am is also the most > noisy aircraft here and makes more noise than the Cessna 337's. At first I thought you meant T-37, and I was most impressed! I have flown Charlie Walker's Eggenfellner-powered Glastar and was most impressed with how quiet it is. But that's all subjective. I don't have any data on noise levels. There's no question that cruising at 3800-4200 RPM (where Charlie cruises in his Glastar) takes some getting used to. But if you work out the numbers you discover that the important parameters (piston speed, piston acceleration forces, main bearing wear index) are around the same as for a Lycoming at 2400 RPM. Obviously, what sort of sound appeals to you is subjective. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Dec 28, 2005
Tedd: Anyone can say anything. How about some FACT and sources to back up actual DATA. 0.42 lbs/hr / hp is better than 0.045. Show me the calculations of piston speed, cylinder pressures, and crankshaft wear. I see you throwing lots of info out with no source of where it came from. What is the source of this info? I do not trust memory. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,818 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> Subject: Re: RV-List: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:04 -0800 (PST) > You say "lower SFC". Do you mean lower as in a lower number, or > lower as in less good? Sorry, yes, that's exactly what I meant. Poor use of terminology on my part. I think auto engine SFC is about 0.45 lb/hp-h for a modern engine like the Subaru, as opposed to 0.42 for a properly-leaned Lycoming. But those numbers are just from memory. Tedd ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "HARRY CROSBY" <HCRV6(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AOA sensor mounting question
Date: Dec 28, 2005
I installed my PSS Sport AOA per the instructions with a water drain hole in the bottom of the wing and a plastic tube glued in place to guide the wire to reach the drain fitting. It has been through several rain storms and several washings with no attempt to block sensing holes and I have never gotten a drop of water out of the drain. Harry Crosby RV-6 N16CX, 161 hours and down for painting. ----- Original Message ----- From: <RKAlex123(at)aol.com> Subject: RV-List: AOA sensor mounting question > > A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack > indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires > access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill > an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension > wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access > panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear > guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. > > Bob Alexander > RV7 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
RV-8(at)yahoogroups.com (RV8 List)
Subject: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 29, 2005
When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up elevator throw. Does that sound right? I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also a CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't lift up at that rpm. thoughts? lucky When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up elevator throw. Does that sound right? I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also aCS prop, battery on the FWand thinks something is wrong as his won't lift up at that rpm. thoughts? lucky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: GRT EIS users with Dual Mag Packs
Date: Dec 29, 2005
I have a A1B6D model 200 hp engine. What P/R number works to get the right RPM reading on the EIS? I've tried just about every one you can program in and haven't found the magic one yet. GRT says they don't know what value to use for that mag setup. thx, lucky I have a A1B6D model 200 hp engine. What P/R number works to get the right RPM reading on the EIS? I've tried just about every one you can program in and haven't found the magic one yet. GRT says they don't know what value to use for that mag setup. thx, lucky ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rate of climb at higher altitudes
> > > I had my little 160 HP CS RV-6 up to 17,800 once over 6 years ago. Was no > problem. Still climibing 300 FPM at 100 KIAS. I do not remember the time > to > climb there but I was still on the tank I took off on and I switch every > 30 > minutes. > > > Gary A. Sobek > "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, > 1,826 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA > http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com > > Gary is absolutely right in that any RV still has plenty of performance at altitude. It is also true that the fixed pitch RV's have very adequate climb performance. However, many people spend thousands on a c/s prop to improve climb performance mostly because it is more satisfying. A turbo can do the same thing for you. At 17k' I can still climb at over 1000 fpm at 120KIAS with my fixed pitch prop. Sure makes it nice to have that climb authority at any altitude, especially when there is some sort of icing risk and there is a cloud ahead. I debated long and hard before installing a turbo and only decided to install one late in the game. And despite the fact that it has caused me an unplanned landing at an airport far from home - I am now very glad I have it. At Big Bear, I still climb out like I am at sea level. (And that is off the ground before the displaced threshold). That is nice piece of mind. It allows my f/p prop to perform almost as well as a c/s, and the extra available power never hurts. The turbo is something of a project, but not insurmountable by a long shot. (probably easier for the rotary than a lyc because of the availability of OEM and aftermarket parts). The big picture is this: in aircraft, turbos allow the efficient use of higher (low drag) air at altitude. They can make a smaller, lighter, less expensive engine perform like a larger one up where we spend the majority of flight time. Like an alternate engine, a turbo is not for everyone. It is REALLY not NEEDED, especially with the 200h.p. c/s birds everyone is building nowadays. But keep you hands off mine! :-) -- Dave Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY (only 170hrs. with admittedly lots of minor problems) http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 28, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> ; "RV8 List" Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I > have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up > elevator throw. > > Does that sound right? > > I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt > installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another > local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also a > CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't lift > up at that rpm. > > thoughts? > > lucky Lucky, If you're not holding your stick full back then the tail may well come up, I was never brave enough to try it. I did do quite a few 2400 rpm runs though for prop balancing, but again with the stick full back and had no problem. Randy Lervold www.rv-3.com www.rv-8.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Novelty Aviation Table Lamp
Someday I will learn this ebay stuff. New item number is as follows 4600741450 Dave Nellis --- Dave Nellis wrote: > > > Greetings, > > I am an RV enthusiast and am almost finished with > the > empennage kit for a 7A. I have been laid off since > mid March and there is no sign of relief. Hence, > going further on my project at this time is out of > the > question, especially with two kids in college. So, > I > am trying to raise some funds to pay bills. > > I have built a novelty table lamp from an engine > cylinder. I have cylinders to make six more. > Please > view the lamp on Ebay at the following site. If you > are interested, please reply. If not, thanks for > looking. > Dave Nellis > > > > > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 28, 2005
2200 RPM?!?!? Yikes!!! Hopefully you don't mean to imply that you do your normal run-up at that RPM. FWIW, I do mine no higher than 1800 RPM (RV-7 200hp IO-360-A1B6). When I weighed my plane, my tail was only 58 pounds, which is only 5.21% of the entire aircraft empty weight. From talking to others, that's a pretty tail-light setup. I am very careful when running up not to apply too much power. I have lifted my tail when running up only ONCE, and that was when the tail was tied down (this was an intentional test, a full-power run-up). I imagine the RV-8's tail with the heavy engine/prop up front will have an even lighter tail than mine due to the longer arm (I assume?). If you're just trying to determine if the behavior you're seeing is normal, I would say...sure is. Be careful. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> ; "RV8 List" Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I > have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up > elevator throw. > > Does that sound right? > > I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt > installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another > local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also a > CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't lift > up at that rpm. > > thoughts? > > lucky > > When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I > have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up > elevator throw. > > Does that sound right? > > I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt > installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another > local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also aCS > prop, battery on the FWand thinks something is wrong as his won't lift up > at that rpm. > > thoughts? > > lucky > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV
- WTF > I see you throwing lots of info out with no source of where it came from. > What is the source of this info? Thank goodness I kept my spreadsheet! Piston Speed =========== Piston speed is simply one half the stroke times the rotational speed (in appropriate units). Another way of looking at this is the ratio of stroke lengths for two different engines gives the ratio of piston speeds at a given RPM. The stroke for a Lycoming O-360 is 4.375 inches. The stroke for an Eggenfellner Subaru is 3.11 inches. (Gary, you were right not to trust my memory. I had remembered the Subaru stroke as being closer to 2.5 inches.) Therefore, the stroke ratio for the two engines is 4.375/3.11=1.4. So the Subaru has the same piston speed at 3400 RPM as the Lycoming has at 2400 -- lower than I remembered. Eggenfellner recommends a cruise RPM between 3800 and 4200, which is between 12 and 24 percent higher than the Lycoming's cruise piston speed (assuming the Lycoming is cruising at 2400 RPM). Mean Piston Pressure (BMEP) ========================== Mean piston pressure is calculated from: 2*P/(V*n) where P is power, V is displacement, and n is rotational speed (in consistent units). This is from the Bosch Automotive Handbook, but you will find the same formula in many engineering texts. To use this formula you need to express power in ft-lb/s (i.e., HP*550), rotational speed in rad/s (i.e., RPM x 2 x pi / 60 ), and displacement in cubic feet. This gives you MPP in pounds per square foot. For an O-360 at 135 HP and 2400 RPM (i.e. 75%) we get an MPP of 3195. Based on the power curve for the stock Subaru engine, available here http://www.vansairforce.org/tmp/Subaru_torque_graph.jpg the Subaru is capable of producing about 128 HP at 4200 RPM, WOT, and sea level pressure. (That link won't last forever, so I recommend downloading it if you want to keep it.) That 128 HP translates to about 108 HP at 8,000 feet. (This is exactly the same math that gives 135 HP from an O-360 at 2400 RPM and 8,000 feet.) This is something that potential Eggenfellner customers need to realize: the 2.5-litre engine probably isn't going to have quite the same cruise performance as a 160-horse Lycoming. I haven't run the numbers for the new 3.0-litre engine. Presumably, it will have similar MPP but 20 percent more power. Anyway, for a 2.5-litre Eggenfellner Subaru at 4200 RPM and 108 HP we get an MPP of 3051, or about 4 percent below the Lycoming's. Bearing Wear =========== Unfortunately, I've lost the bearing wear calculations I did, and the reference that tells me how to calculate it. Unlike piston speed and MPP, the calculation for bearing wear index is not something you can figure out easily from first principles (at least, I can't). In general terms, though, the Subaru fares well in the bearing wear calculations because it is a five-main-bearing engine with very highly optimized bearing geometry, and it has very light reciprocating components. (Inertial loads are as important as piston pressure loads at the higher RPMs.) Customers report no signs of bearing wear in spectroscopic oil analyses at over 800 hours on the Eggenfellner engine. But that's just heresay, so I don't expect it will impress Gary. :) Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 28, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
On 22:35:00 2005-12-28 Tedd McHenry wrote: > Customers report no signs of bearing wear in spectroscopic oil > analyses at over 800 hours on the Eggenfellner engine. But that's > just heresay, so I don't expect it will impress Gary. :) Nowhere near as much as the rest of the email impressed me, in any case. Very nicely done. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 29, 2005
stick was full back. my rpm gauge read ~1700 rpm. later i determined that i'm reading lower than actual. A standbyer with hand held tach recorded ~2200 rpm. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lucky" > To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" > ; "RV8 List" > Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > > > > > When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I > > have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up > > elevator throw. > > > > Does that sound right? > > > > I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt > > installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another > > local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also a > > CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't lift > > up at that rpm. > > > > thoughts? > > > > lucky > > Lucky, > If you're not holding your stick full back then the tail may well come up, I > was never brave enough to try it. I did do quite a few 2400 rpm runs though > for prop balancing, but again with the stick full back and had no problem. > > Randy Lervold > www.rv-3.com > www.rv-8.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > stick was full back. my rpm gauge read ~1700 rpm. later i determined that i'm reading lower than actual. A standbyer with hand held tach recorded ~2200 rpm. -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Randy Lervold" randy(at)romeolima.com -- RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" ----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY(at)COMCAST.NET> To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" ; "RV8 List" Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up elevator throw. Does that sound right? I haven't done my CG yet but I h ave my battery in the back and the elt installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also a CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't lift up at that rpm. thoughts? lucky Lucky, If you're not holding your stick full back then the tail may well come up, I was never brave enough to try it. I did do quite a few 2400 rpm runs though for prop balancing, but again with the stick full back and had no problem. Randy Lervold www.rv-3.com www.rv-8.com e ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: MT Props in IMC
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I have heard that wooden props are not very durable in rain and ice. The MT props seem to address some of the issue with composite and SS inserts. Does anyone have experience with a high-time MT prop's performance? I like the 20# weight savings up front, but am concerned about wear. While my RV will be mostly aerobatics in clear air, we are setting it up for IFR and intend to fly it if the weather is appropriate ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: Brad Gould <brad20j(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble
If the piston speed is the same b/w the Subbie and the Lycoming, but the RPM is higher, the piston acceleration should be higher. The average acceleration intuitively would be proportional to the rotational speed. Is this right? I would imagine that piston acceleration has a greater effect on engine longevity than piston speed, since the acceleration would determine the stresses imposed on the engine components, while speed itself seems to be more relevant to internal friction, which can be lubricated away. Brad Not yet started on an 8 Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV Thank goodness I kept my spreadsheet! Piston Speed =========== Piston speed is simply one half the stroke times the rotational speed (in appropriate units). Another way of looking at this is the ratio of stroke lengths for two different engines gives the ratio of piston speeds at a given RPM. The stroke for a Lycoming O-360 is 4.375 inches. The stroke for an Eggenfellner Subaru is 3.11 inches. (Gary, you were right not to trust my memory. I had remembered the Subaru stroke as being closer to 2.5 inches.) Therefore, the stroke ratio for the two engines is 4.375/3.11=1.4. So the Subaru has the same piston speed at 3400 RPM as the Lycoming has at 2400 -- lower than I remembered. Eggenfellner recommends a cruise RPM between 3800 and 4200, which is between 12 and 24 percent higher than the Lycoming's cruise piston speed (assuming the Lycoming is cruising at 2400 RPM). --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props in IMC
I think that is mostly an issue with unprotected props. I would get the leading edge protection and you should be OK. I have flown my aymar DeMuth wood prop with composite leading edge protection into moderate rain on several occasions, totaling about an hour of flight in rain. There is no evidence of any problem or damage. Ice would probably be a different story. Dave Leonard On 12/29/05, Dan Beadle wrote: > > Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com> > > I have heard that wooden props are not very durable in rain and ice. > The MT props seem to address some of the issue with composite and SS > inserts. Does anyone have experience with a high-time MT prop's > performance? I like the 20# weight savings up front, but am concerned > about wear. While my RV will be mostly aerobatics in clear air, we are > setting it up for IFR and intend to fly it if the weather is appropriate > > -- Dave Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble
On 8:52:15 2005-12-29 Brad Gould wrote: > If the piston speed is the same b/w the Subbie and the Lycoming, but > the RPM is higher, the piston acceleration should be higher. The > average acceleration intuitively would be proportional to the > rotational speed. Is this right? I would have to work through the entire calculation of the engine dynamics to be sure that's right, but it sounds correct. However, I believe the parts in the Subaru engine are also smaller, so the mass of the moving parts is lower than in the Lycoming. > I would imagine that piston > acceleration has a greater effect on engine longevity than piston > speed, since the acceleration would determine the stresses imposed on > the engine components, while speed itself seems to be more relevant to > internal friction, which can be lubricated away. You're partly right. Acceleration is a factor, but it's only part of the story. The real factor to consider is the forces on the components. Since Force = Mass x Acceleration, the force is proportional to both the mass of the components *and* the acceleration. In this case, the acceleration is a higher, but the mass is lower. It's possible the net force could be higher, lower, or the same, but I don't have the numbers to say which is the case. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: Bob J <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble
Piston speed is just one aspect of sizing the internal components of an engine to and making sure all the parts are up to task (rod journal diameter, mains diameters, etc.) Speaking strictly about piston speeds, you have to run the calculations based on things like the height of the crankshaft circle, lateral position on the crankshaft circle, piston pin height, height of the connecting rod triangle, etc. In plain english this means as the crank is turning the piston speed is constantly changing, so you calculate your piston speeds based on the position of the crank (theta), and the length of the connecting rod. In other words, you can run higher rpm's on an engine, but the piston speeds can be similar to a slower-turning engine with a larger diameter crank and a longer connecting rod. Obviously there are many more considerations one could get into comparing Subaru vs. Lyc. but to just use rpm's as a factor in deciding one engine over another is short-sighted. Just because one engine runs 7000 rpm's at cruise in itself doesn't necessarily mean that forces exerted on internal components is that much more than of a slower-turning engine. Again piston speed is just one part of the whole. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. On 12/29/05, Rob Prior (rv7) wrote: > > > On 8:52:15 2005-12-29 Brad Gould wrote: > > If the piston speed is the same b/w the Subbie and the Lycoming, but > > the RPM is higher, the piston acceleration should be higher. The > > average acceleration intuitively would be proportional to the > > rotational speed. Is this right? > > I would have to work through the entire calculation of the engine dynamics > to be sure that's right, but it sounds correct. However, I believe the > parts in the Subaru engine are also smaller, so the mass of the moving > parts is lower than in the Lycoming. > > > I would imagine that piston > > acceleration has a greater effect on engine longevity than piston > > speed, since the acceleration would determine the stresses imposed on > > the engine components, while speed itself seems to be more relevant to > > internal friction, which can be lubricated away. > > You're partly right. Acceleration is a factor, but it's only part of the > story. The real factor to consider is the forces on the > components. Since > Force Mass x Acceleration, the force is proportional to both the mass of > the components *and* the acceleration. In this case, the acceleration is > a > higher, but the mass is lower. It's possible the net force could be > higher, lower, or the same, but I don't have the numbers to say which is > the case. > > -Rob > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: MT Props in IMC
Date: Dec 29, 2005
My experience with an Aymar/Demuth prop in the rain is different. On the way to SnF last year, I flew through areas of light rain or drizzle for 45 minutes at 2100 rpm or less. The rain was intermittant, so the exposure to rain was under 30 minutes. On arrival at Lakeland, I found that the paint was off the first 6" of the leading edge and there was minor damage on the composite leading edge. A little sandpaper and some rattle can paint took care of the damage when I got home from the show. Kyle Boatright 0-320 RV-6 N46KB ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: MT Props in IMC > > I think that is mostly an issue with unprotected props. I would get the > leading edge protection and you should be OK. > > I have flown my aymar DeMuth wood prop with composite leading edge > protection into moderate rain on several occasions, totaling about an hour > of flight in rain. There is no evidence of any problem or damage. Ice > would probably be a different story. > > Dave Leonard ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 29, 2005
From: Mike Draper <rv8tor(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Flap Fairing Fit
I'm stumped and am curious if others ran into the same problem. I just finished my first trial fit of the wings. Sweep and incidence is spot on. After a gazillion interations of trim, remove, install and trim again my right flap fits nicely and tucks under the fuselage. My problem is trying to fit the *%$&&!@!! aft flap fairing (F- 872C). I can line up the topside with the flap, however, there is no way I can get the bottom side to fit under the fuselage. It's a gross misfit, not even close to the plans or the pictures on Randy's site. I figure I must be doing something wrong. What did everyone else experience? Do I need to take a pair snips to it? Thanks in advance for any tips, comments or moral support. Happy New Year. Mike Draper Finish ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 29, 2005
Subject: Re: Darn good Christmas!
Yeah, we'll see how it shakes out- will be interesting to see how "involved" EAA gets with this one- pretty damn cool video, though! Ready to fly yet? May be going down to Ft Payne AL 4A9 for b'fast Sat- if not, ya gonna be out at yer hanger? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net>
Subject: TruTrak DigiFlight II VSGV
Date: Dec 29, 2005
For those of you who have the DigiFlight II VSG or the VSGV TruTrak advised me today that they now have the VSGV software completed to couple with the GRT EFIS. I will be sending in my VSGV for software upgrade (no cost since I purchased the VSGV model originally. VSG models can also be upgraded but at the price differently for the VSGV version. Russ Daves RV-10 #40044 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 29, 2005
Randy, I had a 200 hp I0-360 w/Hartzell originally on my RV8.The 200hp engine is considerably heavier than the 180 (approx 30 lbs) and mine did the same thing even though a weight and balance indicaated a proper CG. Do your W&B to confirm an acceptable CG before you become overly concerned. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> > To: "RV-List" ; "RV yahoo" > ; "RV8 List" > Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > >> >> When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. >> I >> have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up >> elevator throw. >> >> Does that sound right? >> >> I haven't done my CG yet but I have my battery in the back and the elt >> installed under the VS. My tail is relatively heavy compared to another >> local tail dragger 8 I have picked up. He has a 180 HP engine and also >> a >> CS prop, battery on the FW and thinks something is wrong as his won't >> lift >> up at that rpm. >> >> thoughts? >> >> lucky > > Lucky, > If you're not holding your stick full back then the tail may well come up, > I > was never brave enough to try it. I did do quite a few 2400 rpm runs > though > for prop balancing, but again with the stick full back and had no problem. > > Randy Lervold > www.rv-3.com > www.rv-8.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props in IMC
Date: Dec 29, 2005
Dan The MT prop will not dissapate the electric charge of a lightning strike because of the construction design of the blades. The only composite propeller that will do it reliably is the Aero Composites carbon fibre prop. The ACI prop has a perforated metal shield molded into the blades full length. It also has a cast Nickle Cobalt one piece leading edge. In my testing , I have found tht the ACI prop will yield a considerably higher speed than either the MT or the Hartzell. Climb will be slightly less than the MT (100 to 300 fpm). It will be considerably smoother than the Hartzell and 10 to 15 lbs lighter depending on length. In my testing of different lengths on my RV8 a 74" is optimum. A RV7 or RV6 will probably better with a 72". Note: the hub and blade retention system on the ACI is considerably stronger than the MT (no lag screws) because it uses a screwless blade shank retention system and a forged one piece hub. If you want to discuss this in detail, (I have over 500 hours on my ACI prop) please call me at 920 619 6968. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com> Subject: RV-List: MT Props in IMC > > > I have heard that wooden props are not very durable in rain and ice. > The MT props seem to address some of the issue with composite and SS > inserts. Does anyone have experience with a high-time MT prop's > performance? I like the 20# weight savings up front, but am concerned > about wear. While my RV will be mostly aerobatics in clear air, we are > setting it up for IFR and intend to fly it if the weather is appropriate > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 30, 2005
Subject: Re: MT Props in IMC
The MT propeller blades have a stainless steel leading edge insert. Stainless steel is three times more resistant to water and sand erosion than aluminum. Dull Gray blades with Gloss White tips is recommended for an IFR propeller. This works just the same as the gray painted aluminum blades. The rain and sand will wear off the Dull Gray top coat of the paint and expose the dull Gray primer coat underneath. Just the same as the aluminum blades; as the worn off Gray top coat exposes the Gray aluminum underneath. Unlike the aluminum blades, MT propeller blades are not life limited. The stainless steel leading edge can be replaced, if needed. And, in the case of blade tip damage, up to 15% of the blade length can be replaced. Specifically, the MT Propeller blades can be rebuilt back to their original length. You might consider a counterweighted blade MT Propeller for aerobatics. It has the obvious benefit of going to coarse pitch with a momentary loss of oil pressure and protecting the engine and propeller from overspeeding. There is also a 67% reduction in propeller drag in the event of a total oil pressure lose in the event of an engine failure. Unfortunately, the counterweights add 12 pounds to a 3 blade MT Propeller. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/29/2005 8:41:52 AM Pacific Standard Time, Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com writes: --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" I have heard that wooden props are not very durable in rain and ice. The MT props seem to address some of the issue with composite and SS inserts. Does anyone have experience with a high-time MT prop's performance? I like the 20# weight savings up front, but am concerned about wear. While my RV will be mostly aerobatics in clear air, we are setting it up for IFR and intend to fly it if the weather is appropriate ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 30, 2005
Subject: Re: MT Props in IMC
Hi Dick, Are you smoking the funny stuff? :-) You're talking about a certified propeller manufacturer who has had the lightning strike test performed. Perhaps you should be comparing the ACI prop to other uncertified propeller manufacturers; like Whirlwind, or Ivoprop. Jim Ayers Less Drag Products, Inc. - An MT Propeller distributor In a message dated 12/29/2005 8:11:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, martin(at)gbonline.com writes: Dan The MT prop will not dissapate the electric charge of a lightning strike because of the construction design of the blades. The only composite propeller that will do it reliably is the Aero Composites carbon fibre prop. The ACI prop has a perforated metal shield molded into the blades full length. It also has a cast Nickle Cobalt one piece leading edge. (Stuff Cut) Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject: AoA
Date: Dec 29, 2005
Hi Steve; I have both the PSS AOA and the D10 with AOA. I bought the PSS system early in my build and bought the D10 after first flight. The PSS system should be a better system due to it's direct measurement of AOA, while the D10 is an inferred measurement, however I have found them to track each other perfectly and both give accurate warning of a stall. The only time they don't track together is during a turn and this is expected as I have them mounted on opposite wings. The early D10 doesn't have any audio output, so the PSS system is nice to have for this feature and I also mounted my PSS LED display on the glaresheild which gives me a crude but effective poor man's HUD, which is visible in all but direct sunlight. If I was building today I would just go with the new Dynon or comparable EFIS that has this feature as it has proven (to me) to be as accurate as a stand alone system. Todd Has anyone experience of using both the AoA in the Dynon D10A and the dedicated systems (Advanced Flight Systems and Lift Reserve Co.). For the money you pay I would hope the later systems are providing a whole lot more info., but I wonder? My only data point is that I have flown with the non audio D10 system and it appeared to give a very repeatable forecast of the stall. Thanks, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject: AOA sensor mounting question
Date: Dec 29, 2005
Unfortunately I have to keep my RV tied down outside 365 days a year which includes melting snow on the wings, which should be the worst condition for water entering the top AOA sensing hole and yet I have never found so much as a drop of water when checking the drain. YMMV Todd Rob (AFS guy) had mentioned at OSH that he really never has any water in it. The hole is so small it is difficult to penetrate with water. I plan on leaving it without a drain hole until I can gauge if it's a problem or not. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage A question for those of you that have installed an Angle of Attack indicator. The upper wing sensor has a water separator which requires access from below to drain any accumulated water. Did you just drill an access hole in the lower wing to reach this drain with an extension wire? Or is water draining needed so infrequently that using an access panel or wingtip removal to reach the drain sufficient? There is no clear guidance in the instructions from Advanced. Appreciate any advise. Bob Alexander RV7 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: E-Mag replacement of DualMag packs
Date: Dec 30, 2005
Hey everyone with DualMag Packs (ie, io 360 A1B6D or A3B6D) equipped engines, give these guys an email or a call and let them know you are very interested in seeing them come out this year with a dual mag pack replacement system. I don't know how engine life could get better for us than replacing what we have with this setup. For two years they keep saying maybe this year we'll look at that system. Squeeky wheel gets the grease, usually ;-) http://www.emagair.com/FAQ.htm Hey everyone with DualMag Packs (ie, io 360 A1B6D or A3B6D) equipped engines, give these guys anemail or a call and let them know you are very interested in seeing them come out this year with a dual mag pack replacement system. I don't know how enginelife could get better for us than replacing what we have with this setup. For two years they keep saying maybe this year we'll look at that system. Squeeky wheel gets the grease, usually ;-) http://www.emagair.com/FAQ.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LML Klingmuller" <l_klingmuller(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Towbar powered with corless drill
Date: Dec 30, 2005
I need help to find a write up about a powered towbar! About seven years ago there was a write up about a towbar for an RV-6A using a cordless drill to tug a 6A in an out of a hangar. The towbar construction seemed to be real simple using standard hardware material and a cordless drill for power. At that time the article appeared, I was too busy building a shop and my airplane and did not save the write-up. Now I just can't find the article or remember where it was printed. Can any of the blisters steer me to this article??? Perhaps someone on the list has build one?? Thanks in advance, Lothar from Denver ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2005
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Towbar powered with corless drill
On 12/30 8:43, LML Klingmuller wrote: > > I need help to find a write up about a powered towbar! > > About seven years ago there was a write up about a towbar for an RV-6A using a cordless drill to tug a 6A in an out of a hangar. The towbar construction seemed to be real simple using standard hardware material and a cordless drill for power. At that time the article appeared, I was too busy building a shop and my airplane and did not save the write-up. Now I just can't find the article or remember where it was printed. > > Can any of the blisters steer me to this article??? Perhaps someone on the list has build one?? Not "roll your own" but you can buy it here. Mucho expensive. http://sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?DID=19&Product_ID=6388&CATID=166 -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com Flying! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2005
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV
- WTF RV6 Flyer wrote: > >So what is the Specific fuel consumption? We know what the Lycoming burns >in pounds per hour per horsepower produced. What does the Subie do? If you >do not know, what GPH at what RPM and what Horespower at what RPM? > >Yes the Subie powered aircraft that is based were I am is also the most >noisy aircraft here and makes more noise than the Cessna 337's. > >Gary A. Sobek >"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, >1,825 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA >http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com > Can you quantify the noise? Have both been measured with a C-weighting sound level meter? Was it engine noise or prop? I'm a fan of Mazda rotary conversions, but I really hate the way they sound. Sound level measurements have been made on several rotary powered a/c & similar Lyc powered planes, & in many cases the rotary planes are no louder (& sometimes quieter) than the Lycs. *But* all are subjectively more offensive, due to the sharp edged exhaust pulses. Here's the point: Pretty much everybody in the US & old enough to remember prefers the sound of a big V8 in a car to a little 4cyl. How many of us drive a V8 these days? Reasons for the answer to the above question, and their implications, are left as an excercise for the reader....;-) Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 30, 2005
From: Richard Scott <rscott(at)cascadeaccess.com>
Subject: RE: Towbar powered with cordless drill
Local guy built his RV-6A in a wheelchair, uses a cordless drill to move it in and out. He built it with a little welding help from a friend. Wish I had a picture, but I don't. A bonanza driver uses an old self propelled electric mower (not a riding mower) for the same thing. 110 VAC powered, he uses a reversible motor on it. But if you are not in a wheelchair, it seems to me an old riding lawn mower would work as well or better. At least it would take a minimal amount of effort to make it work. Watch Craigslist for a bargain: http://www.craigslist.org/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu>
Subject: Re: AoA
Date: Dec 31, 2005
Todd - that is really helpful and confirms the way I was leaning. I think I will save my money and perhaps implement the D10A - or similar - approach since it costs little extra. I wonder how the sound on that works????? I am building a -4, and had a D10 on a -9A. The reality was that I did not use the AoA on the -9A, since I did not have time to look down, since I operate out of a very short strip! If someone would implement a system which gave a varying tone - like a glider vario - I think I would be interested. In the meantime I think I will continue to gently stall in the circuit to get the 'f'eel', trim, and continue that way. Perhaps I should think about vortex generators. I will search for vortex stuff wrt to the -4. Todd, thanks again. You have just saved me several hundred $$. Steve. PS The other idea I might play with is embedding one of the vibrators out of a mobile phone in the stick grip. That to me - if its poweful enough - would be the ideal way of attracting attention. So much of the feedback in a STOL landing is coming through your right hand it seems the perfect place for a human input channel. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net> Subject: RE: RV-List: AoA > > Hi Steve; > I have both the PSS AOA and the D10 with AOA. I bought the PSS > system early > in my build and bought the D10 after first flight. The PSS system should > be > a better system due to it's direct measurement of AOA, while the D10 is an > inferred measurement, however I have found them to track each other > perfectly and both give accurate warning of a stall. The only time they > don't track together is during a turn and this is expected as I have them > mounted on opposite wings. > The early D10 doesn't have any audio output, so the PSS system is > nice to > have for this feature and I also mounted my PSS LED display on the > glaresheild which gives me a crude but effective poor man's HUD, which is > visible in all but direct sunlight. > If I was building today I would just go with the new Dynon or > comparable > EFIS that has this feature as it has proven (to me) to be as accurate as a > stand alone system. > > Todd > > > Has anyone experience of using both the AoA in the Dynon D10A and the > dedicated systems (Advanced Flight Systems and Lift Reserve Co.). For the > money you pay I would hope the later systems are providing a whole lot > more > info., but I wonder? > > My only data point is that I have flown with the non audio D10 system and > it > appeared to give a very repeatable forecast of the stall. > > Thanks, Steve. > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > 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: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: AoA
Date: Dec 31, 2005
Guys, Excellent point about looking down. The solution is a HUD - Which I expect we will see in the near future. In the mean time PSS's AOA has a mount for their Pro model the is placed above the glare shield in your pheriphal vision and timed into your headset jack. You have all the info without looking down. We have been flying with it since 2001 and it works great. Chuck Rowbotham RV-8A >From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21(at)london.edu> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV-List: AoA >Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 10:41:41 -0000 > > >Todd - that is really helpful and confirms the way I was leaning. I think I >will save my money and perhaps implement the D10A - or similar - approach >since it costs little extra. I wonder how the sound on that works????? > >I am building a -4, and had a D10 on a -9A. The reality was that I did not >use the AoA on the -9A, since I did not have time to look down, since I >operate out of a very short strip! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 31, 2005
> --> > > Alex, I'll try your procedure and see if it helps. I built > my brake pedals with a forward slant of 10 degrees since my > feet are so big...size 12 1/2. > The forward slant may be making hard to get full forward pedal motion. > > > Tom in Ohio Try it without shoes, then you'll know just where the pressure is being put. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 702 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject: Re riding moer to use as tug
Date: Dec 31, 2005
That setup would work ok going forward, but dont think you could do anygood backing it in, unles you were perfectly lined up and kept nose wheel absolutly straight, but if you riged the arm on the front, I think maybe it would work. Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za>
Subject: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down
Date: Dec 31, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net> ; "RV8 List" Subject: RV-List: rpm run up vs tail wheel staying down > > When running up to about 2200 rpm, my RV8 tail lifts off of the ground. I have an angle valved, 200 hp engine with hartzell CS prop. 27 degrees up elevator throw. > > Does that sound right? > > Lucky, You're sure living up to your name seeing as tho you haven't nosed over yet! Be very VERY carefull, especially if the a/c is not directly into wind. Ask me! And I only have 160 horses! I ran my -6 up to 2100 with a wind from the quarter. I remember feeling some buffeting on the fuselage as the wind picked up. Next thing I was eating tarmac. I felt the tail come up and chopped the engine-but too late. Stick was right back and brakes on (in retrospect I should maybe have let go on the brakes and let the a/c shoot into the grass...). Fortunately as the prop hit the a/c bounced back onto its tail. Cost me a new prop and engine inspection. Now I use 1700 rpm as max! Trevor ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2005
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Re riding moer to use as tug
We do it all the time with a cherokee. It is tricky but with a little practice you can get pretty proficient at it. Tim -------Original Message------- From: charles heathco Date: 12/31/05 07:54:48 Subject: RV-List: Re riding moer to use as tug That setup would work ok going forward, but dont think you could do anygood backing it in, unles you were perfectly lined up and kept nose wheel absolutly straight, but if you riged the arm on the front, I think maybe it would work. Charlie heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Towbar powered with corless drill
Date: Dec 31, 2005
For $20 you can get the plans to build one: http://www.hciaviation.com/prod-towbar-a.shtml Build your own towbar and save hundreds of dollars. Use your 110 volt or battery 3/8 or larger drill to power this plans-built towbar. It works with tailwheel airplanes. Drawings for an adapter for nosewheel airplanes are included. You will need the ability to saw, weld, and drill rectangular and round 16 gauge steel tubing. Included in $20 purchase price are: detailed plans, construction procedure, and a list of necessary parts and materials. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark" <2eyedocs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Re riding moer to use as tug
Date: Dec 31, 2005
Another option is a fixer upper golf cart. A pretty nice one can be had for ~$500. You can attach a tow bar to the front of the cart. I used this setup with a C182 for a while, and after you learn that when you turn the wheel right, the tow bar goes left, which makes the wheel go right, which makes the tail go left, etc., then it's easy! Another nice feature with the golf cart is that it makes for good transportation arounnd the airport for bathroom runs. Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com> Subject: RV-List: Re riding moer to use as tug > > That setup would work ok going forward, but dont think you could do > anygood backing it in, unles you were perfectly lined up and kept nose > wheel absolutly straight, but if you riged the arm on the front, I think > maybe it would work. Charlie heathco > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Bell" <DBell(at)ManisteeNational.com>
Subject: Rv8 Flap Actuator Cover Template
Date: Dec 31, 2005
Fellow builders and fliers, With all the talk lately about the flap actuator cover..my pops made up a few options and finalized on one which we installed on our 8 and it looks very nice. If anyone would like a template emailed to them, Dad made up a set of drawings that I can email. You can at least take a look and go from there but he asked me to let everyone know its available. Just email me direct and I can send them back to you. Doug Bell N266WB Manistee, MI 231-398-9106 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Towbar powered with cordless drill
Date: Dec 31, 2005
**SNIP** > For $20 you can get the plans to build one: > > http://www.hciaviation.com/prod-towbar-a.shtml > Anyone that gives this a shot - I think the list would like to see a report on how easy to build, suitability for TW/NW etc Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 31, 2005
From: gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: AoA
there was an article in Sport aviation, as far back as january 1979, on how to make a 2 port angle of attack indicator out of an old airspeed indicator. Dan Beadle wrote: > >What are you doing for a pitot tube to get the dual feeds (90 degrees >apart)? Do you have an anti-ice solution? > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: AoA > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: [RV-8] Rv8 Flap Actuator Cover Template
Date: Jan 01, 2006
0.19 MISSING_HEADERS Missing To: header Hi Doug, I'd like to look it over. thanks, lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Doug Bell" <dbell(at)manisteenational.com> Fellow builders and fliers, With all the talk lately about the flap actuator cover..my pops made up a few options and finalized on one which we installed on our 8 and it looks very nice. If anyone would like a template emailed to them, Dad made up a set of drawings that I can email. You can at least take a look and go from there but he asked me to let everyone know its available. Just email me direct and I can send them back to you. Doug Bell N266WB Manistee, MI 231-398-9106 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] SPONSORED LINKS Aviation school Aviation training Aviation training school Aviation training schools Aviation Experimental design Visit your group "RV-8" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: RV-8-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com Hi Doug, I'd like to look it over. thanks, lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Doug Bell" dbell(at)manisteenational.com Fellow builders and fliers, With all the talk lately about the flap actuator cover..my pops made up a few options and finalized on one which we installed on our 8 and it looks very nice. If anyone would like a template emailed to them, Dad made up a set of drawings that I can email. You can at least take a look and go from there but he asked me to let everyone know its available. Just email me direct and I can send them back to you. Doug Bell N266WB Manistee, MI 231-398-9106 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] SPONSORED LINKS Aviation school Aviation training Aviation training school Aviation training schools Aviation Experimental design Visit your group "RV-8" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: RV-8-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Happy New Year
Date: Dec 31, 2005
At the risk of not being politically correct, I'd like to wish everyone on the list a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Mannan Thomason RV-8 "light at the end of the tunnel" Cowl, Baffle, gettin ready to hear the Lyco rumble ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject: AoA
Date: Jan 01, 2006
Hi Kevin Kevin, don't be puzzled :-), because you're right. It was late and I didn't feel like getting to in depth about it, but even as I sent it, I knew somebody would call me on it. I'm certain that you have a better grasp on it than I ever will, but what I should have said is that the PSS unit directly measures air pressures on the top & bottom of the wing is actually measuring the lift being produced, which most people simply refer to as angle of attack, and lift really is what we want to know. (at least this is how I understand it). The vane type is the only unit that truly measures angle of attack directly. I feel that the PSS system is probably the most accurate as it is measuring the component that is actually keeping us up in the air and that is lift. I have to be honest and admit that I really don't know exactly how Dynon is measuring it, but as they only have a single sense line plumbed to the back of the pitot and then use the pitot $ static inputs, I can only assume that it is inferential measurement, since they can't be getting any direct measurement of angle of attack or lift on the wings. In any case, I have found it to be as accurate as the PSS unit. Ed, good grief, don't you ever sleep? I thought you already had allot of projects on the go, now you tell us you're working on an AOA device. Todd (I hope when I retire I can be as busy as Ed) HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <haywire(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Date: Jan 01, 2006
For aircraft related ramblings please skip down one paragraph. A little while back I had the opportunity to ride a Honda CRF250(Honda's 4 stroke dirt machine) and I was pleasantly surprised by the rumble when I kicked it to life and was almost shocked by the pleasing note of the full throttle roar of this machine (even more pleased by it's performance). And yet I've been always annoyed by the obnoxious bark of Hawgs. The owner had planned to install a Baha kit which would have made this machine street legal and I had looked forward to a head to head against any Hawgs, but unfortunately he traded it off as it was way too overpowered for trail riding with his kids on their Honda 50's. Now with this said I must admit that I'm not really crazy over the sound of my muffled turbo Mazda engine, which even though it is quit, doesn't have the pleasing rumble of the Trans Am I had when I was a teenager. But I prefer it over the obnoxious sounds of the unmuffled Lycs on my field. I guess the sound of pleasure is different for all of us, but there is no denying that we are all facing pressure to restrict our flying activities in not just urban US areas but also in the Canadian wilderness due to the insistence of pilots to wear the muffler on their heads. Todd (turbo, muffler, composite 3-blade prop, in every effort to not piss off my neighbours. Non-asbestos(hey that stuff will kill you)suit, HAPPY NEAR YEAR TO EVERYBODY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Flyguy6a(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie was :Re: Subaru 6900 RPM in a RV - WTF
Err.... I might be mistaken, but it looks self evident that *some* auto engines have an annoying sound in aircraft, otherwise why would they need them ugly mufflers hangin' out?? OTOH, who would want to muffle the lovely sound of the barkin' Lycosaurus?? On a serious note, a friend races rotary mazdas , and outside, they will give you permanent hearing loss. Inside, much better, as I found out on a "track day". So I think the Subie and Mazda conversions might be o.k. to the pilot, but nasty sounding to buddies on the ground you're trying to impress... BTW, I have a V4 Honda bike, and it makes nice music. Not as nice as a Harley, but then I don't have to trailer it to Sturgis, either. :) I'm sleepin' in Nomex tonite!! Jack Lucas ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AoA
Date: Jan 01, 2006
Yes, Dan. A good article - and if you don't have an extra airspeed indicator you can order a 2" H20 differential pressure gauge which will also do the job (and less expensive - as its not an aircraft part) Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "gert" <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: RV-List: AoA > > there was an article in Sport aviation, as far back as january 1979, on > how to make a 2 port angle of attack indicator out of an old airspeed > indicator. > > Dan Beadle wrote: > >> >> >>What are you doing for a pitot tube to get the dual feeds (90 degrees >>apart)? Do you have an anti-ice solution? >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson >>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >>Subject: Re: RV-List: AoA >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 01, 2006
From: Alan & Linda Daniels <aldaniels(at)fmtc.com>
Subject: Re: Lyco rumble & Subie
I am an airplane builder and also the local airport manager and I can tell you that noise of any sort is becoming a real issue. I don't think it will be that long before that nice rumble will get us all in trouble. Enjoy it now because I think we are all going to be stuck with those 3 foot under belly mufflers before long. Airplanes are an easy target for complaints, and you can't believe what some people complain about. The low rumble of the radial and of the unmuffled experimental are big on the list. As far as airplanes, I like them all if they fly good. As far as bikes, I even liked my BSA, oil leaks and all. Sounded good to, at least when it ran. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Flyguy6a(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 01, 2006
Subject: Mufflers (gasp!) was Lyco rumble & Subie
Mickey, With due respect, are you really asking us to be on the forefront of hanging ugly mufflers off our beloved RV's??? I too, think we should do all we can to reduce noise as much as possible around airports by using appropriate measures, but I like to fly high and fast cross country, and don't want any stinkin' heat producing, horsepower robbing mufflers hanging out or crammed inside an already tight cowling. In other words, you can have my straight pipes soon as you remove them from my cold, dead, hands... YMMV of course. Behind asbestos barrier... Jack L. Noise (noiz) n. Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired. What might be music to one person's ears, is noise to someone else. Particularly when nursing a hangover. :-) I personally don't really understand why people like their airplanes to make a lot of noise. I've flown aircraft with very effective mufflers, and I don't feel any less "cool" knowing that I'm not making a bunch of racket. In fact, knowing that the airplane is very quiet, I don't mind flying over nature preserves, skiing areas, lakes, and other places where people go to enjoy peace and quiet. I enjoy flying, but I don't want to force others to participate. I think if we take an active role in reducing the amount of noise our aircraft make, we'll continue to enjoy our hobby. Many pilots I've spoken with feel that what will happen is that they'll eventually be forced to put on mufflers, and the longer we can delay, the better. I believe that the general public does not see it this way - they will be happy to see the FAA or TSA or any other agency simply shut us down. I've addressed this issue with the AOPA, and they don't really seem to be too interested in trying to get people to install mufflers. Looks like we'll have to take the lead on this one ourselves! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Mufflers (gasp!) was Lyco rumble & Subie
Date: Jan 01, 2006
For what it's worth, I have to be with Mickey on this one. One of the reasons for being a good neighbor is to keep your neighbors from passing laws to force you to do what being a good neighbor would have meant in the first place. We all should know by now that the best way to screw up a good idea is to pass a law that makes it mandatory. If we don't show enough respect for non-flyer's sensitivities to the noise we make, we are insuring the day will come when FAA inspectors will be sitting by the runway with noise-measuring equipment writing violations for those that miss some arbitrary standard. The longer we can put off that day the better. Maybe some of you really smart guys can come up with a way to tone down a Lycomming on an RV with the least loss of power and increase in weight. Didn't I read here on the list some time back that the gentleman that builds most of the exhaust pipes for us is working on it? Terry RV-8A #80729 Finishing? Mickey, In other words, you can have my straight pipes soon as you remove them from my cold, dead, hands... YMMV of course. Behind asbestos barrier... Jack L. I think if we take an active role in reducing the amount of noise our aircraft make, we'll continue to enjoy our hobby. Many pilots I've spoken with feel that what will happen is that they'll eventually be forced to put on mufflers, and the longer we can delay, the better. I believe that the general public does not see it this way - they will be happy to see the FAA or TSA or any other agency simply shut us down. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Trevor Mills" <millstrj(at)ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Engine choice
Date: Jan 02, 2006
Rotax 912 engines run and cruise at 5200 + in cruse and after a 1500 hrs on one of mine it still had crosshatch marks on the bore. The 1930 lyco's don't do that do they ? A well balanced 6 cylinder should be better. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Noise monitoring, was Mufflers (gasp!) was Lyco rumble & Subie
Date: Jan 02, 2006
HI Gang- Re : "...the day will come when FAA inspectors will be sitting by the runway with noise-measuring equipment writing violations for those that miss some arbitrary standard. The longer we can put off that day the better." FWIW, there are currently noise sensitive areas with permanently installed monitoring equipment. The powers that be, the local airport authority as I understand it, will tag aircraft operating in excess of the prescribed noise limitations. These includes limits that vary per curfew. I don't know for sure how they can enforce this with non-based aircraft, (I've not been victimized personally) but I believe that you get a bill in the mail and perhaps a prohibition on returning. Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Noise monitoring
Date: Jan 02, 2006
Some have noise monitoing going on right now 24 hours a day. All radio transmissions are recordered. They use N numbers to locate aircraft owner. http://www.torrance.com/torranceairport/noise.htm Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,829 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> Subject: RV-List: Noise monitoring, was Mufflers (gasp!) was Lyco rumble & Subie Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 08:46:56 -0500 HI Gang- Re : "...the day will come when FAA inspectors will be sitting by the runway with noise-measuring equipment writing violations for those that miss some arbitrary standard. The longer we can put off that day the better." FWIW, there are currently noise sensitive areas with permanently installed monitoring equipment. The powers that be, the local airport authority as I understand it, will tag aircraft operating in excess of the prescribed noise limitations. These includes limits that vary per curfew. I don't know for sure how they can enforce this with non-based aircraft, (I've not been victimized personally) but I believe that you get a bill in the mail and perhaps a prohibition on returning. Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2006
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)consolidated.net>
Subject: Re: Engine choice
Trevor Mills wrote: > >Rotax 912 engines run and cruise at 5200 + in cruse and after a 1500 hrs on one of mine it still had crosshatch marks on the bore. > >The 1930 lyco's don't do that do they ? > >A well balanced 6 cylinder should be better. > >Yes they will have cross harching down where the rings dont slide, but keep in mind, a Lycoming probably won't be tore apart at 1500 hours to find out. There are many Lyc's out there with 4 and 5 thousand hours total time which have been through normal overhauls with parts replaced for normal wear as needed. There are also many which go 2200 and 2300 hours and even more, before they get tore apart the first time. And there are some that have had a top and some haven't at those hours. And then there are some that don't make it that long. It is kind of how they were operated and maintained... > Phil > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EMAproducts(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 02, 2006
Subject: HUD
Gentlemen, EM Aviation has been producing a "Poor Mans Heads Up" display for our RiteAngle IIIb system for several years now. I think someone on the list has indicated he was also making one. I've personally flown one in an RV-6 and it is neat, much better than I thought it would be. Our Poor Mans HUD is flying in quite a few aircraft from amphibians where the smooth water landings make it very helpful to RV's, Lancairs and others. We use special LED's for this type display.


December 21, 2005 - January 02, 2006

RV-Archive.digest.vol-rn