RV-List Archive Browser

RV-Archive.digest.vol-rt
March 02, 2006 - March 12, 2006

> nut plate fasteners. The button head hex screws on the other hand > have been a problem. The heads will strip very easily with even a > slight amount of pressure. It would be nice to find a button head > Torx but I've had no luck. Thanks to Richard and Walter for the info. Do these button head screws have Torx heads? http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCSBXS.cfm The say "6 Lobe Drive", which is ambiguous to me. But that is the same thing they call the 100 deg head ones, and they list a Torx size in the listing: http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm I've sent them an e-mail to ask, but I won't get the answer til tomorrow. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Kevin, I believe that the 6 Lobe Drive usees the same tool as Torx heads. Torx is probably a trade name like "Allen Head" vs hex head. I wish I had known you wanted some a couple of days ago, Micro Fasteners had a booth at the lcoal R/C show and I spent a little time talking to the owner. He had all the products there and I could have grabbed some and sent them up to you. I've bought from them before and they are great to deal with. Paul > Do these button head screws have Torx heads? > > http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCSBXS.cfm > > The say "6 Lobe Drive", which is ambiguous to me. But that is the > same thing they call the 100 deg head ones, and they list a Torx size > in the listing: > > http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm > > I've sent them an e-mail to ask, but I won't get the answer til > tomorrow. > > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard McBride" <rickrv8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Date: Mar 02, 2006
Kevin, I looked at my invoices and the item numbers for the button head hex screws I purchased were SBSxxxx. The countersunk torx were all FCMXSxxxx item numbers. It appears from the description that the ones you're looking at (SBXS) are torx. Please let us know what you find out. If they are, I'm going to start replacing all my hex screws. Rick McBride ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Horton<mailto:khorton01(at)rogers.com> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:21 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx head screws? On 2 Mar 2006, at 19:45, Richard McBride wrote: > > Kevin, > > I used countersunk SS Torx and button head SS Hex screws from > MicroFasteners in a number of applications on my -8. My experience > with the Torx has been very positive. The only problem I've > encountered with the small Torx is that the tools can twist if you > torque them too much. This is usually only a problem with tight > nut plate fasteners. The button head hex screws on the other hand > have been a problem. The heads will strip very easily with even a > slight amount of pressure. It would be nice to find a button head > Torx but I've had no luck. Thanks to Richard and Walter for the info. Do these button head screws have Torx heads? http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCSBXS.cfm> The say "6 Lobe Drive", which is ambiguous to me. But that is the same thing they call the 100 deg head ones, and they list a Torx size in the listing: http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm> I've sent them an e-mail to ask, but I won't get the answer til tomorrow. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
On 03/02 8:21, Kevin Horton wrote: > Do these button head screws have Torx heads? > > http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCSBXS.cfm I believe so. The "Torx" and "Torx-Plus" are brand patented brand names and I believe the patent has expired on the Torx name so 6 Lobe Drive is the same, only a different name, (I think). Some information regarding Torx Plus. http://www.semblex.com/products/licensed/TORX/pg2.cfm -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com Flying! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Mike Corder <mike.corder@micor-research.com>
Subject: FI and manual elevator trim
I'm building an RV-7A with fuel injection and manual elevator trim. It looks to me like there's big time interference between these two right below the fuel selector plate. If anyone can point me to how they handled this, I'd appreciate it. -- Regards, m ____________________________ mike.corder@micor-research.com Cell 831-239-0915 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 02, 2006
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Hi Kevin- when are ya gonna git that darn RV FINISHED?! My parents bestowed upon me the name Mark ALLEN PHILLIPS, and if there is ANY reason to NOT use phillips head fasteners, I will be first to stand up and say NAY! There is a BETTER WAY! Do the torx thing- Microfasteners has lots of my $$$ and I am pleased to report it was $$$ well spint- these things are like that stupid little purple bunny- they keep going.............. When I was working on my wheel pants (for example) I had the stupid things on/off/on/off/on/off (you know the drill) a rediculous amount of times- had I been using phillips instead of torx, I would have most likely replaced the screws after every 3 or 4 applications- with the torx, I used the original ones every time until after finish paint when new ones were installed. Best part is that they will hang onto the bit without magic magnetism, and will not wear out. One thing to be wary of is that the bit will break off in the screw before the screw will strip (built-in torque limits!) which you DON'T want to happen- did this to one of my tank screws and it was a MAJOR bitch to extract! I use a simple, cheap cordless B&D screwdriver with the torque limit set to appropriate limits- works great! Oh yeah- there are maybe 8 phillips screws on my plane, only because they were all I could find for the application- there are MANY Allen screws- like the stainless ones on my tank access plates.................... 8-) >From The PossumWorks in TN Mark ALLEN PHILLIPS, RV-6A N51PW, 280 hours: http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Grrrr... Service Bulletin
Date: Mar 02, 2006
I ordered 2 new fuel pick-up tubes from Van's to replace the ones I fabricated years ago, before Van's made them for you. I thought buying new ones would save me a day of back and forth from the airport to the shop to modify my pick-up's to meet the SB. Unfortunately, the ones Van's sent are not in compliance with the SB, so I'm out $35 and am still going to have to modify a set of fuel pick-ups... Sometimes you just can't win. By the way, I had a bird strike the other day. Didn't see or hear anything during the flight, but I was wiping down the airplane later and noticed a few little feathers on the leading edge of the prop, out near the tip. Thankfully, there was no damage, nor was there any other sign of the bird. I guess I only winged him... KB ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: Torx head screws?
Date: Mar 02, 2006
I started with many torx head screws for the same reason everyone else did, but I'm actually migrating back to SS phillips head screws. They are as durable as the torx screws. I'm never sure exactly where my torx bits are -- but I know I have a three dozen #2 phillips screwdrivers scattered around. I still like and use hex cap screws where they make sense, but for flush applications I no longer see an advantage using the torx screws. They just add complexity. Just my opinion... - Larry Bowen Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com [mailto:Fiveonepw(at)aol.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 10:19 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx head screws? > > > Hi Kevin- when are ya gonna git that darn RV FINISHED?! > > My parents bestowed upon me the name Mark ALLEN PHILLIPS, and > if there is ANY reason to NOT use phillips head fasteners, I > will be first to stand up and say NAY! There is a BETTER > WAY! Do the torx thing- Microfasteners has lots of my $$$ > and I am pleased to report it was $$$ well spint- these > things are like that stupid little purple bunny- they keep > going.............. > > When I was working on my wheel pants (for example) I had the > stupid things on/off/on/off/on/off (you know the drill) a > rediculous amount of times- had I been using phillips instead > of torx, I would have most likely replaced the screws after > every 3 or 4 applications- with the torx, I used the original > ones every time until after finish paint when new ones were > installed. Best part is that they will hang onto the bit > without magic magnetism, and will not wear out. One thing to > be wary of is that the bit will break off in the screw before > the screw will strip (built-in torque limits!) which you > DON'T want to happen- did this to one of my tank screws and > it was a MAJOR bitch to extract! I use a simple, cheap > cordless B&D screwdriver with the torque limit set to > appropriate limits- works great! > > Oh yeah- there are maybe 8 phillips screws on my plane, only > because they were all I could find for the application- there > are MANY Allen screws- like the stainless ones on my tank > access plates.................... 8-) > > >From The PossumWorks in TN > Mark ALLEN PHILLIPS, RV-6A N51PW, 280 hours: > http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/ > > > > > Photoshare, and much much more: > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 02, 2006
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Kevin: Another alternative is Pozi drive. Although you should theoretically use a Pozi driver with a Pozi screw, a Phillips driver will work, and is a lot more likely to be available in a pinch than a Torx driver. The advantage of Pozi over Phillips is that Pozi is not designed to "torque out" the way Phillips is, so stuck screws are a lot less likely. In that respect, Pozi is much like Torx. For my money, Pozi screws are almost as nice as Torx. But Torx screws may be a little easier to find. --- Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Ok guys call me ignorant but I have not yet installed my finished tanks (for the last time) and filled them with fuel. My access covers came from Van's with CORK gaskets! Someone on this list mentioned using fuel tank nutplates with built in O-rings when building their tanks to eliminate the need for pro-seal on the screw heads. I can't do that because I didn't know about them when building my tanks BUT, I can use special access cover screws with O-rings built into the heads to achieve the same goal. Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? By using the pro-seal you have created an obvious DETRIMENT to easy access and I'm sure that's part of the reason some of you are groaning so loudly. I know, I know, it'll never leak with the pro-seal but this the SECOND bulletin in 5 years concerning something INSIDE the tanks (the first being the anti-rotation bracket). Obviously one cannot count on NEVER having to take the access cover off so let's find a less painful method than the pro-seal!!! There has to be a better way!! As I said, I'm ignorant about how good this will work because I have not experienced it. Those of you who have used the cork (or synthetic rubber) with gasket seal know the answer...educate me. Thanks. Dean Psiropoulos RV-6A N197DM Autocad and Tefzel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Francis Malczynski" <ebbfmm(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 03, 2006
I've been watching with interest the comments on the difficulty in removing tank access covers that had been pro-sealed. When I built my RV6 (completed 9/2002)I used the cork rubber gasket material from NAPA and a product called Fuel Lube (commonly called peanut butter by A&P's)on both sides of the gasket and have not seen any leaks in the three plus years since I've been flying. I have also used it to seal fittings in oil and fuel lines. I have not removed my tank access covers yet, but based my experience with other applications I anticipate no problems or destruction of the access covers. I'll update this E-Mail once I remove the access plates and let you all know how it turns out. Fran Malczynski RV6 - N594EF Olcott, NY ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Dean, My early 2000 vintage RV-6A slowbuild kit came equipped with cork gaskets for the fuel tanks. I really didn't know about the O-ring deal at the time. I just installed the access covers and cork gaskets with the kit supplied hardware per an Orndorff construction video suggesting the use of medium weight Titeseal as an alternative to proseal. Post-construction pressure tests with a toy balloon indicated no leaks and has to date proven to be troublefree in service. Because of this unexpected development, I went ahead and ordered fresh gaskets to comply with the SB. I should note I recently asked Van's what THEY use on their fleet. I learned that they too use proseal to seal the tank covers. Personally, I intend to go the Titeseal route again. Sold in a 1 pound can, I've got plenty left over, that's for sure. http://tinyurl.com/nxvz8 Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 112 hours dean.psiropoulos(at)veriz wrote: > ................. My access covers came from Van's with CORK gaskets! ............. use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) along with some appropriate gasket sealer.....................ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? > By using the pro-seal you have created an obvious DETRIMENT to easy access and I'm sure that's part of the reason some of you are groaning so loudly. I know, I know, it'll never leak with the pro-seal but this the SECOND bulletin in 5 years concerning something INSIDE the tanks (the first being the anti-rotation bracket). Obviously one cannot count on NEVER having to take the access cover off so let's find a less painful method than the pro-seal!!! There has to be a better way!! As I said, I'm ignorant about how good this will work because I have not experienced it. Those of you who have used the cork (or synthetic rubber) with gasket seal know the answer...educate me. Thanks. Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DMAutocad and Tefzel Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19331#19331 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Mersek" <1rv6flyer(at)internet49.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Is fuel lube still available and if so, where can you purchase it? Does it harden like pro-seal or does it remain soft as does the tight seal? Larry Mersek N336RV ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis Malczynski" <ebbfmm(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:00 AM Subject: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers | | | I've been watching with interest the comments on the difficulty in removing | tank access covers that had been pro-sealed. When I built my RV6 (completed | 9/2002)I used the cork rubber gasket material from NAPA and a product called | Fuel Lube (commonly called peanut butter by A&P's)on both sides of the | gasket and have not seen any leaks in the three plus years since I've been | flying. I have also used it to seal fittings in oil and fuel lines. I have | not removed my tank access covers yet, but based my experience with other | applications I anticipate no problems or destruction of the access covers. | I'll update this E-Mail once I remove the access plates and let you all know | how it turns out. | | Fran Malczynski | RV6 - N594EF | Olcott, NY | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: New-Never Used Jon Johanson Seats
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: "Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
RV-List, I have two new-never used Jon Johanson seats that I have no need for at this time. If you are interested please visit this page: http://www.painttheweb.com/rv_seat/ Regards, Robin RV-4 Sold RV-6A 250 Hours ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Seat Weight
Date: Mar 03, 2006
I just got seats for my RV8A. Here's what they weigh: Rear seat bottom 5lb 8oz back 6lb 1oz Front seat bottom 6lb 1oz back 4lb 2oz for a total of 21lb 12oz. (includes aluminum seat backs) This seems like a lot to me & I wonder what other weight conscious souls have found. My seats are solid foam with 2" medium density memory foam tops. Bottoms are 1/2" plywood. Guess who got their airworthiness certificate today? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Aircraft Spruce and goes by Seal Lube. Pliable so far after about 8 months. Bill S 7a wiring -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Mersek Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 9:00 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers Is fuel lube still available and if so, where can you purchase it? Does it harden like pro-seal or does it remain soft as does the tight seal? Larry Mersek N336RV ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis Malczynski" <ebbfmm(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:00 AM Subject: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers | | | I've been watching with interest the comments on the difficulty in removing | tank access covers that had been pro-sealed. When I built my RV6 (completed | 9/2002)I used the cork rubber gasket material from NAPA and a product called | Fuel Lube (commonly called peanut butter by A&P's)on both sides of the | gasket and have not seen any leaks in the three plus years since I've been | flying. I have also used it to seal fittings in oil and fuel lines. I have | not removed my tank access covers yet, but based my experience with other | applications I anticipate no problems or destruction of the access covers. | I'll update this E-Mail once I remove the access plates and let you all know | how it turns out. | | Fran Malczynski | RV6 - N594EF | Olcott, NY | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Herron, Al" <Al.Herron(at)Aerojet.com>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Date: Mar 03, 2006
I highly recommend the MicroFasteners site for Torx fasteners - I haven't checked out McMaster yet, but I will. One word of caution: it is possible to strip out a Torx fastener, though it's not as easy as stripping a Phillips head. Use caution if you're driving into a friction-lock type of nutplate, these will sometimes created enough resistance to strip the head. If the self-locking feature isn't critical for the particular location, try running a tap though the nutplate first. After trying to get old Phillips screws out 40-year old skin panels on my Cessna, I decided early on to put Torx or Allen head fasteners on my RV wherever possible. Al Herron RV-7A Dissembling my Torx-fastened instrument panel for the umpteenth time. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: rv6n6r(at)comcast.net
Subject: borescopes
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Anyone have recommendations for borescopes? I'm looking at the following ones for possible addition to the Home Wing / EAA105 tool crib. http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=91564 http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46703 http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46506 Randall Henderson RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: rv6n6r(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Dean Psiropoulos wrote: > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws > with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST > OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS > COVERS???? I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for that...? ;-) I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a pain than what you're trying to avoid. Randall Henderson RV-6 Dean Psiropoulos wrote: Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for that...? ;-) I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a pain than what you're trying to avoid. Randall Henderson RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Randall, I too used Proseal because I've personally seen leaks from cork & fuel-lube. I have had to remove my inspection/access plates from my fuel tanks. And I KNOW it was one helluva' BIG DEAL ! (obviously .... YMMV). I bent the plates, and made new ones, and then Prosealed 'em back on when I was done; but only because I didn'y know a better way. Now that I've heard of the correct type of RTV, I will try that if there's a next time. * I sure hope when/if I open her up again I have the luck you had, 'cuz the last time was absolute sheer misery. Chuck rv6n6r(at)comcast.net wrote: Dean Psiropoulos wrote: > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws > with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST > OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS > COVERS???? I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for that...? ;-) I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a pain than what you're trying to avoid. Randall Henderson RV-6 Dean Psiropoulos wrote: Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for that...? ;-) I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a pain than what you're trying to avoid. Randall Henderson RV-6 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
Date: Mar 03, 2006
On 2 Mar 2006, at 21:00, Richard McBride wrote: > > I looked at my invoices and the item numbers for the button head > hex screws I purchased were SBSxxxx. The countersunk torx were all > FCMXSxxxx item numbers. It appears from the description that the > ones you're looking at (SBXS) are torx. Please let us know what > you find out. If they are, I'm going to start replacing all my hex > screws. MicroFasteners responded that the following button head screws have Torx receptacles. http://www.microfasteners.com/catalog/products/SSCFCMXS.cfm Kevin Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com>
Subject: Vans instruments
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Hi all, I've been searching the archives for references to Vans instruments such as the ASI and Alt. I vaguely recall people complaining they are cheap Chinese instruments and are difficult if not impossible to calibrate. Vans web site has them made by UMA which I presume is US manufacture. Anyone have any comments or experiences. Thanks, Greg RV8 buying & fitting instruments 82070 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Announcing RV-3 Registry
Date: Mar 03, 2006
As an RV-3 builder I thought the RV-3 community would find a registry useful to keep track of the RV-3 fleet. I've therefore begun a registry on my web site, www.rv-3.com, and am now seeking entries. If you know anyone with a flying RV-3 please pass along this notice, us RV-3ers need to stick together. ;-) Thanks, Randy Lervold www.rv-3.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: borescopes
Date: Mar 03, 2006
> > Anyone have recommendations for borescopes? I'm looking at > the following ones for possible addition to the Home Wing / > EAA105 tool crib. > > http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=91564 > http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46703 > http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46506 > > Randall Henderson > RV-6 Randall, I would try to find out the number of fibers (pixels) that each has, or at the very least, have a look through one if they stock them at their stores. Good scopes of this sort are almost 10x that price. I plan to buy a used endoscope from a surplus medical equipment supplier here in town. I believe that I can get a flexible one with a light source for around $200 or less. The brightness of the light is more important than it might seem. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 721 hours Maple Grove, MN ________________________________________________________________________________
From: rv6n6r(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Chuck wrote: > I too used Proseal because I've personally seen leaks from cork & fuel-lube. > I have had to remove my inspection/access plates from my fuel tanks. > And I KNOW it was one helluva' BIG DEAL ! (obviously .... YMMV). Okay I stand corrected -- I guess that goes to show you there are no "absolutes". Maybe a matter of technique? You do need to get the stuff all pretty much cut with the knife before trying to pry it off. Helps to have a knife with a good handle so you can tap it with a hammer. Also I should qualify my earlier post to say I did it with the tanks off. I really wouldn't want to have to do this with the tanks on -- that definitely would be a PITA. Sure am glad I didn't paint over the screw heads :-) Randall Henderson RV-6 Chuck chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com wrote: I too used Proseal because I've personally seen leaks from cork fuel-lube. I have had to remove my inspection/access plates from my fuel tanks. And I KNOW it was one helluva' BIG DEAL ! (obviously .... YMMV). Okay I stand corrected -- I guess that goes to show you there are no "absolutes". Maybe a matter of technique? You do need toget the stuff all pretty much cut with the knife before trying topry it off. Helps to have a knife with a good handle so you can tap it with a hammer. Also I should qualify my earlier post to say I did it with the tanks off. I really wouldn't want to have to do this with the tanks on -- that definitely would be a PITA. Sure am glad I didn't paint over the screw heads :-) Randall Henderson RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
From: Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Dean, The problem with the cork gasket comes in a couple of places. Many times leaks can occur through the threads in the screws and out under the heads. Also, many people over tighten the screws which deforms the panel enough to cause a leak between the screws. Screws should be tightened down evenly with enough torque to hold the plate firmly against the cork gasket without deforming it. On my tank, I used self-sealing nutplates which prevent any fuel from entering the screw threads. I also went overboard and used screws with o-rings under the head. I used this with the cork gasket. I have not filled my tanks yet, but they hold air pressure just fine. If I were to do it again, I probably would have used an access panel sealant and skipped the gasket. If you go with o-ring screws, make sure they have viton o-rings as the normal o-ring is not resistant to fuel and will deteriorate. The biggest complaint I have with the SB is that it will make it very difficult to replace the flop tube if necessary without going through the entire process again. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:55 AM Subject: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > > > Ok guys call me ignorant but I have not yet installed my finished tanks > (for > the last time) and filled them with fuel. My access covers came from > Van's > with CORK gaskets! Someone on this list mentioned using fuel tank > nutplates > with built in O-rings when building their tanks to eliminate the need for > pro-seal on the screw heads. I can't do that because I didn't know about > them when building my tanks BUT, I can use special access cover screws > with > O-rings built into the heads to achieve the same goal. > > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with > the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING > THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? > > By using the pro-seal you have created an obvious DETRIMENT to easy access > and I'm sure that's part of the reason some of you are groaning so loudly. > I know, I know, it'll never leak with the pro-seal but this the SECOND > bulletin in 5 years concerning something INSIDE the tanks (the first being > the anti-rotation bracket). Obviously one cannot count on NEVER having to > take the access cover off so let's find a less painful method than the > pro-seal!!! There has to be a better way!! As I said, I'm ignorant about > how good this will work because I have not experienced it. Those of you > who > have used the cork (or synthetic rubber) with gasket seal know the > answer...educate me. Thanks. > > Dean Psiropoulos > RV-6A N197DM > Autocad and Tefzel > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Wing Tips
Date: Mar 03, 2006
I'm looking for a set of wing tips for an RV-6 that don't have the landing lights in them. These would have been the standard parts supplied with a kit that might have been replaces with a different pair. Anyone have a set out there that they want to sell? Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
From: Doug Weiler <dcw(at)mnwing.org>
Fellow Listers: Seems like the access tank sealing issue is getting rather complex. Here is my proven solution (no leaks after 10 years in my previous RV-4).: 1. Use the cork gasket. 2. Apply Permatex Aviation Form A Gasket to both sides of the cork gasket. 3. Use capscrews and washers to attach cover. 4. Do not over tighten. 5. Apply small fillet of Pro Seal around the edges of screws. 6. Done - no leaks Doug Weiler N722DW, RV-4 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Vans instruments
In a message dated 3/3/2006 4:52:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, greg(at)itmack.com writes: I've been searching the archives for references to Vans instruments such as the ASI and Alt. I vaguely recall people complaining they are cheap Chinese instruments and are difficult if not impossible to calibrate. Vans web site has them made by UMA which I presume is US manufacture. Anyone have any comments or experiences. ======================================== I only have an UMA vacuum gauge and it is fine. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
In a message dated 3/3/2006 7:33:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dcw(at)mnwing.org writes: Seems like the access tank sealing issue is getting rather complex. Here is my proven solution (no leaks after 10 years in my previous RV-4).: 1. Use the cork gasket. 2. Apply Permatex Aviation Form A Gasket to both sides of the cork gasket. 3. Use capscrews and washers to attach cover. 4. Do not over tighten. 5. Apply small fillet of Pro Seal around the edges of screws. 6. Done - no leaks ==================================== This is essentially what I did, only I used O-ring equipped screws (from McMaster) for the cover fasteners (hence no need for washers and Proseal) and 8 yrs later have had no leaks. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <jbario(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 03, 2006
Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so. We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps) it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback? 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for a rookie airplane builder? Jim Barrilleaux Grass Valley, CA RV-8A tail feathers jbario(at)sbcglobal.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Wing Tips
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Hey Fred, I sent you an email direct, but if you didn't get it, my friend has a set of tips to sell. email me directly at rice737(at)msn.com and I'll get you in touch with him. Paul Rice RV8 finish kit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:19 PM Subject: RV-List: Wing Tips > > I'm looking for a set of wing tips for an RV-6 that don't have the > landing lights in them. > These would have been the standard parts supplied with a kit that might > have been > replaces with a different pair. > Anyone have a set out there that they want to sell? > > Fred Stucklen > RV-6A N926RV > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "wskimike" <wskimike(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 04, 2006
>From what a very experienced tweet told me you will have reception problems with the antenna in one wing when the station is on the opposite side. Yes, you will need two or an external one positioned in a better position. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: <jbario(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions > > Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few > weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the > tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so. > We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions > > 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at > the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps) > it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback? > > 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are > these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We > assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total > of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted > NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for > a rookie airplane builder? > > Jim Barrilleaux > Grass Valley, CA > RV-8A tail feathers > jbario(at)sbcglobal.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "wskimike" <wskimike(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: Vans instruments
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Guess what? Just because it is a American manufacturer it doesn't mean it's not made in China. I know for a fact that some of the major manufacturer's have gyros made in china with their emblem on them because they are assembled here. ----- Original Message ----- From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:38 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans instruments > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 4:52:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > greg(at)itmack.com writes: > > I've been searching the archives for references to Vans instruments such > as > the ASI and Alt. I vaguely recall people complaining they are cheap > Chinese > instruments and are difficult if not impossible to calibrate. Vans web > site > has them made by UMA which I presume is US manufacture. Anyone have any > comments or experiences. > > > ======================================== > > I only have an UMA vacuum gauge and it is fine. > > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 04, 2006
> > ==================================== > > This is essentially what I did, only I used O-ring equipped screws (from > McMaster) for the cover fasteners (hence no need for washers and Proseal) > and 8 > yrs later have had no leaks. > > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) > Do you have a part number or Name of the O ring equipped screws? I tried searching in McMaster and couldn't find them. Thanks Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Eletric Gyro
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Artificial Horizon: RCA26AK-4-14V This is an all electric Attitude Gyro that is un-lighted and has an 8 panel tilt. It was completely overhauled, by Kelly MFG. CO. 1/10/2006, and is under warranty till 01/10/07. It employs an electrically driven gyro rotor with built-in inverter. $1,100 or best offer. Steve Glasgow-Cappy N123SG RV-8 Cappy's Toy 704-362-0005 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Ed, The McMaster part number is 90825A816 for an 8-32x1/2" o-ring screw. Please note that these have silicon o-rings that must be replaced with viton o-rings for fuel resistance. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:27 AM Subject: O ring screw??Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > > >> ==================================== >> >> This is essentially what I did, only I used O-ring equipped screws (from >> McMaster) for the cover fasteners (hence no need for washers and >> Proseal) >> and 8 >> yrs later have had no leaks. >> >> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) >> > Do you have a part number or Name of the O ring equipped screws? I tried > searching in McMaster and couldn't find them. > > Thanks > > Ed > > Ed Anderson > Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > Matthews, NC > eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Vans instruments
Date: Mar 04, 2006
I've got the Airspeed, Altimeter and Vertical Speed all from Van's. Only 35 hours so far but no complaints. Steve Struyk RV-8 ----- Original Message ----- From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:38 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans instruments > > > In a message dated 3/3/2006 4:52:16 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > greg(at)itmack.com writes: > > I've been searching the archives for references to Vans instruments such > as > the ASI and Alt. I vaguely recall people complaining they are cheap > Chinese > instruments and are difficult if not impossible to calibrate. Vans web > site > has them made by UMA which I presume is US manufacture. Anyone have any > comments or experiences. > > > ======================================== > > I only have an UMA vacuum gauge and it is fine. > > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Ok, thanks, Paul. Understand I must replace the screw's O rings with viton O rings. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Trotter" <ptrotter(at)acm.org> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: O ring screw??Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > Ed, > > The McMaster part number is 90825A816 for an 8-32x1/2" o-ring screw. > Please > note that these have silicon o-rings that must be replaced with viton > o-rings for fuel resistance. > > Paul > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:27 AM > Subject: O ring screw??Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > >> >> > >>> ==================================== >>> >>> This is essentially what I did, only I used O-ring equipped screws (from >>> McMaster) for the cover fasteners (hence no need for washers and >>> Proseal) >>> and 8 >>> yrs later have had no leaks. >>> >>> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) >>> >> Do you have a part number or Name of the O ring equipped screws? I tried >> searching in McMaster and couldn't find them. >> >> Thanks >> >> Ed >> >> Ed Anderson >> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered >> Matthews, NC >> eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Alison and Neil <alisonandneil(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Re: FI and manual elevator trim
It works ok on mine, I did need a longer trim cable than what they sent me. I think it's an RV-8 cable but they can tell you at Van's. The cable will then be too long requiring some s-turns in the aft fuselage. Neil McLeod RV-7 N748M Finally flying (or would be if I could get my ignition problem sorted out) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Corder" <mike.corder@micor-research.com> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:08 PM Subject: RV-List: FI and manual elevator trim > <mike.corder@micor-research.com> > > I'm building an RV-7A with fuel injection and manual elevator trim. It > looks to me like there's big time interference between these two right > below the fuel selector plate. If anyone can point me to how they > handled this, I'd appreciate it. > > -- > > Regards, > m > ____________________________ > > mike.corder@micor-research.com > Cell 831-239-0915 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 04, 2006
But you can't connect two antennae together. Don't even think about trying it. That will not work unless you have some sort of switching box to only have one antenna connected to the receiver at a time. If two antennae are connected together, there will be phasing problems, and you will have a very strange set of lobes in your antenna pattern. If you use a wing tip antenna, you need to accept the fact that there might be a very small area off the other wing tip where you might not have reception. I have seen reports from several builders with wing tip antenna who reported that they had good reception off the other wing tip. I don't understand how that could be so, but I'll take their reports at face value until I can flight test my wing tip antenna. If you are navigating using VOR, or shooting an ILS approach, how often is the station of interest off one wing tip? The only case I can think of is if you want to fly a DME arc approach. I'll use my IFR GPS to navigate the arc, and use the LOC once I've turned onto final. Kevin Horton On 4 Mar 2006, at 08:17, wskimike wrote: > >> From what a very experienced tweet told me you will have reception >> problems > with the antenna in one wing when the station is on the opposite > side. Yes, > you will need two or an external one positioned in a better position. > > Mike > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <jbario(at)sbcglobal.net> > To: "RV List" > Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM > Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions > > >> >> Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a >> few >> weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working >> on the >> tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week >> or so. >> We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions >> >> 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We >> looked at >> the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively >> perhaps) >> it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any >> feedback? >> >> 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the >> wingtips. Are >> these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We >> assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip >> (total >> of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted >> NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these >> days for >> a rookie airplane builder? >> >> Jim Barrilleaux >> >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Francis Malczynski" <ebbfmm(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Fuel Lube
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Larry and RV Listers, fuel lube equivalent is availble from Aircraft Spruce under the brand name EZ Turn. I purchased mine from an A&P years ago so I couldn't tell you the brand of the original, but he swore by it and it has not let me down. At one point during my testing process I had a small fuel leak in the fitting going to the fuel flow transducer. Knowing the fitting was already torqued to specs, I backed out the nut and put a very small amount on the flared tubing, re-torqued the nut to specs and no leaks since. Fran Malczynski RV6 - N594EF Olcott, ny ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com>
Subject: Re: borescopes
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Good advice from Alex. I think the Harbor Freight borescopes use acrylic fibers. I may be wrong about that, but it is common on inexpensive scopes like this. I would at least examine the medical device idea. Take a look at ebay for endoscope and you should see both rigid and flex scopes. A medical scope will give you the best optical performance by far, but the illuminator is a separate component and is an additional expense. It also is less portable and more complicated to use. The flexible endoscopes are great. The end articulates through 180 degrees, controlled by the handpiece, so you can see the entire area you are interested in, and the insertion tube is often four feet long. It's common for the sheath, the rubber part of the insertion tube to become damaged. This must be repaired before it can be used on a patient but would have no effect on the use you entend. Often the medical facility will decide to dispose of the scope instead of repairing it, and they end up on ebay. You also find scopes that have broken fibers which causes dark spots in the field of view. This is common and a brand new scope will often have a few. The repair of this is $4000 or so depending on the scope if it gets bad enough and you can often find a perfect scope that has been disposed of because this. If you go this route, don't purchase a scope with a cloudy field of view. There is no repair possible without completely disassembling the scope and usually replacing parts. I use a rigid scope which has limitation on what you can see, but has the advantage of fitting through 1/8 inch hole. A flex scope will require more like a 1/2 inch access hole. Good luck! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:55 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: borescopes > > > >> >> Anyone have recommendations for borescopes? I'm looking at >> the following ones for possible addition to the Home Wing / >> EAA105 tool crib. >> >> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=91564 >> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46703 >> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46506 >> >> Randall Henderson >> RV-6 > > Randall, I would try to find out the number of fibers (pixels) that each > has, or at the very least, have a look through one if they stock them at > their stores. Good scopes of this sort are almost 10x that price. I plan > to buy a used endoscope from a surplus medical equipment supplier here in > town. I believe that I can get a flexible one with a light source for > around $200 or less. The brightness of the light is more important than > it > might seem. > > Alex Peterson > RV6-A N66AP 721 hours > Maple Grove, MN > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: borescopes
Great advise, i would want to add that if u get a rigid one, get one with an agled view, rather that straight, this will alllow u to rotate the borescope and get some means of circumferential view rather than only straight ahead. mine has a 30 degree angle at the tip. Also, as illuminator i bought a single LED flashlight for a few bucks, took the lens out and made a plastic spacer to fit between the nipple on the scoop and the inside of the flash light. seems to work quite okay so far. not as bright as a real illuminator light source, but, a heck of a lot more transportable. David Burton wrote: > >Good advice from Alex. I think the Harbor Freight borescopes use acrylic >fibers. I may be wrong about that, but it is common on inexpensive scopes >like this. I would at least examine the medical device idea. Take a look >at ebay for endoscope and you should see both rigid and flex scopes. A >medical scope will give you the best optical performance by far, but the >illuminator is a separate component and is an additional expense. It also >is less portable and more complicated to use. >The flexible endoscopes are great. The end articulates through 180 degrees, >controlled by the handpiece, so you can see the entire area you are >interested in, and the insertion tube is often four feet long. It's common >for the sheath, the rubber part of the insertion tube to become damaged. >This must be repaired before it can be used on a patient but would have no >effect on the use you entend. Often the medical facility will decide to >dispose of the scope instead of repairing it, and they end up on ebay. You >also find scopes that have broken fibers which causes dark spots in the >field of view. This is common and a brand new scope will often have a few. >The repair of this is $4000 or so depending on the scope if it gets bad >enough and you can often find a perfect scope that has been disposed of >because this. If you go this route, don't purchase a scope with a cloudy >field of view. There is no repair possible without completely disassembling >the scope and usually replacing parts. I use a rigid scope which has >limitation on what you can see, but has the advantage of fitting through 1/8 >inch hole. A flex scope will require more like a 1/2 inch access hole. > >Good luck! >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> >To: >Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:55 PM >Subject: RE: RV-List: borescopes > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Anyone have recommendations for borescopes? I'm looking at >>>the following ones for possible addition to the Home Wing / >>>EAA105 tool crib. >>> >>>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=91564 >>>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46703 >>>http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=46506 >>> >>>Randall Henderson >>>RV-6 >>> >>> >>Randall, I would try to find out the number of fibers (pixels) that each >>has, or at the very least, have a look through one if they stock them at >>their stores. Good scopes of this sort are almost 10x that price. I plan >>to buy a used endoscope from a surplus medical equipment supplier here in >>town. I believe that I can get a flexible one with a light source for >>around $200 or less. The brightness of the light is more important than >>it >>might seem. >> >>Alex Peterson >>RV6-A N66AP 721 hours >>Maple Grove, MN >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Fischer" <dfischer(at)iserv.net>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 04, 2006
When installing the sender (Warner float-type), has everybody used the rubber gasket? I pro-sealed mine (no leaks) but If I need to remove the sender to remove the access plate I am wondering if to just use the rubber gaskets or pro-seal 'em again. Thanks for any feedback. Doug Fischer RV-9A Jenison, MI ----- Original Message ----- From: <rv6n6r(at)comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 5:39 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > Dean Psiropoulos wrote: >> Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) >> along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws >> with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST >> OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS >> COVERS???? > > I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my > direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for > that...? ;-) > > I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it > will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its > no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick > work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean > the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. > > The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was > the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone > I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) > ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my > tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly > after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. > > Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. > Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a > pain than what you're trying to avoid. > > Randall Henderson > RV-6 > > Dean Psiropoulos wrote: > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws > with the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST > OF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS > COVERS???? > > I have the disadvantage of not having read any of the posts but perhaps my > direct experience with taking the prosealed covers off will make up for > that...? ;-) > > I think there's a lot bigger deal made about this by people who think it > will be difficult than by people who have actually done it. I have and its > no big deal. A sharp putty knife with rounded off corners will make quick > work of it. Then scrape off as much as you can of the resedue and clean > the last little bit with acetone, mek or naptha. > > The recent post by the guy who used the "cork-and-fuel lube" method was > the first one of those I've heard of that was successful. Nearly everyone > I know who tried that (and there have been quite a few over the years) > ended up with leaks around the gasket. In fact when I first sealed up my > tanks I did it that way, but redid it with proseal before final assembly > after seeing and hearing so many stories about it. > > Once and for all -- it's NOT a big deal to get the prosealed plates off. > Any other method is inviting leaks around the plates, which is more of a > pain than what you're trying to avoid. > > Randall Henderson > RV-6 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
In a message dated 3/4/2006 5:31:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com writes: Do you have a part number or Name of the O ring equipped screws? I tried searching in McMaster and couldn't find them. ====================================== Ed- Sorry, my memory fails me (I suffer from CRS). I was into it when I was building and much of it seems a mystery to me years later. The sealing screws I got were apparently not from McMaster. I likely bought them from some other source (maybe MS Inserts, Olander or Norcal) as they were definitely 8-32 X .500" Phillips Pan Head cross-recess in 400 Stainless and had Viton O-Rings. The ones I got were Long-Lok brand and they are called Self-Seal Screws. This is the most reliable way to go IMO, as these fasteners were made for this application. I conjugated a P/N of SS1832VLP8 from the .pdf of the spec sheet at _http://longlok.com/products_selfseal.htm_ (http://longlok.com/products_selfseal.htm) GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
wskimike wrote: > >>From what a very experienced tweet told me you will have reception problems > with the antenna in one wing when the station is on the opposite side. Yes, > you will need two or an external one positioned in a better position. My experience with the Sportcraft internal NAV antenna is that is works very nicely, regardless of the plane's position in regard to the VOR. It also works well with a glideslope receiver. Bob Archer, the designer of the antenna, is emphatic on NOT using two NAV antennae. Apparently all sorts of out-of-phase issues arise if two antennae are feeding the same receiver. Details on my installation: http://thervjournal.com/sportcraft.htm An article by Bob about his antennae: http://www.tvrvbg.org/Tip6a.doc Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Torx head screws?
> the Torx head does not require a forward pressure on the driver to maintain > bit engagement like a Phillips or a Pozi-drive. The Pozi drive was specifically designed not to require axial force to maintain engagement. That is the principle difference between Pozi and Phillips, and is reason I recommended Pozi as a good alternative to Torx. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 04, 2006
jbario(at)sbcglobal.net wrote: > ...Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for a rookie airplane builder? > > Jim Barrilleaux > Grass Valley, CA > RV-8A tail feathers > jbario(at)sbcglobal.net Jim, Your choices in antennas may depend upon your intended mission profile and installed avionics capability. As a data point , my RV is equipped with a Garmin 430 suite and fitted with a Bob Archer NAV/LOC/GS antenna in the left wingtip and the MB antenna (a tuned length of copper foil) in the right wing tip. I have not had any reception problems to date though I've never purposely positioned the aircraft in flight so the NAV antenna is completely blocked by the opposite wingtip (LOS) to the station in a purposeful effort to observe (potential) signal degradation. If such a loss did occur and I still found it desirable to navigate based upon that particular VOR, (why?) I suppose I "could" deselect the VOR (via a button on the 430) and select the GPS function and continue to navigate via the installed GI-106A CDI in much the same way. Of course that would require programming in the coordinates of the VOR station as a GPS waypoint. Such flying is possible but a bit too sophisticated for this VFR pilot. Also in my neck of the woods, VOR signal acquisition does not occur on the ground but comes alive just a few hundred feet AGL....mere seconds of time in an RV. If your anticipated mission requirements demand the very best NAV reception possible, many would argue that externally mounted antennas would probably be a better choice. For my purposes which is overwhelmingly VFR flight with occasional IFR training, the hidden wingtip mounted antennas suit me just fine. One more thing....despite occasional reports that some builders experience signal problems, I located the Comant bent whip Comm antenna almost perfectly centered and in line with the gear legs and have yet to experience any problems. I installed standard RG-58A/U coax cable throughout. More expensive coax cable is available and only you can determine if it is worth the extra cost or not. Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 112 hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19569#19569 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Lube
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Should EZ Turn be used on the face of the tubing flare where it contacts the fitting? I have previously been told it should only be used on threads. Ken Howell Glenwood Maryland RV7 Wings -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Francis Malczynski Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 10:46 AM Subject: RV-List: Fuel Lube Larry and RV Listers, fuel lube equivalent is availble from Aircraft Spruce under the brand name EZ Turn. I purchased mine from an A&P years ago so I couldn't tell you the brand of the original, but he swore by it and it has not let me down. At one point during my testing process I had a small fuel leak in the fitting going to the fuel flow transducer. Knowing the fitting was already torqued to specs, I backed out the nut and put a very small amount on the flared tubing, re-torqued the nut to specs and no leaks since. Fran Malczynski RV6 - N594EF Olcott, ny ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Date: Mar 04, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 11:52 AM Subject: Re: O ring screw??Re: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > > In a message dated 3/4/2006 5:31:25 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com writes: > > Do you have a part number or Name of the O ring equipped screws? I tried > searching in McMaster and couldn't find them. > > > ====================================== > > Ed- > > Sorry, my memory fails me (I suffer from CRS). I was into it when I was > building and much of it seems a mystery to me years later. > > The sealing screws I got were apparently not from McMaster. I likely > bought > them from some other source (maybe MS Inserts, Olander or Norcal) as they > were definitely 8-32 X .500" Phillips Pan Head cross-recess in 400 > Stainless > and had Viton O-Rings. > > The ones I got were Long-Lok brand and they are called Self-Seal Screws. > This is the most reliable way to go IMO, as these fasteners were made for > this > application. I conjugated a P/N of SS1832VLP8 from the .pdf of the spec > sheet at > > _http://longlok.com/products_selfseal.htm_ > (http://longlok.com/products_selfseal.htm) > > > GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) > > Thanks, appreciate the information. Ed ________________________________________________________________________________
From: James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Another data point: My sportcraft antenna in the right (only) wingtip works well, regardless of heading to station. On my Garmin (nee Apollo) SL-30 NavCom you just need to run one coax from the antenna to the radio, there is an internal splitter for the Nav/glideslope signals. The AirTech kit is for the older type wingtips, and is not necessary for the newer "sheared" tips that are currently shipping. James Freeman RV-8 flying http://web.mac.com/flyeyes/iWeb/ On Mar 4, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Sam Buchanan wrote: > > wskimike wrote: >> >>> From what a very experienced tweet told me you will have >>> reception problems >> with the antenna in one wing when the station is on the opposite >> side. Yes, >> you will need two or an external one positioned in a better position. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: VOR antenna option -- was New Guy Questions
I have had excellent results with a homemade VOR antenna fastened to my canopy (on the inside!) with small suction cups. These are available for hanging doodads on windows, etc. Actually, I started with black electrical tape, but the suction cups look more -- er -- professional. I used an MFJ-259B Antenna Analyzer to trim the dipole for lowest SWR in the middle of the VOR band, and the wires measure 22 inches on each side. My plane is an RV-7A slider and the feed line comes up the baggage bulkhead and forward with a loop to allow the canopy to travel. The antenna wires are just number 22 white insulated aircraft wire which go outboard and then forward using 2 suction cups on each side for support. This puts the antenna mostly above the baggage compartment, with the ends just above and behind the pilot's and co-pilot's head. It may look a little dorky, but the performance is excellent and it costs practically nothing. I intend to put some ferrite chokes at the feed point to make it perfectly horizontally polarized, but it works fine with just the center conductor of the RG-58 going to one side and the ground going to the other side. It was originally intended to be temporary, but has become somewhat permanent. Please don't laugh! Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- 144 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: Re: Fuel Lube
Ken, Do not put anything on face of the tubing, it should be clean and smooth. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:51 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: Fuel Lube > > Should EZ Turn be used on the face of the tubing flare where it contacts > the > fitting? I have previously been told it should only be used on threads. > > Ken Howell > Glenwood Maryland > RV7 Wings > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Subject: Re:Vor Antenna Options
In our RV-4 which was finished in 1983 I used 1/4" copper tape along the lower rear edge of the canopy for the VOR antenna. The length was 22" each side with the RG-58 connected as described , then potted in place with a dab of epoxy. It worked as well as a "Vee" VOR antenna. Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor Charleston,Arkansas Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 05, 2006
OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers. He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. Lucky OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typicallybegins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climboutafter a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers. He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. So anyway, here'sa real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives.Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. Lucky ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 04, 2006
Please be very careful. As an instructor for a specific make of aircraft we taught the "turn back" maneuver for many years. Essentially the same thing you did only it took about 1000'agl and 60~70 degrees of bank. It was pretty neat as long as it was done perfectly but it can get REAL ugly. Unfortunately an experienced instructor and his client died a couple of years ago, they had performed it successfully several times earlier that day. It was immediately removed from the training curriculum, the grief and the law suits are still ongoing. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 04, 2006
From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Exactly. I did some of testing on this during flight testing, and practice it once in a while. My drill is to chop throttle, wait four seconds with hands in lap, then take action. I think this is a realistic figure for the brain lag. I came up with 400 feet as the minimum altitude to even think about a 180. YMMV, but try it for yourself, and practice. Jeff Point RV6 Milwaukee Jerry Springer wrote: >few seconds to grasp what the problem is and how to solve it. At 400 ft >you are losing >valuable time and airspeed. I can whip my RV-6 around on a dime too if I >am planning on it. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Subject: Re: Sealing Tank Access Covers
Cc: Paul Trotter Paul & Listers, I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that most folks seem to think that the problem is with the cork gaskets. It is not! The cork gaskets will seal. The PROBLEM is with Vans use of standard nutplates, in a location where NAS 1473 fuel tank nutplates are called for. The leak occurs because the fuel is able to work it's way between the threads of the nutplates and the threads of the cover screws. The fuel then leaks out from under the heads of the screws. This is not a fault with the gaskets. Personally, I've found that you can re-use the cork gaskets several times, providing they are not torn or damaged. Cork gaskets have been used to seal the fuel tank sending units on automobiles for decades. I've removed the fuel tanks on 20 year old cars where the original cork gasket was still doing it's job. As Paul & others have pointed out, an alternative (and cheaper) solution is to use #8 self sealing screws (with Viton O-rings) in lieu of the NAS 1473 nutplates (which all certified aircraft use). Make life easy on yourself. Forget the ProSeal and use the cork gaskets with the self sealing access cover screws. Charlie Kuss ---- Paul Trotter wrote: > > Dean, > > The problem with the cork gasket comes in a couple of places. Many times > leaks can occur through the threads in the screws and out under the heads. > Also, many people over tighten the screws which deforms the panel enough to > cause a leak between the screws. Screws should be tightened down evenly > with enough torque to hold the plate firmly against the cork gasket without > deforming it. > > On my tank, I used self-sealing nutplates which prevent any fuel from > entering the screw threads. I also went overboard and used screws with > o-rings under the head. I used this with the cork gasket. I have not > filled my tanks yet, but they hold air pressure just fine. If I were to do > it again, I probably would have used an access panel sealant and skipped the > gasket. If you go with o-ring screws, make sure they have viton o-rings as > the normal o-ring is not resistant to fuel and will deteriorate. > > The biggest complaint I have with the SB is that it will make it very > difficult to replace the flop tube if necessary without going through the > entire process again. > > Paul > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> > To: > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:55 AM > Subject: RV-List: Sealing Tank Access Covers > > > > > > > > > > Ok guys call me ignorant but I have not yet installed my finished tanks > > (for > > the last time) and filled them with fuel. My access covers came from > > Van's > > with CORK gaskets! Someone on this list mentioned using fuel tank > > nutplates > > with built in O-rings when building their tanks to eliminate the need for > > pro-seal on the screw heads. I can't do that because I didn't know about > > them when building my tanks BUT, I can use special access cover screws > > with > > O-rings built into the heads to achieve the same goal. > > > > Why not use the cork (or some synthetic rubber that's gasoline resistant) > > along with some appropriate gasket sealer AND the access plate screws with > > the O-rings in order to.....ELIMINATE THE HEADACHES MOST OF YOU ARE GOING > > THROUGH WITH PRO-SEALED ACCESS COVERS???? > > > > By using the pro-seal you have created an obvious DETRIMENT to easy access > > and I'm sure that's part of the reason some of you are groaning so loudly. > > I know, I know, it'll never leak with the pro-seal but this the SECOND > > bulletin in 5 years concerning something INSIDE the tanks (the first being > > the anti-rotation bracket). Obviously one cannot count on NEVER having to > > take the access cover off so let's find a less painful method than the > > pro-seal!!! There has to be a better way!! As I said, I'm ignorant about > > how good this will work because I have not experienced it. Those of you > > who > > have used the cork (or synthetic rubber) with gasket seal know the > > answer...educate me. Thanks. > > > > Dean Psiropoulos > > RV-6A N197DM > > Autocad and Tefzel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 05, 2006
On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: > > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. > > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. > > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have a very good chance of survival. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Hi All- IIRC, some years back some research was done on this very topic. One of the results was that it took an average of about 5 seconds for the 'what the heck' factor to pass and for people to start to take positive corrective action. Another result was the mathematical determination that 45 degrees of bank was the most efficient for degrees of heading change per altitude lost. In the glider world, this scenario is not only considered, it's a standard test item on the practical tests. The key elements were to assume a rope break on every take off, to have specific plan for each take off, and to have predetermined altitude hacks for different procedures. For example, the standard plan for a 180 involved always turning into the crosswind. That way, at the completion of the turn you were more closely aligned with the rwy CL than if you had made the turn downwind. Also, a rope break below 100 would necessitate landing essentially straight ahead. >From 100 to 200 ft AGL would allow for up to 90 deg of turn to miss obstacles. 200 to 400 ft AGL would allow for a 180 and downwind landing on the departure rwy. 400 AGL or greater would allow for an abbreviated landing pattern to an upwind landing on the departure rwy. (Any student failing to call out the altitude hacks on initial climb were treated to a premature termination of the tow and a 180 back to the field...) A 180 would be flown at 45 degrees of bank and at best glide speed plus 20% to compensate for the bank angle. Being the, ahhh, curious lot that we were, some folks endeavored to determine what altitude would be needed to perform the 180 turn back to the field in a draggy, long-winged Citabria towplane. IIRC, that number was 400' AGL. Having thought about (and practiced) this scenario in advance will surely increase the likelihood of survival for any poor soul that encounters it. WRT controlled airports other traffic, we need to remember that even though controllers issue clearances and we tend to take them as orders, they are actually there to help us and to ensure public safety. Their directives DO NOT supercede our emergency authority and responsibilities as PIC. If you have an emergency, you have the right of way. Period. The fact that you haven't had the opportunity to key the mike and share the news with the outside world DOES NOT mean you can't do whatever you need to in order to meet the requirements of the emergency. If a 180 back to the take off runway, a parallel taxiway, the infield, or whatever is better than crashing in a parking lot or neighborhood, so be it. You have a responsibility to yourself, your pax, AND to the hapless folks walking down the sidewalk.... Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Lube
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Paul, Thanks for confirming that for me. Ken -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Trotter Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 8:51 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Lube Ken, Do not put anything on face of the tubing, it should be clean and smooth. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Howell" <cfi1513840(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 5:51 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: Fuel Lube > > Should EZ Turn be used on the face of the tubing flare where it contacts > the > fitting? I have previously been told it should only be used on threads. > > Ken Howell > Glenwood Maryland > RV7 Wings > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Never ever turn back on takeoff in a short wing RV. Pick your spot and put it down in the safest place you can find. A 180 turn in itself will cost you a lot with an engine out. I would focus on the forward approach. Darrell Kevin Horton wrote: On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: > > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. > > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. > > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have a very good chance of survival. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. Yes, and let's not forget traffic. A pilot I knew turned back to the depature runway after an engine failure only to discover that there was a nine-plane Snowbirds formation on the take-off roll. It did work out okay for everyone, in the end, once the jets had scattered to the grass on both sides of the runway. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC, Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net>
Subject: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs. Should I be concerned? Dave Mader 50 hrs, RV-6 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Are you running aviation fuel? If so, I'd be surprised if the stain was brown. I'd expect a fuel stain to be blue. All the ones on my airplane are . ;-) Is it possible your crankcase vent tube or a minor oil leak is creating the brown stain? KB ----- Original Message ----- From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:05 PM Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > > Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 > Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying > sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow > tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other > liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs. > Should I be concerned? > > Dave Mader > 50 hrs, RV-6 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net>
Subject: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either aviation or automotive style plugs. Price aside, what is recommended and why? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 05, 2006
The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> > > On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: > > > > > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on > > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? > > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he > > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically > > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after > > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 > > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the > > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the > > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made > > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a > > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. > > > > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane > > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. > > > > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. > > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm > > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I > > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he > > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. > > There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when > you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the > engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the > adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit > harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because > you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down > straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. > Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. > > Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you > get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work > you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably > will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have > a very good chance of survival. > > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a short runway and needed to land on the numbers. He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have a very good chance of survival. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Battery cranking power
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Here's a data point on cranking power available from the Panasonic LC-RD1217P battery. OAT 43 degrees, no pre heat. Oil 50 wt break-in oil. Installation: O360A1A, Sky Tec model 149-12LS starter with battery mounted aft of rear baggage compartment in an RV8A. Standard three contactor installation of battery, starter, and contactor on starter. The fully charged battery has had little use & measured 12.8V. What happened was the engine turned over two revolutions and stopped. Subsequently I could just get one revolution at a time just as though it was being hand proped. After 5 or 6 of these, a cylinder fired and I did get the engine started Initially I thought I needed to redo my installation or switch batteries. Later, I realized that the heavy oil was probably the culprit & once I went to 20W50, performance would likely be more satisfactory. Have others found temperature limits where the cranking power of this battery is barely adequate? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Hi Lucky, In my earlier training (many years ago), I too learned the "don't turn back" mantra. I did my transition training with the same instructor you mention. One of the demonstrations he put me through was the same as you describe. It also convinced me that turnback was feasible in an RV-6/A. The altitude was well under 500 feet on takeoff. Actually, barely past the upwind end of the 4000 ft runway. He pulled the throttle. My reaction was to make a turn to the crossing runway which looked possible to me at the time. But, he insisted "turn back turn back" repeatedly until I made a 180+ turn. I had ample remaining altitude to play with flaps and slips to easily make the reciprocal of the takeoff runway. I, too would not recommend that anyone try it without first determining, at altitude, how much altitude is lost in that turnaround and convincing themselves that it was feasible. I, too would highly recommend that flight instructor for anyone who wants transition training in a -6 or -6A. My first flight in my -6A a couple of weeks later was almost a non-event and felt right all the way. Regards, Richard Dudley lucky wrote: > >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. > >Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. > >Lucky > >-------------- Original message -------------- >From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> > > > >> >>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on >>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? >>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he >>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically >>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after >>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 >>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the >>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the >>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made >>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a >>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers. >>> >>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane >>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. >>> >>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. >>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm >>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I >>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he >>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. >>> >>> >>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when >>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the >>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the >>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit >>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because >>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down >>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. >>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. >> >>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you >>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work >>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably >>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have >>a very good chance of survival. >> >>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >>Ottawa, Canada >>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. > >Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. > >Lucky > >-------------- Original message -------------- >From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com > > -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: > > -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) > > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the > > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. > > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. > > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. > > There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when > you were already mentally prepared for it, and > doing one when the > engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the > adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit > harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because > you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down > straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. > Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. > > Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you > get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work > you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably > will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have > a very good chance of survival. > > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Tell us what the overflow tube is. If it is the vent tube from the engine driven fuel pump on a low pressure system it should not have anything coming out of it. If something is coming out of it you should be concerned. My fuel stains turn brown after a period of time. Not sure why but presume it is lead from all that stuff in 100LL. Denis Walsh On Mar 5, 2006, at 11:05 AM, DAVE MADER wrote: > > > Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 > Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying > sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow > tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other > liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 > lbs. > Should I be concerned? > > Dave Mader > 50 hrs, RV-6 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
I had a saying when I taught CFI candidate's: -Don't simulate an emergency with a REAL emergency. -OR- -Don't make a practice emergency into a real one! I agree with the following comments: >posted by: Jerry Springer >Sounds great on paper and is great that you can do it while expecting >it to happen. The down side to that theory is that at many controlled >airports you cannot just start turning xwind 400 ft because of conflict >with other controlled traffic. >"posted by: "John Furey" >Please be very careful. As an instructor for a specific make of >aircraft we taught the "turn back" maneuver for many years. " If you are going to practice have some altitude safety margin, say 1000/1500 agl to the practice. 400 agl is LOW for return to airport, and everything has to be right. Remember the instructor knows its coming and knows he has power; this help in both reaction time and psychologically (less stress). The swimming in glue syndrome occurs for the first few seconds after the engine quits for almost every pilot caught by surprise. Now for the practical: Real world reaction time? What about winds? Density altitude? Gross weight? Obstacles? Terrain? What about the runway length? If you takeoff climb quickly on a short runway, return to same, landing opposite, may put you past the end of the runway? If the runway is long enough, head winds, straight ahead may better? MY POINT? ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL EVERY DAY, AIRPORT, CONDITION IS DIFFERNT. Having a operating rules of thumb or committed memory item for an emergency is important. EVERY TAKE OFF brief yourself out loud or to yourself; IN CASE OF AN ENGINE FAILURE BELOW X I will do THIS, above X, I'll attempt to return to this runway (or a parallel or crossing runway). Every flight airline pilots discuss the engine failure scenario in detail before EVERY takeoff. It varies every time, but there is no question of what to do. Your mind set prepares you to expect something, since it crossed your mind just before T/O. If you look at FAR part 61.87 it stated what pre-solo requirements are for a STUDENT pilot. Among the requirement's are: -Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions -Simulated emergency procedures, including simulated power-off landings and simulated power failure during departures. Don't make a practice emergency into a real one! I suggest routine practice POWER OFF approaches abeam the numbers. This will help your power off glide skill and is not as spectacular or with as much risk. Remember if you have a Carb. beware of Carb ice and take proper precautions if the conditions are conducive. Clear the engine to make sure power is available for a go-around if needed; keep the engine warm. Power off appraches is good practice. Chance is an engine failure is not going to happen right at 400 or 1000 agl on takeoff. Chances are after engine failure you are going to make a power off approach for outside the pattern to an off field location. Granted the 400agl senerio is critcal and has value to consider, don't get to foucused on one thing, be ready for it anytime. Cheers George CFI (inst/me) ATP --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Data points are good but let's make sure that they are data points that are applicable in a real (not simulated) situation.. There can be a significant difference in the gliding/descent performance of a light aircraft with the power set at idle but still generating power and the same aircraft with a genuine "no power being produced" engine failure but prop windmilling due fuel exhaustion or whatever. (As a further complication, there have also been lots of debates in the past about prop stopped vs. prop windmilling gliding performance.) Years ago I used to instruct primary flying students on Beech Musketeers. The usual practice engine failure involved adding 2/3 of the available flap to add drag to provide gliding performance more representative of the actual emergency situation. This was based on a bunch of actual flight tests flown with a dead engine to touchdown. I use 1/2 flap in my RV-6A when practicing engine failures to attempt the same sort of thing, but I have not done the serious flight testing to satisfy myself that this is a valid simulation. Any one have some data points about real (not simulated) 180 deg turn to touchdown gliding performance? Jim Oke RV-6A Wpg., MB lucky wrote: > >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. > >Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. > >Lucky > >-------------- Original message -------------- >From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> > > > >> >>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on >>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? >>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he >>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically >>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after >>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 >>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the >>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the >>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made >>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a >>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers. >>> >>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane >>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. >>> >>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. >>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm >>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I >>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he >>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. >>> >>> >>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when >>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the >>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the >>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit >>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because >>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down >>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. >>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. >> >>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you >>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work >>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably >>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have >>a very good chance of survival. >> >>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >>Ottawa, Canada >>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. > >Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an option, period. > >Lucky > >-------------- Original message -------------- >From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com > > -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: > > -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) > > OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on > the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? > OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he > showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically > begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after > a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 > degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the > > airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the > time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made > the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a > short runway and needed to land on the numbers. > > He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane > was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. > > So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. > http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm > He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I > can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he > gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. > > There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when > you were already mentally prepared for it, and > doing one when the > engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the > adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit > harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because > you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down > straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. > Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. > > Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you > get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work > you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably > will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have > a very good chance of survival. > > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) > Ottawa, Canada > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power
One important data point you're missing- what kind of prop do you have? The combination of a small battery (like the Panasonic) and a permanent magnet motor-type starter (like the Skytec) along with a light prop will cause problems. It sure did for me. The problem is that permanent magnet starters have a very high current draw (compared to more expensive, wound field starters) and that a small battery like the Panasonic may not be able to keep up. Combine that with the low inertia of a lightweight prop, and you've got problems. Not to mention, this scenario has been demonstrated to lead to kickbacks, which will damage the starter. I went through similar problems with my setup. Same battery and starter as you, wood prop, O-360 A1A on my RV-6. Starting performance was always pretty anemic. At about 80 hours it gave up all together, and inspection revealed that the starter housing was cracked (kickback.) I solved the problem by upgrading to a permanent magnet starter, which is expensive and slightly heavier, but draws much less peak current. Now I can almost get the tail up on starter power alone. The heavy straight weight oil and cold temps certainly aren't helping, but the real problem is the starter/battery combination. There's plenty of discussion about this issue in the archives. Jeff Point RV-6 Milwaukee > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
In a message dated 3/5/2006 11:29:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, pdeits(at)comcast.net writes: Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either aviation or automotive style plugs. Price aside, what is recommended and why? ================================================ I wish you better luck than I had with this system. Are you planning to keep one mag? GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Can you tell us a little more about the Emag/Pmag bad luck you had. I am also considering this option. Thanks for the info. Jim Bowen RV-8 >From: Vanremog(at)aol.com >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag >Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:46:06 EST > > >In a message dated 3/5/2006 11:29:35 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, >pdeits(at)comcast.net writes: > >Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either >aviation or automotive style plugs. > >Price aside, what is recommended and why? > > >================================================ > >I wish you better luck than I had with this system. Are you planning to >keep one mag? > >GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:21 PM, D Paul Deits wrote: > > Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of > either aviation or automotive style plugs. > > Price aside, what is recommended and why? > I'm not sure anybody really knows the answer to this, although there appears to be anecdotal evidence on both sides. I'm currently running one E-mag with auto plugs, and a Bendix Mag with aircraft plugs. I originally had aircraft plugs on the E-mag, but changed them out after talking to all the pretty much everybody I could at Oshkosh. I switched because I didn't see a good way to open the gap on aircraft plugs to the recommended larger gap with the electronic ignition. The engine may have gotten a little smoother with the auto plugs, but that may be my active imagination. There was no measurable change in performance with the switch between plugs. The engine is noticeably smoother and has noticeably more power on the E-mag alone than the mag alone when you cycle the switches in flight at cruise settings. I'm planning to replace the left Bendix mag with a P-mag at the annual. I will probably leave the aircraft plugs in place for at least a while, so I have a direct comparison. Long term, unless I notice a performance difference or have service issues, I'm planning to go with the auto plugs. James Freeman ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 05, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: <jbario(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions > > Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few > weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the > tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so. > We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions > > 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at > the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps) > it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback? > > 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are > these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We > assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total > of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted > NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for > a rookie airplane builder? > > Jim Barrilleaux > Grass Valley, CA > RV-8A tail feathers > jbario(at)sbcglobal.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Lightspeed is better. Most of the racers use Lightspeed Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details. Dick Martin N233M RV8 the Fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either > aviation or automotive style plugs. > > Price aside, what is recommended and why? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com Flying! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: New Guy questions
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Jim., I have over 1200 hours on my rv8 in 6 years now. I have the nav and glideslope antennas in the wingtips. Also the transponder antenna in the ;wing tip . They work well both the VOR and the glidslope aswell as the xpndr. However the transceiver portion didnot work well. I finally gave up and installed a DM outside antenna on the belly of my RV8 and it works perfect. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: <jbario(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Saturday, March 04, 2006 12:04 AM Subject: RV-List: New Guy questions > > Howdy to all. I have been reading the postings to this list for a few > weeks and have learned a lot. My partner and I have been working on the > tail feathers for a RV-8A since 2/1 and expect to finish in a week or so. > We will then start on the QB wings which leads me to a few questions > > 1. I noticed in Vans Catalog an Airtech Wingtip Lens Kit. We looked at > the Vans QB wing tip and lenses briefly this evening and (naively perhaps) > it didn't appear to require an mod kit such as the Airtech. Any feedback? > > 2. Some people apparently using the Nav AV antenna in the wingtips. Are > these antennas also useful for Localizer and Glide Slope signals? We > assume one needs to install one of these antennas in each wingtip (total > of 2). Any reports on their effectiveness vice externally mounted > NAV/LOC/GS antennas? What is the best type of coax to use these days for > a rookie airplane builder? > > Jim Barrilleaux > Grass Valley, CA > RV-8A tail feathers > jbario(at)sbcglobal.net > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Paul, The choice of aircraft or auto plugs is determined by the type of ign wire you use. If you use the 8 1/2 mm MSD auto racing wire the auto plugs are im my opinionsuperior. I have a lightspeed dual ign and am happy with it . It is far superior to any other ign that I have experience with. The lightspeed delliversa full40 thousand plus volt full capacitance discharge system, whereas the others are usually 20 or 30 thousand volt inductive inductive systems. The difference being a lower charge as well as the ability to precisely time the spark as well the duration and intensity of the spark as provided by the Lightspeed ign. The Lightspeed costs more but in the long run, works better. Most of the racers use Lightspeed. Contact Klaus Savior of Lightspeed for details. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either > aviation or automotive style plugs. > > Price aside, what is recommended and why? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 05, 2006
-----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of dick martin Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:04 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag Lightspeed is better. Nice opionion To bad you offor no facts to back up this blatant statement Most of the racers use Lightspeed And this is proof of what? Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details. I like it, ask the manufacturer if his product is better hmmm I wonder what Klaus will say. I have known Klaus for a few years and I only believe 10 percent of what he says. Dick Martin N233M RV8 the Fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either > aviation or automotive style plugs. > > Price aside, what is recommended and why? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Battery cranking power
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Another missing data point is size of the battery cables running from aft of the baggage compartment. If they're undersized, they'll drag the available voltage at the starter down. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID REEL Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:26 PM Subject: RV-List: Battery cranking power Here's a data point on cranking power available from the Panasonic LC-RD1217P battery. OAT 43 degrees, no pre heat. Oil 50 wt break-in oil. Installation: O360A1A, Sky Tec model 149-12LS starter with battery mounted aft of rear baggage compartment in an RV8A. Standard three contactor installation of battery, starter, and contactor on starter. The fully charged battery has had little use & measured 12.8V. What happened was the engine turned over two revolutions and stopped. Subsequently I could just get one revolution at a time just as though it was being hand proped. After 5 or 6 of these, a cylinder fired and I did get the engine started Initially I thought I needed to redo my installation or switch batteries. Later, I realized that the heavy oil was probably the culprit & once I went to 20W50, performance would likely be more satisfactory. Have others found temperature limits where the cranking power of this battery is barely adequate? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 05, 2006
From: scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from your altimeter? Walter Tondu wrote: On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening. http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com Flying! Scott Bilinski RV-8a cell 858-395-5094 --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:18:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com writes: Can you tell us a little more about the Emag/Pmag bad luck you had. I am also considering this option. =================================== Once again I have offered to discuss only with those who contact or call me directly. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 774hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Hi Dave, I have not seen a response to your email, so: You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak around the area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case. The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked fuel will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe instead of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that fuel getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking potentially lethal. It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the culprit. I am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe. A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good information. Others on the list could have good advise. Let us know how it goes, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > > Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 > Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying > sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow > tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other > liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs. > Should I be concerned? > > Dave Mader > 50 hrs, RV-6 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 05, 2006
Don't some bushplanes like beavers and such have a system to pump fuel into the oil to thin it for cold starts? It then boils off as the engine warms up and the oil becomes viscous again. Pax, Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Jewell Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:00 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow Hi Dave, I have not seen a response to your email, so: You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak around the area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case. The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked fuel will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe instead of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that fuel getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking potentially lethal. It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the culprit. I am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe. A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good information. Others on the list could have good advise. Let us know how it goes, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > > Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 > Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying > sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow > tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other > liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs. > Should I be concerned? > > Dave Mader > 50 hrs, RV-6 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Yes, but that system only has fuel going into the oil when commanded, and they have to follow a specific warm up procedure to be sure all the fuel is boiled off before they use high power. This is completely different from a leak in a fuel pump which could put fuel into the oil continuously. Kevin Horton On 6 Mar 2006, at 24:24, Ed Holyoke wrote: > > Don't some bushplanes like beavers and such have a system to pump fuel > into the oil to thin it for cold starts? It then boils off as the > engine > warms up and the oil becomes viscous again. > > Pax, > > Ed Holyoke > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Jewell > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:00 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > > Hi Dave, > > I have not seen a response to your email, so: > You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak > around > the > area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case. > The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked > fuel > will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe > instead > of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that > fuel > getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking > potentially > lethal. > > It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the > culprit. I > am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe. > A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good > information. > Others on the list could have good advise. > > Let us know how it goes, > > Jim > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM > Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > >> >> >> >> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 >> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying >> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow >> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no >> other >> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 > lbs. >> Should I be concerned? > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 06, 2006
I hope your kidding. I was instructed to fly defensively and scout around the airport for possible off field landing areas and NON landing areas. I suggest you know the airport runway elevation before you even get into the cockpit, know what the density altitude is roughly (and it's affects on performance). You should also know what the airports particular rules might be for TOs and Landings and know what their recommended pattern altitudes are, etc. If you want to put turning back and live to tell about it your repertoire then up the level of pre-flight awareness and always review the Rough engine or Engine Out Right After Takeoff in your checklist and calculate before TO what that minimum return to airport airspeed and altitude is going to be before taking the active. Write it down if it helps to remember better. Know where the empty field or wide road is before taking off. Know where the high obstical is before taking off. Whatever. Go up to 3000 or 4000 AGL and practice it. The plane can do it easy. You just have to know the plane. Yes, we fly RVs for fun but you still have to think a step or two ahead of yourself. Still have to be ready for when bad things happen. Perhaps some who may not practice anymore but just go out and fly "nominally" everyday go spend an hour or two with Jan and have him demo all the different possible stall combos, take off and landing types and return to field types with him. He's pretty thorough and competent and he has both a RV6 and a 6A. For all you pilots that love running your tanks dry, you can do a combo test WAY up high over an airport area to eliminate the idle prop speed. Rick Caldwell told me Saturday that in his 6 he did a test were he ran a tank dry and verified that at the windmilling speed he was at he was able to change the pitch of his Harzell prop enough to be somewhat effective. I wouldn't have thought so but now mentally I know it *might* work if I still have oil pressure so it's something else in an emergency that with time I might get some neurons holding that info to fire off and get me to try it to help sink rates. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> > > With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the > airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency > situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from > your altimeter? > > > > Walter Tondu wrote: > > On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: > > > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD > > This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening. > > http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF > > -- > Walter Tondu > http://www.rv7-a.com > Flying! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott Bilinski > RV-8a > cell 858-395-5094 > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > I hope your kidding. I was instructed to fly defensively and scout around the airport for possible off field landing areas and NON landing areas. I suggest you know the airport runway elevation before you even get into the cockpit, know what the density altitude is roughly (and it's affects on performance). You should also know what the airports particular rules might be for TOs and Landings and know what their recommended pattern altitudes are, etc.If you want to put turning back and live to tell about it your repertoire then up the level of pre-flight awareness andalwaysreview the Rough engine or Engine Out Right AfterTakeoff in your checklist and calculatebefore TO what that minimum return to airport airspeed and altitude is going to be before taking the active. Write it down if it helps to remember better. Know where the empty field or wide road is before taking off. Know where the hi gh obstical is before taking off. Whatever. Go up to 3000 or 4000 AGL and practice it.The plane can do it easy. You just have to know the plane. Yes, we fly RVs for fun but you still have to think a step or two ahead of yourself. Still have to be ready for when bad things happen. Perhaps some who may not practice anymore but just go out and fly "nominally" everyday go spend an hour or two with Jan and have him demo all the different possible stall combos, take off and landing types and return to field types with him. He's pretty thorough and competent and he has both a RV6 and a 6A. For all youpilots that love running your tanks dry, you can do a combo test WAY up high over an airport area to eliminate the idle prop speed. Rick Caldwell told me Saturday that in his 6 he did a test were he ran a tank dry and verified that at the windmilling speed he was at he was able to change the pitch of his Harzell prop enough to be somewhat effective. I wouldn't have thought so but now mentally I know it *might* work if I still have oil pressureso it's something else in an emergency that with time I might get some neurons holding that info to fire off and get me to try it to help sink rates. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: scott bilinski rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com -- RV-List message posted by: scott bilinski With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency situation will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from your altimeter? Walter Tondu wrote: -- RV-List message posted by: Walter Tondu On 03/06 2:38, lucky wrote: Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD This was always scary in a C150 :) And the long XC was frightening. http://204.108.4.16/d -tpp/0602/00754AD.PDF -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com Flying! Scott Bilinski RV-8a cell 858-395-5094 --------------------------------- Contribution Web Site - ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Hi Scott- >With all this talk going on, I looked at my altimeter today while departing the >airport and realized, wait, the safe number is XXX AGL! Now in a emergency situation >will you be able to remember the airport altitude and subtract it from >your altimeter? I for one couldn't reliably do that. That's why we do the math prior to crossing the hold short line, whether calculating turn back altitudes for single / no engine aircraft, or calculating the acceleration altitude in a multi engine jet. It's all part of having a plan for every take off, including having identified available options prior to needing them. Something that can help a person's mind set and preparedness is to assume that: every take off roll will end in an abort; every lift off will result in an engine failure; and every approach will result in a go around. In the unlikely event one of these does occur, you will be prepared. If it doesn't, you will be pleasantly surprised. Remember, good luck is where preparation meets opportunity! Glen Matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
Date: Mar 06, 2006
I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to upholster them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type Confor-foam for the upper layer. Thanks Mannan Thomason RV-8 Final stages. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
From: "B25Flyer" <dougr(at)petroblend.com>
Date: Mar 06, 2006
I am baaaack!!!!!!! Kevin Horton told me this subject had raised it's head again. There is NO DOUBT that the turnback after takeoff can be completed in an RV. There is also NO DOUBT that each year several people get killed trying to do it. This happens in all kinds of airplanes including RV's. I am alive today because I overcame the incredible urge to turnback. I wrote this years ago when this topic came up. Please read the story at http://www.petroblend.com/dougr/dnt-turn.htm As the Defender of "Don't Turn Back" I remain! Doug Rozendaal Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19895#19895 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
>I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred >bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any >comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I >can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to upholster >them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type >Confor-foam for the upper layer. Can't help with source but a google search probably would. I will note that in my plane I made the Pax seat with 1" of Blue confor-foam and 1" of pink on the top. I felt that it was too firm so I made another seat (I will not state which) with 2" of pink. It is better to me. The yellow is too soft. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
Date: Mar 06, 2006
I have the Van's foam in my -8. Becki Orndorff http://www.fly-gbi.com/ covered them and I'm installing the rest of the interior from Becki at this time. I've only got 35 hours on my plane but so far I very pleased with the comfort and fit of the Van's seat foam. If you opt to buy your interior from an outside source, I'd highly recommend the Orndorff's. Steve Struyk RV-8, 35 Hours ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:07 AM Subject: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam > > I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a > hundred > bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any > comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I > can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to > upholster > them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type > Confor-foam for the upper layer. > > Thanks > Mannan Thomason > RV-8 Final stages. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
If you haven't read Doug's piece, then do it now. It's interesting reading, and I couldn't agree more. Although both of my off-field emergency landings occurred far from an airport, I went through much the same steps that Doug did. But I handled my two emergencies differently. When the prop on my Pitts departed in flight (the prop flange failed due to fatigue), I spent valuable time trying to figure out what happened, and actually tried twice to use whatever portions of the prop were still there (the denial part!). I was in the 2200' to 2500' range when it happened. After I became an unlicensed glider pilot, the safe landing on a road was uneventful, thank you very much. The second incident was in my Traumahawk. At 1200', flying in a corridor through some class B space, the engine started to run rough, and finally lost enough power so we couldn't stay in the air. Over older neighborhoods with lakes and huge oak trees, I assessed my landing options rather quickly while doing my emergency cockpit procedures. There was a large highway, but if I landed short, it would have been nasty, so I discarded it immediately. Off my left wing I saw a white oblong something amidst the green trees/houses. I picked it, and didn't waver from my choice. I had to slip the Traumahawk a lot to lose altitude and airspeed, and plopped the bird down ..... in the percolation pond for the Winter Springs (FL) Reclaimed Water System. they had built a 6' berm around ground level and put sugar sand in the bottom. This was fortuitous as the Traumahawk was stopped is less than 300'. My best short field landing to date. The cause of this one was the missing cotter pin in the arm that holds the carb float. The pin backed out far enough for the float to cock, become jammed and allow the free-flowing fuel to flood the engine in flight. The carb had been rebuilt by an A&P prior to my purchase 6 months or so before. In both instances, the airplanes were disassembled and made their way home on a trailer to fly again. If you've read this far, I have some personal observations. You never know how you're going to handle the emergency until it becomes real. Every inflight emergency is unique and unlike anyone elses emergency. You can learn from others thought processes, but your situation will always be different is some or many ways. Some people have been killed trying to save the airplane. That's the only reason to compel someone to turn back to the airport. My airplanes are expendable. I have had so much pleasure from all of them that they don't owe me anything. That doesn't prevent me from trying to save both of our butts!!! I like the skin, tin, ticket quote. It ranks up there with 'fly the airplane as deep into the crash as you can'. Priceless. Thanks, Doug, for weighing in again. I missed you! Linn B25Flyer wrote: > >I am baaaack!!!!!!! > >Kevin Horton told me this subject had raised it's head again. > >There is NO DOUBT that the turnback after takeoff can be completed in an RV. There is also NO DOUBT that each year several people get killed trying to do it. This happens in all kinds of airplanes including RV's. > >I am alive today because I overcame the incredible urge to turnback. I wrote this years ago when this topic came up. Please read the story at > >http://www.petroblend.com/dougr/dnt-turn.htm > >As the Defender of "Don't Turn Back" I remain! > >Doug Rozendaal > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19895#19895 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
-----Original Message----- From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net> Sent: Mar 6, 2006 9:07 AM Subject: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to upholster them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type Confor-foam for the upper layer. Thanks Mannan Thomason RV-8 Final stages. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Neal E Capt HQ AU/XPRR <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 06, 2006
>I am baaaack!!!!!!! < Best news I've had in weeks. Welcome back Doug! Neal RV-7 N8ZG (wiring) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: "Robin Marks" <robin(at)mrmoisture.com>
One idea for the "NASA Memory Foam" is to buy a memory foam from "topper" from Bed Bath and Beyond (find a 20% off coupon for BBB and reduce your cost even more) Keep in mind that the memory foam is HEAVY so maybe standard open cell foam from a local foam/upholstery shop with the top layer being the memory foam. (I live in a small town and we have a place to get almost any type of foam and they even can cut it if you have your pattern). Good luck, Robin -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mannan J. Thomason Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:08 AM Subject: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to upholster them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type Confor-foam for the upper layer. Thanks Mannan Thomason RV-8 Final stages. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
http://www.seatfoam.com/prod01.htm Will sell precut multilayer or individual sheets. Quoting "Mannan J. Thomason" : > > I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred > bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any > comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I > can't afford Oregon Aero or Abbie. Wife can sew and has agreed to upholster > them. I just need the foam. Would like to have some of the NASA type > Confor-foam for the upper layer. > > Thanks > Mannan Thomason > RV-8 Final stages. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org>
Whoa.....strong words! How cay one know this when the E/P MAG units are so new ? Please put some more words around the "Better" descriptor word you choose. Certainly, fully describing the attributes of each and why one unit is superior to another is appropriate here...right ?? ................................................................... Lightspeed is better. Most of the racers use Lightspeed Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details. Dick Martin N233M RV8 the Fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of either > aviation or automotive style plugs. > > Price aside, what is recommended and why? > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RV-8A Quickbuild Kit for sale
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Wick's Aircraft Supply stategically located in Highland, Il. is selling their RV-8A Quickbuild kit. Priced with desirable options, this could be a lucrative deal for the interested builder who is in a position to pick it up himself and save many hundreds of dollars in shipping costs. Call Scott Wick toll free and tell him you saw the ad as placed by Rick on the Matronics RV list for bottom line pricing. 8) http://tinyurl.com/jxlck Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" 112 hours Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19941#19941 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
>From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) >Subject: Re: RV-List: Minimum altitude to return to airport > >The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never >done this practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous >soapboxes. It was to update the list with a real tried RV >datapoint. It doesn't mean it will work for each pilot/plane combo >every time but it does demonstrate that it CAN be done and >BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min >airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats >soapbox. Lucky: First as far as soapbox and folks who have never done this in a RV, you might like to know that several of the folks on this list are literally test pilots and long time RV pilot and instructors. Although I never have done a 400agl turn back in a RV, I am a 10,000 hr ATP, over a 1000 in RV's and 2000 hrs dual given as a CFI (inst/me). I do think it is important to point out that 400 agl COULD be dangerous in (our) opinion, I understand your point. It is a data point and is possible if you do XYZ. I got that, as well as those who responded, but not everyone my get it, and I think it is important that the emphasis be made. I know you might feel a little ganged up on, I understand, but that is not the intent or to take away from Jan's interesting DEMO. It's a good thing to emphasise the danger for the average pilot caught unaware, that making low altitude 60 degree BANK turns are sporty. Quick what is your new stall speed at 60 degrees? Have you practiced an accelerate stall/recovery? Steep turns at altitude? Power off glide to landing? I would go for these at altitude first. The average pilot is not prepared mentally or skill wise for radical max performance maeuvers at any altitude (good, bad, ugly it is true). We all get rusty. I fly a jet on autopilot. If I don't kick it off and hand fly my stick and rudder suffer. So one good thing out of this topic is practice and stay current, but you can do it higher up in case you are human and make a mistake, you have room to recover. For those with super human skill and can do a power off go around (joke), you know who you are. Every ones caution is valid. I don't agree with ALWAYS go straight either. You say we all know. Not every pilot might know why a 400 agl, 270 degree turn (225 left, 45 right to line up) is hazards. Jan may be able to do it knowing the engine is there but add a little distraction, oil on the windscreen, vibration he might not be so smooth. Not everyone is named LUCKY! either :-) As a CFI, I and most CFI's teach what will work. One thing for sure, controlled flight, wings level, at min speed is WAY more survivable than a stall spin into the ground. Not every one has the SKILL and practice as Jan does in this maneuver. As you and everyone pointed out that every takeoff, airport, flight and aircraft condition is differnt. Mental preparedness and practice of basic skills (slow flight, stalls, accelerate stall, steep turns, pwr-off glide to a landing) is critical. Most practice can be done at altitude. I can't see practicing higher G banks near stall, near the ground is really prudent. You can do this at 3000 agl. One commercial maneuver is a steep descending spiral over a point to a power off landing. I found that really confidence building and increased my ability to divide attention from out/in side and maintain while maintaining a higher G turn. I agree with everything you said except the soapbox. I think everyone has valid points, even if they never did a 400 agl turn back in a RV. With that said, the day my engine quits on the cross-wind at 500 agl and I see the runway is available, I may make a decision to go for the runway. I will base that more on my power off glide practice and steep turns and accelerate stall recovery (awareness / avoidance) practice. A Demo by a skilled pilot like Jan is an eye opener, but most RV pilots are not able to do this maneuver as safely in a real stressful situation. Not that it is a good thing, it is realistic. Be real, real safe and conservative. FACTS: Controlled flight (at min speed) into the ground = survivable Uncontrolled flight (stall spin) into the ground = not survivable Stall Spd: 60 deg bank=1.4 x stall; 76 deg bank = 2 x stall "Ye will bust thy ass when ground cometh up and smite thee mightily." Be safe, and go practice all your private (student) pilot maneuvers at altitude today. If commercial rated practice those maneuvers as well. George --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net>
Subject: Re: leaking fuel pump overflow
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Jim It was my understanding that this overflow would dump fuel overboard instead of into the crankcase. So, I guess that the only thing I thought you would get from this tube would be fuel if the diaphragm leaks. How would crankcase fluids get into this tube?....are you saying the diaphragm might' have a leak or the mating surface between the pump and engine? I am just trying to make sense of this since I have never had a fuel pump apart and can't visualize it. Dave Mader "Jim Jewell" wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > I have not seen a response to your email, so: > You might have a slight amount of crank case fluids due to a leak around the > area where the actuating arm reaches into the accessory case. > The pump is designed so that if one of the diaphragms fails the leaked fuel > will exit via the overflow fitting and out the tubing you describe instead > of running into the crankcase. I probably don't need to tell you that fuel > getting into the crankcase can be very dangerous. We are talking potentially > lethal. > > It's a total guess on my part that crankcase fluids might be the culprit. I > am basing this guess on the "dark brown streak" that you describe. > A call to a trusted AME or engine shop might provide some good information. > Others on the list could have good advise. > > Let us know how it goes, > > Jim > > ----- Original Message ----- >From: "DAVE MADER" <davemader(at)bresnan.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 10:05 AM > Subject: RV-List: leaking fuel pump overflow > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Can anybody tell me. I have approx. 50 hrs on a rebuilt 0-360 >> Lyc. on my RV-6. When I look at the belly after a few flying >> sessions there is a small dark brown streak coming from the overflow >> tube extending out about 1-2 inches. Must be fuel because of no other >> liquids in this area. My fuel pump does vary anywhere from 2 to 5 lbs. >> Should I be concerned? >> >> Dave Mader >> 50 hrs, RV-6 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Trimming Engine Baffles to fit top cowling
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Fellow Builders, I've finally gotten the RV-9A/O-320 baffle parts trimmed to match the top cowling and establish the baffle-to-cowling spacing. Trimming was easier than I feared it would be. I made a one inch diameter "washer" or "wheel" out of aluminum and drilled a small hole in the center. (A one inch washer will give you a half inch separation between the cowl and baffle -- a 3/4 inch washer will give you a 3/8 inch separation.) None of the baffle parts should be riveted together except angle brackets that attach to the ramp floors. I set the top cowling on top of the engine and it rested on the baffle parts. (The two forward bulkhead parts were left off as was the bottom cowling.) Put the "wheel" over the tip of a Sharpie marker. Lay the wheel against the rear baffle and push it up until it makes contact with the top cowling. Roll the wheel against the cowling while the pen transfers the shape of the cowl onto the baffle. The back cowling parts can be reached through the engine mount area. Do the same with the side baffles. You may need to cut the sharpie pen if it is too long to work with. I didn't have to although I have pretty big paws. Remove the top cowl and trim all the baffle parts where they have been marked. (You may need a vixen file to match file the adjacent baffle pieces.) I went through this routine about 4-5 times before the top cowl would fit properly. Once the top cowl settles into place and the hinges are secured, run the wheel one more time. The final pass will mark the final cowl-to-baffle spacing depending on what size washer you made. Install the two front bulkhead pieces. Use the same technique as above to mark, trim and re-fit. I was able to work through the inlets. I'm sure other builders have other ideas... Joe Connell Stewartville, MN RV-9A N95JJ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 06, 2006
I think we should also bring the subject of airspeed into this discussion. As in, how fast are you going when the engine quits. Doing 120 knots at 500 feet a given distance from the runway threshold might give you enough energy to make that 180 degree turn back to the runway, while doing 80 knots in the same situation might not. This will depend on what speed you established on the climb and your overall rate of climb (better for constant-speed prop of course). It is total energy available to you that matters in a turn-back maneuver, and that consists of kinetic (airspeed) plus potential (altitude) energy. This is pretty clear in a fixed pitch RV-6 when you carry an extra 10 knots into the late downwind (doh!) and have to extend it a half mile or use some other energy sapping maneuver, like dropping the flaps early. Airspeed aside, the guy with the constant speed prop climbing at Vx is quite likely to still be OVER the runway when the 500' engine failure occurs, while the fixed pitch guy climbing at Vy is a half mile away from the airport at the same altitude. Curt RV-6 C-GCAR 375 hours ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Oke" <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 4:24 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Minimum altitude to return to airport > > Data points are good but let's make sure that they are data points that > are applicable in a real (not simulated) situation.. > > There can be a significant difference in the gliding/descent performance > of a light aircraft with the power set at idle but still generating > power and the same aircraft with a genuine "no power being produced" > engine failure but prop windmilling due fuel exhaustion or whatever. (As > a further complication, there have also been lots of debates in the past > about prop stopped vs. prop windmilling gliding performance.) > > Years ago I used to instruct primary flying students on Beech > Musketeers. The usual practice engine failure involved adding 2/3 of the > available flap to add drag to provide gliding performance more > representative of the actual emergency situation. This was based on a > bunch of actual flight tests flown with a dead engine to touchdown. I > use 1/2 flap in my RV-6A when practicing engine failures to attempt the > same sort of thing, but I have not done the serious flight testing to > satisfy myself that this is a valid simulation. > > Any one have some data points about real (not simulated) 180 deg turn > to touchdown gliding performance? > > Jim Oke > RV-6A > Wpg., MB > > lucky wrote: > >> >>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this >>practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to >>update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will >>work for each pilot/plane combo every time but it does demonstrate that it >>CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min >>airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. >> >>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good >>place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, >>and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an >>option, period. >> >>Lucky >> >>-------------- Original message -------------- >>From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> >> >> >> >>> >>>On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on >>>>the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? >>>>OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he >>>>showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically >>>>begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after >>>>a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 >>>>degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the >>>>airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the >>>>time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made >>>>the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a >>>>short runway and needed to land on the numbers. >>>> >>>>He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane >>>>was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. >>>> >>>>So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. >>>>http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm >>>>He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I >>>>can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he >>>>gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. >>>> >>>> >>>There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when >>>you were already mentally prepared for it, and doing one when the >>>engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the >>>adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit >>>harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because >>>you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down >>>straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. >>>Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. >>> >>>Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you >>>get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work >>>you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably >>>will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have >>>a very good chance of survival. >>> >>>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >>>Ottawa, Canada >>>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >>The point wasn't to read more emails from folks who have never done this >>practice in an RV and just rehashed their previous soapboxes. It was to >>update the list with a real tried RV datapoint. It doesn't mean it will >>work for each pilot/plane combo every timebut it does demonstrate that it >>CAN be done and BETTER yet it actually showed a bank amount and min >>airspeed amount and altitude loss amount. Real RV data beats soapbox. >> >>Practice it up way up high, be honest with yourself and if there is a good >>place to land ahead then you probably should consider it first. If not, >>and the flight envelop meets what you practiced for yourself, it IS an >>option, period. >> >>Lucky >> >>-------------- Original message -------------- >>From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com >> >> -- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> >> On 4 Mar 2006, at 21:01, lucky wrote: >> >> -- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) >> >> OK. Remember a couple of weeks or so ago the discussion we had on >> the 'net about the min altitude/airspeed to return to the runway? >> OK. Today during my RV transition training with Jan Bussell, he >> showed my why his turn from runway heading to crosswind typically >> begins when he's 400' AGL. During a typical 120 mph climbout after >> a touch and go, at 400' he cut the throttle, banked exactly 60 >> degrees and turned back to the runway carefully ensuring the >> >> airspeed never got below 80 mph. It turned on a dime and by the >> time we leveled out we'd lost maybe 100' at most. We easily made >> the runway with lots of options for flaps and slips if we had a >> short runway and needed to land on the numbers. >> >> He agreed adding this type of testing at altitude for each plane >> was a great idea and really like the Barry Schieff video demo of this. >> >> So anyway, here's a real world datapoint. I highly recommend Jan. >> http://www.safeair1.com/RVTT/JB_Aframe.htm >> He's got a great, relaxed way of explaining RV techniques and I >> can't imagine a first flight without the type of instruction he >> gives. Pretty thorough EAA transition training syllabus he uses. >> >> There is a huge difference between doing a practice turn back when >> you were already mentally prepared for it, and >> doing one when the >> engine failure has caught you by surprise. If the engine fails the >> adrenaline will be pumping, and it will be very easy to pull a bit >> harder than you would in practice. If you do a stall/spin because >> you pulled too hard, you will die. If you just put the aircraft down >> straight ahead, there is good chance of survival in many places. >> Granted, there are some runways where the story is different. >> >> Low altitude turn backs are very high stakes poker. If it works, you >> get the aircraft on the runway with no damage. If it doesn't work >> you are dead. Putting the aircraft down straight ahead probably >> will damage the aircraft, and maybe the occupants too. But you have >> a very good chance of survival. >> >> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >> Ottawa, Canada >> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power
Date: Mar 06, 2006
ED and listers, I experienced a similar problem on my RV8 5 years ago when I finished my RV8. I finally realized that I had grounded the battery to the airframe in the back of the fuselage. This does not work. First their is to much resistance and second, grounding to the rear fuselage creates and electronic "Ground Loop" which creates all kinds of electrical and electronic problems. The proper way is to route both the power cable and a similar size ground cable parallel to each other (not twisted) ground cable to a central point at the firewall and the power cable to the central power buss. Hope this helps , it sure worked wonders for me. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:24 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: Battery cranking power > > Another missing data point is size of the battery cables running from > aft of the baggage compartment. If they're undersized, they'll drag the > available voltage at the starter down. > > Pax, > > Ed Holyoke > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of DAVID REEL > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 12:26 PM > To: rvlist > Subject: RV-List: Battery cranking power > > > Here's a data point on cranking power available from the Panasonic > LC-RD1217P battery. OAT 43 degrees, no pre heat. Oil 50 wt break-in > oil. Installation: O360A1A, Sky Tec model 149-12LS starter with battery > mounted aft of rear baggage compartment in an RV8A. Standard three > contactor installation of battery, starter, and contactor on starter. > The fully charged battery has had little use & measured 12.8V. What > happened was the engine turned over two revolutions and stopped. > Subsequently I could just get one revolution at a time just as though it > was being hand proped. After 5 or 6 of these, a cylinder fired and I > did get the engine started > > Initially I thought I needed to redo my installation or switch > batteries. Later, I realized that the heavy oil was probably the > culprit & once I went to 20W50, performance would likely be more > satisfactory. Have others found temperature limits where the cranking > power of this battery is barely adequate? > > Dave Reel - RV8A > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag
Date: Mar 06, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 9:26 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of dick martin > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 7:04 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > > Lightspeed is better. Nice opionion To bad you offor no facts to back up > this blatant statement > > Most of the racers use Lightspeed And this is proof of what? > > Call Klaus Savior at Lightspeed Ign for details. I like it, ask the > manufacturer if his product is better hmmm I wonder what Klaus will say. > I > have known Klaus for a few years and I only believe 10 percent of what he > says. > Dick Martin > N233M RV8 > the Fast one > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2006 1:21 PM > Subject: RV-List: E-mag/P-Mag > > >> >> Planning to go with this ignition system. They allow the choice of >> either >> aviation or automotive style plugs. >> >> Price aside, what is recommended and why? >> >>Dear listers, This post has been edited by others and does not reflect my thoughts or opinion. I have absolutely no monetary or other connection with Klaus Savior. Dick Martin RV8 N233M the fast one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Wiechman" <toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Flying RV7 Wanted For Immediate Purchase!!!
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Flying RV7 wanted for purchase!! Prefer Garmin 430, autopilot, basic IFR, but will look at all offers! VFR airplane is not out of the question. Please email right away at kitplanecrafters(at)cox.net, toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com or call 316-210-5670. Prefer the phone call! Ask for Todd. If you know of anybody thinking of selling, call me right away with their information! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Gerald Richardson <gerric(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom for sale
For Sale: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom. Both units brand new, never been turned on! All original documents, etc. In Alberta, Canada Reason for selling is buying Garmin Nav/Com radio. Save on new cost, brokerage fees, GST. Was to be going into my RV6A Gerald Richardson, Dunmore, Alberta Canada -- 03/06/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "REHughes" <hawk(at)digisys.net>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 06, 2006
George ( gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com ) asked, "Quick what is your new stall speed at 60 degrees?" ************* Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish your stall speed by setting your load factor. Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and +1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result, although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over +3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the turn. Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall margin is certainly possible. Hawkeye Hughes ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Kysh <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org>
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
As Mannan J. Thomason was saying: > > I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a hundred > bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any > comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I I don't have much to add except that the price of foam is increasing dramatically in other sectors as well. I'm not sure why. So it may be a 'cost of ingredients' thing, in which case you're not likely to find a 'better' source easily. -Kysh ST1300 - No name yet - > 3k mi -- STOC #5943 CBR-F4 - Foxy - > 56k mi ~~ To fly is to truly live ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sherri & Paul Richardson" <prichar(at)mail.win.org>
Subject: Insurance Premium Up
Date: Mar 06, 2006
Hello, I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that fairly common? Thanks, Paul Richardson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 06, 2006
From: Gerald Richardson <gerric(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Garmin 396 GPS used with Garmin GTX 330 transponder
If anyone is using the Garmin 396 GPS with the Garmin GTX 330 Mode S transponder please email me off the list at HYPERLINK "mailto:gerric(at)shaw.ca"gerric(at)shaw.ca I would like to ask a couple of questions. Thank you -- 03/06/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Insurance Premium Up
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Who is your broker and who is your underwriter? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sherri & Paul Richardson" <prichar(at)mail.win.org> > > Hello, > I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that > fairly common? > Thanks, > Paul Richardson > > > > > > > > > > > > Who is your broker and who is your underwriter? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Sherri Paul Richardson" prichar(at)mail.win.org -- RV-List message posted by: "Sherri Paul Richardson" Hello, I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that fairly common? Thanks, Paul Richardson =========================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
>From: "REHughes" <hawk(at)digisys.net> >Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport > >REHughes" also wrote: > >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way I had to reply. Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack. I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what is your stall speed, ie, what speed are you going to maintain. If you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA? However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed are not related, since they are, I will explain. Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml (notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly. Yes we all know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle (airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor, however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during aerobatics). We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude. Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically 1.3 x stall. You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the airport. The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess you mean giving away stall margin? Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS) Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q: What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time? Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground, whether on the airport or off field. Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative. Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground. Cheers George >"REHughes" also wrote: > >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the >answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish >your stall speed by setting your load factor. > >Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and >+1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable >loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result, >although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared >to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen >glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over >+3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to >increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the >increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the >turn. > >Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall >margin is certainly possible. > >Hawkeye Hughes --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Again, the pre flight briefed and demo'd numbers: 120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at 400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and ABSOLUTE MIN AND BRIEFED BEFORE FLIGHT 80 mph. The RV had no trouble doing this. We leveled off with ~100 foot altitude loss and probably more than 90 mph airspeed but the nose was kept low after level off to pick up best glide speed which allowed a lot off energy to pull to flare with. The runway displacement was maybe a couple of hundred of feet. We turned into the wind to to keep it that way. No obsticles to contend with on the way down on either side. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> > > >From: "REHughes" > >Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport > > > >REHughes" also wrote: > > > >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way > > > I had to reply. > > Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you > why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most > relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack. > > > I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point > is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what > is your stall speed, ie, what speed are you going to maintain. If > you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know > it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I > guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA? > > > However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed > are not related, since they are, I will explain. > > > Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs > and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer > before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak: > > http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml > > > (notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice > the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the > point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly. > > > Yes we all know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle > (airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor, > however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during > aerobatics). > > We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is > most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings > level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude. > > > Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for > a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically > 1.3 x stall. > > > You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are > arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the > airport. > > > The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz > available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess > you mean giving away stall margin? > > Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed > and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this > what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS) > > Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q: > > What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time? > > Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground, > whether on the airport or off field. > > Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative. > > Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is > being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground. > > Cheers George > > > >"REHughes" also wrote: > > > >Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the > >answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish > >your stall speed by setting your load factor. > > > >Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and > >+1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable > >loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result, > >although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared > >to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen > >glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over > >+3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to > >increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the > >increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the > >turn. > > > >Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall > >margin is certainly possible. > > > >Hawkeye Hughes > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, the pre flight briefed anddemo'd numbers: 120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at 400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and ABSOLUTE MIN AND BRIEFED BEFORE FLIGHT 80 mph. The RV had no trouble doing this. We leveled off with ~100 foot altitude loss and probably more than 90 mph airspeed but the nose was kept low after level off to pick up best glide speed which allowed a lot off energy topull to flare with.The runway displacement was maybe a couple of hundred of feet. We turned into the wind to to keep it that way. No obsticles to contend with on the way down on either side. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com -- RV-List message posted by: From: "REHughes" <HAWK(at)DIGISYS.NET> Subject: RV-List: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport REHughes" also wrote: Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way I had to reply. Hawkeye: You could not be anymore wrong, and I will tell you why. If you want to be correct you should say AOA is most relevant to stall, ie critical angle of attack. I was referring to a sustained 60 degree banked TURN. My point is for anyone thinking of a low altitude, high bank angle turn, what is your stall speed, ie, what speed are you going to maintain. If you can't think of right now at your easy chair you will not know it when the engine quits. That was the point of the question? I guess I could have said what is your load factor? or AOA? However to address you assertion that bank angle and stall speed are not related, since they are, I will explain. Below link is everything you want to know about Bank angle and Gs and applies to RV's or the Space Shuttle, I worked as an engineer before flying for the airlines, so let the equations below speak: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/performance/q0146.shtml (notice, stall speed and bank angle can be expressed. Also notice the generic concept, min flying speed goes UP with bank. That's the point. Notice over 60 bank stall speed goes up quickly. Yes we all know that AOA is critical, but there is a bank angle (airspeed) relationship. Obviously AOA is related to load factor, however you don't fly staring at a G-meter (except may be during aerobatics). We fly indicated airspeed (IAS). Obviously an AOA instrument is most relevant to stall (at any load factor) since you can be wings level and pull all the Gs you want or attitude. Unless you have an AOA, you fly a higher indicated airspeed for a given bank angle to get an **approx** stall margin, typically 1.3 x stall. You say bank angle is not related to load factor? I think you are arguing a moot point relative to making a turn back to the airport. The rest of your point (below) about efficient turns and having Gz available and **giving away stall speed**, makes no sense. I guess you m ean giving away stall margin? Also when *pulling Gs" you will increase drag and loose airspeed and/or increase rate of descent unless thrust is increased. Is this what U want close to ground? (increased descent rate, low IAS) Regardless it kind of muddies the waters from the main Q: What are you going to do when the engine quits at the worst time? Fly the plane, fly the plane and maintain control to the ground, whether on the airport or off field. Again stall margin and bank angle in a sustained turn ARE relative. Discussion of "efficient" turns are not relevant. What is critical is being in a steep bank, high descent rate near the ground. Cheers George "REHughes" also wrote: Since the stall speed is not related to bank angle in any way, the answer is, "just about anything you want it to be." You establish your stall speed by setting your load factor. Performing the turnback maneuver using 60 degrees of bank and +1.5 Gz will result in a good rate of turn with a generally acceptable loss of altitude. Even using +1.25 Gz will yield a pretty good result, although significantly more altitude is lost in the turn, as compared to loading the aircraft up closer to max available Gz at the chosen glide speed (If we use 100 KIAS as our best glide speed, over +3.5 Gz is available). At the lower Gz levels, IAS will also tend to increase at a higher rate during the turn, the magnitude of the increase largely depending on the pitch angle at the entry to the turn. Achieving good turn performance without giving away all the stall margin is certainly possible. Hawkeye Hughes --------------------------------- ====================================== ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs)
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org> >Whoa.....strong words! How cay one know this when the E/P MAG >units are so new ? Please put some more words around the "Better" >descriptor word you choose. Certainly, fully describing the attributes >of each and why one unit is superior to another is appropriate >here...right ?? Wow Philip, you are pretty demanding for some one who is asking for free advice. Let me be abrupt with you. Do you know ANYTHING about electronic ignition? Did you bother looking at the archives for info on the P/E-mag? I am going out on a limb and guess no? If I said CDI or Induction Ignition would that mean anything to you? There was an EAA sport aviation article a few months back, suggest you read it. I also would visit all the web sites of each manufacture. Electroair: http://www.electroair.net/ Lightspeed: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ P/E-mag: http://emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm Aeorsparks: http://www.aerosparks.com/home.htm Now let me give you the facts of EI life. All ignitions are similar however with fear you will challenge me and call me a lier, I agree with Dick Martin 100%. The Lightspeed Plasma III is likely the highest performance and has the most performance features. Folks, who KNOW way more than you about engine performance pick the Lightspeed. And your comment to this as, SO? Now there are subtle differences between EI brands. I would explain why the Lightspeed is considered to be a higher performance EI, but not sure you would understand. Leave it to say its a MS-CDI (multi spark - capacitance discharge ignition). Bottom line is they all will give hotter longer (fatter) spark than a magneto, can advance timing based on manifold pressure and RPM and should be more reliable with no points to wear. The other ignitions, such as E/P-mag and Electroair are induction ignitions. Look up the difference. if you look at coils, electroair uses two LARGE coils compared to the single coil in the E/P-mag. Because E/P-mag has a *form factor* design that is all-in-one. Therefor it must make some compromises in coil size. Common sense would say that the E/P-mag spark will be less. Indeed E/P-mag does not promote itself as a "performance ignition" but a low cost easier to install ignition. In their FAQ there was a statement to this affect and they do not publish performance specs. I am not saying the E/P-mag is not good, just that is has smaller coils than electroair for example. Make your own conclusion, but lets be real. If you are an average every day pilot 3% may be good enough and if you race you need 4%. I don't know the differences but at lean mixtures and high altitude the Lightspeed should burn the mixture better, and it also has features no other ignition has, such as cockpit controlled vairable timing and read out, as well as RPM/MAP read outs. The big claim to fame for the E/P-mag is more compact installtion with out sattalite components and the self powered feature, that allows dual EI with not need to consider a small AUX battery. Last fact, there has been no real heads-up comparison between Brands. Leave it to say that they all will give much better performance than a MAG. I guess you will now ask show me or prove it. Again you need to research it, but you can expect, smoother operation and gain efficiency and performance. How much efficiency you receive is based on how you fly. In cruise at altitude, EI is very efficient, primarily not only from the much hotter longer spark but the advance timing at low power settings. As I guess? you know Mags have fixed timing. As far as auto PLUGS or aviaition PLUGS. I prefer Aviation plugs. They are more massive and rugged and known to work well. Auto plugs have been shown to be fine for some builders however there have been some anomalies. COST? Penutes. In the big picture auto plugs will NOT be any factor in you big picture. At first $3.00 sounds great VS. $16.00; However aviaition plugs can last 1000 or 2000 hours. Most auto plugs, needed or not are replaced as soon as every oil change to a few 100 hours. Last is performance. An EXPERT in aviation ignition who I talked to that knows more about ignition than you ever will, found increased performance using aviation plugs verses auto plugs. One pilot-builder also found that his engine was stronger with aviation plugs when he switched between Av and Auto and than back again. Again no heads up comparison. Trust me. I am NOT saying autoplugs are not good; however you may have NO choice depending on what brand EI you buy. (electroair and E/P-mag are the only ones offering a plug option from the factory.) As said Autolite UREM 37BY's are only $16.00ea & may last 2 to 5 times longer, so autoplugs are not a huge factor when you think of fuel, oil and all the other cost. For some reason autoplugs are replaced more by their pilot/owners; however some have reported to run theirs up to 700 hours of more. I don't know of what the high time auto plug is, but aviation plugs can go to TBO. Aviation plugs are replaced more for being dropped than wear. Also hold a Aviation plug. TWO large electrodes on the side, vs. an autoplugs single electrode which caps or covers the center, shadowing the spark. Also the aviation plug has a metal outer case that is more rugged and my provide better heat transfer and cooling. All conjector but based on observation of the obvious. Last is the autoplug adapters, another thing to buy. Just my preference to go aviation plug if able. Take it or leave it. LAST read and understand every word and graph of the Cafe Foundation electronic ignition research articles. http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition1.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition2.pdf http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition3.pdf After you read the research, check the archives, read the EAA article and manufacture web sites (better call or write each one with spacific questions) get back to us, Phil. Dick by the way has one of the fastest RV-8's around and has competed in racing so I think you should consider his comments a little more than So? Cheers George --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JVanLaak(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
My friend Hawkeye (former flight surgeon and naval aviator) was referring to the point that you can be in 90 degrees of bank with one G on the airframe and the stall speed is what it would be if level. Likewise, you could be in a 4 G pull wings level and the stall would be twice the 1 G value. So in application, if you use a 90 degree bank but only 1 G the airplane with large stall margin will turn rapidly but the nose will fall. If you have the vertical room to permit that it might be a good trade. Jim RV-6 N79RL. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Subject: RV-7/9 Seat Foam Offer
Foam seeking listers, Back in 2003 I purchased the seat foam kit for my RV-7A from Van's and never used it. I went with Oregon Aero. I must have thought I was rich back then! Anyway, if anyone wants the kit for what I paid plus shipping, I would be tickled. I paid $190 from my invoice dated 4.21.03. This works on the RV-7 and RV-9 -- both seats. This is just foam, no covering, new in the box. The box is 14.5" x 16" x 31" and weighs 13 lbs. Calculate UPS or Fed Ex shipping from zip code 46901. First email followed with a Postal Money Order within 10 days takes it. Dan Hopper Walton, IN RV-7A Flying since July 2004 -- 144 hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power
As an experiement, try swapping out your starter some time with a different one, like an old Prestolite or the like. I think you'll find that, while it's heavy and slower turning, that it turns the engine over with your current battery with no problems. Jeff Point > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: To Turn or Not to Turn...
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com>
My recent training experience with a new instructor brought a couple of learnings with it. (Both good and bad...) I had my first flight in a Citabria with a new instructor...hmmm...new instructor and new plane. We did the normal preflight inspection and strapped in. He gave me the first takeoff and at 500', he pulled the power on me. The training kicked in and I dropped the nose. "Whatcha gonna do now?" he asked. I set up a glide and picked a farm field which I had no trouble making. I didn't have time to simulate emergency radio calls, xpdr changes and so forth, or I should say that I didn't bother with these things as I felt that flight required all of my attention at the moment. Afterwards, my instructor told me that I saved my life, but lost the airplane as my field of choice would have caused us to flip over on our backs since it was too soft. I felt pretty good about responding in a survivable manner in a plane that I had only flown for less than a minute before I had "lost" my engine. He then took us back to the runway and went through the simulation "his" way. As soon as we hit 500', he pulled the power. He made a very steep turn back and easily made the runway. We shut down for a moment and he said something that has stuck with me ever since- "Always fly the plane in which you are flying." Sounds like something that Yogi Berra would come up with... He explained that I was used to flying Cessna 152's and my response to the simulation had "Cessna" written all over it. The Citabria was capable of so much more than the Cessna, and I failed to take advantage of it. Given the same simulation today, I would still look for my farm field. I recognize that in my current state of training, the farm field represents a chance to live and the turn-back represents a chance to die. Maybe after I become a better pilot, I can pull the turn-back maneuver off, but for now, I will default to the crops until my training can catch up with the RV's capabilities... After we got back up in the air, we worked a grass strip next to the runway. He made me keep a very tight pattern. If I started drifting away from the glide distance, he would pull the power right away and tell me to prove to him that I can still make the grass. It became a fun sport after a few failures had driven the lesson home to me. I fell in love with the Citabria and her sweet manners on the ground and air. Her wheel pants were a green mess after working the grass runway, but it was worth the effort! Tinman RV-8- Finishing kit Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-mail servers are scanned for viruses and other threats prior to delivery using e-mail security services powered by MessageLabs Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> intercom for sale
Subject: Re: ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom
for sale Gerald, how much for the Icom , and is it tso'd or not? Dick Seiders At 09:34 PM 3/6/2006, you wrote: > >For Sale: > >ICOM A200 com radio, Flightcom 403 panel mount intercom. Both units >brand new, never been turned on! >All original documents, etc. >In Alberta, Canada >Reason for selling is buying Garmin Nav/Com radio. > >Save on new cost, brokerage fees, GST. > >Was to be going into my RV6A > >Gerald Richardson, >Dunmore, Alberta >Canada > >-- >03/06/2006 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Insurance Premium Up
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Paul, I'd guess you're insured with AIG for a couple reasons. From the FAA registry (if I found the right one) there are 5 owners, and I think it's more likely for AIG to write a group like than than the other company (Global Aerospace's EAA Program). Also, AIG typically has a 3-5% increase just about every year. Inflation on the cost of claims is normally sighted as the reason. Most of the other companies increase their premiums less regularly, but often by larger amounts so it evens things out. I would recommend that you do make sure that (if at least one of the group of owners is an AOPA member) the renewal quote includes AIG's AOPA discount. Only one owner/pilot has to supply their valid AOPA number for that to apply. AIG has been getting better at applying that discount at renewals if it was applied the previous year, but it does get missed sometimes. Hope that helps. John "JT" Helms Branch Manager NationAir Insurance Agencies, Inc. ***Notice to All Recipients*** Please be advised that we cannot bind, modify, or cancel coverage via the Internet, email or voicemail. Please call our office at (877) 475-5860 to speak with a NationAir Representative. Thank you for your cooperation. ***Confidentiality Notice*** The Information in this email and any attachments therein is intended for the addressee(s) only and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and/or any attachments thereto is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately by email, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your system. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sherri & Paul Richardson Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 10:07 PM Subject: RV-List: Insurance Premium Up Hello, I just received my insurance quote for our RV-6A, and it is up $100. Is that fairly common? Thanks, Paul Richardson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs)
Date: Mar 07, 2006
George Enjoyed your info and directions to web sites to gain more info.............but..........enough with the condecending put down side shots at those of us not as schooled as you. I usually just delete at the first sign of war words........but ............this time I am glad I finished your story line. So please in the future just the facts and turn in your parent/child persona for the more dignified adult role. Having been a life long, now retired public school teacher, I am very thicked skinned and can take what ever cheap shot you want to throw my way! CHEERS>>>>>>>>>>> Frank at SGU and SLC >From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs) >Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 04:18:31 -0800 (PST) > > >Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag P L E A S E E X P L A I N > From: "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org> > > > >Whoa.....strong words! How cay one know this when the E/P MAG > >units are so new ? Please put some more words around the >"Better" > >descriptor word you choose. Certainly, fully describing the >attributes > >of each and why one unit is superior to another is appropriate > >here...right ?? > > >Wow Philip, you are pretty demanding for some one who is asking for > free advice. Let me be abrupt with you. Do you know ANYTHING about > electronic ignition? Did you bother looking at the archives for info on > the P/E-mag? I am going out on a limb and guess no? If I said CDI or > Induction Ignition would that mean anything to you? > > There was an EAA sport aviation article a few months back, suggest > you read it. I also would visit all the web sites of each manufacture. > > Electroair: http://www.electroair.net/ > Lightspeed: http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ > P/E-mag: http://emagair.com/E-MAG_product_page.htm > Aeorsparks: http://www.aerosparks.com/home.htm > > > Now let me give you the facts of EI life. All ignitions are similar > however with fear you will challenge me and call me a lier, I agree > with Dick Martin 100%. The Lightspeed Plasma III is likely the > highest performance and has the most performance features. > Folks, who KNOW way more than you about engine performance > pick the Lightspeed. And your comment to this as, SO? > > > Now there are subtle differences between EI brands. I would explain > why the Lightspeed is considered to be a higher performance EI, > but not sure you would understand. Leave it to say its a MS-CDI > (multi spark - capacitance discharge ignition). > > > Bottom line is they all will give hotter longer (fatter) spark than > a magneto, can advance timing based on manifold pressure and > RPM and should be more reliable with no points to wear. > > > The other ignitions, such as E/P-mag and Electroair are induction > ignitions. Look up the difference. > > > if you look at coils, electroair uses two LARGE coils compared > to the single coil in the E/P-mag. Because E/P-mag has a > *form factor* design that is all-in-one. Therefor it must make > some compromises in coil size. Common sense would say > that the E/P-mag spark will be less. Indeed E/P-mag does > not promote itself as a "performance ignition" but a low cost > easier to install ignition. In their FAQ there was a statement > to this affect and they do not publish performance specs. I > am not saying the E/P-mag is not good, just that is has > smaller coils than electroair for example. Make your own > conclusion, but lets be real. If you are an average every > day pilot 3% may be good enough and if you race you > need 4%. I don't know the differences but at lean mixtures > and high altitude the Lightspeed should burn the mixture > better, and it also has features no other ignition has, such > as cockpit controlled vairable timing and read out, as well > as RPM/MAP read outs. > > The big claim to fame for the E/P-mag is more compact > installtion with out sattalite components and the self > powered feature, that allows dual EI with not need to > consider a small AUX battery. > > > Last fact, there has been no real heads-up comparison > between Brands. Leave it to say that they all will give much > better performance than a MAG. I guess you will now ask > show me or prove it. Again you need to research it, but you > can expect, smoother operation and gain efficiency and > performance. How much efficiency you receive is based on > how you fly. In cruise at altitude, EI is very efficient, primarily > not only from the much hotter longer spark but the advance > timing at low power settings. As I guess? you know Mags > have fixed timing. > > > As far as auto PLUGS or aviaition PLUGS. I prefer Aviation > plugs. They are more massive and rugged and known to > work well. Auto plugs have been shown to be fine for some > builders however there have been some anomalies. COST? > Penutes. In the big picture auto plugs will NOT be any factor > in you big picture. At first $3.00 sounds great VS. $16.00; > However aviaition plugs can last 1000 or 2000 hours. Most > auto plugs, needed or not are replaced as soon as every > oil change to a few 100 hours. Last is performance. An > EXPERT in aviation ignition who I talked to that knows more > about ignition than you ever will, found increased performance > using aviation plugs verses auto plugs. One pilot-builder also > found that his engine was stronger with aviation plugs when > he switched between Av and Auto and than back again. > Again no heads up comparison. Trust me. > > I am NOT saying autoplugs are not good; however you may > have NO choice depending on what brand EI you buy. > (electroair and E/P-mag are the only ones offering a plug > option from the factory.) > > As said Autolite UREM 37BY's are only $16.00ea & may last > 2 to 5 times longer, so autoplugs are not a huge factor when > you think of fuel, oil and all the other cost. For some reason > autoplugs are replaced more by their pilot/owners; however > some have reported to run theirs up to 700 hours of more. > I don't know of what the high time auto plug is, but aviation > plugs can go to TBO. Aviation plugs are replaced more > for being dropped than wear. Also hold a Aviation plug. > TWO large electrodes on the side, vs. an autoplugs single > electrode which caps or covers the center, shadowing the > spark. Also the aviation plug has a metal outer case that > is more rugged and my provide better heat transfer and > cooling. All conjector but based on observation of the obvious. > Last is the autoplug adapters, another thing to buy. Just > my preference to go aviation plug if able. Take it or leave it. > > > LAST read and understand every word and graph of the > Cafe Foundation electronic ignition research articles. > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition1.pdf > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition2.pdf > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/aprs/ignition3.pdf > > > After you read the research, check the archives, read the EAA > article and manufacture web sites (better call or write each one > with spacific questions) get back to us, Phil. Dick by the way > has one of the fastest RV-8's around and has competed in > racing so I think you should consider his comments a little > more than So? > > Cheers George > > >--------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the fact that the Panasonic LC-RD1217P has a higher internal resistance than the Odyssey batteries do. Panasonic literature states 12 miliohms at 77 degrees, while the Odyssey PC680 is 7 miliohms. This may not sound like much, but during high current draw when cranking the engine, this can make a considerable difference in voltage drop at the battery. Skylor RV-8 Under Construction Firewall Forward... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Holland" <hollandm(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Reading List Messages - NOT
Date: Mar 07, 2006
I'm probably doing something wrong, but after browsing list messages for awhile, eventually I can longer select the thread I choose. It's as if the pointer no-longer is synchronized? Do other listers have this problem or is it something with my system? Very strange behavior and I've experienced it on several machines. I don't see anything is the FAQ's about this behavior but I could have missed it. Maybe Matt has an answer for us? Thanks, Getting psyched to redo my tanks covers (mumble, mumble).... Mike Holland RV9A N192MH 65 hours, still grinning! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Chuck <chuck515tigger(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: To Turn or Not to Turn...
.... oh darn. I seem to have mis-placed my secret decoder ring. I guess I'll have to do it the old fashion way. Let's see.... dump all the 20's, delete all the = signs, there that should do it. "Alexander, Don" wrote: My recent training experience with a new instructor brought a couple of learnings with it. (Both good and bad...) I had my first flight in a Citabria with a new instructor...hmmm...new instructor and new plane. We did the normal preflight inspection and strapped in. He gave me the first takeoff and at 500', he pulled the power on me. The training kicked in and I dropped the nose. "Whatcha gonna do now?" he asked. I set up a glide and picked a farm field which I had no trouble making. I didn't have time to simulate emergency radio calls, xpdr changes and so forth, or I should say that I didn't bother with these things as I felt that flight required all of my attention at the moment. Afterwards, my instructor told me that I saved my life, but lost the airplane as my field of choice would have caused us to flip over on our backs since it was too soft. I felt pretty good about responding in a survivable manner in a plane that I had only flown for less than a minute before I had "lost" my engine. He then took us back to the runway and went through the simulation "his" way. As soon as we hit 500', he pulled the power. He made a very steep turn back and easily made the runway. We shut down for a moment and he said something that has stuck with me ever since- "Always fly the plane in which you are flying." Sounds like something that Yogi Berra would come up with... He explained that I was used to flying Cessna 152's and my response to the simulation had "Cessna" written all over it. The Citabria was capable of so much more than the Cessna, and I failed to take advantage of it. Given the same simulation today, I would still look for my farm field. I recognize that in my current state of training, the farm field represents a chance to live and the turn-back represents a chance to die. Maybe after I become a better pilot, I can pull the turn-back maneuver off, but for now, I will default to the crops until my training can catch up with the RV's capabilities... After we got back up in the air, we worked a grass strip next to the runway. He made me keep a very tight pattern. If I started drifting away from the glide distance, he would pull the power right away and tell me to prove to him that I can still make the grass. It became a fun sport after a few failures had driven the lesson home to me. I fell in love with the Citabria and her sweet manners on the ground and air. Her wheel pants were a green mess after working the grass runway, but it was worth the effort! Tinman RV-8- Finishing kit Messages originating from AstenJohnson, Inc. e-mail servers are scanned for viruses and other threats prior to delivery using e-mail security services powered by MessageLabs Inc. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Insurance Premium Up
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy(at)navy.mil>
Mine just went DOWN $354 after the first year of claim-free flight! Was $1783 first year... just renewed for $1429! Particulars are: Broker: Falcon Insurance Agency (EAA Ins. Program), Kerrville, TX (866-647-4322) Underwriter: AIG Aircraft: RV-7A Coverage: Full ($75K hull value and $1 million liability) Pilot: 1000 hrs, MEI, ASEL, (280 hrs tail wheel) Hours in type: 185 Accidents/claims: One (1) 9/8/2002 (see http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=3D20020913X01607&ntsbno=3DLAX02LA279&akey=3D1 ) I really like the folks at Falcon Insurance Agency. They took real good care of me after my Sonex crash. Their agent actually called the Intensive Care unit where I was hospitalized within 8 hours of my accident! They ensured my girlfriend that she should contact them immediately if I needed anything at all. That's good service and it made my family feel MUCH better during a bad situation... They were extremely easy to work with. Even if their rates were higher than a competitor's, I would pay the difference for the outstanding service they provide. My two cents, Jack Lockamy RV-7A N174JL Camarillo, CA www.jacklockamy.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>
Subject: Re: To Turn or Not to Turn...
Date: Mar 07, 2006
reposting Don's message with the " "s all removed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander, Don" <Don.Alexander(at)astenjohnson.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:20 AM Subject: RV-List: To Turn or Not to Turn... > > > My recent training experience with a new instructor brought a couple of > learnings with it. (Both good and bad...) > etc etc etc My recent training experience with a new instructor brought a couple of learnings with it. (Both good and bad...) I had my first flight in a Citabria with a new instructor...hmmm...new instructor and new plane. We did the normal preflight inspection and strapped in. He gave me the first takeoff and at 500', he pulled the power on me. The training kicked in and I dropped the nose. "Whatcha gonna do now?" he asked. I set up a glide and picked a farm field which I had no trouble making. I didn't have time to simulate emergency radio calls, xpdr changes and so forth, or I should say that I didn't bother with these things as I felt that flight required all of my attention at the moment. Afterwards, my instructor told me that I saved my life, but lost the airplane as my field of choice would have caused us to flip over on our backs since it was too soft. I felt pretty good about responding in a survivable manner in a plane that I had only flown for less than a minute before I had "lost" my engine. He then took us back to the runway and went through the simulation "his" way. As soon as we hit 500', he pulled the power. He made a very steep turn back and easily made the runway. We shut down for a moment and he said something that has stuck with me ever since- "Always fly the plane in which you are flying." Sounds like something that Yogi Berra would come up with... He explained that I was used to flying Cessna 152's and my response to the simulation had "Cessna" written all over it. The Citabria was capable of so much more than the Cessna, and I failed to take advantage of it. Given the same simulation today, I would still look for my farm field. I recognize that in my current state of training, the farm field represents a chance to live and the turn-back represents a chance to die. Maybe after I become a better pilot, I can pull the turn-back maneuver off, but for now, I will default to the crops until my training can catch up with the RV's capabilities... After we got back up in the air, we worked a grass strip next to the runway. He made me keep a very tight pattern. If I started drifting away from the glide distance, he would pull the power right away and tell me to prove to him that I can still make the grass. It became a fun sport after a few failures had driven the lesson home to me. I fell in love with the Citabria and her sweet manners on the ground and air. Her wheel pants were a green mess after working the grass runway, but it was worth the effort! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
On 3:29:57 2006-03-07 luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) wrote: > > Again, the pre flight briefed and demo'd numbers: > > 120 mph climbout with fixed pitch prop, flaps up and at > 400 feet AGL pulled power back to idle > rolled into 60 degree bank and not one degree more and > pulled elevator firmly but did not let the airspeed get down to his > > The RV had no trouble doing this. And again, as others have pointed out, this was a contrived situation. The pilot briefed and prepared for an engine out on takeoff, and everything went according to plan. Try the same thing on a climbout when you're not expecting an engine failure, when you're half-way through retracting your flaps, talking about where you're going with your passenger, and playing with the GPS. I'm sure you'll lose more than 100 feet getting from [engine failure] to [lined up on the runway]. Yes, the RV can do this turn. No, we're not all going to be enough on the ball to make it do that in an unexpected high-stress situation. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Reading List Messages - NOT
Hum, that's an interesting issue. I'm wondering if the articles are getting updated out from underneath you? The content on the List Browse is updated with any new posts that have come in every 30 minutes on the :15 and :45 of each hour . See if synchronization loss happens with this update and let me know... Matt Dralle List Admin At 07:42 AM 3/7/2006 Tuesday, you wrote: > >I'm probably doing something wrong, but after browsing list messages for >awhile, eventually I can longer select the thread I choose. It's as if the >pointer no-longer is synchronized? >Do other listers have this problem or is it something with my system? Very >strange behavior and I've experienced it on several machines. I don't see >anything is the FAQ's about this behavior but I could have missed it. Maybe >Matt has an answer for us? > >Thanks, > >Getting psyched to redo my tanks covers (mumble, mumble).... > >Mike Holland > >RV9A N192MH >65 hours, still grinning! > > > > > Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision
Figure about 300 amps for the starter current. 30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms. Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up to 20 milli-ohms. At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to run an electronic ignition, by the way.) >>> Series-Wound (SW) versus Permanent Magnet (PM) starters << The torque curves and voltage versus RPM are quite different for a SW motor and a PM motor. The PM motor is simpler, so we will start with that. The torque of the PM motor is directly proportional to the current supplied. The "back EMF" (**) of the PM motor is directly proportional to the RPM. The internal resistance is typically slightly lower compared to a SW motor of the same size. PM motors are typically more efficient than SW motors. PM motors are typically lighter than SW motors. The torque of a SW motor is proportional to the square of the current. The back EMF of a SW motor is proportional to the rpm times the current. The internal resistance is typically slightly higher than a PM motor of the same size. The zero RPM torque is typically MUCH higher than a PM motor of the same size. If the wires are long, the battery is weak, or the oil in the engine is thick, it is easy to "fall off the curve" of a PM starter. If you do not supply it with enough voltage to push the current through the windings to make the torque required to turn the engine at all. If it spins at all, it will likely spin fast enough to start the engine. It is more of a "yes or no" operation. The SW starter is more forgiving. Since the torque is proportional to the current squared, you can more often generate enough torque with a weak battery and/or long wires to get the engine (with thick oil) to at least turn slowly. Once the engine turns, however, the back EMF (proportional to both current and RPM) pinches off the torque quite rapidly. Thus, it may not ever be able to spin fast enough to actually start the engine if the conditions are unfavorable. It has a much broader "almost enough" zone of operation than the PM starter. Bill Dube' (**) Back EMF is the voltage the motor will create internally as it spins that opposes the applied voltage. All motors are generators, after all. : ) Skylor Piper wrote: > >One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet is the >fact that the Panasonic LC-RD1217P has a higher >internal resistance than the Odyssey batteries do. >Panasonic literature states 12 miliohms at 77 degrees, >while the Odyssey PC680 is 7 miliohms. This may not >sound like much, but during high current draw when >cranking the engine, this can make a considerable >difference in voltage drop at the battery. > >Skylor >RV-8 Under Construction >Firewall Forward... > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Subject: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs)
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Thanks George, The explination on ignitions systems should be a "clearing" item for thoes who are considering upgrading from standard Mag's. Me?, I am using two "P" mags from E-Magair with auto plugs. Not flying yet but maybe this fall. Jim Nelson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision
Date: Mar 07, 2006
On 7 Mar 2006, at 14:21, Bill Dube wrote: > > Figure about 300 amps for the starter current. > > 30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms. > Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up > to 20 > milli-ohms. > > At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day > with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to > run an > electronic ignition, by the way.) Great post - thanks for the info. I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every volt counts. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision
Date: Mar 07, 2006
> I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive > lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that > his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not > subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it > should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every > volt counts. FWIW, I did not follow Klaus' instructions when I wired up the LSE Plasma II on my RV-7. I didn't connect the power directly to the battery. Instead I connected it to a fuse on my always-hot battery bus. That way it doesn't suffer from the voltage drop across the contactor that you mentioned, it won't die if the contactor dies, etc. -- but it's still wired in a central, consistent manner at a fuse block. Just the choice that I made because it seemed to suit my needs better. YMMV. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision
Bill Dube wrote: > > Figure about 300 amps for the starter current. > > 30 feet of 2 gage is about 5 milli-ohms. The battery is 12 milli-ohms. > Add in 2 or 3 for the contactors and the terminals and you are up to 20 > milli-ohms. > > At 300 amps, the starter is getting just 6.8 volts, even on a warm day > with a fully-charged battery. (This may not be enough voltage to run an > electronic ignition, by the way.) I've been running small Panasonic batteries for about four years. Here are the details: 1) O-320, carbed with two mags 2) AeroShell W100 (50wt) 3) Engine continuously preheated with sump heater Dec-Feb. 4) Insulated hangar in north Alabama 5) Skytec starter, but don't recall the model or type 6) Short battery cables The small battery was installed as a replacement for the original Concord. I wanted to move the battery forward of the firewall and also incorporate 'Lectric Bob's method of replacing a cheap battery every couple of years. The Concord was still working fine after three years in service, matter of fact it filled in nicely for a friend last year who had a battery die unexpectedly. The Panasonic has worked well in my situation. The only time it failed me was once on a January morning (~20F) when I managed to get the engine flooded during engine start (no primer) and the battery gave it up after several attempts to crank the plane. In my opinion, the Panasonic battery is a viable option for conditions similar to mine. If there is a need to routinely start a chilled engine with electronic ignition and a high-current starter, the cheap battery probably isn't a good choice. An Odyssey would no doubt give more reliable service under those conditions. When I first installed a Panasonic in my RV-6, there was quite a wide difference in the cost of it and an Odyssey. But since the Odyssey prices have fallen in the past few years, the rational for the Panasonic isn't as strong as it once was. Even though I have gotten good service from the cheap batteries, I may consider an Odyssey next time. Details of my installation: http://thervjournal.com/battery.htm Sam Buchanan ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision
Date: Mar 07, 2006
On 7 Mar 2006, at 16:37, Dan Checkoway wrote: > >> I believe the voltage drop in the battery contactor and the positive >> lead from the starter is one reason why Klaus Savier recommends that >> his EI be connected directly to the battery. This way it is not >> subjected to some of the voltage drop that the starter gets, so it >> should be seeing a slightly higher voltage than the starter. Every >> volt counts. > > FWIW, I did not follow Klaus' instructions when I wired up the LSE > Plasma II > on my RV-7. I didn't connect the power directly to the battery. > Instead I > connected it to a fuse on my always-hot battery bus. That way it > doesn't > suffer from the voltage drop across the contactor that you > mentioned, it > won't die if the contactor dies, etc. -- but it's still wired in a > central, > consistent manner at a fuse block. Just the choice that I made > because it > seemed to suit my needs better. YMMV. And, for the record, this is exactly how I've wired my LSE Plasma II. It should achieve the benefits of wiring directly to the battery, while being neater and allowing an easy way to fuse the LSE power wire. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter comparision)
The 14 A-hr SVR motorcycle battery is probably a better choice. http://www.svrbatteries.com/battery_page.php?bid=1&vid=-1 This battery has an internal resistance of about 6 milli-ohms. It only weighs 11.5 lbs. I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike. http://www.killacycle.com Bill Dube' > >I've been running small Panasonic batteries for about four years. Here >are the details: > >1) O-320, carbed with two mags >2) AeroShell W100 (50wt) >3) Engine continuously preheated with sump heater Dec-Feb. >4) Insulated hangar in north Alabama >5) Skytec starter, but don't recall the model or type >6) Short battery cables > >The small battery was installed as a replacement for the original >Concord. I wanted to move the battery forward of the firewall and also >incorporate 'Lectric Bob's method of replacing a cheap battery every >couple of years. The Concord was still working fine after three years in >service, matter of fact it filled in nicely for a friend last year who >had a battery die unexpectedly. > >The Panasonic has worked well in my situation. The only time it failed >me was once on a January morning (~20F) when I managed to get the engine >flooded during engine start (no primer) and the battery gave it up after >several attempts to crank the plane. > >In my opinion, the Panasonic battery is a viable option for conditions >similar to mine. If there is a need to routinely start a chilled engine >with electronic ignition and a high-current starter, the cheap battery >probably isn't a good choice. An Odyssey would no doubt give more >reliable service under those conditions. > >When I first installed a Panasonic in my RV-6, there was quite a wide >difference in the cost of it and an Odyssey. But since the Odyssey >prices have fallen in the past few years, the rational for the Panasonic >isn't as strong as it once was. Even though I have gotten good service >from the cheap batteries, I may consider an Odyssey next time. > >Details of my installation: > >http://thervjournal.com/battery.htm > >Sam Buchanan > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Subject: Re: Battery choices (was: Battery cranking power, Plus starter
compa... Bill, Wow! But 850 amps at about 6 volts (at 746 watts per horsepower) only comes out to 6.8 horsepower per battery. How many are you using? 10? 20? Or, is it a closely guarded secret? So far, so good with Odyssey and PM starter. I'm amazed at its cranking power. Have had one whump, but that was quite a while ago. Dan Hopper RV-7A 200 hp Flying 144 hrs. In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:53:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov writes: I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike. http://www.killacycle.com Bill Dube' ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Rose" <av8er2(at)mcleodusa.net>
Subject: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
Date: Mar 07, 2006
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Rose" <av8er2(at)mcleodusa.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 3:15 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam >I paid 180 for my seats from van's 2 yrs. ago and was told by my upholster >that I got a good deal he said he could not buy the foam for that price. >Seem comfortable to me after 40 hrs. Mark Rose 137MR > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kysh" <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org> > To: > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:14 PM > Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam > > >> >> As Mannan J. Thomason was saying: >>> >>> I noticed that Van has increased the price of his seat foam about a >>> hundred >>> bucks ($300) from the last time I looked. Anyone have any >>> comments/suggestions on RV-8 seat foam, Van's or others? I'm retired, I >> >> I don't have much to add except that the price of foam is increasing >> dramatically in other sectors as well. I'm not sure why. So it may be a >> 'cost of ingredients' thing, in which case you're not likely to find a >> 'better' source easily. >> >> -Kysh >> >> ST1300 - No name yet - > 3k mi -- STOC #5943 >> CBR-F4 - Foxy - > 56k mi >> ~~ To fly is to truly live >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: OT: Battery choices
I crammed 26 of these into the battery pack. This works out to just over 200 HP. I ran these "off the shelf" type batteries for one season when I couldn't get really high performance batteries. It was the heaviest battery pack I have put on the bike at 300 lbs. I don't quite draw them down to six volts. It's more like 7 volts.They sometimes melt the straps and split open if you draw much more than 850 amps, so you can't quite draw them down to the ideal 1/2 open-circuit voltage. I just got a new sponsor, so I'm about to put a new pack in the bike. It should weigh about 135 lbs and put out 350 HP or more. Hopefully these batteries will arrive in a few weeks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Bill Dube' Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote: > > >Bill, > >Wow! But 850 amps at about 6 volts (at 746 watts per horsepower) only comes >out to 6.8 horsepower per battery. How many are you using? 10? 20? Or, is >it a closely guarded secret? > >So far, so good with Odyssey and PM starter. I'm amazed at its cranking >power. Have had one whump, but that was quite a while ago. > >Dan Hopper >RV-7A 200 hp Flying 144 hrs. > > >In a message dated 3/7/2006 6:53:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, >william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov writes: > >I have pulled over 850 amps out of these on my electric drag bike. >http://www.killacycle.com > >Bill Dube' > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
Scott: (Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some dies/colors fade more than others? I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept. (my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this. scott bilinski wrote: > >It will fade in the sun. > > >Greeting > >I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise? > >regards > >Erich Weaver > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Tank SB Question
Date: Mar 07, 2006
How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go back on? I've removed them, and have spent a fair amount of time cleaning them, but there is still a thin layer of proseal in several areas. I'm particularly interested in comments from people who completed this task (for whatever reason) months or years ago. How clean were the surfaces in your tanks, and have you had any problems since? Thanks in advance, Kyle Boatright ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
I have seen several differnet colors fade that have been exposed to the sun. I would contact a company that does annodizing and see what they say. My brother just finished building a race car from scratch and did not annodize any of the alum because of the fading, again I think your best bet would be to contact the company that you would pick to do the work. Scott: (Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some dies/colors fade more than others? I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept. (my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this. scott bilinski wrote: > >It will fade in the sun. > > >Greeting > >I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise? > >regards > >Erich Weaver > > > > --------------------------------- Brings words and photos together (easily) with ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Tank SB Question
Date: Mar 07, 2006
Kyle: I had one of my access covers off due to a leaky BNC connector (capacitance senders). I was able to get down to clean, bare aluminum by cleaning things up with Xylol. Seemed to work quite well. YMMV Regards, Jeff Orear RV6A N782P Ready for inspection (finally!!) Pesthigo, WI ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:09 PM Subject: RV-List: Fuel Tank SB Question > > How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go > back on? I've removed them, and have spent a fair amount of time cleaning > them, but there is still a thin layer of proseal in several areas. > > I'm particularly interested in comments from people who completed this > task (for whatever reason) months or years ago. How clean were the > surfaces in your tanks, and have you had any problems since? > > Thanks in advance, > > Kyle Boatright > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mannan J. Thomason" <mannanj(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Cleaning Pro-Seal from sealing surfaces
Date: Mar 07, 2006
"How clean does everything need to be when the fuel tank access covers go back on?" Kyle: Years ago I worked briefly for a shop that specialized in Mooneys. They wanted the surfaces to be really clean before re-sealing. Their method, was to take a piece of plexiglass, cut it into strips approx. one inch by five or six inches long. sharpen one end on a grinder or belt sander at about a 45 degree angle. that does a very good job of scraping most of the old sealant off. as it gets dull or chipped, re-sharpen. You then scuff the area with a stainless steel brush (the one that looks sort of like a tooth brush), which, by the way was recommended by Van in the construction manual. This will remove the remnants of the sealant and leave a good tooth (pun) for the new sealant. Of course clean the area with naptha or other cleaner before applying new sealant. For all practical purposes, where you are now is probably fine; but it only takes a few minutes with the stainless brush to do a really nice job. I just did mine last week and this method worked great. No leaks. Mannan Thomason RV-8 Almost flying ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 07, 2006
From: William Scaringe <bscaringe(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Clecos and Pneumatic Cleco Installation Tool for Sale
Hi Builders, I have the following items for sale on Ebay: 100 new copper (1/8, #30) clecos with cleco installation pliers. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597931255 150 new silver (3/32", #40) clecos with cleco installation pliers. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597931901 New pneumatic cleco installation tool. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7597932657 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RV4WGH(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Subject: Re: Van's RV-8 Seat Foam
We have a furniture store owner who is building an RV-9A. Last night at our chapter meeting, this subject came up. He said that a lot of foam used in furniture was produced in the south and factories were devastated by Katrina. It is his belief that the prices will be coming down in the near future. Remains to be seen. Another note ... they are starting to make foams out of soybean oil. Another step in the right direction. Wally Hunt Rockford, IL RV-4 Finishing Kit ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Battery choices
Bill Dube wrote: > >I crammed 26 of these into the battery pack. This works out to just over >200 HP. I ran these "off the shelf" type batteries for one season when I >couldn't get really high performance batteries. It was the heaviest >battery pack I have put on the bike at 300 lbs. > >I don't quite draw them down to six volts. It's more like 7 volts.They >sometimes melt the straps and split open if you draw much more than 850 >amps, so you can't quite draw them down to the ideal 1/2 open-circuit >voltage. > >I just got a new sponsor, so I'm about to put a new pack in the bike. It >should weigh about 135 lbs and put out 350 HP or more. Hopefully these >batteries will arrive in a few weeks. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. > >Bill Dube' > >Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote: > > Bill, gonna give these a try?? A123Systems is working with Department of Energy to develop next-generation materials for Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Our commercial products enable a *significant cost and weight savings* vs. NiMH or conventional Li-Ion technology for hybrid vehicles. *Furthermore, our batteries are especially suited for plug-in electric drive systems. Unique features include:* Twice the energy density of other Li-Ion HEV cells, While having the highest power to weight ratio of any commercially available battery (100C pulse capability). The lowest impedance of any cell/packs in its class Low impedance growth even at very high charge/discharge rates Outstanding calendar life Novel design that withstands extreme shocks and vibration Excellent performance over a wide temperature range (-30 to 60 degrees C) Intrinsically safe chemistry (especially important in large batteries) We have several customers designing high voltage electric drive products around our technology and we can supply a high volume, high quality and very competitively priced cells or packs manufactured at our Asian production facilities. John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
On 19:45:47 2006-03-07 scott bilinski wrote: > I have seen several differnet colors fade that have been exposed to > the sun. I would contact a company that does annodizing and see what > they say. One of the companies I worked for would make jigs for testing critical fits of assemblies out of aluminum, and then have them anodized a dark red. It was great for finding the jigs, and you knew that if it was anodized red that it should be treated carefully as it was a precision measuring device. A number of them were stored on a windowsill in our lab, and they did fade over time on the side that faced the sun. Eventually we started rotating them so they would fade more evenly, but they did fade. Another consideration (sorry to drop this in so late in the discussion): Anodizing changes the surface properties of the material, and may change the mechanical properties as well. Not necessarily a problem in RV's where the panel isn't a structural component, but in the RV-4 at least, the panel is riveted in and forms a structural part of the fuselage. In that instance you might not want to modify it's properties. You don't say what kind of RV you're building. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg(at)snowcrest.net>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
Date: Mar 08, 2006
I've been involved with building a couple of showplanes and the panels were done in a similar manner...only the laser cut through paint. In one case through one color exposing a second color underneath...not just down to the metal. You might ask about the paint approach. No worries about fading. Evan Johnson www.evansaviationproducts.com (530)247-0375 (530)351-1776 cell ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? > > Scott: > (Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You > say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some > dies/colors fade more than others? > > I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here > in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept. > (my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad > or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes > the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the > bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines > wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't > cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this. > > scott bilinski wrote: > > > > >It will fade in the sun. > > > > > >Greeting > > > >I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise? > > > >regards > > > >Erich Weaver > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Belue, Kevin" <KBelue@drs-tem.com>
Subject: annodized instrument panel?
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Do any of you guys have recommendations for companies that can do this laser cutting on a painted panel? Kevin D. Belue RV-6A Flying 700hrs RV-10 Fuselage/Finish kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Evan and Megan Johnson Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? I've been involved with building a couple of showplanes and the panels were done in a similar manner...only the laser cut through paint. In one case through one color exposing a second color underneath...not just down to the metal. You might ask about the paint approach. No worries about fading. Evan Johnson www.evansaviationproducts.com (530)247-0375 (530)351-1776 cell ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? > > Scott: > (Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You > say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some > dies/colors fade more than others? > > I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here > in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept. > (my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad > or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes > the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the > bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines > wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't > cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this. > > scott bilinski wrote: > > > > >It will fade in the sun. > > > > > >Greeting > > > >I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise? > > > >regards > > > >Erich Weaver > > > > > > > > > > > > INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE DRS PROPRIETARY/COMPETITION SENSITIVE AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSEE OF THIS EMAIL THIS DOCUMENT AND/OR SHIPMENT MAY CONTAIN COMMODITY ITEMS, SOFTWARE OR TECHNICAL DATA THAT IS CONTROLLED BY U.S. EXPORT LAW, AND MAY NOT BE EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR TO NON U.S. PERSONS WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE EXPORT LICENSE FROM EITHER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: annodized instrument panel?
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Wayne at www.engravers.net. 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 Belue, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:37 AM Subject: RE: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? Do any of you guys have recommendations for companies that can do this laser cutting on a painted panel? Kevin D. Belue RV-6A Flying 700hrs RV-10 Fuselage/Finish kit -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Evan and Megan Johnson Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:27 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? I've been involved with building a couple of showplanes and the panels were done in a similar manner...only the laser cut through paint. In one case through one color exposing a second color underneath...not just down to the metal. You might ask about the paint approach. No worries about fading. Evan Johnson www.evansaviationproducts.com (530)247-0375 (530)351-1776 cell ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:13 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? > > Scott: > (Sorry to respond so late to this, but I've been out of town). You > say it fades in the sun. Are you speaking from experience? Do some > dies/colors fade more than others? > > I'm thinking of doing a very dark blue. There's a trophy maker here > in Tucson that makes electronics panels for the U of A Astronomy dept. > (my employer). You dark anodize the panel and then give him an autocad > or corel draw file of the labeling. He has a CO2 laser that then writes > the labeling into the panel by burning off the anodize, exposing the > bare aluminum underneath. Looks very good. The CO2 laser produces lines > wiht very sharp edges, you can use different fonts, etc. It doesn't > cost much either. So.... I'm interested in your experience with this. > > scott bilinski wrote: > > > > >It will fade in the sun. > > > > > >Greeting > > > >I was considering anodizing my instrument panel to a color of my choice rather than painting or powder coating. Any drawbacks to this, asthetic or otherwise? > > > >regards > > > >Erich Weaver > > > > > > > > > > > > INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE DRS PROPRIETARY/COMPETITION SENSITIVE AND IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE ADDRESSEE OF THIS EMAIL THIS DOCUMENT AND/OR SHIPMENT MAY CONTAIN COMMODITY ITEMS, SOFTWARE OR TECHNICAL DATA THAT IS CONTROLLED BY U.S. EXPORT LAW, AND MAY NOT BE EXPORTED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OR TO NON U.S. PERSONS WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE EXPORT LICENSE FROM EITHER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE OR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Crosley" <rcrosley(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 08, 2006
This thread on "returning to the airport" has been interesting but very academic. Maybe the average guy can do a 180 and not stall, but there is a lot more going on. First, the transition from power on climb attitude to power off glide attitude is HUGE. Having lost an engine in a C-120 climbing out of Meadowlark airport (closed now, Huntington Beach CA) I was surprised at how big that transition is. After getting the nose down it was very obvious that a 180 was out of the question. I turned 30 degrees left and landed in a plowed field. But here's the point, if you lose your engine after a normal takeoff roll and climbing to 500 feet, how much runway are you going to have left to land on after making this 180? Not much. Probably more ahead of you than behind. You can tell the guys, "Yep, I made a 180 back to the airport." Probably be best to leave out the part about running off the end of the runway. Now, put yourself in a Rocket or Pitts. If you are making that cool 3000 fpm climb and the engine decides to take a break there are altitudes at which it is impossible to get the nose down, establish a glide and land the airplane before hitting the ground, forget the 180 degree turn. If you just cut off that thrust vector, things happen fast. Anyway, just some more stuff to think about. Rich Crosley RV-8 N948RC Rosamond, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Energy management and relative wind is what it's all about, besides having the ability under extreme duress to figure it all out in time. For me, it'll be upset training in the future when I can afford it, just to better understand what all is going on. In the meantime, I will make sure I know what my straight ahead options are and prepare for that. I'm not yet skilled enough to even think about turning back given the scenario being discussed on this thread. A Navion that took off in full view of myself and a few others ran into this exact situation. Lost engine around 500'. Two souls on board. Great pilot. All kinds of hours and experience, but by the time he kicked into mental gear there was no runway left to put it down. He managed to turn it almost 180, but landed off airport in a nursery full of 3' high evergreen trees. If he hadn't been skilled enough to do this, the souls would probably have gone elsewhere, but as it turned out, he and his wife made it okay, after multiple bones being broken and a stay in the hospital. I've stood and looked at that end of the runway a great deal since then and have come to the conclusion I would not have made it. When flying out of White Plains, a check ride CFI asked what I would do if we lost power on take off. I told him my plan that day would be to go straight ahead, probably try to make the lake that was across a freeway and slightly to the left of the runway. He said he'd rather the freeway, which I thought rather selfish, given the traffic there would create more carnage. Neither one of us said turn back. I think that practicing such maneuvers is appropriate, at safe altitudes. Practicing glides, too. Practice it all. Practice. Practice. Practice. And when you take off have that engine out scenario and decision points firmly in mind...in terms of your ability and skill. Mine for now is straight ahead. Hopefully I'll be able to have a few other options as I become a more skilled pilot. John Jessen 40328 (empennage) -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Crosley Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:49 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Minimum altitude to return to airport This thread on "returning to the airport" has been interesting but very academic. Maybe the average guy can do a 180 and not stall, but there is a lot more going on. First, the transition from power on climb attitude to power off glide attitude is HUGE. Having lost an engine in a C-120 climbing out of Meadowlark airport (closed now, Huntington Beach CA) I was surprised at how big that transition is. After getting the nose down it was very obvious that a 180 was out of the question. I turned 30 degrees left and landed in a plowed field. But here's the point, if you lose your engine after a normal takeoff roll and climbing to 500 feet, how much runway are you going to have left to land on after making this 180? Not much. Probably more ahead of you than behind. You can tell the guys, "Yep, I made a 180 back to the airport." Probably be best to leave out the part about running off the end of the runway. Now, put yourself in a Rocket or Pitts. If you are making that co! ol 3000 fpm climb and the engine decides to take a break there are altitudes at which it is impossible to get the nose down, establish a glide and land the airplane before hitting the ground, forget the 180 degree turn. If you just cut off that thrust vector, things happen fast. Anyway, just some more stuff to think about. Rich Crosley RV-8 N948RC Rosamond, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org>
Subject: Re: Floscan and IO/360
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Since William requested the information I thought I'd float a post regarding the suggested install location for the Floscan sensor. To give a little bit of background, I attended the "Fuel Injection 101" class given by Airflow Performance at their factory in Spartanburg, SC. I'm going to inject a personal opinion here. If you don't want to read about how much I enjoyed the FI-101 class, skip past this paragraph. :) The class is great and is, in my opinion, a tremendous resource. If you are considering installing FI in your plane and don't already have good knowledge about how fuel injection works (particularly if you are installing an Airflow or Bendix system!) I would very much recommend the class. Don Rivera teaches the bulk of the class (though you spend time with his technicians as well getting to run the fuel injection components on their diagnostic flow benches too!) and communicates both the theory and practice of fuel injection in a way that even *I* could understand. There is classroom time, hands-on lab time, hanger time, and social time. Don and Colleen are great hosts .. and API is a small friendly operation that really welcomes and educates folks at these classes. The class is enthusiastically recommended. If you have any other questions about my experience at the class last-weekend write me off-list as this is already starting to sound too much like an ad for API. Ok .... soapbox mode off .... other than to say I have NO affiliation with Airflow Performance other than as a customer and student. :) The easy location for installing the Floscan seems to be after the fuel controller, but before the purge valve (or the flow divider, if you don't use a purge valve). Regarding the recommendations to install the sensor with certain minimum amounts of straight line in front/behind the unit and the wires exiting strairht up ... my impression was that these constraints should be met for those situations where you need EXTREMELY precice flow measurements (like in a laboratory setting). For our applications that extreme level of precision isn't going to add any significant value. Ease of installation and servicing carries (for me, at least .. YMMV) more weight. Therefore, as long as there is some (even relatively minimal) straight section of tubing .. maybe even just a fittings-worth .. ahead of the Floscan it has proven to operate just fine. The folks at API have seen (and performend) a number of installations with these sorts of installation criteria and have not seen any problems with the operation of the units. I'll be installing mine as suggested ... after the fuel controller, and before my purge valve. -- Dwight On Sun Feb 26 22:49:27 2006, William Gill wrote : >Hello Dwight, > >Please post information on the list regarding the Floscan location after >your class. > >Best regards, ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Floscan and IO/360
Date: Mar 08, 2006
> I'll be installing > mine as suggested ... after the fuel controller, and before my purge > valve. > -- Dwight Dwight, Was anything said in the class about the fact that if you mount the sensor this far downstream it will necessarily be mounted to the engine itself in some manner and therefore subjected to significant vibration and heat? The Floscan needs to be horizontal so that means it will likely be on top of the cylinders somewhere near the flow divider. I'll need to make a decision on where to mount mine in a few months. On my last RV I mounted it behind the firewall and it worked very well. Randy Lervold ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org>
Subject: Re: Floscan and IO/360
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Randy, Those issues were brought up (by me, in fact). I'm always cautious about being conveying, second-hand, something someone else said. For that reason rather than start this off by saying "Don said" .. I'll couch it more in "what I understood was" type of language. There is always the possibility that I mis-understood (and I would be happy to be corrected) so if you have any concerns at all ... call API and ask them straight out. So ... what I understood was that while Floscan tends to specify optimal installation requirements (horizontal, wires facing up, with certain minimum amounts of straight lines leading into and out of the unit) that in practice there is a lot more flexibility in how they can be installed and still perform. My understanding is that they have been successfully installed vertically with a short straight fitting leading into the sensor and a 90-degree fitting leading immediately out hanging down between two cylinders. This seems to be in opposition to virtually ALL the requirements I have heard for Floscan installations .... but the units reportedly worked fine and gave good service. Note that the class didn't focus on issues like Floscan installation, and this was a side-discussion with Don because I was particularly interested in hearing what his experience had been with the units. I have been trying to decide if I need to arrange for the installation of the sensor now (which would require finding/making space in my cabin tunnel area as others have done), or if I can put it off until firewall-forward time. The approach suggested by API sure opens the door to a lot of flexibility ... though clearly if you accommodate the optimal install (horizontal, wires up, long runs fore/aft, etc.) then you CLEARLY can't be going wrong. I guess it is an issue of comfort level since there is disagreement about what is the minimum install requirements for the device. API has a lot of engine experience, but it could be argued that Floscan knows their product too. How to decide? Beats me. :) Don's real-world experience leads me to feel confident in his opinion. But if you've not met Don and heard what he has to say first-hand ... then I wouldn't blame you for coming to a totally different opinion. (Wouldn't it be boring, though a good bit quieter, if we all had identical opinions about things??) -- Dwight On Wed Mar 8 14:03:29 2006, Randy Lervold wrote : >Dwight, > >Was anything said in the class about the fact that if you mount the sensor >this far downstream it will necessarily be mounted to the engine itself in >some manner and therefore subjected to significant vibration and heat? The >Floscan needs to be horizontal so that means it will likely be on top of the >cylinders somewhere near the flow divider. > >I'll need to make a decision on where to mount mine in a few months. On my >last RV I mounted it behind the firewall and it worked very well. > >Randy Lervold ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV Builders Family Reunion at Oshkosh
Date: Mar 08, 2006
On the heels of last summer's very entertaining RV7/7A Builders Barbeque at Oshkosh's AirVenture, Darwin Barrie and I have been kicking around a modified version for 2006, including a dedicated section of the campground for RV builders and fliers. Working with the EAA, it looks like we've succeeded. I've set up a Web site (well, it's the old Web site) with the basic information. We'll be taking reservations shortly and I'll be working with EAA to pull it off. The BBQ portion of this is still on and there'll be further details on that, too, in the weeks to come. Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. http://home.comcast.net/~bcollinsrv7a/eaa/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Floscan and IO/360
From: "Don" <airflow2(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Mar 08, 2006
I'll chime in here. Dwight is correct in his assessment of the Flowscan installation. Although the reason we don't like to install the device on the suction side of the engine driven pump is the fact that the Flowscan has a fairly small hole going into the transducer. By having this restriction on the suction side of the engine driven fuel pump you are inviting possible vapor problems. I know a lot of people have done it this way(mounted the Flowscan in the cabin), but to me your rolling the dice. Also on carbureted installations you can get away with some installation issues that you can't with fuel injection. That said we have always mounted the Flowscan device after the fuel control (servo) and before the flow divider. We always install AN816-4-4D fittings in the inlet and outlet of the Flowscan. I have used a hose as short as 3" on the inlet side (all straight fittings) and a hose with a full flow 90 degree fitting on the outlet end. We have done some installations where the wires came out horizontal. These installations all worked fine. The Flowscan is never mounted directly to the engine, but hung between the hoses which are supported or supported to the engine mount with Adel clamps. The trick here is to keep the metered hose as short as possible. I have seen certified installations where the Flowscan was mounted directly to the outlet fitting on the engine driven pump or to the inlet fitting on the flow divider. I guess this works too but not my choice. I haven't had any issues with heat on the Flowscan, typically the transducer is protected with firesleeve after the installation is complete. That's my take on the installation, if you have additional questions on this subject you can contact me at airflow2(at)bellsouth.net. Don Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 442#20442 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Subject: Alaska Trip
Date: Mar 08, 2006
I'm looking for a contact for an RV Builder in Toad River BC (CBK7 Mile422). Does anyone know who this is? I'm traveling to Alaska this summer and though that I'd stop in.... Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Floscan and IO/360
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Don, Great information here and sounds like you have a lot of experience. I would appreciate any pictures you might have concerning this installation as well as from others that have done it this way. Thanks. Best regards, Bill Gill RV-7 avionics & finish Lee's Summit, MO -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 4:31 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: Floscan and IO/360 I'll chime in here. Dwight is correct in his assessment of the Flowscan installation. Although the reason we don't like to install the device on the suction side of the engine driven pump is the fact that the Flowscan has a fairly small hole going into the transducer. By having this restriction on the suction side of the engine driven fuel pump you are inviting possible vapor problems. I know a lot of people have done it this way(mounted the Flowscan in the cabin), but to me your rolling the dice. Also on carbureted installations you can get away with some installation issues that you can't with fuel injection. That said we have always mounted the Flowscan device after the fuel control (servo) and before the flow divider. We always install AN816-4-4D fittings in the inlet and outlet of the Flowscan. I have used a hose as short as 3" on the inlet side (all straight fittings) and a hose with a full flow 90 degree fitting on the outlet end. We have done some installations where the wires came out horizontal. These installations all worked fine. The Flowscan is never mounted directly to the engine, but hung between the hoses which are supported or supported to the engine mount with Adel clamps. The trick here is to keep the metered hose as short as possible. I have seen certified installations where the Flowscan was mounted directly to the outlet fitting on the engine driven pump or to the inlet fitting on the flow divider. I guess this works too but not my choice. I haven't had any issues with heat on the Flowscan, typically the transducer is protected with firesleeve after ! the installation is complete. That's my take on the installation, if you have additional questions on this subject you can contact me at airflow2(at)bellsouth.net. Don Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 442#20442 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 08, 2006
I've been resisting the urge to make a reply as I don't have the time to do much more than lurk these days, but here goes.... I really appreciate the info and discussion on this topic as I too believe there are no absolutes in this decision making process. I did most of my flight training in my own RV9 with a good friend of mine as instructor. He initially endlessly drilled into my head to always land straight ahead in event of power failure on T/O, but as training progressed he began to throw a few extra scenarios at me. The terrain in northern BC demands it. One little grass strip that we practiced on has a deep ravine at the end of the runway. Enough altitude and you can turn back or make it to the other side. Not enough and your best hope was to turn and try to crash along the bottom. Not very appealing. But allot of thought has gone into a particular strip that I used to fly out of (as a pax), when I was a hunting guide. 2000' grass with mountains on 3 sides and a glacial fed lake on the end. You always had to T/O over the lake regardless of wind direction. This lake is very remote so possibility of rescue from boaters is almost non-existent in case of a water landing. Help from anywhere out there is unlikely. (kinda like in the movie "The Edge"... lotsa grizz too!) Every trip I ever had out of there was in a fully loaded C172 that seemed to use every available inch of runway before we would struggle out over the lake for a few miles until we gained enough altitude to safely fly through a mountain pass. Turning back there was certainly not an option but all other alternatives were also extremely grim. Fortunately it has never been an issue. Time has been at a premium these last few years, preventing me from returning there but as I'm currently just finishing up my 5th and final year of tech school I expect to soon be resuming some of these activities, but this time with my own plane. As my RV9 has far greater climb rate and uses far less runway, I expect to have more options in case of emergency. Everytime I fly out of there I will be expecting that engine to fail and will include in my preflight the exact min. altitude required for a 180 back to the strip or as close to it as possible. If I keep my plane in top mechanical shape then hopefully it will never happen, but it is an experimental plane with an experimental engine, so by keeping myself in top physical and mental condition then god willing, I will have the strength and skill to accomplish something that I would never do at that perfect airport with a farmers field at the end of each runway (kinda like my home field :-). I have limited flight experience so I don't like to disagree with experienced voices such as Doug, but I feel that everyone that fly's in areas of rugged terrain should be aware of exactly how much altitude they require to make a 180 and be mentally prepared for it at all times to reduce the "oh s***" time lag, and the judgment to recognize that a straight in approach is still better for most cases. But it's not absolute. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RV-9 > It's a rehash. We all know it's risky and we all know in most > cases you'd be better off landing in that near mythically > perfect field that's almost always mythically conveniently > located right off the end of almost all airports in the world. > > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD > > and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY > > yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning > back when you can sometimes just as easily kill yourself going > straight ahead.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Ross" <dcr(at)fdltownhomes.com>
Subject: FNG question
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Guys: Looking for a Sensenich 72FM8S9-1 for an O-360A4K for sale before I give up and order one from Vans. Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Aircraft for sale
Date: Mar 08, 2006
For those that might be in the market for an exceptional 4 or knowing someone interested I have listed my RV4 in Trade-A-Plane. Reason for sale: repeat offender building a 10. Thanks for permitting the commercial. Dick Sipp RV4 N250DS RV10 40065 N110DV reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 08, 2006
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
I talked with an anodizing company today. They were well aware of the tendency of sunlight to fade the dies. They said that if I request it they could use an "architectural dye" which is much more stable. Apparently anodized colored aluminum is being used in architecture nowadays for decorative purposes. I think the architectural dye is much more resistant to fading, but probably not completely resistant. The sun is relentless. They suggested that a further protection would be to have the thing clear powder coated after it was anodized and laser engraved. I didn't even know there was such a thing as clear powder coat. Another suggestion was spray-on Krylon urethane clear coat. Since the plane will be hangared (assuming I can ever find a hangar in this town), the exposure to sunlight will be only during flying or parking at a distant airport. So, I'm leaning towards going ahead with this. -- Tom Sargent RV-6A, engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 08, 2006
Subject: Re: anodized instrument panel?
In a message dated 3/8/2006 8:10:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com writes: Consider that most of our "babies" are usually hangared- how many hours would your panel be exposed to direct sunlight after X number of years? Is this really an issue? ========================================= Yes and it doesn't take long for it to look really bogus. This is a known problem with regard to anodizing dyes and IMO is a very strong argument for powder coating, as these finishes are very color stable. The only down side to powder coating is that it shouldn't be done where the corrosion resistance of a chromate is indicated or where structural cracking might go unnoticed.. Why would anyone knowingly color anodize something that will be outdoors when powder coating is so superior and readily available? GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 776hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: annodized instrument panel?
Date: Mar 09, 2006
I wonder what component of sunlight fades the anodizing? If it's the UV range, is there a "clear powder coat" that's UV-opaque? Something like that might provide at least partial protection from fading. Anyone have any ideas on this? Randy RV-7QB emp -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sarg314 Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:18 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? I talked with an anodizing company today. They were well aware of the tendency of sunlight to fade the dies. They said that if I request it they could use an "architectural dye" which is much more stable. Apparently anodized colored aluminum is being used in architecture nowadays for decorative purposes. I think the architectural dye is much more resistant to fading, but probably not completely resistant. The sun is relentless. They suggested that a further protection would be to have the thing clear powder coated after it was anodized and laser engraved. I didn't even know there was such a thing as clear powder coat. Another suggestion was spray-on Krylon urethane clear coat. Since the plane will be hangared (assuming I can ever find a hangar in this town), the exposure to sunlight will be only during flying or parking at a distant airport. So, I'm leaning towards going ahead with this. -- Tom Sargent RV-6A, engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Neal E Capt HQ AU/XPRR <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil>
Subject: Moving
Date: Mar 09, 2006
Listers - I'm scheduled to PCS this summer. Early indications are that I'll be moving to the Florida pan handle, Eglin AFB / Hurlburt AAF area, June or July. Are there any small flying communities in the area? Thank you... Neal RV-7 N8ZG (wiring) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS
Date: Mar 09, 2006
From: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy(at)navy.mil>
The Jeppesen North Americas GPS database download using the Skybound II card reader/writer recently exceeded the 2MB capacity of the original memory cards used in the Garmin AT (was Apollo UPSAT) GX-50/55/60/65 panel-mounted IFR GPS units. Jeppesen and Garmin initially offered to replace the 2MB cards with 4MB cards for FREE (purchase new 4MB card for approx. $150, send back the old 2MB card, and receive a full refund of the 4MB card purchase price). However, by the time I experienced a problem with my GX-50 card data download exceeding the 2MB memory size, Jeppesen informed me Garmin was no longer offering a free replacement card. You had to purchase a new card if you wanted to download the updated Jeppesen database. This didn't sit well with me....why change the policy after giving free 4MB cards to some for a couple of months and now charge me (and others) full price with NO refund or discount!!! I did some research and discovered the same data card, or at least a card that is similar and WORKS, for the above mentioned Garmin panel-mounted GPSs could be purchased for only $32 and included FREE shipping! Here's the info: The PCMCIA 4MB Linear Data Flash card(s) are manufactured by SMART Modular Technologies (p/n SM9FA2048IP320C). I found the two cards I purchased at www.memorydealers.com. (see http://www.memorydealers.com/4mbcis36serf.html). MemoryDealers's part number is: MEM3600-4FC. These are the same cards used in the Cisco 3620, 3640, 3660, 3661 and 3662 routers. You can find these routers (with the MEM3600-4FC cards installed) on Ebay for as little as $9.99. Just make sure the memory card included with the router(s) uses the same SMT number above. Also, not all PCMCIA cards are alike. The only card type that will work is a PCMCIA 4MB Type 1 Series 2 LINEAR Flash Card. If you use the part numbers shown above you will get the right card... I ordered my cards online from MemoryDealers.com and had them in 2-days via FEDEX! You will still need the Skybound II USB card reader/writer (approx. $150 from Jeppesen) but you now have an option of purchasing replacements or a second card for as little as $32, instead of $150! Hope this helps, Jack Lockamy Camarillo, CA RV-7A N174JL 150 hrs www.jacklockamy.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2006
From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
The dye is what fades. You anodize first, then you dye the coating (just like dyeing cloth) then you optionally seal the surface. There are more fade resistant dyes you can select if you pay a bit extra. Here is a link: <http://www.focuser.com/anodize.html> I've used this exact kit and it works great. It is fun and easy to do. I don't see much point in clear powder coating or clear lacquer. If you are going to paint it, then skip the anodizing, just Alodine it and paint it. Bill Dube' Randall Richter wrote: > >I wonder what component of sunlight fades the anodizing? If it's the UV >range, is there a "clear powder coat" that's UV-opaque? Something like that >might provide at least partial protection from fading. > >Anyone have any ideas on this? > >Randy >RV-7QB emp > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of sarg314 >Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:18 PM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: annodized instrument panel? > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Subject: Re: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS
Date: Mar 09, 2006
Jack, I wonder if us Guys with Garmin 430's have another option for a Memory Card? I would like to have a spare card but don't wish to spend the big bucks Jeppesen wants for one. Already download my updates. Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy(at)navy.mil> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:46 PM Subject: RV-List: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS > > The Jeppesen North Americas GPS database download using the Skybound II > card reader/writer recently exceeded the 2MB capacity of the original > memory cards used in the Garmin AT (was Apollo UPSAT) GX-50/55/60/65 > panel-mounted IFR GPS units. > > Jeppesen and Garmin initially offered to replace the 2MB cards with 4MB > cards for FREE (purchase new 4MB card for approx. $150, send back the old > 2MB card, and receive a full refund of the 4MB card purchase price). > However, by the time I experienced a problem with my GX-50 card data > download exceeding the 2MB memory size, Jeppesen informed me Garmin was no > longer offering a free replacement card. You had to purchase a new card > if you wanted to download the updated Jeppesen database. This didn't sit > well with me....why change the policy after giving free 4MB cards to some > for a couple of months and now charge me (and others) full price with NO > refund or discount!!! > > I did some research and discovered the same data card, or at least a card > that is similar and WORKS, for the above mentioned Garmin panel-mounted > GPSs could be purchased for only $32 and included FREE shipping! > > Here's the info: The PCMCIA 4MB Linear Data Flash card(s) are > manufactured by SMART Modular Technologies (p/n SM9FA2048IP320C). I found > the two cards I purchased at www.memorydealers.com. (see > http://www.memorydealers.com/4mbcis36serf.html). MemoryDealers's part > number is: MEM3600-4FC. These are the same cards used in the Cisco 3620, > 3640, 3660, 3661 and 3662 routers. You can find these routers (with the > MEM3600-4FC cards installed) on Ebay for as little as $9.99. Just make > sure the memory card included with the router(s) uses the same SMT number > above. Also, not all PCMCIA cards are alike. The only card type that > will work is a PCMCIA 4MB Type 1 Series 2 LINEAR Flash Card. If you use > the part numbers shown above you will get the right card... I ordered my > cards online from MemoryDealers.com and had them in 2-days via FEDEX! > > You will still need the Skybound II USB card reader/writer (approx. $150 > from Jeppesen) but you now have an option of purchasing replacements or a > second card for as little as $32, instead of $150! > > > Hope this helps, > Jack Lockamy > Camarillo, CA > RV-7A N174JL 150 hrs > www.jacklockamy.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2006
Subject: Re: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS
From: Doug Weiler <dcw(at)mnwing.org>
I had this same issue in updating my GX-65 card this month. The solution is that Jepp has a database available that excludes South America and thus will load on the small 2MB card. It is their database DGAT1453. $115 for a one time download. Doug Weiler N722DW On 3/9/06 6:31 PM, "Tom & Cathy Ervin" wrote: > > Jack, I wonder if us Guys with Garmin 430's have another option for a Memory > Card? I would like to have a spare card but don't wish to spend the big > bucks Jeppesen wants for one. > Already download my updates. > > Tom in Ohio > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy(at)navy.mil> > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:46 PM > Subject: RV-List: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS > > >> >> The Jeppesen North Americas GPS database download using the Skybound II >> card reader/writer recently exceeded the 2MB capacity of the original >> memory cards used in the Garmin AT (was Apollo UPSAT) GX-50/55/60/65 >> panel-mounted IFR GPS units. >> >> Jeppesen and Garmin initially offered to replace the 2MB cards with 4MB >> cards for FREE (purchase new 4MB card for approx. $150, send back the old >> 2MB card, and receive a full refund of the 4MB card purchase price). >> However, by the time I experienced a problem with my GX-50 card data >> download exceeding the 2MB memory size, Jeppesen informed me Garmin was no >> longer offering a free replacement card. You had to purchase a new card >> if you wanted to download the updated Jeppesen database. This didn't sit >> well with me....why change the policy after giving free 4MB cards to some >> for a couple of months and now charge me (and others) full price with NO >> refund or discount!!! >> >> I did some research and discovered the same data card, or at least a card >> that is similar and WORKS, for the above mentioned Garmin panel-mounted >> GPSs could be purchased for only $32 and included FREE shipping! >> >> Here's the info: The PCMCIA 4MB Linear Data Flash card(s) are >> manufactured by SMART Modular Technologies (p/n SM9FA2048IP320C). I found >> the two cards I purchased at www.memorydealers.com. (see >> http://www.memorydealers.com/4mbcis36serf.html). MemoryDealers's part >> number is: MEM3600-4FC. These are the same cards used in the Cisco 3620, >> 3640, 3660, 3661 and 3662 routers. You can find these routers (with the >> MEM3600-4FC cards installed) on Ebay for as little as $9.99. Just make >> sure the memory card included with the router(s) uses the same SMT number >> above. Also, not all PCMCIA cards are alike. The only card type that >> will work is a PCMCIA 4MB Type 1 Series 2 LINEAR Flash Card. If you use >> the part numbers shown above you will get the right card... I ordered my >> cards online from MemoryDealers.com and had them in 2-days via FEDEX! >> >> You will still need the Skybound II USB card reader/writer (approx. $150 >> from Jeppesen) but you now have an option of purchasing replacements or a >> second card for as little as $32, instead of $150! >> >> >> Hope this helps, >> Jack Lockamy >> Camarillo, CA >> RV-7A N174JL 150 hrs >> www.jacklockamy.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 09, 2006
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: annodized instrument panel?
Bill: The clear poweder coat or Krylon is to further protect it from sunlight. Apparently this is done on after market aluminum car parts. Bill Dube wrote: > >The dye is what fades. > >You anodize first, then you dye the coating (just like dyeing cloth) >then you optionally seal the surface. There are more fade resistant dyes >you can select if you pay a bit extra. > >Here is a link: <http://www.focuser.com/anodize.html> I've used this >exact kit and it works great. It is fun and easy to do. > >I don't see much point in clear powder coating or clear lacquer. If you >are going to paint it, then skip the anodizing, just Alodine it and >paint it. > >Bill Dube' > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: FNG question
Date: Mar 09, 2006
Dan, Contact Paul Rosales, info below. He's got a prop for Ya. Pax, Ed Holyoke -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: FW: RV-List: FNG question Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:42:05 -0800 From: Rosales, Paul <paul.rosales(at)lmco.com> Gary, I DO have the prop....have the person contact me, Paul 661.948.0646 (home-days) 661.572.3827 (nights 3-midnight) rosales(at)bigfoot.com -----Original Message----- From: notify(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:notify(at)yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary A. Sobek Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 6:50 PM Subject: Fwd: FW: RV-List: FNG question --- In SoCAL-RVlist(at)yahoogroups.com, "Ed Holyoke" wrote: Rosie, Didn't you have a prop for sale? Pax, Ed -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ross Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 6:18 PM Subject: RV-List: FNG question Guys: Looking for a Sensenich 72FM8S9-1 for an O-360A4K for sale before I give up and order one from Vans. Thanks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Todd Bartrim" <bartrim(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Minimum altitude to return to airport
Date: Mar 09, 2006
I've been resisting the urge to make a reply as I don't have the time to do much more than lurk these days, but here goes.... I really appreciate the info and discussion on this topic as I too believe there are no absolutes in this decision making process. I did most of my flight training in my own RV9 with a good friend of mine as instructor. He initially endlessly drilled into my head to always land straight ahead in event of power failure on T/O, but as training progressed he began to throw a few extra scenarios at me. The terrain in northern BC demands it. One little grass strip that we practiced on has a deep ravine at the end of the runway. Enough altitude and you can turn back or make it to the other side. Not enough and your best hope was to turn and try to crash along the bottom. Not very appealing. But allot of thought has gone into a particular strip that I used to fly out of (as a pax), when I was a hunting guide. 2000' grass with mountains on 3 sides and a glacial fed lake on the end. You always had to T/O over the lake regardless of wind direction. This lake is very remote so possibility of rescue from boaters is almost non-existent in case of a water landing. Help from anywhere out there is unlikely. (kinda like in the movie "The Edge"... lotsa grizz too!) Every trip I ever had out of there was in a fully loaded C172 that seemed to use every available inch of runway before we would struggle out over the lake for a few miles until we gained enough altitude to safely fly through a mountain pass. Turning back there was certainly not an option but all other alternatives were also extremely grim. Fortunately it has never been an issue. Time has been at a premium these last few years, preventing me from returning there but as I'm currently just finishing up my 5th and final year of tech school I expect to soon be resuming some of these activities, but this time with my own plane. As my RV9 has far greater climb rate and uses far less runway, I expect to have more options in case of emergency. Everytime I fly out of there I will be expecting that engine to fail and will include in my preflight the exact min. altitude required for a 180 back to the strip or as close to it as possible. If I keep my plane in top mechanical shape then hopefully it will never happen, but it is an experimental plane with an experimental engine, so by keeping myself in top physical and mental condition then god willing, I will have the strength and skill to accomplish something that I would never do at that perfect airport with a farmers field at the end of each runway (kinda like my home field :-). I have limited flight experience so I don't like to disagree with experienced voices such as Doug, but I feel that everyone that fly's in areas of rugged terrain should be aware of exactly how much altitude they require to make a 180 and be mentally prepared for it at all times to reduce the "oh s***" time lag, and the judgment to recognize that a straight in approach is still better for most cases. But it's not absolute. Todd Bartrim "chance favours the prepared mind" Louis Pasteur Turbo 13B RV-9 > It's a rehash. We all know it's risky and we all know in most > cases you'd be better off landing in that near mythically > perfect field that's almost always mythically conveniently > located right off the end of almost all airports in the world. > > Nobody ever takes off having to fly out over open water > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMCD > > and nobody ever has to take off right over the dense city > http://www.airnav.com/airport/KVNY > > yep, there's just no reason to ever want to kill yourself turning > back when you can sometimes just as easily kill yourself going > straight ahead.... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2006
From: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy(at)verizon.net> GPSReplacement 4MB Memory Card for
Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS
Subject: Re: Replacement 4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPSReplacement
4MB Memory Card for Garmin GX-50/55/60/65 GPS A buddy of mine has a Garmin 430 in his panel. I will take a look at his card and do some research to see if there is an alternative/replacement card at 'sub-Garmin' prices... Jack Lockamy Camarillo, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Karen and Robert Brown" <bkbrown(at)ashcreekwireless.com>
Subject: Re: E-mag/P-Mag Please Explain! (auto vs A/C plugs)
Date: Mar 10, 2006
Sorry to be late on a response here (work sucks, doesn't it?). I concur with some of George's observations, and certainly the CAFE testing data give some performance data to consider. I think you should have a personal visit with each of the manufacturers of the electronic ignition systems before you purchase, that's one of the benefits of building experimental aircraft. The P-Mag/E-Mag system is certainly the new kid on the block and is still evolving. Latest information from Brad Dement at Emagair (P-Mag manufacturer) indicates the newest version of the P-Mag has a programmable input lead that allows one to implement whatever latest update which may exist. My P-Mag, (the earlier version) does not have that capability. Additionally, the Lightspeed system knows where the crank is once per revolution. In between that position, it imputes the position of the crank. The P-Mag/E-Mag system knows where the crank is at all times and can be programmed more precisely because of this. As far as performance, just as in building a top fuel dragster, you will have to make some tradeoffs if you want every ounce of power. Your selection of ignition systems should be made based on YOUR design criteria, not someone elses. If your number one design criteria is more performance, it doesn't make sense to stop with the ignition system if you are not doing all the other things in your attempt to approach higher mach numbers. My advice is to talk to several people who are running these systems and always compare apples to apples. Along the way, I encourage you not to make a choice of any one ignition system based on what their competitor has to say about it. Talk to all of them in person, develop a relationship and let them give you their views. Visit their websites. Take all of that information, mesh it with your design goals, throw in a little gut instinct and get out your wallet. Just as in being a pilot, YOU need to be making the decision for YOUR reasons. Bob RV7A - Fairings/Wheel pants ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2006
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Prince P-tip prop
Is any one on the list actually flying behind a Prince P-tip carbon fiber+wood prop for 180 HP? I believe it's a 68" prop with about 78" pitch. I have an 83" Pitch sensenich prop for 180HP still in the box which I am considering selling to one of my fellow listers (it was purchased early-on when they were recommending 83" rather than 85"). This re-opens the prop question for me. I talked with Lonnie Prince yesterday and he tells a pretty good story about his prop. The archives don't contain much about the prop, but what's there is good. Do people with light wood props have any C.G. advantages or disadvantages compared to a heavy aluminum prop? I saw one reference that implied less weight on the nose decreased luggage carrying capacity. Thanks, for any info. -- Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Engine. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John DeCuir <jadecuir(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Anodized Panels
Date: Mar 10, 2006
I used to work for an Aerospace machine shop that had numerous parts Anodized by FAA approved vendors. Type I (chromic) anodize is very thin , maybe .0002", penetration and buildup. It would fade very quickly if exposed to UV light. Type II (sulfuric) anodize can be applied to thickness' approaching .0010", and if dyed properly, is quite resistant to fading, especially black. Type III (hard, sulfuric) anodize can be as thick as .0040", but the dye does not penetrate that deep. We made housings for a company that built 90 degree drill heads and air-drives for aerospace builders, and they wanted Type III, .0020-0030" thick, black. I believe they would resist fading quite well, and also stand up to rough handling without much wear. Keep in mind that if you go this route, you have to compensate for the buildup on all your dimensions that matter. A .250" dia. hole would shrink by the thickness of the anodize ( e.g., .0020 thick = .001 penetration and .001 buildup = .248"dia). All your holes, cutouts and countersink diameters should be increased accordingly. Burrs and sharp edges must be removed and rounded prior to treatment, or they get knife-sharp and are prone to chipping. When you take it to the shop, give them a sample piece of known dimension, like a cylinder or small sheet (leftover from cutout?), so they can measure periodically during processing. Use a certified shop, and the results will be better than some shop that does decorative work only. If you don't need certification to MIL-A-8625, the price goes down. John DeCuir RV-4, N204CP (670 hrs) SNS, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 10, 2006
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: sorted/searchable parts list for the -7? INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000
1.0000 -2.0210 Hi guys, I have a vague memory of someone offering a parts list in an orderly format (excel?) but all I can find in the archives back through 2000 is mention of one for an -8. Has anyone loaded one for the -7 into a searchable/sortable list? Thanks, Charlie (fuselage inventory commencing) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Perkinson" <bobperk(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: sorted/searchable parts list for the -7? INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Charlie, I just bit the bullet and Hand entered the -9 Fuselage parts list in an Excell spread sheet. If you were building a -9 I would send you what I have. Bob Perkinson Hendersonville, TN. Hi guys, I have a vague memory of someone offering a parts list in an orderly format (excel?) but all I can find in the archives back through 2000 is mention of one for an -8. Has anyone loaded one for the -7 into a searchable/sortable list? Thanks, Charlie (fuselage inventory commencing) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: sorted/searchable parts list for the -7?
Date: Mar 11, 2006
On 10 Mar 2006, at 22:48, Charlie England wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > I have a vague memory of someone offering a parts list in an orderly > format (excel?) but all I can find in the archives back through > 2000 is > mention of one for an -8. > > Has anyone loaded one for the -7 into a searchable/sortable list? There is a -7A parts spreadsheet in the Downloads section of the VAF WWW site: http://www.vansairforce.net/faq.htm Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject: Posible AD for ALL O-360 cranks
Date: Mar 11, 2006
I read on aityher Av-web, Eaa, or Aopa newsleter yesterday that Faa was considering extending the Crank AD to ALL these engines and were seeking input. I have a 320 so didnt think much about it, but seems many of folks are running 360 and some 540's so thought I would give heads up as didnt see any post about it here today. (Im on the digest only) Charlie Heathco ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Prince P-tip prop
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Tom, A light weight prop on a 6 or 7 will not allow full use of the baggage weight allowance. Have compared a friend's 7A with a wood prop to my 6A with O-360 and Hartzell C/S. I can put the full 100 lbs. in the baggage area with no CG problem. He cannot. Dale Ensing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: sorted/searchable parts list for the -7? INNOCENT GLOBAL
0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Bob, I'd like to add it to the files section of the RV Builders Group to go alongside the 7a spreadsheet. Please send me a copy at bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net. Thanks Bob St. Paul > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Perkinson > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:30 AM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: sorted/searchable parts list for the > -7? INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 > > > > Charlie, > I just bit the bullet and Hand entered the -9 Fuselage parts > list in an Excell spread sheet. If you were building a -9 I > would send you what I have. > > Bob Perkinson > Hendersonville, TN. > > > > Hi guys, > > I have a vague memory of someone offering a parts list in an > orderly format (excel?) but all I can find in the archives > back through 2000 is mention of one for an -8. > > Has anyone loaded one for the -7 into a searchable/sortable list? > > Thanks, > > Charlie > (fuselage inventory commencing) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2006
From: Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Prince P-tip prop
This is true, however you can help the situation with a Landoll balancer ring. This is a heavy steel ring which bolts to the flywheel. It moves the CG forward, and adds inertia to the light prop as well. Weight is about 12 lbs and cost was around $100, IIRC. MARK LANDOLL 405-392-3847 STARTERS, MASS/DAMPING RINGS, ALTERNATORS Jeff Point RV-6 Milwaukee >A light weight prop on a 6 or 7 will not allow full use of the baggage weight allowance. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Weekly newsletter idea
Date: Mar 11, 2006
So there I was sitting at the quarterly meeting of the Minnesota Wing of Van's Air Force this morning listening to Dick Martin talk and thinking, "man, this is good, lots of folks should hear about this." And then there was talk of the service bulletin, and some other folks had good information. And this morning I browsed a bunch of Web sites from Matronics to VAF to Yahoo to EAA to builder sites -- just like everyone else does -- and thought "it would be nice to have a quick summary that highlights the stuff that's going on in the RV world....referring people to the proper forums, podcasts, message boards, mailing lists and Web sites from whence they came. So now there is? RV Builder's Hotline. Delivered every Saturday morning to your inbox. No charge. No advertising. No privacy violations. Just because. Here's the Web site sample. But it will only be available by e-mail in HTML or PDF format (please stipulate). http://home.comcast.net/~bcollinsrv7a/eaa/rvbuildernewsletter.htm And if you have something you'd like to highlight (especially if it's published elsewhere and you just need folks to find it, send it along) Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2006
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: Sealing tank inspection covers
FWIW If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may be of interest to you. I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. Regards, Richard Dudley ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
Date: Mar 11, 2006
On a related subject, I had a very bad time today with the button head hex screws I planned to use to replace the Phillips head screws originally used on the access covers. After stripping 3 of 'em (not fun extracting them from inside the wing root), I switched back to the tried and true Phillips head units and had no further problems. Hopefully, others have a better experience with the button head hex screws than I did. Oh, yeah... If you thought proseal was a mess when you built your tank, it is even more fun when you work with it in the wing root. Finally, I *had* properly tightened and prosealed my fuel pick-ups when I built the tanks 8 or so years ago. There is no way they would have ever come loose. What this means is that in the last week, I have spent about $100 bucks (new pick-ups, screws, proseal) and 8+ hours fixing a problem that didn't exist on my airplane. My peace of mind is worth it, but if I'd made the *right* construcion photo(s) or documented what I did in writing (as opposed to fuzzy memories), I could have avoided the issue entirely. KB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Sealing tank inspection covers > > FWIW > > If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or > don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may > be of interest to you. > > I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for > a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. > I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the > assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with > Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the > coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection > plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the > screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small > compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges > and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no > leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and > filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. > > During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service > Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they > lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from > both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work > for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and > assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. > > Regards, > > Richard Dudley > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Richard, did you use the light or medium weight titeseal compound? Thanks Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Sealing tank inspection covers > > FWIW > > If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or > don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may > be of interest to you. > > I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for > a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. > I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the > assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with > Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the > coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection > plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the > screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small > compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges > and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no > leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and > filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. > > During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service > Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they > lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from > both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work > for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and > assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. > > Regards, > > Richard Dudley > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Wiley" <wiley(at)citynet.net>
Subject: Kx-125 Instulation Manual
Date: Mar 12, 2006
to 48 hours after Received: date Fellow RVers, I bought a used KX-125 nav -com for my new RV-7A but I have no instillation manual for it. If anyone has one, please E-mail me at wiley(at)citynet.net. Thanks, Larry Wiley ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Richard, Your original trouble-free installation of the access covers with cork gaskets using Titeseal and subsequent flying hours since is remarkably similiar in time frame to my experience though my flying hours come in slightly higher at 113TT since June 2005. I will comply with the SB shortly having just received fresh cork gaskets from Van's. Its nice to know the old Titeseal cleans up readily with acetone and I certainly plan to reinstall those access covers with Titeseal again. Four years ago, I simply followed a suggestion offered in an Orndorff construction video by using Titeseal as an alternative to proseal. After reading so many (often colorful) posts of builders who used proseal, for a while there I thought I was the only builder (besides George O.) who successfully used Titeseal to attach those access covers. I'm happy to hear you too have met with leak proof success on the fuel tanks using the same stuff. Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla" rhdudley(at)att.net wrote: > FWIW > > If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or > don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may > be of interest to you. > > I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for > a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. > I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the > assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with > Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the > coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection > plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the > screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small > compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges > and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no > leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and > filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. > > During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service > Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they > lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from > both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work > for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and > assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. > > Regards, > > Richard Dudley Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=21114#21114 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Kristensen" <carlkristensen(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Question for Canadians concerning inspections
Date: Mar 11, 2006
First off, I have been building a RV8 empennage and have been lurking on this list for 6 months or so, and I have found it to be most helpful. My question is for anyone who may have experience with the Canadian MD-RA inspection system. I am told that I must leave components open for inspection but no one is able to tell me exactly what that means. Does it mean leaving a corner open with a few rivets out, or the entire side off? The person manning MD-RA office is unable to answer this, and the inspector in my area refuses to speak to builders. Thanks for your help. Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 11, 2006
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
Ed, When I looked back at the ACS catalog, I saw the two consistencies of Titeseal and realized that I couldn't remember which I used. My can of Titeseal is at the hangar. If I can make it tomorrow, I will check it and send an e-mail with that information. If I don't make it tomorrow, I'll surely get there Monday. Sorry that I don't know off hand which and hesitate to guess. Rick Galati responded with a comment that he also used Titeseal successfully. Possibly he knows which version he used. I'll get back to you with the info. Regards, Richard Dudley Ed Anderson wrote: > >Richard, did you use the light or medium weight titeseal compound? > >Thanks > >Ed > >Ed Anderson >Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered >Matthews, NC >eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net> >To: >Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:04 PM >Subject: RV-List: Sealing tank inspection covers > > > > >> >>FWIW >> >>If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or >>don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may >>be of interest to you. >> >>I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for >>a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. >>I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the >>assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with >>Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the >>coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection >>plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the >>screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small >>compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges >>and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no >>leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and >>filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. >> >>During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service >>Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they >>lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from >>both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work >>for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and >>assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. >> >>Regards, >> >>Richard Dudley >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
In a message dated 3/11/2006 3:44:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, kboatright1(at)comcast.net writes: On a related subject, I had a very bad time today with the button head hex screws I planned to use to replace the Phillips head screws originally used on the access covers. After stripping 3 of 'em (not fun extracting them from inside the wing root), I switched back to the tried and true Phillips head units and had no further problems. Hopefully, others have a better experience with the button head hex screws than I did. ================================================ Early in my career I learned that button head stainless steel screws of any size are bad for use in a prevailing torque (locking) thread form, especially that used in all-metal nutplates and Kaynars. Never mind the fact that these threads are often over-crimped to produce an excessive locking torque in their virgin condition, for which I always recommend Never-Seez (sp), Molybdenum disulfide assembly lube or a similar anti-galling lubricant (Boelube, Beeswax, etc.). Because of the low profile head shape, the hex driving recesses in the ANSI button head series fasteners are one increment smaller and shallower when compared with the hex driving recesses used in the equivalent sized cap head screw. This, combined with the soft 300 series stainless, allows their driving recesses to "cam out" at a much lower torque. I would encourage builders to stay with cap heads, pan or truss heads and use sealing head screws for the access plates. Having said all that, the button heads do look cool for mounting instruments in your panel and the grass hopper nuts will receive them fine. GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 777hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
Date: Mar 11, 2006
Ok, thanks Richard. No hurry Monday will be fine. I suspect it may be the light but it would be nice to know for certain. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Titeseal was Re: RV-List: Sealing tank inspection covers > > Ed, > When I looked back at the ACS catalog, I saw the two consistencies of > Titeseal and realized that I couldn't remember which I used. My can of > Titeseal is at the hangar. If I can make it tomorrow, I will check it > and send an e-mail with that information. If I don't make it tomorrow, > I'll surely get there Monday. Sorry that I don't know off hand which and > hesitate to guess. Rick Galati responded with a comment that he also > used Titeseal successfully. Possibly he knows which version he used. > > I'll get back to you with the info. > > Regards, > > Richard Dudley > > Ed Anderson wrote: > >> >>Richard, did you use the light or medium weight titeseal compound? >> >>Thanks >> >>Ed >> >>Ed Anderson >>Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered >>Matthews, NC >>eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net> >>To: >>Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:04 PM >>Subject: RV-List: Sealing tank inspection covers >> >> >> >> >>> >>>FWIW >>> >>>If you haven't yet sealed your inspection plates onto your tanks or >>>don't like using Pro Seal on your inspection plates, the following may >>>be of interest to you. >>> >>>I originally sealed my tanks about four years ago. I've been flying for >>>a year with about 75 hours on my RV-6A. >>>I used the cork gaskets that were supplied with the wing kit. In the >>>assembly process, I coated the seal area of inboard rib surface with >>>Titeseal (that I purchased from ACS) and placed the cork gasket on the >>>coated surface. I then coated inside mating surface of the inspection >>>plate with the Titeseal and placed it on the gasket. I then inserted the >>>screws and torqued them a moderate amount that resulted in a small >>>compression of the gasket and extrusion of the Titeseal from the edges >>>and around the screws. The original pressure test of the tanks showed no >>>leaks around the inspection plate. After assembling the plane and >>>filling the tanks, there were no fuel leaks around the plates. >>> >>>During the last few days, I removed the tanks to do the recent Service >>>Bulletin. After removing the screws from the inspection plates, they >>>lifted off without any effort. I then cleaned the old Tite-Seal from >>>both the plate and the inboard rib with acetone. After doing the work >>>for the SB, I then repeated the above procedures of Titeseal coating and >>>assembly. The tanks are re-installed and filled with fuel with no leaks. >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Richard Dudley >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Sealing tank inspection covers
Date: Mar 11, 2006
I recently remove the covers from my tanks and they came off easily. I had forgotten that I had put NO sealer on the gaskets, only on the heads of the screws. I then remembered this technique was suggested by my A&P friend who works on helicopters for Chevron for a living. He said if I do it right I would not need the sealant and it would come off easier if they had to be removed. Turns out he was right as they had been on for about six years and flying for two years leak free. Scott N162RV =========================================================== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Fuel Tank SB Experience
Date: Mar 12, 2006
My experience doing the Fuel Tank SB. The fuel tank SD is a bitch, but doable without removing the tank. All total, 10-12 man hours to do the left tank. Experience will help when I do the right tank. Start by getting all the parts you need from Van's. Cork gaskets for the big hole, rubber gaskets for the fuel sender, 2 small jars or peo-seal (really nice and just enough) and whatever screws you want to use. Ground the plane. I started by siphoning as much 100LL out as I could, then I un-screwed the drain valve and drained the remainder into a fuel can. Next, I vented the tank by holding a vacuum set to blow in the fuel cap hole for about 5 minutes. After the tank was vented, I started to remove the old pro-seal before I even tried to open the tank this kept the trash out as much as possible. I had used way to much pro-seal the first time, so I had a pain removing it. I found a 1/2 and 1/4 wood chisel worked the best. Also a razor blade helped with the heavy stuff. You will find it is easier to work from under the plane. After getting as much off as possible I started with the drimel with a wire brush and cleaned all the rest off I could. Next,I took the wire to the fuel sending unit off and took out the 5 screws that hold the fuel sender and removed it with no problem. Again I vented the tank. Next, you want to remove the fuel line and tape it. It needs to be removed at the fuel valve and the tank and pushed into the plane so as to give you more room to work in the crack. Next I taped the fuel sender hole and started on the access cover screws. I should have spent more time with the drimel and taken a pick to the heads of the screws because I stripped two screws that were loaded with pro-seal. Oh well live and learn. The next day Tonto came to the rescue (Dale Ensing) and we were able to remove the stripped screws with his needle nose vice grip pliers. Thanks Dale! On re-installation we decided to use the original screws (8-32) because the heads were bigger than the hex head screws I had bought. The feeling was if the smaller heads were stripped we might not be able to remove them with needle nose vice grip pliers. After the screws were out we managed to release the plate with a heavy duty sharpened putty knife and hammer. Carefully moving around the plate a little at a time. Dale cleaned the hole in the wing with MKE while I used the wire brush on the electric motor to clean the covers. Yes MEK softens the goo and will clean it off. Lots of rubbing required but it works. The B nut was tight and before we took it off we marked where we wanted to drill. We drilled the hole in the B nut with Dale's little jig and shafted it with 0.32 wire and decided to cant the pick up tube about 1 1/2 inches outboard to make for an easier instillation of the cover plate. Don't forget to clean any trash out of the tank. We used the vacuum with a small hose fitted to the vacuum hose and a mirror. Now it became a two man job. We buttered the cover plate with pro-seal laid the gasket in the goo and buttered it again, we added 3 screws to hold the gasket in place while we both installed it together. One man above the wing carefully hands the unit to the guy below the wing through the crack. Really a two man job here to get it in place without dislodging all the goo and making a bigger mess. We actually practiced the hand off several times before we put the goo on. Don't forget to liberally tape the edge of the wing on the top and the bottom to prevent getting goo on your paint. We dipped each screw into the goo and screwed the cover plate down, installed the fuel pick up with the rubber gasket, no goo on the gasket this time, just the screws. Re-install the fuel line, let it cure for at least 4 days, add fuel and say a prayer that it doesn't leak!!!!!!! I will do the right tank after Sun and Fun.

March 02, 2006 - March 12, 2006

RV-Archive.digest.vol-rt