RV-Archive.digest.vol-rw
April 18, 2006 - April 27, 2006
RV-Archive.digest.vol-rw
April 18, 2006 - April 27, 2006
>
> First question, where's a good place to put this in
> the stream of fuel? I'm not too savvy on injected
> engines.
>
> While talking with Electronics International today, I
> was told that since there is a return of unused fuel,
> I'll need TWO transducers and a little box that
> computes the unused fuel. This adds about $300 to the
> price of my fuel flow, and am wondering if it's worth
> it now. Thoughts?
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-4
> N73DD
> Arizona (For Now)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 18, 2006
Paul,
The AFP has no return. The purge valve is not used during noemal operations
and this is the only source of returned fuel. Between the servo and the
flow divider is the best spot and I like Alex's idea of bringing thewe lines
to the firewall. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Besing
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:53 PM
To:
rv-list(at)matronics.com.1.12.SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID.Subject.contains.a.unique.ID
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
First question, where's a good place to put this in
the stream of fuel? I'm not too savvy on injected
engines.
While talking with Electronics International today, I
was told that since there is a return of unused fuel,
I'll need TWO transducers and a little box that
computes the unused fuel. This adds about $300 to the
price of my fuel flow, and am wondering if it's worth
it now. Thoughts?
Paul Besing
RV-4
N73DD
Arizona (For Now)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Dakotas
Date: Apr 18, 2006
My wife and I are planning a trip to South Dakota in July. Will be staying
over at Custer County Airport http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCUT which is
southwest of Rapid City.
Plenty of places to stay, state parks with wild life, Mount Rushmore nearby,
Black hills country, should be places to camp. Rental cars are available.
Jerry Calvert
RV 6 N296JC
Edmond Ok
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy(at)jhill.biz>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Dakotas
>
> Fellow RV'ers:
>
> My son and I plan a flight in our 8A this weekend from Okla. up to the
Dakotas, and surrounding areas.
> Would appreciate knowing of any RV friendly locations--good sightseeing,
possibly airport camping spots, etc.
>
> Thanks.
> Jimmy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 18, 2006
On Tue Apr 18 22:10:46 2006, Alex Peterson wrote :
>> First question, where's a good place to put this in the
>> stream of fuel? I'm not too savvy on injected engines.
>>
>> While talking with Electronics International today, I was
>> told that since there is a return of unused fuel, I'll need
>> TWO transducers and a little box that computes the unused
>> fuel. This adds about $300 to the price of my fuel flow, and
>> am wondering if it's worth it now. Thoughts?
>>
>> Paul Besing
>> RV-4
>> N73DD
>> Arizona (For Now)
>
>Paul, put it in the line between the servo and flow divider. You'll have to
>add a hose, and you may need to bring those lines back to the firewall.
>
>For others paying attention, not all fuel injection systems have this return
>line (Airflow Performance, for one), making the installation as simple as a
>carb with respect to fuel lines.
According to the folks at Airflow Performance, Alex is right on the
money regarding where to install the transducer. I don't know what FI
system you are using, but with the API system there is no return line
for _normal_ operation. There is a return line for the purge valve
but that is only used pre-start to purge vapor from the lines, and
at shutdown to _positively_ terminate fuel flow to the flow divider
(and thus insure a clean shutdown of the engine).
The API opinion on the amount of fuel returned is that it is so little
(startup and shutdown) that putting a Flowscan on the return line would
be of little benefit.
I learned all these little tidbits at the FI-101 class I took at the
API facility. If you really want to know about fuel injection basics
and are within striking distance of Spartanburg, SC ... I'd recommend
it highly. I'm not affiliated, but am a satisfied customer. :)
Hope this helps.
-- Dwight
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 18, 2006
Subject: Helmet & Headset ponderings
From: Mark E Navratil <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Guys,
I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx turns warmer I'm
thinking I'll probably break down and get a good ANR headset. The head
bucket is just too hot to wear when it gets into the upper 80's and
beyond. The other thing I've noticed is that the Oregon Aero earseals in
my helmet get extremely soft with higher temps and don't seem to seal as
well as they do in wintertime....they're very comfortable (as advertised)
but the ANR has a hard time keeping up with the noise level and I find it
bothersome after several hours in the air. FWIW I have the Headsets Inc
ANR in my helmet earcups and I imagine there are better systems available
from the likes of Bose and Lightspeed.
So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
$1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
(iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
Couple questions: does anybody know if Lightspeed might have a better
deal available at Oshkosh? If they have really good show specials it
might be worth waiting...
Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed
headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good
factory support to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of
well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
Thanks as always for the input,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change just completed...
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 18, 2006
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Contrary to the fuel return on my airplane. Not sure
what type of injection it is, but the fuel return is
substantial in flight. I've run 30 mins on the left
tank, and after 30 mins on the right tank, the left
tank is full again.
Paul Besing
> The API opinion on the amount of fuel returned is
> that it is so little
> (startup and shutdown) that putting a Flowscan on
> the return line would
> be of little benefit.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 18, 2006
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Having worn helmets in hot helicopters in the Alabama
humidity in the summer time, I know what you mean. At
least what I fly now is air conditioned, but wearning
helmets does get old.
I know you were not thinking of Bose because of price,
but in 4 years and 1000 hours of flying, no problems,
so I haven't needed the support. I flight instructed
with them in the hot AZ heat in the summer time, they
took a beating and don't even show the slightest wear
in the ear seals or anything.
I know lightspeed has great customer service, but
personally, I'd rather not have to use customer
service and never have a problem. I've seen threads
like this and I find it very humerous when people
write, "I've shipped them back 4 times and their
customer service is great..new ear seals and all!"
Sorry, but I don't care if your customer service is
great if you make a product that breaks. I don't get
the whole lightspeed craze. Sure, they make a good
quality ANR, but I find them bulky, and the plastic
just seems chincy and delicate to me, which seems to
be substantiated with all the claims of their customer
service and repair history.
Plus, with the Bose, you can't beat the music or
comfort quality. So much that when I bought my RV-4,
I splurged and bought a second pair. No interest
payments from Bose...I know, payments on a headset?
Worth every stinkin penny, IMHO.
Paul Besing
--- Mark E Navratil wrote:
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx
> turns warmer I'm
> thinking I'll probably break down and get a good ANR
> headset. The head
> bucket is just too hot to wear when it gets into the
> upper 80's and
> beyond. The other thing I've noticed is that the
> Oregon Aero earseals in
> my helmet get extremely soft with higher temps and
> don't seem to seal as
> well as they do in wintertime....they're very
> comfortable (as advertised)
> but the ANR has a hard time keeping up with the
> noise level and I find it
> bothersome after several hours in the air. FWIW I
> have the Headsets Inc
> ANR in my helmet earcups and I imagine there are
> better systems available
> from the likes of Bose and Lightspeed.
>
> So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if
> I'm gonna spend some
> dough, might as well get a good one and only cry
> once. I'm sure Bose is
> the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit
> tradeoff is worth the
> $1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's
> top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
> instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half
> the price of the Bose X
> (iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free
> shipping).
>
> Couple questions: does anybody know if Lightspeed
> might have a better
> deal available at Oshkosh? If they have really good
> show specials it
> might be worth waiting...
>
> Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar
> high-end Lightspeed
> model would be appreciated. In general I've heard
> that Lightspeed
> headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes
> break but have good
> factory support to replace parts. One of my
> hangarmates has a pair of
> well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering
> pealing away from the
> foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but
> looks like crap...
>
> Thanks as always for the input,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change
> just completed...
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
In a message dated 4/18/2006 9:17:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
czechsix(at)juno.com writes:
I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
$1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
(iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
============================================
I have two Thirty 3Gs and they are okay although I hate the plastic and
would encourage you to evaluate the ear seals (I didn't get good results from
the
new style ear seals, so I swapped them out for the older style). I would
agree with others that the Bose X headsets are probably a superior product
overall and if my stocks returned better numbers I would have splurged (invested)
in Bose Xs as well, and with gas prices as high as they are we're not flying
quite as much as we used to.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 780hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Barrow" <bobbarrow10(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Dan, I thought you put your fuel transducer just after the AFP boost pump on
the cabin floor. Are you now unhappy with the results from that position.
>From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006
>
>
>In the metered fuel line between the servo and flow divider is about as
>ideal a spot as any imho.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Paul Besing" <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>To:
>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 6:53 PM
>Subject: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
>
>
> >
> > First question, where's a good place to put this in
> > the stream of fuel? I'm not too savvy on injected
> > engines.
> >
> > While talking with Electronics International today, I
> > was told that since there is a return of unused fuel,
> > I'll need TWO transducers and a little box that
> > computes the unused fuel. This adds about $300 to the
> > price of my fuel flow, and am wondering if it's worth
> > it now. Thoughts?
> >
> > Paul Besing
> > RV-4
> > N73DD
> > Arizona (For Now)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
http://mobilecentral.ninemsn.com.au/mcmobileHotmail/home.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Another option priced in between the two you are considering:
http://www.telex.com/aircraft/products.nsf/pages/Stratus50Digital
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Vanremog(at)aol.com said:
>
>
> In a message dated 4/18/2006 9:17:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> czechsix(at)juno.com writes:
>
> I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
> dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
> the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
> $1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
> instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
> (iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
>
>
> ============================================
>
> I have two Thirty 3Gs and they are okay although I hate the plastic and
> would encourage you to evaluate the ear seals (I didn't get good results
> from the
> new style ear seals, so I swapped them out for the older style). I would
> agree with others that the Bose X headsets are probably a superior
> product
> overall and if my stocks returned better numbers I would have splurged
> (invested)
> in Bose Xs as well, and with gas prices as high as they are we're not
> flying
> quite as much as we used to.
>
>
> GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 780hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
> Dan, I thought you put your fuel transducer just after the AFP boost pump
> on
> the cabin floor. Are you now unhappy with the results from that position.
I did, and I don't have any problems. But it's not the best location from a
"scientific" standpoint. ;-) Pressure drop across the transducer when it's
on the suction side means more chances of vapor lock. And why not put it
where it "matters" most for accuracy? In the metered fuel line is ideal
from what I understand, since it's under positive pressure (as opposed to
suction), and it's measuring the ACTUAL flow of fuel to the cylinders.
Just my 2 cents.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Helmet & Headset ponderings, Oshkosh deals
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Hi Mark, et al-
RE: does anybody know if Lightspeed might have a better
deal available at Oshkosh?
FWIW, I bought a pair of Sennheisers ANR's at just under $400 each at OSH.
I'm not airborne yet so I can't speak definitively on their performance,
but I believe it to be quite good.
Also, as a general rule, I make sure the vendors know I'm seriously
comparison shopping. I'll grid out my wish list with my shopping list down
the edge of the paper, and vendors across the top. I fill in the squares
as I talk to them. At least one, usually Pacific Coast Avionics, will cut
to the chase and make me an offer I can't refuse. It may sound silly or
trite, but I've saved a whoooole lot of money that way.
As ever, FWIW-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dean Van Winkle" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net>
Subject: Re: OT - AOPA donation-solicitation phone calls
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Matt and Dale
I believe that this is the third year in a row that I have had a
solicitation call from AOPA Air Safety Foundation. Each time I have told
them to send a notice to me and I will respond with a check, just to ensure
that it is a legitimate call. They respond promptly. I plan to attend one
of their Safety Seminars in Springfield, Illinois next week. I agree that
AOPA is a good cause.
Dean Van Winkle
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: OT - AOPA donation-solicitation phone calls
>
> At 04:18 AM 4/18/2006 Tuesday, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>Have been a member of AOPA for 20 years and do not remember ever getting a
>>phone solicitation from them. Is this a scam?
>>Dale Ensing
>>do not achieve
>
> No, I don't think it is. I got a "reminder call" last year too and it was
> legit. They are pretty persistent, that's for sure. Its a good cause,
> though, if you value your right to fly in the US.
>
> Matt
>
>
> 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: Apr 19, 2006
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
I mounted mine in basically the same position that Dan did except that
mine is further forward and attached to the floor. I plan to move it
this weekend to where Dan put his. I think that the vibration on the
floor is causing it to be WAY off. It shows about 10% higher rate than
what I am actually flowing and turning the boost pump on will give it
another 10% on top of that. With the airplane sitting in the hangar
it's right on the money.
Dan,
How did you attach yours? Is it bolted to something or is the tubing
holding it?
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
>
>
>>Dan, I thought you put your fuel transducer just after the AFP boost pump
>>on
>>the cabin floor. Are you now unhappy with the results from that position.
>>
>>
>
>I did, and I don't have any problems. But it's not the best location from a
>"scientific" standpoint. ;-) Pressure drop across the transducer when it's
>on the suction side means more chances of vapor lock. And why not put it
>where it "matters" most for accuracy? In the metered fuel line is ideal
>from what I understand, since it's under positive pressure (as opposed to
>suction), and it's measuring the ACTUAL flow of fuel to the cylinders.
>
>Just my 2 cents.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov>
Subject: 6 A is flight level when?
I am near to getting my RV 6A back in the air after a complete
electrical and panel rebuild. I plan on redoing weight and
balance. With a slider is the top rail of the slider parallel to the
top longeron? The top longeron is Van's reference for on the ground
level. I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
level flight.
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Headset pirep
I started with a Sigtronics standard headset, and would miss calls. I bought
a Light speed 20X and was really impressed with the difference, and eventually
bought a 25X. Both headsets plastic parts broke on occasion, and when both
were broken at the same time I decided to buy the new earpiece Lightspeeds. The
delivery date was pushed back a couple of times so I canceled the order. I
bought the Boise. The size difference is similar to the difference between a
volleyball and a softball. They are the best. My radio problems essentially
disappeared. Good communication with the tower. I feel much safer using the
Boise headset, and highly recommend them.
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Empennage
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <erichweaver(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
SUBJ_HAS_UNIQ_ID Subject contains a unique ID
My io-360B1B (vertical induction) from Aerosport Power came with the purge valve
installed adjacent to the flow divider. I am tempted to remove it to avoid
another fuel line and hole through the firewall, but havent yet.
I was a little surprised to see that everyone had installed the fuel flow transducer
in front of the firewall. Not that its bad mind you, just not where I installed
mine. Mine is aft of the firewall, between the boost pump and the firewall,
where it seems to fit nicely under the cover plate. Now you are all messing
with my head making me feel uncomfortable! Anything wrong with my location?
With the exception of the purge line, all the firewall forward fuel lines were
pre-made, and supplied with my engine, so I didnt want to waste one of those by
adding in the fuel transducer. Since I had to fabricate the fuel lines aft of
the firewall anyway, it was an easy decision to put the transducer back there.
Whats really throwing me is that Dan Checkoway's web site shows the transducer back by the fuel booster pump as well (see http://www.rvproject.com/20030520.html). But I see Dan is now recommending the firewall forward location as well? What gives? Somebody is messin' wit my head.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
The one down-side to installing the transducer where Dan his his (and as you
noted he is now suggesting a new location too) is that it puts the transducer
on the suction-side of the engine driven fuel pump. The transducer acts as
a restriction in the line, and my understanding is that if you pull a fluid
through a restriction you will have a pressure drop across the restriction.
Given the rather low vapor pressure of avgas (or, gasoline in general) this
reduces your margin of protection against vapor lock in the feed lines. It
is possible (again, I am not an expert but am simply passing along some of
the things I learned in a fuel injection class) that on a really hot day
vapor could form on the engine-side of the transducer as the engine driven
pump tries to pull fuel. This would be a "Bad Thing (tm)". :)
Is this guaranteed to happen? No. Clearly many have flown with their fuel
flow transducers on the suction side of the fuel pump without incident. But
once the logic was outlined (and once some vapor pressure graphs were
examined in detail) I have made the decision to install my transducer in
the line between the throttle-body and the flow divider. YMMV.
-- Dwight
On Wed Apr 19 12:16:08 2006, erichweaver(at)cox.net wrote :
>My io-360B1B (vertical induction) from Aerosport Power came with the purge valve
installed adjacent to the flow divider. I am tempted to remove it to avoid
another fuel line and hole through the firewall, but havent yet.
>
>I was a little surprised to see that everyone had installed the fuel flow transducer
in front of the firewall. Not that its bad mind you, just not where I
installed mine. Mine is aft of the firewall, between the boost pump and the firewall,
where it seems to fit nicely under the cover plate. Now you are all messing
with my head making me feel uncomfortable! Anything wrong with my location?
>
>With the exception of the purge line, all the firewall forward fuel lines were
pre-made, and supplied with my engine, so I didnt want to waste one of those
by adding in the fuel transducer. Since I had to fabricate the fuel lines aft
of the firewall anyway, it was an easy decision to put the transducer back there.
>
>Whats really throwing me is that Dan Checkoway's web site shows the transducer back by the fuel booster pump as well (see http://www.rvproject.com/20030520.html). But I see Dan is now recommending the firewall forward location as well? What gives? Somebody is messin' wit my head.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Eric,
I too have an IO-360-B1B with Airflow Performance fuel injection. (You
didn't say who made the fuel injection, but I am assuming it is Airflow
Performance). There was some discussion on this list awhile back about this,
but the purge valve is apparently necessary to shut the engine down. The
engine shutdown checklist says to leave the mixture at full-rich and put the
purge valve control to off position.
Page 21 of my Airflow Performance manual says that when the mixture is at
idle cut-off, there is "approximately 1.0 to 3.0 pph leakage in this
position" which is apparently enough to keep the engine running.
Terry
RV-8A #80729 Baffles
Seattle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of erichweaver(at)cox.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
My io-360B1B (vertical induction) from Aerosport Power came with the purge
valve installed adjacent to the flow divider. I am tempted to remove it to
avoid another fuel line and hole through the firewall, but havent yet.
I was a little surprised to see that everyone had installed the fuel flow
transducer in front of the firewall. Not that its bad mind you, just not
where I installed mine. Mine is aft of the firewall, between the boost pump
and the firewall, where it seems to fit nicely under the cover plate. Now
you are all messing with my head making me feel uncomfortable! Anything
wrong with my location?
With the exception of the purge line, all the firewall forward fuel lines
were pre-made, and supplied with my engine, so I didnt want to waste one of
those by adding in the fuel transducer. Since I had to fabricate the fuel
lines aft of the firewall anyway, it was an easy decision to put the
transducer back there.
Whats really throwing me is that Dan Checkoway's web site shows the
transducer back by the fuel booster pump as well (see
http://www.rvproject.com/20030520.html). But I see Dan is now recommending
the firewall forward location as well? What gives? Somebody is messin' wit
my head.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
I think that all Dan is saying is that the "Theoretically Perfect"
solution is between the servo and the flow divider, but there are more
practical choices like putting it where you describe. Mine is smack in
the middle of the floor between the boost pump and the firewall. It
doesn't work very well and I'm gonna move it back to where Dan has his
and see if that improves it any. It think it's picking up vibration and
it's causing high readings. That floor shakes pretty good.
BTW you will love that purge valve. I can start mine in two blades when
it's heat soaked, and I like the idea of killing the engine with the
purge valve instead of the mixture. It will completely bleed off the
fuel pressure, so that there is no way fuel can get into the cylinders
while sitting on the ramp. Seems much safer to me. I'd suggest
installing a spring to pull the purge valve closed in case the control
cable breaks. Also make sure that the control cable is of the locking
variety and don't put it next to the cabin heat knob lest ye grab the
wrong one whilst flying, and ruineth thy day.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
erichweaver(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>My io-360B1B (vertical induction) from Aerosport Power came with the purge valve
installed adjacent to the flow divider. I am tempted to remove it to avoid
another fuel line and hole through the firewall, but havent yet.
>
>I was a little surprised to see that everyone had installed the fuel flow transducer
in front of the firewall. Not that its bad mind you, just not where I
installed mine. Mine is aft of the firewall, between the boost pump and the firewall,
where it seems to fit nicely under the cover plate. Now you are all messing
with my head making me feel uncomfortable! Anything wrong with my location?
>
>With the exception of the purge line, all the firewall forward fuel lines were
pre-made, and supplied with my engine, so I didnt want to waste one of those
by adding in the fuel transducer. Since I had to fabricate the fuel lines aft
of the firewall anyway, it was an easy decision to put the transducer back there.
>
>Whats really throwing me is that Dan Checkoway's web site shows the transducer back by the fuel booster pump as well (see http://www.rvproject.com/20030520.html). But I see Dan is now recommending the firewall forward location as well? What gives? Somebody is messin' wit my head.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Throttle, Prop, and Mixture cable slack
I have quite a bit of slack in mine aft of the firewall and they work
fine. I didn't measure it but it's probably close to what you
describe. Just route it somewhere out of the way and keep the bend
radius as large as possible.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>Fellow listers,
>
>I'm working on my firewall foreward and since I had already made some decisions
before the firewall foreward kit was available, I can't use the stock locations
for my throttle and mixture cables. The prop cable went in to the stock location
nicely with the one hole eyeball fitting.
>
>There seems to be just a little slack in that cable - just enough to allow flexibility
to keep it out of the way.
>
>How much should I have? Upon measuring the cables that I got for the throttle
and mixture after putting them in where I could, I have 6" too much throttle
cable and 7" too much mixture cable. These are straight shot from the panel/console
to the eyeball passthrough the firewall. on the firewall side, I have
sufficient 'Lycoming wet dog shake room'. I'm thinking on the aft side of the
firewall, I don't need much wiggle room other than to avoid stuff that could
get in the way and wear the cable.
>
>Your thoughts please,
>Ralph
>RV6AQB N822AR @ N06 - fun firewall foreward!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: dsvs(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
I just talked to the techs at Air Flow Performance. They told me that the best
place is between the servo and the purge valve. They also said that the transducer
will work fine if you mount it vertically in that line. They claim that
they do it all the time. I am going to try it that way and see how it works.
They also said to not mount it on the engine. Don
> I think that all Dan is saying is that the "Theoretically Perfect"
> solution is between the servo and the flow divider, but there are more
> practical choices like putting it where you describe. Mine is smack in
> the middle of the floor between the boost pump and the firewall. It
> doesn't work very well and I'm gonna move it back to where Dan has his
> and see if that improves it any. It think it's picking up vibration and
> it's causing high readings. That floor shakes pretty good.
>
> BTW you will love that purge valve. I can start mine in two blades when
> it's heat soaked, and I like the idea of killing the engine with the
> purge valve instead of the mixture. It will completely bleed off the
> fuel pressure, so that there is no way fuel can get into the cylinders
> while sitting on the ramp. Seems much safer to me. I'd suggest
> installing a spring to pull the purge valve closed in case the control
> cable breaks. Also make sure that the control cable is of the locking
> variety and don't put it next to the cabin heat knob lest ye grab the
> wrong one whilst flying, and ruineth thy day.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB
> http//www.myrv7.com
>
>
>
> erichweaver(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> >
> >My io-360B1B (vertical induction) from Aerosport Power came with the purge
> valve installed adjacent to the flow divider. I am tempted to remove it to
> avoid another fuel line and hole through the firewall, but havent yet.
> >
> >I was a little surprised to see that everyone had installed the fuel flow
> transducer in front of the firewall. Not that its bad mind you, just not where
> I installed mine. Mine is aft of the firewall, between the boost pump and the
> firewall, where it seems to fit nicely under the cover plate. Now you are all
> messing with my head making me feel uncomfortable! Anything wrong with my
> location?
> >
> >With the exception of the purge line, all the firewall forward fuel lines were
> pre-made, and supplied with my engine, so I didnt want to waste one of those
by
> adding in the fuel transducer. Since I had to fabricate the fuel lines aft of
> the firewall anyway, it was an easy decision to put the transducer back there.
> >
> >Whats really throwing me is that Dan Checkoway's web site shows the transducer
> back by the fuel booster pump as well (see
> http://www.rvproject.com/20030520.html). But I see Dan is now recommending the
> firewall forward location as well? What gives? Somebody is messin' wit my
> head.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
That's (presumed to be) correct. Someday, I want to see numbers where someone
has done their w&b with wheels level and with top longeron level, to see if the
difference is truly worth worrying about. It's a lot of work to jack these
planes into that configuration and chock the wheels and scales to correct heights
(or dig a hole under the nosewheel ;-). I may do it myself if I get bored...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov>
Subject: RV-List: 6 A is flight level when?
I am near to getting my RV 6A back in the air after a complete
electrical and panel rebuild. I plan on redoing weight and
balance. With a slider is the top rail of the slider parallel to the
top longeron? The top longeron is Van's reference for on the ground
level. I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
level flight.
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Throttle, Prop, and Mixture cable slack
Phil,
Thanks for your 'been there - done that' answer.
I'll try it before I swap cables.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
>Sent: Apr 19, 2006 1:16 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Throttle, Prop, and Mixture cable slack
>
>
>I have quite a bit of slack in mine aft of the firewall and they work
>fine. I didn't measure it but it's probably close to what you
>describe. Just route it somewhere out of the way and keep the bend
>radius as large as possible.
>
>Godspeed,
>
>Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
>RV-7 N727WB
>http://www.myrv7.com
>
>
>Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>>
>>Fellow listers,
>>
>>I'm working on my firewall foreward and since I had already made some decisions
before the firewall foreward kit was available, I can't use the stock locations
for my throttle and mixture cables. The prop cable went in to the stock
location nicely with the one hole eyeball fitting.
>>
>>There seems to be just a little slack in that cable - just enough to allow flexibility
to keep it out of the way.
>>
>>How much should I have? Upon measuring the cables that I got for the throttle
and mixture after putting them in where I could, I have 6" too much throttle
cable and 7" too much mixture cable. These are straight shot from the panel/console
to the eyeball passthrough the firewall. on the firewall side, I have
sufficient 'Lycoming wet dog shake room'. I'm thinking on the aft side of the
firewall, I don't need much wiggle room other than to avoid stuff that could
get in the way and wear the cable.
>>
>>Your thoughts please,
>>Ralph
>>RV6AQB N822AR @ N06 - fun firewall foreward!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
> How did you attach yours? Is it bolted to something or is the tubing
> holding it?
It's resting on a silicone pad. The tubing is somewhat rigid. Mine is very
accurate with the exception of when the boost pump is running.
)_( Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 19, 2006
On 19 Apr 2006, at 11:52, Paul Besing wrote:
>
> Dont' really know...I've got the cowl off right now
> and it's kind of confusing...which is why I asked the
> question in the first place...I know that some Cessnas
> have this feature (it goes into a 3rd small storage
> tank in the cowl) and bonanzas do as well.
>
> So is it my understanding that I do not need this fuel
> return? Seems like an aweful lot of fuel to not
> return (maybe 1 gallon per hour). The plane was built
> 17 years ago, and has been that way ever since, with 5
> owners, and no problems.
Where is that fuel return line coming from?
If it is coming from the fuel injection servo, which make and model
servo is it?
It may be coming from a pressure regulating valve that is part of the
high pressure fuel pump. If that is the case, most people run the
fuel return into a T in the fuel line from the fuel selector valve.
A small number of people use an expensive fuel selector from Andair
that has two valves controlled by one knob. That allows you to send
the return fuel to whatever tank is currently providing fuel, which
avoids the problem of over filling a tank with the return fuel.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
Date: Apr 19, 2006
On 19 Apr 2006, at 10:19, Matt Jurotich wrote:
>
> I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
> level flight.
The pitch attitude in straight and level flight will depend on the
airspeed, weight and flap angle, and to a less extent, on CG.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Helmet & Headset ponderings
I have a pair of Lightspeed 20XLs that I have had about four years. The
noise abatement capabilities are great and the headsets are super
comfortable, if a bit bulky. After about three years I had to replace
the ear pads because the thin leather deteriorated. Lightspeed sent me
two new sets of ear pads at no cost, including shipping.
I had the opportunity to compare my 20XLs with a Bose set. Up against my
very noisy air compressor, one was slightly quieter with ANR turned off,
and the other was slightly better using ANR. Unfortunately, I can't
remember which did what. In both cases, the difference was minimal. The
upshot is, the Lightspeeds were at least the equal of the much more
expensive Bose. I will admit to never using a Bose set in the aircraft.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
---------------------------------
> Subject: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings
> From: Mark E Navratil <czechsix(at)juno.com>
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx turns warmer I'm
> thinking I'll probably break down and get a good ANR headset. The head
> bucket is just too hot to wear when it gets into the upper 80's and
> beyond. The other thing I've noticed is that the Oregon Aero earseals in
> my helmet get extremely soft with higher temps and don't seem to seal as
> well as they do in wintertime....they're very comfortable (as advertised)
> but the ANR has a hard time keeping up with the noise level and I find it
> bothersome after several hours in the air. FWIW I have the Headsets Inc
> ANR in my helmet earcups and I imagine there are better systems available
> from the likes of Bose and Lightspeed.
>
> So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
> dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
> the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
> $1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
> instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
> (iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
>
> Couple questions: does anybody know if Lightspeed might have a better
> deal available at Oshkosh? If they have really good show specials it
> might be worth waiting...
>
> Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
> model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed
> headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good
> factory support to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of
> well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
> foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
>
> Thanks as always for the input,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change just completed...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: RE: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Well, I can say I have compared both in the back of an RV8, in flight, side by
side and my ears couldn't tell the difference as far as noise attenuation goes.
However, the Bose was a much better fit for the back of an RV8. The canopy
tapers and since they don't stick out in any direction much I never hit the canopy
with them. Can't say that for the Lightspeeds. The Bose are also noticeably
lighter and fold up and out of the way easier when not in use. I didn't
fly long enough to appreciate that but I'm sure on a long CC the Bose would be
easier on the ears and jaw.
Was I impressed enough to buy the Bose for myself? Nope but they did make me appreciate
a design that differs physically than the Lightspeeds. I instead bought
the ANR version QFRXCc. Really good all around product and has the basic
same slim profile of the Bose as compared to the Lightspeeds for the back seat.
Plus they stay on your head better for aerobatics. They have a full range
of features regardless of price.
http://www.anrheadsets.com/productsqfrx2.asp
Nothing drives an engineer up the wall like having options and making choices
;-)
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Charlie Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
>
> I have a pair of Lightspeed 20XLs that I have had about four years. The
> noise abatement capabilities are great and the headsets are super
> comfortable, if a bit bulky. After about three years I had to replace
> the ear pads because the thin leather deteriorated. Lightspeed sent me
> two new sets of ear pads at no cost, including shipping.
>
> I had the opportunity to compare my 20XLs with a Bose set. Up against my
> very noisy air compressor, one was slightly quieter with ANR turned off,
> and the other was slightly better using ANR. Unfortunately, I can't
> remember which did what. In both cases, the difference was minimal. The
> upshot is, the Lightspeeds were at least the equal of the much more
> expensive Bose. I will admit to never using a Bose set in the aircraft.
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> > Subject: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings
> > From: Mark E Navratil
> >
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx turns warmer I'm
> > thinking I'll probably break down and get a good ANR headset. The head
> > bucket is just too hot to wear when it gets into the upper 80's and
> > beyond. The other thing I've noticed is that the Oregon Aero earseals in
> > my helmet get extremely soft with higher temps and don't seem to seal as
> > well as they do in wintertime....they're very comfortable (as advertised)
> > but the ANR has a hard time keeping up with the noise level and I find it
> > bothersome after several hours in the air. FWIW I have the Headsets Inc
> > ANR in my helmet earcups and I imagine there are better systems available
> > from the likes of Bose and Lightspeed.
> >
> > So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
> > dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
> > the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
> > $1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
> > instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
> > (iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
> >
> > Couple questions: does anybody know if Lightspeed might have a better
> > deal available at Oshkosh? If they have really good show specials it
> > might be worth waiting...
> >
> > Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
> > model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed
> > headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good
> > factory support to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of
> > well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
> > foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
> >
> > Thanks as always for the input,
> >
> > --Mark Navratil
> > Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> > RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change just completed...
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well, I can say I have compared both in the back of an RV8, in flight, side by
side and my ears couldn't tell the difference as far as noise attenuation goes.
However, the Bose was a much better fit for the back of an RV8. The canopy tapers
and since they don't stick out in any direction much I never hit the canopy
with them. Can't say that for the Lightspeeds. The Bose are also noticeably
lighter and fold up and out of the way easier when not in use. I didn't fly
long enough to appreciate that but I'm sure on a long CC the Bose would be easier
on the ears and jaw.
Was I impressed enough to buy the Bose for myself? Nope but they did make me appreciate
a design that differs physically than the Lightspeeds. I instead boughtthe
ANR version QFRXCc. Really good all around product and has the basic same
slim profile of the Bose as compared to the Lightspeeds for the back seat. Plus
they stay on your head better for aerobatics. They have a full range of features
regardless of price.
http://www.anrheadsets.com/productsqfrx2.asp
Nothing drives an engineer up the wall like having options and making choices ;-)
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Charlie Brame chasb(at)satx.rr.com
-- RV-List message posted by: Charlie Brame
I have a pair of Lightspeed 20XLs that I have had about four years. The
noise abatement capabilities are great and the headsets are super
comfortable, if a bit bulky. After about three years I had to replace
the ear pads because the thin leather deteriorated. Lightspeed sent me
two new sets of ear pads at no cost, including shipping.
I had the opportunity to compare my 20XLs with a Bose set. Up against my
very noisy air compressor, one was slightly quieter with ANR turned off,
and the other was slightly better using ANR. Unfortunately, I can't
remember which did what. In both cases, the difference was minimal. The
u
pshot is, the Lightspeeds were at least the equal of the much more
expensive Bose. I will admit to never using a Bose set in the aircraft.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
---------------------------------
Subject: RV-List: Helmet Headset ponderings
From: Mark E Navratil <CZECHSIX(at)JUNO.COM>
-- RV-List message posted by: Mark E Navratil
Guys,
I've been enjoying my trusty helmet but as the wx turns warmer I'm
thinking I'll probably break down and get a good ANR headset. The head
bucket is just too hot to wear when it gets into the upper 80's and
beyond. The other thing I've noticed is that the Oregon Aero earseals in
my helmet get extremely soft with higher temps and don'
t seem
to seal as
well as they do in wintertime....they're very comfortable (as advertised)
but the ANR has a hard time keeping up with the noise level and I find it
bothersome after several hours in the air. FWIW I have the Headsets Inc
ANR in my helmet earcups and I imagine there are better systems available
from the likes of Bose and Lightspeed.
So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
$1K price tag. So I'm looking at Lightspeed's top-of-the-line Thirty 3G
instead. It is cheap by comparison at about half the price of the Bose X
(iPilot.com has the Thirty 3G for $559 with free shipping).
Couple questions: does a
nybody
know if Lightspeed might have a better
deal available at Oshkosh? If they have really good show specials it
might be worth waiting...
Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed
headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good
factory support to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of
well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
Thanks as always for the input,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D flying 25.0 hours now, first oil change just completed...
=====
============================
&g
t;
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Date: Apr 19, 2006
As another data point, this was from a post I made to this list a couple
years back comparing the high end Telex to the Bose:
"Telex was a generous sponsor of our Twin Cities RV Forum last year. I
already had been flying with a set of Bose X headsets for a couple years
in my RV, so the Telex rep and I hopped in my plane for some real time
comparisons. My honest assessment was this: The Telex utterly stopped
all pulsatile engine noise, so much so that it was unnerving, to me at
least. The Bose allow a low level of the engine noise to come through,
such that I have really gotten used to "hearing" the plane as subtle
changes in airspeed/power occur. My perception, and it may not be real,
is that there was more hissing (from airflow around the plane) allowed
through the Telex, but that would require instrumentation to determine.
I felt that the Bose were more comfortable, but that is something that
would take hours of comparison to really establish. I believe that the
Telex model we had was about $100 less than the Bose X, but don't recall
exactly. We talked about bringing some of their instrumentation aboard
to really nail it, but we haven't done so as yet."
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 751 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
Date: Apr 19, 2006
True, which brings up a related subject.
Anyone know what the AOA of the 230xx airfoil on the RV is at any typical cruise
speed? I need to make a decision on whether to change from stock RV incidence
on my "long wing" RV-8. Span is 3 feet longer than stock which should result
in a lower AOA for any given condition. I have a program to predict the appropriate
change but don't know what it is to start with and haven't seen it
in the plans book.
Tracy Crook
>
> I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
> level flight.
The pitch attitude in straight and level flight will depend on the
airspeed, weight and flap angle, and to a less extent, on CG.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 19, 2006
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Paul
This has been discussed on the Yahoo RV8 List several times before.
JPI has an Acrobat file installation manual. In it, they recommend
installing the transducer between the servo and the fuel distributor.
It gets installed in the middle of a flex hose, so it isn't subjected
to all the vibration of the engine. Check out the document on the web
link below. Look at page 8
http://www.jpinstruments.com/700-800_FF_install.PDF
Charlie Kuss
>
>First question, where's a good place to put this in
>the stream of fuel? I'm not too savvy on injected
>engines.
>
>While talking with Electronics International today, I
>was told that since there is a return of unused fuel,
>I'll need TWO transducers and a little box that
>computes the unused fuel. This adds about $300 to the
>price of my fuel flow, and am wondering if it's worth
>it now. Thoughts?
>
>Paul Besing
>RV-4
>N73DD
>Arizona (For Now)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
Date: Apr 19, 2006
The AOA will be quite low. If the airfoil was a true 23013.5 series,
and this was a 2D wing (i.e. there were no effects from the fuselage
or wing tip, the AOA at 1600 lb, 212 mph at 8,000 ft would be about
0.3 degrees (value calculated by XFOIL). If we drop the cruise speed
to 189 mph, the AOA would be about 0.6 degrees.
I understand that the leading edge of the RV airfoil differs slightly
from the NACA profile. And, the local AOA is not constant along the
span, due to the effect of the fuselage and wing tip. So the above
values must be considered as approximate.
Kevin Horton
On 19 Apr 2006, at 19:55, Tracy Crook wrote:
>
> True, which brings up a related subject.
>
> Anyone know what the AOA of the 230xx airfoil on the RV is at any
> typical cruise speed? I need to make a decision on whether to
> change from stock RV incidence on my "long wing" RV-8. Span is 3
> feet longer than stock which should result in a lower AOA for any
> given condition. I have a program to predict the appropriate
> change but don't know what it is to start with and haven't seen it
> in the plans book.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
>
>> >
>>
>> I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
>> level flight.
>
> The pitch attitude in straight and level flight will depend on the
> airspeed, weight and flap angle, and to a less extent, on CG.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Barrow" <bobbarrow10(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 20, 2006
I can understand that any restriction upstream of the engine fuel pump might
tend to increase the possibility of vapour lock. However you would think
that the AFP electric fuel boost pump itself would cause some sort of
restriction....surely the filter would. And then there's the people who also
use gascolators...or additional filters in the wing roots etc. Wouldn't all
of these things create some degree of resistance to flow. Why is the fuel
flow transducer being singled out...does it present an exceptional
resistance to flow. Have there been any reported cases of vapour lock
associated with locating the transducer upstream of the engine fuel
pump....or is this just more "worry bucket" stuff.
Does anybody have any pix of their fuel transducer mounted between the servo
and the divider (and off the engine as has been recommended). Have the
people who have done this had universally good metering results...despite
the fact that they "may" not have the prerequisite 5" of straight line
before and after the transducer and may not have it mounted vertically as
recommended by the manufacturer.
Decisions, decisions...phew.
New year, new job there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
From: "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Tracy -
Regarding the 3' longer wings, did you consider the change in flutter characteristics
of the new wings? How about longitudinal stability?
Not trying to be a downer on new ideas, but I would be very concerned about the
change in resonance characteristics of the wing. And to a lesser degree the
stability.
Just curious
Bryan Jones, PE, -8
Houston, Texas
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29551#29551
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Scott Crossfield
Date: Apr 19, 2006
Off topic post! DO NOT ARCHIEVE.
Has anyone heard anything about Scott Crossfield going down around Rome,
Georgia this morning? I caught the tail end of a news cast about this and
have no other details.
Jerry Isler
Donalsonville, GA
RV-4 N455J
Cessna C140A N9641A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: 6 A is flight level when?
Date: Apr 19, 2006
The standard angle of incidence on the RV-4 and RV-8 is .5 degrees. The
guppy planes (side-by-side) are 1.0 degrees. Curiously the RV-3 is also 1.0
degrees.
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: 6 A is flight level when?
>
> True, which brings up a related subject.
>
> Anyone know what the AOA of the 230xx airfoil on the RV is at any typical
> cruise speed? I need to make a decision on whether to change from stock
> RV incidence on my "long wing" RV-8. Span is 3 feet longer than stock
> which should result in a lower AOA for any given condition. I have a
> program to predict the appropriate change but don't know what it is to
> start with and haven't seen it in the plans book.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
>
>> >
>>
>> I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
>> level flight.
>
> The pitch attitude in straight and level flight will depend on the
> airspeed, weight and flap angle, and to a less extent, on CG.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Scott Crossfield
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Home > News > Georgia > WXIA-TV Atlanta 4/20/2006 7:52:03 AM
Legendary Pilot's Plane Missing
Scott Crossfield
The Federal Aviation Administration confirmed for 11Alive News Thursday that a
plane missing in North Georgia belongs to a legendary test pilot.
The missing plane is owned by 85-year-old Scott Crossfield, but officials are not
certain that Crossfield was piloting the plane when it disappeared Wednesday.
The Cessna was last seen on radar near Ellijah, Ga.. It left Prattville, Ala. on
a flight to Virginia. The Civil Air Patrol's Georgia wing is conducting air
and ground searches along the flight path, a spokesperson said.
On Nov. 20, 1953, Crossfield became the first man to fly at twice the speed of
sound as he piloted the Douglas D-558-II Skyrocket to a speed of 1,291 mph. He
was inducted into the National Aviation Hall of Fame in 1983, the International
Space Hall of Fame in 1988, and the Aerospace Walk of Honor in 1990.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29603#29603
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: 6 A is flight level:thread shift: wing AOA
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Related to the nose varying from 'true': My -7 leading edges, both tank skins &
outboard leading edges, actually have a 'dip' both above & below the nose. I've
also seen this on other current kits. I called Van's tech guys & they basically
didn't care. They just said it's an artifact of the LE forming process &
refused to discuss any detrimental aerodynamic effects.
Have any others noticed this?
Has anyone actually tried to do something to correct it?
Is it worth trying to correct (meaning is there a speed penalty for ignoring it)?
If you want to check yours, run your fingers from the leading edge toward the trailing
edge & if it's there, you'll feel a significant dip just back of the rolled
leading edge.
Charlie
>
> From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
> Date: 2006/04/19 Wed PM 08:24:27 CDT
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 6 A is flight level when?
>
>
> The AOA will be quite low. If the airfoil was a true 23013.5 series,
> and this was a 2D wing (i.e. there were no effects from the fuselage
> or wing tip, the AOA at 1600 lb, 212 mph at 8,000 ft would be about
> 0.3 degrees (value calculated by XFOIL). If we drop the cruise speed
> to 189 mph, the AOA would be about 0.6 degrees.
>
> I understand that the leading edge of the RV airfoil differs slightly
> from the NACA profile. And, the local AOA is not constant along the
> span, due to the effect of the fuselage and wing tip. So the above
> values must be considered as approximate.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> On 19 Apr 2006, at 19:55, Tracy Crook wrote:
>
> >
> > True, which brings up a related subject.
> >
> > Anyone know what the AOA of the 230xx airfoil on the RV is at any
> > typical cruise speed? I need to make a decision on whether to
> > change from stock RV incidence on my "long wing" RV-8. Span is 3
> > feet longer than stock which should result in a lower AOA for any
> > given condition. I have a program to predict the appropriate
> > change but don't know what it is to start with and haven't seen it
> > in the plans book.
> >
> > Tracy Crook
> >
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I presume the top longeron is "level" when in straight and
> >> level flight.
> >
> > The pitch attitude in straight and level flight will depend on the
> > airspeed, weight and flap angle, and to a less extent, on CG.
> >
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 20, 2006
>
> I can understand that any restriction upstream of the engine
> fuel pump might
> tend to increase the possibility of vapour lock. However you
> would think
> that the AFP electric fuel boost pump itself would cause some sort of
> restriction....surely the filter would.
I believe there's an automatic bypass on the AFP in the event of a blockage
in the filter.
On question though, the terms people are using here remind me of when I'm in
a pattern and somebody says "NXXXX, on the GPS approach to Runway XYZ. Of
course, that does absolutely no good to anybody who doesn't know the GPS
approach." So when you give these places of where the thing should e
installed, for those of us who haven't yet really tackled this task, could
you provide a little more information regarding its exactly location in
relation to the fuselage and firewall? It'd be a big help.
Thanks
Bob Collins
RV Builder's Hotline
http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Again ... I'm just passing on information I learned from others, and have
not performed this installation myself. But this is how I intend to do it.
The place that I have been instructed to install my flowscan is between the
throttlebody and the flow divider. In fact, the suggestion is to install it
very near the flow divider on the line that runs between the cylinders. There
will be a straight run out from the throttle body up to the Flowscan, then
out of the Flowscan will be a short straight run and then from the transducer
a line runs to the purge valve, and with the purge valve plumbed into the
flow divider inlet. The whole transducer assembly should be wrapped in
firesleeve to protect it from heat.
The impression I have been left with is that this makes for a simple install
with good results. It measures only that fuel that metered out of the servo,
is not affected (therefore) by pressure changes from turning on/off the boost
pump, and does not create a restriction on the suction side of the engine
driven pump. It -does- mean that when you purge the line at start up and shut
down a small amount of fuel will be counted as "consumed" even though it is
returned to the supply lines .. but that is going to be only a small amount
of fuel compared to the total consumed during a flight, and thus results in
only a small percentage error. And .. most importantly .. that error will be
on the conservative side meaning you will have -slightly- more fuel than your
equipment thinks it has rather than less. That is the "right kind" of error
to have, if you are going to have any error. :)
If someone has better information ... please feel free to correct any mistakes
I might have made. But this is my memory of what was shared at the Airflow
class.
-- Dwight
On Thu Apr 20 08:19:55 2006, Bob Collins wrote :
>I believe there's an automatic bypass on the AFP in the event of a blockage
>in the filter.
>
>On question though, the terms people are using here remind me of when I'm in
>a pattern and somebody says "NXXXX, on the GPS approach to Runway XYZ. Of
>course, that does absolutely no good to anybody who doesn't know the GPS
>approach." So when you give these places of where the thing should e
>installed, for those of us who haven't yet really tackled this task, could
>you provide a little more information regarding its exactly location in
>relation to the fuselage and firewall? It'd be a big help.
>
>Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Subject: Slider canopy rear fit
From: sjhdcl(at)kingston.net
After a fight and a half my slider frame (RV7A) fits fairly nicely. The
only spot I'm not happy with is the rear horizontal part near the secure
pins. The canopy frame is too wide at this point and does not conform to
the bend of the fuse or the suggestion of 1/16" clearance all around.
This area is box framed steel and presents a challenge when it comes to
bending the frame in that area. I'm planning on using fiberglass fairings
all around since I've had good results with this in the past.
Any others have problems in this area of the canopy frame?
Steve
RV7A #2
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Bob,
Check out JPI's installation instructions. They use the same
FlowScan transducer. Check out pages 8-10 on the web document below
http://www.jpinstruments.com/700-800_FF_install.PDF
FYI, folks use gascolators on carbureted engines. They are a
relatively low pressure system (5 psi) versus 25 psi for the Bendix
and AFP fuel injection systems. That's an apples to oranges
comparison. Yes, installing the fuel filter before the aux fuel pump
will create a slight restriction. However, these filters use a SS
mesh screen, not a paper element like cars do, so the restriction is
slight. The transducer is small and contains a close tolerance
trubine. There is a greater possibility of cavitation (air bubbles)
if this is installed before either of the pumps.
I spoke to an engineer at FlowScan, he said that the 5" rule is not
critical, so long as you aren't installing a 90 degree fitting at
either end of the transducer. As you have noted, others have
installed the transducer behind the firewall with success. If it's
installed behind the firewall but after the electric aux pump, any
cavitation issues can be resolved by engaging the electric pump. The
transducer then goes from being on the suction side of the system, to
the pressure side.
The engineer I spoke with stated that the orientation issue is to
prevent debris from jamming the transducer.
Charlie Kuss
>
>
>I can understand that any restriction upstream of the engine fuel pump might
>tend to increase the possibility of vapour lock. However you would think
>that the AFP electric fuel boost pump itself would cause some sort of
>restriction....surely the filter would. And then there's the people who also
>use gascolators...or additional filters in the wing roots etc. Wouldn't all
>of these things create some degree of resistance to flow. Why is the fuel
>flow transducer being singled out...does it present an exceptional
>resistance to flow. Have there been any reported cases of vapour lock
>associated with locating the transducer upstream of the engine fuel
>pump....or is this just more "worry bucket" stuff.
>
>Does anybody have any pix of their fuel transducer mounted between the servo
>and the divider (and off the engine as has been recommended). Have the
>people who have done this had universally good metering results...despite
>the fact that they "may" not have the prerequisite 5" of straight line
>before and after the transducer and may not have it mounted vertically as
>recommended by the manufacturer.
>
>Decisions, decisions...phew.
>
>New year, new job there's more than 100,00 jobs at SEEK
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: HCRV6(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Date: Apr 20, 2006
I've been following this thread with interest and now I'll toss in my $0.02. I
was using a Lightspeed QFR XC (ANR) headset for the first fifty hours or so in
my RV-6. I really thought the Lightspeed was more than adequate. Unfortunately
for me, the Bose offer of no interest for 12 twelve months and 30 day no
questions asked return policy intriqued me so I bit just to try it. I had no
intention of keeping it since obviously no head set is worth $1000.00. Wrong!
Long story short I now have two Bose and you'd have to pry them out of my cold
dead fingers to get me to part with them.
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 203 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
> >
> >> So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna spend some
> >> dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once. I'm sure Bose is
> >> the best but I can't quite believe the cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the
> >> $1K price tag. ...
> >
> > It is a lot of money, that's for sure. Before I had bought my Bose X
> > headsets a few years ago, I had only used David Clark. I didn't have
> > the chance to try many other headsets, since there are no pilot shops
> > around here. All the various ones I had tried seemed fine, but I
> > decided to order the Bose anyway, even though I had never tried a
> > set. They claim you can send them back. I'm happy with them, and
> > if I had invested the extra $500 in the stock market, it would be
> > worth about $300! :-)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Scott Crossfield
Date: Apr 20, 2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/20/georgia.plane.ap/index.html
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,842 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: RV-List: Scott Crossfield
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 22:20:22 -0400
Off topic post! DO NOT ARCHIEVE.
Has anyone heard anything about Scott Crossfield going down around Rome,
Georgia this morning? I caught the tail end of a news cast about this and
have no other details.
Jerry Isler
Donalsonville, GA
RV-4 N455J
Cessna C140A N9641A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Grenwis(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
I just read with sadness the news that Scott Crossfield died as the lone
occupant of his airplane in a crash in GA. My RV indirectly led me to the
pleasure of meeting this great man. When I first started my project in 2001 I
visited a flying RV-6A at Manassas airport in Virginia. While there, a Cessna
taxied up and an old guy climbed out. The other pilot I was visiting took me
over and introduced me to the first man to fly faster than Mach 2 and live.
As Scott told me, someone else got to Mach 2 first, but didn't live long
enough to land his plane afterwards. Within minutes Scott was telling a dirty
joke about a time in the decompression chamber 50-some years ago. What an
impact on me to meet this living legend of flight. My thoughts go out to his
family and friends.
Rick Grenwis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Date: Apr 20, 2006
I actually did the same with the Bose. I bit on the no interest, 30 day
marketing ploy. Current my ANRs are converted David Clarks. The Bose
certainly are better than what I have now, but I returned them all the same.
While building I'm not flying as much, and therefore decided not to spend
the $$ at this time. But, yes, when I get the RV-10 completed, actually
while completing the panel, there will be a spot to plug in the Bose that
I'm hoping someone close to me might spring for, given how poverty stricken
I'll be by then. I plan to save the DC's for the back seaters.
John Jessen
RV-10 (Tailcone)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of HCRV6(at)comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Helmet & Headset ponderings
I've been following this thread with interest and now I'll toss in my $0.02.
I was using a Lightspeed QFR XC (ANR) headset for the first fifty hours or
so in my RV-6. I really thought the Lightspeed was more than adequate.
Unfortunately for me, the Bose offer of no interest for 12 twelve months and
30 day no questions asked return policy intriqued me so I bit just to try
it. I had no intention of keeping it since obviously no head set is worth
$1000.00. Wrong! Long story short I now have two Bose and you'd have to
pry them out of my cold dead fingers to get me to part with them.
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 203 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
> > -->
> >
> >> So...I've been looking at ANR headsets and figure if I'm gonna
> >> spend some dough, might as well get a good one and only cry once.
> >> I'm sure Bose is the best but I can't quite believe the
> >> cost/benefit tradeoff is worth the $1K price tag. ...
> >
> > It is a lot of money, that's for sure. Before I had bought my Bose
> > X headsets a few years ago, I had only used David Clark. I didn't
> > have the chance to try many other headsets, since there are no pilot
> > shops around here. All the various ones I had tried seemed fine,
> > but I decided to order the Bose anyway, even though I had never
> > tried a set. They claim you can send them back. I'm happy with
> > them, and if I had invested the extra $500 in the stock market, it
> > would be worth about $300! :-)
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Kysh <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
He had a great run, and died flying.
How can anyone beat that?
-Kysh
--
ST1300 - Areion - > 4k mi -- STOC #5943
CBR-F4 - Foxy - > 56k mi
~~ To fly is to truly live
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sender
Folks,
I'm looking for a dual fitting that allows the fuel to flow and allows me to either
attach my sender or attach another hose to the firewall mounted manifold...I've
seen these - where do they come from and what's the part number.
Anyone have any pictures?
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andy Gold" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 20, 2006
To have a great run and NOT die flying
Andy
>
> He had a great run, and died flying.
>
> How can anyone beat that?
>
> -Kysh
________________________________________________________________________________
From: UFOBUCK(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
In a message dated 04/20/2006 3:25:56 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com writes:
To have a great run and NOT die flying
HEAR, HEAR !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Kysh <vans-dragon(at)lapdragon.org>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
As Andy Gold was saying:
>
> > He had a great run, and died flying.
> >
> > How can anyone beat that?
> >
> > -Kysh
>
> To have a great run and NOT die flying
Gotta die sometime, somehow. I'd sure rather die flying than have it
creep up to me while I'm laying in bed. 84 is a long time to be around,
and me I'd hope to die before I lost my ability to do that which I
loved.
We all die, some sooner and more ignominiously than others. If I had
the choice, I'd go out with a stick in one hand, throttle in the other.
-Kysh
--
ST1300 - Areion - > 4k mi -- STOC #5943
CBR-F4 - Foxy - > 56k mi
~~ To fly is to truly live
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com>
He was 84. If I make it to 84 and pass without ever being a resident at
a group home, and with a valid FAA medical in my wallet, I'll consider
that quite a good run.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andy Gold
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
To have a great run and NOT die flying
Andy
>
> He had a great run, and died flying.
>
> How can anyone beat that?
>
> -Kysh
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net>
Subject: Re: Helmet & Headset ponderings
Date: Apr 20, 2006
> Also, any pireps on the Thirty 3G series or similar high-end Lightspeed
> model would be appreciated. In general I've heard that Lightspeed
> headsets are comfortable and work well, sometimes break but have good
> factory support to replace parts. One of my hangarmates has a pair of
> well-used Lightspeeds that have the thin covering pealing away from the
> foam earseals and head cushions. Still works but looks like crap...
Mark, my experience with the Thirty 3G is pretty much as you describe. It's
made almost entirely of plastic and it's a bit flimsy but the sound quality
is great and it has features that I wouldn't live without, like the music
and cellphone inputs. It also has the most earcup room of any of the ANR
headsets I've tried. For me, that makes it the most comfortable because the
cups seals don't press against my ears. The Thirty 3G has leatherette
covered earcups and the peeling foam isn't an issue anymore.
I've broken my headband once (it was -20F at the time) and I shipped it off
to Lightspeed and repairs were prompt and free (two days plus shipping
time). I have also taken my headset in for servicing at Airventure a couple
of times. The Lightspeed people bring a stock of parts with them and you can
walk up and get your headset serviced at their booth. Their policy seems to
be to just replace everything, even if from normal wear and tear, forever,
just for the asking. I found my earcups getting a bit stiff after a couple
of years of wear and when I asked them at Osh how to care for them, they
just handed my a new pair of cups, which snapped right in.
If Lightspeed built their headsets with David Clark ruggedness, they would
be unbeatable. For my money the Thirty 3G is still the best, but if I were
flying professionally I might not put up with their fragility.
Curt
RV-6
C-GACR
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sender
Date: Apr 20, 2006
On 20 Apr 2006, at 15:58, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm looking for a dual fitting that allows the fuel to flow and
> allows me to either attach my sender or attach another hose to the
> firewall mounted manifold...I've seen these - where do they come
> from and what's the part number.
>
> Anyone have any pictures?
I used an Earl's 100192ERL, purchased from a local speed shop:
http://www.holley.com/100192ERL.asp
It takes the -6 fuel line fittings, and you can screw in an elbow or
straight fitting as required to attach the fuel line hose.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 20, 2006
He had a great run, and died flying.
How can anyone beat that?
~~ To fly is to truly live
There are many people in this world for whom I have great respect, but few
whom I truly admire. Of the latter, Scott Crossfield is at the top of the
list. I will join many others in mourning his passing.
Gordon Comfort
N3363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Belue, Kevin" <KBelue@drs-tem.com>
Subject: Re: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sende r
Date: Apr 20, 2006
I used the Tee fitting w/1/8" pipe thread tapping for fuel pressure, part #
07-00783 from Aircraft Spruce. It screws into the engine fuel pump outlet
and has one port for the hose to the carb and another, smaller port for a
hose to the fuel pressure sender.
Kevin D. Belue
RV-6A
RV-10
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Horton [mailto:khorton01(at)rogers.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:46 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for
> pressure sender
>
>
>
> On 20 Apr 2006, at 15:58, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I'm looking for a dual fitting that allows the fuel to flow
> and
> > allows me to either attach my sender or attach another hose
> to the
> > firewall mounted manifold...I've seen these - where do they
> come
> > from and what's the part number.
> >
> > Anyone have any pictures?
>
> I used an Earl's 100192ERL, purchased from a local speed shop:
>
> http://www.holley.com/100192ERL.asp
>
> It takes the -6 fuel line fittings, and you can screw in an
> elbow or
> straight fitting as required to attach the fuel line hose.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sender
Date: Apr 20, 2006
This might work - depending on what I dream up....
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sender
>
> On 20 Apr 2006, at 15:58, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm looking for a dual fitting that allows the fuel to flow and
>> allows me to either attach my sender or attach another hose to the
>> firewall mounted manifold...I've seen these - where do they come
>> from and what's the part number.
>>
>> Anyone have any pictures?
>
> I used an Earl's 100192ERL, purchased from a local speed shop:
>
> http://www.holley.com/100192ERL.asp
>
> It takes the -6 fuel line fittings, and you can screw in an elbow or
> straight fitting as required to attach the fuel line hose.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Belue, Kevin" <KBelue@drs-tem.com>
Subject: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure s ender
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Belue, Kevin would like to recall the message, "RV-List: "Dual" take-off
fuel pump fitting for pressure sender".
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: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sende r
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Thanks - these are identical to the parts that Vans has in their catalog.
Ralph
----- Original Message -----
From: "Belue, Kevin" <KBelue@DRS-TEM.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for pressure sende r
>
> I used the Tee fitting w/1/8" pipe thread tapping for fuel pressure, part
> #
> 07-00783 from Aircraft Spruce. It screws into the engine fuel pump outlet
> and has one port for the hose to the carb and another, smaller port for a
> hose to the fuel pressure sender.
>
> Kevin D. Belue
> RV-6A
> RV-10
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevin Horton [mailto:khorton01(at)rogers.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 4:46 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: "Dual" take-off fuel pump fitting for
>> pressure sender
>>
>>
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2006, at 15:58, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Folks,
>> >
>> > I'm looking for a dual fitting that allows the fuel to flow
>> and
>> > allows me to either attach my sender or attach another hose
>> to the
>> > firewall mounted manifold...I've seen these - where do they
>> come
>> > from and what's the part number.
>> >
>> > Anyone have any pictures?
>>
>> I used an Earl's 100192ERL, purchased from a local speed shop:
>>
>> http://www.holley.com/100192ERL.asp
>>
>> It takes the -6 fuel line fittings, and you can screw in an
>> elbow or
>> straight fitting as required to attach the fuel line hose.
>>
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Blended Airfoil 72" vs. 74"
Date: Apr 17, 2006
Dear Jim et al,
3 years ago I wanted to try to find the best propeller for my RV8. I have a
76" Hartzell that I have had since new, and it worked well, however, I
wanted more speed as well as climb. I also wanted lighter weight
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Thorne" <rv7a(at)cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: Blended Airfoil 72" vs. 74"
>
> Does anyone have any information on pros and cons on choosing a 72" vs.
> 74" Hartzell blended airfoil prop? Have searched archives and was unable
> to find any specific information relative to propeller diameter.
>
> Jim Thorne
> 7A-QB CHD
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: JVanLaak(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 20, 2006
Subject: ADI Impressions - Long
Listers,
I have been flying a Tru Track ADI for about 10 hours now and thought I
would share my early impressions with folks. The flying has all been VFR
although I am an experienced IFR pilot (Ex-AF) but not current. I should also
note
that I bought the ADI in part because I was not comfortable relying on the
Dynon that I had installed 2 years ago. The reliability issues I had with the
Dynon were dealt with by the company but I just never really felt like I was
getting the right data from the instrument. It just did not "feel" right,
and having had a failure of the main ADI in bad weather in a fighter years ago
I wanted to address that before trying to get IFR current again.
So right after Christmas I bought the ADI and waited expectantly for it to
show up. I say bought because my credit card was charged right away despite
the fact that it took over 2 months for it to be delivered. High demand they
said, but it will be coming " next week."
It finally did come in mid March and I excitedly took it out of the box and
hooked it up to power. The pitch system worked but made a rubbing sound.
The roll function was completely inop. Then I noticed that the case had a
bulge on the left side.
Not a happy camper I sent an email to Tru Trak immediately telling them they
had a quality problem. I got a note back from the service manager asking me
to send it right back and they would fix it. About 5 days later I got an
email indicating that one of the cards had come out of its mount and was jammed
in the case, binding the pitch mechanism. Their speculation was that it was
jarred out by shipment, but that seems unlikely to me. Regardless, they
repaired the unit and sent it back express so I got it into the plane and
working the next weekend.
It is definitely different from a regular attitude indicator. As many of
you know, both the pitch and roll signals come from rate sensors not a normal
gyro platform. So a pitch input is indicated in the normal way but the
amplitude of the movement soon reverts to a rate of climb indication. It is hard
to describe but works pretty intuitively in practice. Likewise the roll
indication initially comes from a roll sensor but then if you held knife-edge
flight it would revert to show wings level. But in normal coordinated turns the
roll sensor hands off to a yaw sensor in a nearly seamless way and it
operates very much like a normal attitude indicator.
A few of the funny things I have noticed so far. 1. The pitch indication
looks extreme on departure with an RV's rate of climb. Even my timid 160 hp
with fixed pitch prop does 1000 fpm and that is a BIG pitch indication on the
scale. It would be easy for them to tone that down some and that will be a
recommendation when I get more time on it. The down-indication is less of a
problem.
Normal under the hood flying works just fine. In fact level turns are
extremely easy with the vertical velocity what you are actually flying. And the
instantaneous pitch sensor addresses most of the lag of the traditional VS
indicator.
The roll sensor maxes out at 30 degrees and a red arrow flashes to tell you
to roll out if you exceed that angle. You obviously cannot do steep turns
that way which is something of a problem. Likewise it is unclear what happens
in a truly serious unusual attitude. I will experiment at some point but
have not done so yet. Finally, if you fly level and slow down until you
approach the stall the pitch indicator stays level and then starts to go down
as the
sink rate increases even though the nose is way up. The only indication on
the screen is a flashing "AS" for airspeed.
Bottom line is I think I like it and am looking forward to some serious hood
work to check it out. BUT I have decided to move the Dynon to the right
side of the panel as a full performance back up instrument as well as an
all-in-one instrument for guest pilots. But it addresses the extreme attitude
situation and will offer a nice back up to this EXPERIMENTAL instrument.
It seems to be a good addition to the homebuilt suite. BTW, I have no
interest in investing in the AOA function they are adding. I am not a big AOA
fan
(despite hundreds of hours with them) and I really don't care for this
implementation.
Jim Van Laak
RV-6 N79RL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 20, 2006
OK, I should know better by now, but I must disagree. I am with you right up
to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday morning BS." There
is no way we can "taint this man's character," but we might be able to save
someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have happened. If you were a
USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into investigating and
discussing accidents for the express purpose of trying to prevent others
from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door on any discussion of an
accident that cost the life of such a competent pilot does a great
disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't help anyone's reputation.
"Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by learning from what cost him his
life.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
I agree w/goodwin.
It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying it/dealing with it.
Death while doing what a person loved is still death.
I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot). A 34 year old who left
a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is still dead and the
kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left a wife and 4 kids is
still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple. A pilot is dead. He
obviously thought conditions were acceptable. Weather changes fast -
especially when there is significant vertical development. Seen it -
been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday
morning BS.
Nuff said.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Kysh wrote:
>
> As Andy Gold was saying:
>>
>>> He had a great run, and died flying.
>>>
>>> How can anyone beat that?
>>>
>>> -Kysh
>> To have a great run and NOT die flying
>
> Gotta die sometime, somehow. I'd sure rather die flying than have it
> creep up to me while I'm laying in bed. 84 is a long time to be around,
> and me I'd hope to die before I lost my ability to do that which I
> loved.
Kysh, I certainly hope you do not lose your medical at a fairly young
age.......
Someday, when you are surrounded by a loving extended family with a
bunch of grandkids, you may realize the folly of your comments.
Best regards,
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
OK. We SHOULD learn (that's understood). But that is not what this
list does. It tends to crucify. Pilot error and all.
Here is a guy who had the experience to "know better" and still died.
That was my point. Start the "discussion" you are talking about, but do
not question his abilities as a pilot.
Normally, I would just walk away from this discussion. This list tends
to "jump" at the easy answer. I met this man, and I DID NOT want anyone
to mess with HIS LEGACY.
So, the easy answer for you, Terry, is go get his experience and then post.
Or even mine.....
And, yes, you can taint his character with BS comments from
inexperienced pilots who have never been in harms way.
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> OK, I should know better by now, but I must disagree. I am with you right up
> to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday morning BS." There
> is no way we can "taint this man's character," but we might be able to save
> someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have happened. If you were a
> USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into investigating and
> discussing accidents for the express purpose of trying to prevent others
> from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door on any discussion of an
> accident that cost the life of such a competent pilot does a great
> disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't help anyone's reputation.
>
> "Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by learning from what cost him his
> life.
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
>
>
>
> I agree w/goodwin.
> It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying it/dealing with it.
> Death while doing what a person loved is still death.
> I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot). A 34 year old who left
> a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is still dead and the
> kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left a wife and 4 kids is
> still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple. A pilot is dead. He
> obviously thought conditions were acceptable. Weather changes fast -
> especially when there is significant vertical development. Seen it -
> been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday
> morning BS.
>
> Nuff said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
snip
>It wasn't a good time or place to fly a light single, and I'm surprised
>someone with Mr. Crossfield's credentials got caught in it.
>
>KB
>
Everytime one of the 'greats' passes in an accident that appears
preventable, I'm also surprised, and amazed. Thousands of hours in
many varied types of aircraft don't appear enough to overcome an error
in judgement. I'm saddened every time it happens. I have twisted the
'old-bold pilot' phrase to "An old pilot is one that survives all his
(or her) stupid mistakes".
Linn
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 20, 2006
I would like to interrupt the developing flame war just long enough to say
how much I admire the Greatest Generation. That includes, of course, Mr.
Crossfield.
When they came up with the phrase "he's got balls," it was for guys like him
and, frankly, thousands of men and women of his generation who are passing
from our lives every day.
I am always saddened, of course, when one passes. I look at my generation
(the Baby Boomers) and the one following it and I know we have not been or
acted worthy of what they handed over to us. And we could, never, ever
sacrifice in this day and age the way that one did. And that makes me sadder
still.
On the day of his death, I won't pollute his memory by thinking of anything
other than remembering him and his generation for what they gave me and this
country.
Will the circumstances of his death somehow help make me a better pilot. I
could not possibly care less. On this day, it's more important for me,
personally, to reflect on whether his life will help make me a better
person.
On this day, I'd also like to remember another member of the Greatest
Generation who passed today. Eustace Bohay.
Resume.
Bob Collins
St. Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: "kelby alexander" <n41va(at)blazemail.com>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Thank you David! I didnt know Scott Crossfield but I can only imagine what his
family is going thru. I lost my dad in an -8 (Von ALexander)and I know that my
whole family monitored this exact RV list the day of the accident. We were very
comforted by the concerns of every other RVer. Even though some questioned
a few of my dads choices, just keep in mind that his family very well might might
be reading all of these posts. In that case my heart goes out to his family.
I didnt know Scott, but it sounds like he is doing what I am working towrds...
a test pilot. I am sure he will be missed in the aviation community.
Kelby L Alexander
--- davidfenster(at)comcast.net wrote:
From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:11:31 -0400
OK. We SHOULD learn (that's understood). But that is not what this
list does. It tends to crucify. Pilot error and all.
Here is a guy who had the experience to "know better" and still died.
That was my point. Start the "discussion" you are talking about, but do
not question his abilities as a pilot.
Normally, I would just walk away from this discussion. This list tends
to "jump" at the easy answer. I met this man, and I DID NOT want anyone
to mess with HIS LEGACY.
So, the easy answer for you, Terry, is go get his experience and then post.
Or even mine.....
And, yes, you can taint his character with BS comments from
inexperienced pilots who have never been in harms way.
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> OK, I should know better by now, but I must disagree. I am with you right up
> to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday morning BS." There
> is no way we can "taint this man's character," but we might be able to save
> someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have happened. If you were a
> USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into investigating and
> discussing accidents for the express purpose of trying to prevent others
> from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door on any discussion of an
> accident that cost the life of such a competent pilot does a great
> disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't help anyone's reputation.
>
> "Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by learning from what cost him his
> life.
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
>
>
>
> I agree w/goodwin.
> It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying it/dealing with it.
> Death while doing what a person loved is still death.
> I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot). A 34 year old who left
> a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is still dead and the
> kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left a wife and 4 kids is
> still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple. A pilot is dead. He
> obviously thought conditions were acceptable. Weather changes fast -
> especially when there is significant vertical development. Seen it -
> been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday
> morning BS.
>
> Nuff said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: "kelby alexander" <n41va(at)blazemail.com>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Thank you David! I didnt know Scott Crossfield but I can only imagine what his
family is going thru. I lost my dad in an -8 (Von ALexander)and I know that my
whole family monitored this exact RV list the day of the accident. We were very
comforted by the concerns of every other RVer. Even though some questioned
a few of my dads choices, just keep in mind that his family very well might might
be reading all of these posts. In that case my heart goes out to his family.
I didnt know Scott, but it sounds like he is doing what I am working towrds...
a test pilot. I am sure he will be missed in the aviation community.
Kelby L Alexander
--- davidfenster(at)comcast.net wrote:
From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:11:31 -0400
OK. We SHOULD learn (that's understood). But that is not what this
list does. It tends to crucify. Pilot error and all.
Here is a guy who had the experience to "know better" and still died.
That was my point. Start the "discussion" you are talking about, but do
not question his abilities as a pilot.
Normally, I would just walk away from this discussion. This list tends
to "jump" at the easy answer. I met this man, and I DID NOT want anyone
to mess with HIS LEGACY.
So, the easy answer for you, Terry, is go get his experience and then post.
Or even mine.....
And, yes, you can taint his character with BS comments from
inexperienced pilots who have never been in harms way.
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> OK, I should know better by now, but I must disagree. I am with you right up
> to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday morning BS." There
> is no way we can "taint this man's character," but we might be able to save
> someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have happened. If you were a
> USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into investigating and
> discussing accidents for the express purpose of trying to prevent others
> from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door on any discussion of an
> accident that cost the life of such a competent pilot does a great
> disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't help anyone's reputation.
>
> "Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by learning from what cost him his
> life.
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
>
>
>
> I agree w/goodwin.
> It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying it/dealing with it.
> Death while doing what a person loved is still death.
> I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot). A 34 year old who left
> a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is still dead and the
> kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left a wife and 4 kids is
> still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple. A pilot is dead. He
> obviously thought conditions were acceptable. Weather changes fast -
> especially when there is significant vertical development. Seen it -
> been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with Monday
> morning BS.
>
> Nuff said.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: aeroncadoc(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Apr 21, 2006
The scary thing about flying to me, is that while I know about many of the risks
and dangers, I don't even know what I don't know. If flying ever does me in,
it will come from something in this category. I can certainly limit my risk by
some conscious and prudent decision making, but who hasn't violated his or her
own rules once or twice?
I guess most of us are willing to just accept the risks because there is something
about flying that we are attracted (addicted?) to.
Henry H.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> >
> snip
>
> >It wasn't a good time or place to fly a light single, and I'm surprised
> >someone with Mr. Crossfield's credentials got caught in it.
> >
> >KB
> >
> Everytime one of the 'greats' passes in an accident that appears
> preventable, I'm also surprised, and amazed. Thousands of hours in
> many varied types of aircraft don't appear enough to overcome an error
> in judgement. I'm saddened every time it happens. I have twisted the
> 'old-bold pilot' phrase to "An old pilot is one that survives all his
> (or her) stupid mistakes".
> Linn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The scary thing about flying to me, is that while I know about many of the risks
and dangers, I don't even know what I don't know. If flying ever does me in,
it will come from something in this category. I can certainly limit my risk by
some conscious and prudent decision making, but who hasn't violated his or her
own rules once or twice?
I guess most of us are willing to just accept the risks because there is something
about flying that we are attracted (addicted?) to.
Henry H.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: linn Walters pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
-- RV-List message posted by: linn Walters
Kyle Boatright wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
snip
It wasn't a good time or place to fly a light single, and I'm surprised
someone with Mr. Crossfield's credentials got caught in it.
KB
Everytime one of the 'greats' passes in an accident that appears
preventable, I'm also surprised, and amazed. Thousands of hours in
many varied types of aircraft don't appear enough to overcome an error
in judgement. I'm saddened every time it happens. I have twisted the
'old-bold pilot'
phrase
to "An old pilot is one that survives all his
(or her) stupid mistakes".
Linn
ralle,
List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
The day after JFK Jr. died, I had a flying lesson. My
wife was having a Tupperware party and my mother was
there. She implored me not to go flying. I told her
the best thing to do would be to get in that plane and
fly. All the while keeping in mind that accidents
happen and knowledge gained from it could help save me
or someone else. Keep flying and always have your
eyes and mind open.
Dave
--- kelby alexander wrote:
>
>
> Thank you David! I didnt know Scott Crossfield but I
> can only imagine what his family is going thru. I
> lost my dad in an -8 (Von ALexander)and I know that
> my whole family monitored this exact RV list the day
> of the accident. We were very comforted by the
> concerns of every other RVer. Even though some
> questioned a few of my dads choices, just keep in
> mind that his family very well might might be
> reading all of these posts. In that case my heart
> goes out to his family. I didnt know Scott, but it
> sounds like he is doing what I am working towrds...
> a test pilot. I am sure he will be missed in the
> aviation community.
>
> Kelby L Alexander
>
> --- davidfenster(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:11:31 -0400
>
>
>
> OK. We SHOULD learn (that's understood). But that
> is not what this
> list does. It tends to crucify. Pilot error and
> all.
> Here is a guy who had the experience to "know
> better" and still died.
> That was my point. Start the "discussion" you are
> talking about, but do
> not question his abilities as a pilot.
>
> Normally, I would just walk away from this
> discussion. This list tends
> to "jump" at the easy answer. I met this man, and I
> DID NOT want anyone
> to mess with HIS LEGACY.
>
> So, the easy answer for you, Terry, is go get his
> experience and then post.
> Or even mine.....
>
> And, yes, you can taint his character with BS
> comments from
> inexperienced pilots who have never been in harms
> way.
>
>
> Terry Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, I should know better by now, but I must
> disagree. I am with you right up
> > to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with
> Monday morning BS." There
> > is no way we can "taint this man's character," but
> we might be able to save
> > someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have
> happened. If you were a
> > USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into
> investigating and
> > discussing accidents for the express purpose of
> trying to prevent others
> > from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door
> on any discussion of an
> > accident that cost the life of such a competent
> pilot does a great
> > disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't
> help anyone's reputation.
> >
> > "Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by
> learning from what cost him his
> > life.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield
> today
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree w/goodwin.
> > It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying
> it/dealing with it.
> > Death while doing what a person loved is still
> death.
> > I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot).
> A 34 year old who left
> > a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is
> still dead and the
> > kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left
> a wife and 4 kids is
> > still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple.
> A pilot is dead. He
> > obviously thought conditions were acceptable.
> Weather changes fast -
> > especially when there is significant vertical
> development. Seen it -
> > been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans
> character with Monday
> > morning BS.
> >
> > Nuff said.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: "kelby alexander" <n41va(at)blazemail.com>
Subject: Re: We lost Scott Crossfield today
1 year after my Dad dies in our RV I asked my Mom to start flying lessons. I got
a HUGE "NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!!!!!" Now, almost 7 years after the accident,
she is more than willing to pay for all of my ratings, Private, insturment, commercial,
multi. cfi, cfii and mei. There is always dangers in flying, but I
can look back and say my dad died doing something that he loved.
Kelby
--- truflite(at)yahoo.com wrote:
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:14:23 -0700 (PDT)
The day after JFK Jr. died, I had a flying lesson. My
wife was having a Tupperware party and my mother was
there. She implored me not to go flying. I told her
the best thing to do would be to get in that plane and
fly. All the while keeping in mind that accidents
happen and knowledge gained from it could help save me
or someone else. Keep flying and always have your
eyes and mind open.
Dave
--- kelby alexander wrote:
>
>
> Thank you David! I didnt know Scott Crossfield but I
> can only imagine what his family is going thru. I
> lost my dad in an -8 (Von ALexander)and I know that
> my whole family monitored this exact RV list the day
> of the accident. We were very comforted by the
> concerns of every other RVer. Even though some
> questioned a few of my dads choices, just keep in
> mind that his family very well might might be
> reading all of these posts. In that case my heart
> goes out to his family. I didnt know Scott, but it
> sounds like he is doing what I am working towrds...
> a test pilot. I am sure he will be missed in the
> aviation community.
>
> Kelby L Alexander
>
> --- davidfenster(at)comcast.net wrote:
>
> From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield today
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:11:31 -0400
>
>
>
> OK. We SHOULD learn (that's understood). But that
> is not what this
> list does. It tends to crucify. Pilot error and
> all.
> Here is a guy who had the experience to "know
> better" and still died.
> That was my point. Start the "discussion" you are
> talking about, but do
> not question his abilities as a pilot.
>
> Normally, I would just walk away from this
> discussion. This list tends
> to "jump" at the easy answer. I met this man, and I
> DID NOT want anyone
> to mess with HIS LEGACY.
>
> So, the easy answer for you, Terry, is go get his
> experience and then post.
> Or even mine.....
>
> And, yes, you can taint his character with BS
> comments from
> inexperienced pilots who have never been in harms
> way.
>
>
> Terry Watson wrote:
>
> >
> > OK, I should know better by now, but I must
> disagree. I am with you right up
> > to "PLEASE - do not taint this mans character with
> Monday morning BS." There
> > is no way we can "taint this man's character," but
> we might be able to save
> > someone else's butt by discussing what MIGHT have
> happened. If you were a
> > USAF pilot you must know how much effort goes into
> investigating and
> > discussing accidents for the express purpose of
> trying to prevent others
> > from falling into the same trap. Slamming the door
> on any discussion of an
> > accident that cost the life of such a competent
> pilot does a great
> > disservice to the cause of safe flying and doesn't
> help anyone's reputation.
> >
> > "Nuff said"?? No way. Lets honor the man by
> learning from what cost him his
> > life.
> >
> > Terry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of David Fenstermacher
> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 6:04 PM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: We lost Scott Crossfield
> today
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree w/goodwin.
> > It is simply our (the survivors) way of justifying
> it/dealing with it.
> > Death while doing what a person loved is still
> death.
> > I've been to many funerals (I was a USAF pilot).
> A 34 year old who left
> > a wife and three kids dying while doing acro is
> still dead and the
> > kids/wife are still alone. An F-16 pilot who left
> a wife and 4 kids is
> > still dead. We are mourning - plain and simple.
> A pilot is dead. He
> > obviously thought conditions were acceptable.
> Weather changes fast -
> > especially when there is significant vertical
> development. Seen it -
> > been there. PLEASE - do not taint this mans
> character with Monday
> > morning BS.
> >
> > Nuff said.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2006
From: Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject: We lost Scott Crossfield today
Brovo Bob !
rest in peace Scott and Eustace,
Dan -8
Bob Collins wrote:
I would like to interrupt the developing flame war just long enough to say
how much I admire the Greatest Generation. That includes, of course, Mr.
Crossfield.
When they came up with the phrase "he's got balls," it was for guys like him
and, frankly, thousands of men and women of his generation who are passing
from our lives every day.
I am always saddened, of course, when one passes. I look at my generation
(the Baby Boomers) and the one following it and I know we have not been or
acted worthy of what they handed over to us. And we could, never, ever
sacrifice in this day and age the way that one did. And that makes me sadder
still.
On the day of his death, I won't pollute his memory by thinking of anything
other than remembering him and his generation for what they gave me and this
country.
Will the circumstances of his death somehow help make me a better pilot. I
could not possibly care less. On this day, it's more important for me,
personally, to reflect on whether his life will help make me a better
person.
On this day, I'd also like to remember another member of the Greatest
Generation who passed today. Eustace Bohay.
Resume.
Bob Collins
St. Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
calls)
>Matt Dralle wrote:
>Its a good cause, though, if
>you value your right to fly in the US.
>Matt
I was once a AOPA guy 20 years ago but quit for several reasons.
However I did recently hear that the "AOPA adviser" was claiming
homebuilts are such a liability that if you sell one you should part
it out. I just want to say there has NEVER been a lawsuit against
any builder. Absolutly NO legal precedence.
Sure we are liable for everything. Your dog bites someone you can
go to jail. However if you get a lawyer to draw up a liability release,
sometimes called a "hold harmless waiver", chance of lawsuit is
slim. If you knowingly did not put the spar bolts in, or some other
nonsense, yes you might have negligence problem. A safe RV,
built to plans, not likely to be a problem.
Again NEVER happened, no lawsuits and AOPA is WRONG
if this is their claim.
I would love someone else to write or ask the AOPA adviser the
same question.
Any way I don't think AOPA supports Kit planes or homebuilts
because it is counter to there main customers aircraft manufactures
and corporate operators. Just read their magazine. It is like a
corporate aviation magazine. Not saying they don't do good for all of
us, I am just saying that they are somewhat impotent or ineffective,
but it is better than nothing I guess. After 10 years I dropped them
about 10 years ago. They sent me crap for years trying to get me back.
George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone call
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Apr 21, 2006
There are many things I do not like about the aopa.
1. Every publication, web page etc is filled with 50% content of "Phil Boyer says"
Phil Boyer does" etc. I think there is a rule that every simple sentence must
mention Phil Boyer 7 times.
2. Unsolicited phone calls during the evening as mentioned some peskier than others.
3. Their seeming lack of support for experimentals.
Having said all that they will continue to recieve my support as they do a good
service for all of us.
An entities 1st responsability is to survive and a good way to do this is cater
to your sponsors.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29829#29829
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
call
Date: Apr 21, 2006
I once offered to write an article for AOPA on the use of alternative
engines in aircraft - absolutely no interest, said their readership was not
interested - which clearly pointed out that I for one did not belong in an
organization that had no interest in my interest.
EAA has certainly slipped far down the Commercial slope and should really
changed its name from the EAA or at least take the "E" out. Having said
that, I support it simply because I do believe that without the EAA and AOPA
our freedom to fly would have been even more seriously curtailed ( than has
occurred).
I do feel we must all be vigilant against the FAA's attempt to levy "users
fees". We paid taxes to support the government and its agencies, we should
not be taxed again simply to compensate for bureaucratic inefficiency and
mismanagement. Look at Canada and take heed.
my 0.02 worth
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation
phone call
>
> There are many things I do not like about the aopa.
>
> 1. Every publication, web page etc is filled with 50% content of "Phil
> Boyer says" Phil Boyer does" etc. I think there is a rule that every
> simple sentence must mention Phil Boyer 7 times.
>
> 2. Unsolicited phone calls during the evening as mentioned some peskier
> than others.
>
> 3. Their seeming lack of support for experimentals.
>
> Having said all that they will continue to recieve my support as they do a
> good service for all of us.
>
> An entities 1st responsability is to survive and a good way to do this is
> cater to your sponsors.
>
> --------
> Milt
> N395V
> F1 Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=29829#29829
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oliver Washburn" <ollie6a(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
calls)
Date: Apr 21, 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 4:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation
phone calls)
>
>>Matt Dralle wrote:
>>Its a good cause, though, if
>>you value your right to fly in the US.
> >Matt
>
> I was once a AOPA guy 20 years ago but quit for several reasons.
>
> All I can say is if it wasn't for AOPA and EAA you would not be enjoying
> as much freedom for flying as you have today, and anyone who dosen't
> support them in my estimation dosen't care about freedom of flight. It
> seems like everyday the TSA or some other organisation trys to grabe a
> little more of our freedom.
Ollie 6a Central Fl
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: bertrv6(at)highstream.net
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
calls)
Quoting gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com:
>
> >Matt Dralle wrote:
> >Its a good cause, though, if
> >you value your right to fly in the US.
> >Matt
>
> I was once a AOPA guy 20 years ago but quit for several reasons.
>
> However I did recently hear that the "AOPA adviser" was claiming
> homebuilts are such a liability that if you sell one you should part
> it out. I just want to say there has NEVER been a lawsuit against
> any builder. Absolutly NO legal precedence.
>
> Sure we are liable for everything. Your dog bites someone you can
> go to jail. However if you get a lawyer to draw up a liability release,
> sometimes called a "hold harmless waiver", chance of lawsuit is
> slim. If you knowingly did not put the spar bolts in, or some other
> nonsense, yes you might have negligence problem. A safe RV,
> built to plans, not likely to be a problem.
>
> Again NEVER happened, no lawsuits and AOPA is WRONG
> if this is their claim.
>
> I would love someone else to write or ask the AOPA adviser the
> same question.
>
> Any way I don't think AOPA supports Kit planes or homebuilts
> because it is counter to there main customers aircraft manufactures
> and corporate operators. Just read their magazine. It is like a
> corporate aviation magazine. Not saying they don't do good for all of
> us, I am just saying that they are somewhat impotent or ineffective,
> but it is better than nothing I guess. After 10 years I dropped them
> about 10 years ago. They sent me crap for years trying to get me back.
>
> George
>
> George: whoever you are; I have been a member of AOPA for ever , at least
40 years..
There is not any one that admits, AOPA,is the only organization that do
so much for General Aviation, No one, and we Experimental, are part of that..
Aopa has the clout in Washington, do change things. I do not have to
tell you the number of things they accomplish, for us....
The magazine, yes, it is not "Experimental" per se....why, because,
the market is saturated with dozens, or such magazines... what would be the
purpose of adding to the already fillled segment...?
I am subscribed, to three of this,, Custom Planes, Kit Planes, and Pilot
magazine, in addition to EAA, which I am also member since I started flying.
I wish you have named the person, that told you, about experimental no good...
I have talked thru the years, with many of them...no once they ever even
suggested, Experimental aircraft was unsafe, only the builders are unsafe...
OH< by th way George,,,just this alone, makes my case...I recently got
my medical Certificate back,,,,and only because AOPA.... ENOUGH SAID..
Bert
rv6a
Do nopt archive
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)consolidated.net>
Subject: Re: Sensitive reading of posts
>
>
>>I finally came to the conclusion that this list really doesn't tolerate
>>differing points of view, and indeed those on this list act as if threatened
>>by them.
>>
>>Thus after many years, I am unsubscribing. If I build an RV in the
>>future, I will strictly make use of the archives.
>>
Kysh.... There are different points of view, but that doesnt mean "the
List" won't tolerate them. The "list" is just a bunch of faceless,
unknown typwriters somewhere off in the distance. Each of these
typewriters (ok I'll say computers) has a personality (person) connected
to it..
Keep in mind that for each posting, there may be 200 or 300 readers
(lurkers) who read the post, agreed with it, and did not replay.
We as pilots quite often don't agree with each other, but we should
still stick together. We need to get as connected as firemen and COP's
for our own survival. Those two groups have real fraternity. I'm sure
they have disagreements, but they stick together. We as pilots tend to
have "high" ego's. Whatever we have, we need to stick together, stop
snitching on one another and become a Fraternity......
Flame me, I got skin that is 66 years old and tough as sandpaper...
Phil in Illinois Oh, I met Linn Walters at the
Curtis Pitts memorial in Sun and Fun. Now, he is not a faceless computer
any more.......... Real fine person... Helpful and full of good
answers...
"Pitts" driver too....... that make him "special"........
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Parting out your homebuilt (was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 21, 2006
In my professional opinion, parting it out doesn't get you what you're
after. It merely spreads the risk around. If you sell the wings to one
individual, he/she puts them on their plane and they fail, you might be sued
over that. They may not win, but they can always sue. Same for the engine,
fuselage, etc, etc.
Hold harmless agreements might be useful. I'll allow attorney's to discuss
that.
In my humble opinion, the very best thing that a seller can do to alleviate
the amount of liability any type of airplane owner has when selling a plane
is to is have a third party do an annual on the plane as the pre-buy
inspection. That way, a third party has signed his name to attest that the
plane is airworthy.
Lawsuits after an airplane has been sold happen. There just has not yet
been one for what you all are discussing (poor building). If a person buys
a plane (production or experimental) and the engine quits shortly after the
purchase, whether someone is hurt in the subsequent landing/crash there will
very likely be a lawsuit against the former owner for poorly maintaining the
plane.
As the builder of an experimental aircraft, one is always likely to have
some risk of being sued, but the longer that the plane has been successfully
flown (by both you when you owned it, and after it was sold) the harder that
is going to be to win for someone claiming it was "built poorly" because "if
it was built so poorly then why did it successfully fly XXXX hours?"
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager, NationAir Insurance Agency, Light Aircraft Office.
In response to:
I was once a AOPA guy 20 years ago but quit for several reasons.
However I did recently hear that the "AOPA adviser" was claiming
homebuilts are such a liability that if you sell one you should part
it out. I just want to say there has NEVER been a lawsuit against
any builder. Absolutly NO legal precedence.
Sure we are liable for everything. Your dog bites someone you can
go to jail. However if you get a lawyer to draw up a liability release,
sometimes called a "hold harmless waiver", chance of lawsuit is
slim. If you knowingly did not put the spar bolts in, or some other
nonsense, yes you might have negligence problem. A safe RV,
built to plans, not likely to be a problem.
Again NEVER happened, no lawsuits and AOPA is WRONG
if this is their claim.
I would love someone else to write or ask the AOPA adviser the
same question.
Any way I don't think AOPA supports Kit planes or homebuilts
because it is counter to there main customers aircraft manufactures
and corporate operators. Just read their magazine. It is like a
corporate aviation magazine. Not saying they don't do good for all of
us, I am just saying that they are somewhat impotent or ineffective,
but it is better than nothing I guess. After 10 years I dropped them
about 10 years ago. They sent me crap for years trying to get me back.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV legend Eustace Bowhay dies
Date: Apr 21, 2006
Dear RV'ers,
We lost another legendary Aviator this week, Mr. Eustace Bowhay.
RV legend Eustace Bowhay dies.
Eustace died Tuesday of apparent complications from a stroke. "He joined the RV
ranks in the 1990s by building C-HAY, a 180 hp RV-6 which he flew on wheels,
floats and amphibious floats. In the RV community he found many low time pilots
venturing into the world of relatively high performance and became their mentor.
At the factory, Van=92s people learned to listen carefully to the tall, white
haired, slightly deaf Canadian fellow with the suspenders. There was a little
=93eh?=94 and a little =93oot=94 in his speech, as well as a whole lot of
humanity, wisdom and humor," wrote Doug Reeves in a recent tribute (More)
My hat is off to the Giant. Have a grand journey!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
calls)
Date: Apr 21, 2006
"Never" is a big word. I can think of two lawsuits against builders just
from casual reading of the news in the last few years.
Lawsuit 1: In the John Denver crash, the newspapers reported that Denver's
relatives sued several people including the builder. I don't know the
outcome however.
Lawsuit 2: This one was somewhat complicated involving several sales and
owners.
Step 1: Individual A builds aircraft and flies for several years. Sells
aircraft to individual B.
Step 2: B flies aircraft for several years and then sells aircraft to
individual C.
Step 3: C flies aircraft for several years. Then one day he takes a
friend's wife for a ride and performs low level aerobatics in view of the
husband. Crashes killing himself and friend's wife.
Step 4: Husband sues individual A.
Step 5: Individual A sues B. I don't know the outcome of the lawsuits.
Homebuilders can be sued and are sued on liability issues. Three factors
seem to limit the number of lawsuits however. One is that juries tend to be
sceptical of claims from anyone who knowingly flies in a homebuilt aircraft.
The second is that most builders don't have the big bucks to attract big
name tort lawyers. The third is that the builder often dies in the accident
and his family has no reason to sue.
Lawsuits are a something to worry about. Even if you win the lawsuit the
legal fees can be devastating. Avemco at one point offered converage for a
year or two after the sale of a homebuilt, but I don't know if they still
do.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 1:05 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation
phone calls)
>
>>Matt Dralle wrote:
>>Its a good cause, though, if
>>you value your right to fly in the US.
> >Matt
>
> I was once a AOPA guy 20 years ago but quit for several reasons.
>
> However I did recently hear that the "AOPA adviser" was claiming
> homebuilts are such a liability that if you sell one you should part
> it out. I just want to say there has NEVER been a lawsuit against
> any builder. Absolutly NO legal precedence.
>
> Sure we are liable for everything. Your dog bites someone you can
> go to jail. However if you get a lawyer to draw up a liability release,
> sometimes called a "hold harmless waiver", chance of lawsuit is
> slim. If you knowingly did not put the spar bolts in, or some other
> nonsense, yes you might have negligence problem. A safe RV,
> built to plans, not likely to be a problem.
>
> Again NEVER happened, no lawsuits and AOPA is WRONG
> if this is their claim.
>
> I would love someone else to write or ask the AOPA adviser the
> same question.
>
> Any way I don't think AOPA supports Kit planes or homebuilts
> because it is counter to there main customers aircraft manufactures
> and corporate operators. Just read their magazine. It is like a
> corporate aviation magazine. Not saying they don't do good for all of
> us, I am just saying that they are somewhat impotent or ineffective,
> but it is better than nothing I guess. After 10 years I dropped them
> about 10 years ago. They sent me crap for years trying to get me back.
>
> George
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: Chris W <3edcft6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
call
Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>I once offered to write an article for AOPA on the use of alternative
>engines in aircraft - absolutely no interest, said their readership was not
>interested - which clearly pointed out that I for one did not belong in an
>organization that had no interest in my interest.
>
>
So I guess you have no interest in being a private pilot and actually
having the right to fly in the USA.
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Pardon my ignorance on fuel injections, but here's how
the routing goes:
Fuel out of the firewall to servo. (I'm assuming the
servo is where the mixture cable plugs into)
There are two lines that go from the servo the to the
divider (the thing on the sump where a carb would go,
and where the spider is..the spider is on the bottom
of my engine, not on the top like most). One fuel
line to the left side, and one to the right (or from
one side, as a return)
Then there is a third line out of the servo back to
the fuel selector or tee that fills the left tank.
Not sure of the make..there is a data tag on it that I
briefly read the other day but it wasn't anything
familiar.
There is a fuel pressure transducer from the original
installation on one of the lines from the servo to the
divider, so I'm assuming that's where I'll put my fuel flow.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Yep...this is not a bendix system, and the name eludes me right now. I have
seen it before and and the spider and lines are on the bottom side as you
describe. I have service instructions for this type of system, if I look it
up in my foot thick stack of Lycoming service instructions I should be able
to tell you what it is tonight....
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
On 4/21/06, Paul Besing wrote:
>
>
> Pardon my ignorance on fuel injections, but here's how
> the routing goes:
>
> Fuel out of the firewall to servo. (I'm assuming the
> servo is where the mixture cable plugs into)
>
> There are two lines that go from the servo the to the
> divider (the thing on the sump where a carb would go,
> and where the spider is..the spider is on the bottom
> of my engine, not on the top like most). One fuel
> line to the left side, and one to the right (or from
> one side, as a return)
>
> Then there is a third line out of the servo back to
> the fuel selector or tee that fills the left tank.
> Not sure of the make..there is a data tag on it that I
> briefly read the other day but it wasn't anything
> familiar.
>
> There is a fuel pressure transducer from the original
> installation on one of the lines from the servo to the
> divider, so I'm assuming that's where I'll put my fuel flow.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Thanks, Bob. Yeah, it's definately not a bendix
system, but it works very well...never any vapor lock
and starts on the first blade every time, after 16
years of service and 800 hours. Can't find anyting in
the logbook regarding maintenance issues.
Paul Besing
--- "Bob J." wrote:
>
>
> Yep...this is not a bendix system, and the name
> eludes me right now. I have
> seen it before and and the spider and lines are on
> the bottom side as you
> describe. I have service instructions for this type
> of system, if I look it
> up in my foot thick stack of Lycoming service
> instructions I should be able
> to tell you what it is tonight....
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
>
>
> On 4/21/06, Paul Besing wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > Pardon my ignorance on fuel injections, but here's
> how
> > the routing goes:
> >
> > Fuel out of the firewall to servo. (I'm assuming
> the
> > servo is where the mixture cable plugs into)
> >
> > There are two lines that go from the servo the to
> the
> > divider (the thing on the sump where a carb would
> go,
> > and where the spider is..the spider is on the
> bottom
> > of my engine, not on the top like most). One fuel
> > line to the left side, and one to the right (or
> from
> > one side, as a return)
> >
> > Then there is a third line out of the servo back
> to
> > the fuel selector or tee that fills the left tank.
> > Not sure of the make..there is a data tag on it
> that I
> > briefly read the other day but it wasn't anything
> > familiar.
> >
> > There is a fuel pressure transducer from the
> original
> > installation on one of the lines from the servo to
> the
> > divider, so I'm assuming that's where I'll put my
> fuel flow.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
call
Date: Apr 21, 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris W" <3edcft6(at)cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation
phone call
>
> Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>>I once offered to write an article for AOPA on the use of alternative
>>engines in aircraft - absolutely no interest, said their readership was
>>not
>>interested - which clearly pointed out that I for one did not belong in an
>>organization that had no interest in my interest.
>>
>>
>
> So I guess you have no interest in being a private pilot and actually
> having the right to fly in the USA.
>
> --
> Chris W
Actually, Chris, you apparently failed to read my complete message in which
I also stated
" ..... Having said that, I support it simply because I do believe that
without the EAA and AOPA
our freedom to fly would have been even more seriously curtailed ( than has
occurred)...."
Ed A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation phone
call
Date: Apr 21, 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris W" <3edcft6(at)cox.net>
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts? (was donation-solicitation
phone call
>
> Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>>I once offered to write an article for AOPA on the use of alternative
>>engines in aircraft - absolutely no interest, said their readership was
>>not
>>interested - which clearly pointed out that I for one did not belong in an
>>organization that had no interest in my interest.
>>
>>
>
> So I guess you have no interest in being a private pilot and actually
> having the right to fly in the USA.
>
> --
> Chris W
> KE5GIX
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com>
Subject: AOA
Date: Apr 21, 2006
. I am not a big AOA fan
(despite hundreds of hours with them)
Jim Van Laak
RV-6 N79RL
Jim: I am interested in your comment about AOA's. Some have suggested I
invest in one but I'm doubtful. Would you amplify on the subject, please?
Reply off list if you like.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Eustace Bowhay
Date: Apr 21, 2006
To Eustace: May you rest in Peace and fly on forever
[Ed. This news hurts. The text below appears in this site's Safety section and was written several months back. Eustace was kind enough to host RVTalk #17. He passed away on Tuesday, apparently of complications from a stroke. The RV community has lost one of its giants and our hearts go out to the Bowhay family and friends. By Doug Reeves of www.vansairforce.com]
This is for those of you that have never met him, but it is also for the one's
that did have the priviledge . . . .
"For RV pilots and builders who have never had the opportunity to meet Eustace
Bowhay, here=92s a little background.
Eustace is one of the few people around who=92ve accumulated over 20,000 hours
of flying time without ever having a military or airline career. He spans aviation
from before WW2 to the present day. His first flight, as a boy of 10 or 11,
was in a Gypsy Moth over his native Saskatchewan.
It=92s a great story...Eustace and his mother lived on a farm outside of town,
and every weekend the weather permitted they=92d go into the city for supplies
and a bit of recreation. He would spend part of his Saturday morning at piano
lessons. Nothing in this world was going to make a pianist out of Eustace, but
he went to please his mother and because she gave him a quarter so he could
go to the movies after his lesson.
Eustace soon discovered that the airport on the edge of town was far more interesting
to him than any movie, so after his lesson he=92d go down and hang on the
fence until it was time to go, just hoping to see an airplane fly. He=92d time
it carefully so he could run back to town and meet his mother at the theatre...he
knew she=92d never approve of something so dangerous as flying!
After a few weeks of this, one of the local pilots on the other side of the fence
motioned him over to a hangar and opened the back door. Completely awestruck,
Eustace stepped through the door and into what was to become his world for
a lifetime.
In the hangar was a brand new Staggerwing, painted royal blue. Out in front, a
pilot who needed to warm the oil in his Moth invited Eustace to occupy the front
cockpit. Stricken to silence by his good fortune, Eustace pulled on a leather
helmet and goggles and held on as the upright Gypsy engine rattled the Moth
into the air. They flew out over the prairie and over Eustace=92s home. When
they returned, Eustace realized he was late meeting his mother and dashed into
town, maintaining a minimum altitude of about six inches the whole way. Without
comment, he climbed into the car and home they went.
At the dinner table that evening, his uncle casually mentioned that an airplane
had circled the farm several times earlier in the day. Did Eustace know anything
about that? Oh, no, Eustace said. He=92d been at piano lessons and the movies
the whole day. Everyone at the table broke into laughter. When his mother
handed him a mirror he saw why: the Gypsy had been spraying a fine mist back over
the fuselage for the entire flight and the oily outline of the helmet and
goggles was clearly printed on his face. He looked like a surprised raccoon.
When Eustace tells this story, the memories of that day - more than seventy years
ago now - are printed on his face as plainly as the outline of those goggles.
He still remembers the smell of the paint and dope on the Staggerwing and the
exhilaration of banking and seeing his home between the flying wires of the
Moth.
After that came flying and more flying. Eustace instructed thousands of students
in the RCAF, some of whom died in combat just weeks later - he=92s never fully
accepted that waste and a bit of grief is with him still. After the war he
instructed thousands more, as well as flying Navions and Aeronca Champs and God
knows what else away from the factories and back to Canada.
Supported by his wife Nora, he formed his own company, providing charter air service
all over the Canada and the Northern Territories. He flew and flew; in Aztec,
in Cessnas, in Beavers and Otters. He acquired a P-51 from the Canadian
government and flew it all over the country keeping an eye on his operations.
He owned and flew a DC-3 for many years. He=92s got 9000+ hours of water operation...1000
hours of it in a Grumman Goose. He=92s landed parts of a bulldozer
on the edge of the Arctic Ocean in a Beech 18, helped weld the machine back together
and build a landing strip and watched the bulldozer leave, intact, in
the hold of a Hercules that flew into the strip to retrieve it.
And all the while, one of his primary concerns was keeping other pilots safe. He
preached, cajoled, and extolled safe flying at every opportunity, bringing his
vast experience to bear and distilling it to benefit the newest of pilots.
We will never know just how many pilots are alive (and airplanes unbroken) because
Eustace had a word with them, planting some seed of care and awareness that
allowed them to avoid danger.
He joined the RV ranks in the 1990s by building C-HAY, a 180 hp RV-6 which he flew
on wheels, floats and amphibious floats. In the RV community he found many
low time pilots venturing into the world of relatively high performance and became
their mentor. At the factory, Van=92s people learned to listen carefully
to the tall, white haired, slightly deaf Canadian fellow with the suspenders.
There was a little "eh?" and a little "oot" in his speech, as well as a whole
lot of humanity, wisdom and humor.
Eustace and Nora have been to many of Van=92s Homecomings and many RV pilots have
met and talked with them. If you=92ve ever had a chance to sit and talk with
them, you=92ll have realized that you were in the presence of truly fine people
Now recovering from a stroke in his hometown of Salmon Arm, British Columbia, Eustace
is still pursuing his passion for helping pilots fly safely and skillfully.
It is our incredibly good fortune that he's part of the RV world and that
modern technology allows us to essentially sit around the campfire and listen
to him pass on knowledge gained over a career that has spanned 70% of powered
aviation.
Don=92t miss the chance - there aren=92t many like him. Heck, there aren=92t any
like him. Eustace is one of a kind."
Arrangements (from a Ken Hoshowski email fwd'd to me)
Just to let you know that the service gathering for Eustace will be this Saturday
at 1:30 at Fischer's Funeral Services, 4060 1st. Ave S.W.
Salmon Arm.
Toll free phone 1-888-816-1117 This is going to be a tea only, a celebration of
life service will be held at a later date in Eustace's home town in Alberta.
Eustace's wife's name is Nora and the home address is
#6-350 Hudson St.
N.W, Salmon Arm B.C., V1E1P4,
phone 250 832-3273.
That is about all I can tell (you) for now.
Ken Hoshowski
RV6 C-FKEH
Salmon Arm B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2006
From: "kelby alexander" <n41va(at)blazemail.com>
Subject: Flying A Transporting is ready to take your order
Here it is! "Flying A Transporting" will be taking reservations for May and the
months to follow to deliver your QB or Standard Kits. The trailer has arrived,
the truck is days from being here. Insurance, permits and all liscences are
all in order finally. I will be advertising on this site in a month or so, so
keep your eyes open for that as well and I will post a link for my new web site
soon.
Email me at rvshipper(at)blazemail.com for a price quote. The first 5 customers will
receive a FREE headset or a Gift Certificate to Sportys Pilot Shop for the
value of the headset.
I am a Liscenced, Bonded and Insured Tranporting Company. And I am personally going
to be driving the truck and trailer with your kit in it. So I can do it at
a better price than ANYBODY else because I dont have to pay any drivers, Guaranteed!
Kelby L. Alexander
"Flying A Transporting"
541.550.0689
Fight the power! BlazeMail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
Date: Apr 21, 2006
Steve,
Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth it.
Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: MT Props delay
>
> Anybody know a faster way to get a MT Prop?
>
> Van's (MTs) wait time is currently 16 weeks.
>
> Looking for 2 blade, hydraulic. MTV15B/183-109
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 21, 2006
Dave,
I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
this cowl.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burden" <hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>
> Hello Listers,
>
> I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
> find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination of
> features:
>
> Flying RV7a or 9a
> Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
> Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
> Fixed pitch propellor
>
> The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
> may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
>
> Please respond off list to:
>
> hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
Date: Apr 21, 2006
Steve,
Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth it.
Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: MT Props delay
>
> Anybody know a faster way to get a MT Prop?
>
> Van's (MTs) wait time is currently 16 weeks.
>
> Looking for 2 blade, hydraulic. MTV15B/183-109
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
Date: Apr 22, 2006
Try another vendor.
http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,842 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MT Props delay
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:34:26 -0500
Steve,
Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth it.
Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 2:29 PM
Subject: RV-List: MT Props delay
>
> Anybody know a faster way to get a MT Prop?
>
> Van's (MTs) wait time is currently 16 weeks.
>
> Looking for 2 blade, hydraulic. MTV15B/183-109
>
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 22, 2006
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and their
inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of the openings?
In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings would that theoretically
lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful compare?
Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
>
> Dave,
> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
> this cowl.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Burden"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>
>
> >
> > Hello Listers,
> >
> > I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
> > find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination of
> > features:
> >
> > Flying RV7a or 9a
> > Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
> > Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
> > Fixed pitch propellor
> >
> > The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
> > may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
> >
> > Please respond off list to:
> >
> > hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net
> >
> > Thanks in advance for the help.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and their
inlet areathat make the difference? What's the diameter of the openings? In
other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings would that theoretically
lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful compare?
Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "dick martin" martin(at)gbonline.com
-- RV-List message posted by: "dick martin"
Dave,
I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
this cowl.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Burden" <HOOTSNIK(at)SBCGLOBAL.NET>
To:
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: RV-List:
Perfor
mance Problem Analysis
-- RV-List message posted by: David Burden
Hello Listers,
I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination of
features:
Flying RV7a or 9a
Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
Fixed pitch propellor
The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
Please respond off list to:
hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net
Thanks in advance for the help.
Dave
<
BR>
hank y
ou for your generous support!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2006
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Update: Fuel Flow Transducer-Injected
Paul, I'm guessing its a Simmonds fuel injection system, in the picture the
fuel distributor (spider) is part of the servo. SI1040A is titled
"Maintenance procedures applicable to Simmonds #530 fuel injection system."
Its a two pager with not much useful info.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 4/21/06, Paul Besing wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Bob. Yeah, it's definately not a bendix
> system, but it works very well...never any vapor lock
> and starts on the first blade every time, after 16
> years of service and 800 hours. Can't find anyting in
> the logbook regarding maintenance issues.
>
> Paul Besing
>
> --- "Bob J." wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Yep...this is not a bendix system, and the name
> > eludes me right now. I have
> > seen it before and and the spider and lines are on
> > the bottom side as you
> > describe. I have service instructions for this type
> > of system, if I look it
> > up in my foot thick stack of Lycoming service
> > instructions I should be able
> > to tell you what it is tonight....
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Japundza
> > RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
> >
> >
> > On 4/21/06, Paul Besing wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Pardon my ignorance on fuel injections, but here's
> > how
> > > the routing goes:
> > >
> > > Fuel out of the firewall to servo. (I'm assuming
> > the
> > > servo is where the mixture cable plugs into)
> > >
> > > There are two lines that go from the servo the to
> > the
> > > divider (the thing on the sump where a carb would
> > go,
> > > and where the spider is..the spider is on the
> > bottom
> > > of my engine, not on the top like most). One fuel
> > > line to the left side, and one to the right (or
> > from
> > > one side, as a return)
> > >
> > > Then there is a third line out of the servo back
> > to
> > > the fuel selector or tee that fills the left tank.
> > > Not sure of the make..there is a data tag on it
> > that I
> > > briefly read the other day but it wasn't anything
> > > familiar.
> > >
> > > There is a fuel pressure transducer from the
> > original
> > > installation on one of the lines from the servo to
> > the
> > > divider, so I'm assuming that's where I'll put my
> > fuel flow.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 22, 2006
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
> inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
> diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
> and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> bottom too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
> meaningful compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
circumference for a given area, so there is less frictional drag
along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 22, 2006
Sam James used to sell (and may still sell) round inlets that you can
retrofit into your stock cowl.
I looked into it when I was building my plane and decided that 1) It would
be a lot of work. 2) Even worse, the work would be *serious* fiberglass
work. 3) It would be a shame to mess up the nice factory cowling.
If I recall correctly, Sam's recommendation was that without a plenum (which
he sold), the cowl mod probably wasn't worth the effort.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and
> their inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of the
> openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings
> would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom
> too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
>
>>
>> Dave,
>> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
>> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a
>> standard
>> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
>> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
>> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
>> this cowl.
>> Dick Martin
>> RV8 N233M
>> the fast one
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Burden"
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
>> Subject: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Hello Listers,
>> >
>> > I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
>> > find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination
>> > of
>> > features:
>> >
>> > Flying RV7a or 9a
>> > Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
>> > Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
>> > Fixed pitch propellor
>> >
>> > The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges
>> > you
>> > may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
>> >
>> > Please respond off list to:
>> >
>> > hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net
>> >
>> > Thanks in advance for the help.
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets and
> their inlet areathat make the difference? What's the diameter of the
> openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the openings
> would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the bottom
> too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: "dick martin" martin(at)gbonline.com
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: "dick martin"
>
> Dave,
> I have an RV8 with a James Cowl and plenum and a IO-390 engine. I believe
> that it contributes and average speed increase of 10 knots over a standard
> Vans cowl. I have over 1300 hours with this set up. I have also talked to
> as many others with this set up as possible, and the general consensus is
> the same as mine. Also, cooling problems are usually not a problem with
> this cowl.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Burden" <HOOTSNIK(at)SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 8:42 AM
> Subject: RV-List:
> Perfor
> mance Problem Analysis
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: David Burden
>
> Hello Listers,
>
> I am working through a performance issue and need some help. I need to
> find some folks who have flying aircraft with the following combination
> of
> features:
>
> Flying RV7a or 9a
> Carburated 180 hp 0360 (Superior/ECI/Lyc)
> Sam James Cowl/plenum/induction system
> Fixed pitch propellor
>
> The intent is to compare some data and discuss any install challenges you
> may have had to overcome with this, apparently rare combination.
>
> Please respond off list to:
>
> hootsnik(at)sbcglobal.net
>
> Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> Dave
>
>
> <
> BR>
>
>
> hank y
> ou for your generous support!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 22, 2006
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
>
> On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
>
> >
> > WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
> > inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
> > diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
> > and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
> >
> > Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> > bottom too?
> >
> > Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
> > meaningful compare?
> >
> > Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
>
>
> Lucky,
>
> As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
>
> 1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
> that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
> you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
> that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
> the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
> less cooling drag there is.
>
> 2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
> as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
> the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
>
> 3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
> circumference for a given area, so there is less frictional drag
> along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
> pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
> effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
> same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
>
> I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
> having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
> reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
> but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
> there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
> people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
> size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Any engineers out there care to hazard a guess what the percentage of gain is for
each of the 3 referenced sources?
ie, for the 10 knot gain in using the Sam James setup, 70% from the combo of the
smaller area openings and use of a integrated/sealed plenum and 30 percent from
exterior cowl shape?
If it was the other way around, I wouldn't even consider it a worthwhile project....
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Kevin Horton khorton01(at)rogers.com
-- RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air
inlets and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the
diameter of the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl
and redid the openings would that theoretically lower drag??
Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
bottom too?
Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a
meaningful compare?
&g
t;
Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air
that comes in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so
you need to bring in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact
that the plenum chamber has less leakage means less air is needed, so
the inlets are smaller. The less air you bring in the inlets, the
less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow
as the air expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and
the greatest amount of pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest
circumference for a given area, so there is less frictio
nal dr
ag
along the walls of the inlet. Any frictional drag results in some
pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces the cooling
effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to get the
same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by
having a plenum chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and
reducing the size of the inlets. Many people add plenum chambers,
but I believe most of them don't have a good seal at the inlet, so
there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe that most
people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce the
size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
=====
=================================================
&g
t;
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Performance Problem Analysis
Date: Apr 22, 2006
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Kevin pretty much hit it on the head. You are looking for a couple of things
in a cowl. One is to have easy bends for the inlet and outlet air to pass through
so you are not imparting much of the airflow's energy into the airframe
(more drag). Also you want the best pressure recovery ratio you can get. Essentially
whatever the pressure is of the air entering the cowl you want to try
and make it the same number as it exits. Any deviation from 1 to 1 will cause
drag and/or cooling problems. You then use the venturi effect to either slow
or speed up the airflow inside the cowling to increase or decrease the amount
of heat transfer from the engine. These two areas are where the James cowl
makes the difference.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Performance Problem Analysis
On 22 Apr 2006, at 10:41, lucky wrote:
>
> WRT James cowl, is it basically just the differently shaped air inlets
> and their inlet area that make the difference? What's the diameter of
> the openings? In other words, if one took Van's cowl and redid the
> openings would that theoretically lower drag??
>
> Or is there a fundamental difference in the air outlet area on the
> bottom too?
>
> Anyone ever take a side by side photos and otherwise do a meaningful
> compare?
>
> Just curious and looking for rainy day projects....
Lucky,
As I understand it, the performance increase comes from three places:
1. The cowl comes with a plenum chamber, which means more of the air that comes
in the inlets actually cools the engine. Baffles leak, so you need to bring
in extra air to allow for that leakage. The fact that the plenum chamber has
less leakage means less air is needed, so the inlets are smaller. The less air
you bring in the inlets, the less cooling drag there is.
2. The contour of the inlet is designed to try to have laminar flow as the air
expands, which results in the least amount of drag, and the greatest amount of
pressure once the air has expanded.
3. The inlet shape is round. Round inlets have the smallest circumference for
a given area, so there is less frictional drag along the walls of the inlet.
Any frictional drag results in some pressure loss in the cooling air, which reduces
the cooling effectiveness, and means you probably need a bit more air to
get the same amount of cooling. This is probably a very minor effect.
I believe you could achieve most of the performance increase by having a plenum
chamber that has a good seal at the inlet, and reducing the size of the inlets.
Many people add plenum chambers, but I believe most of them don't have a good
seal at the inlet, so there is quite a bit of leakage there. I also believe
that most people don't reduce the size of the inlets. If you don't reduce
the size of the inlets, you won't realize any performance increase.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Dan:
I talked to my aviation lawyer less than a year ago and
my info, John Denver's estate did not sue the builder.
It would be ridiculous a multimillionaire (estate) suing a guy
with $2 in the bank. Please send your source/ refrence. God
rest his soul, Dear John was flying real low on altitude and gas,
and had no license after a few DWI's. I think you are wrong.
(John Denver flew into the water. The fuel selector was in
a non-standard place and was thought that he accidentally
flew into the water when reaching for it. However he was
very low and was out or almost out of fuel. Lesson learned
BUILD YOU RV PER PLANS and DON'T DO WEIRD
ONE OFF SYSTEM DESIGNS YOU DREAM UP, at
least if you don't want to be suied.)
Your case TWO. Again no offense but facts, case number,
names, not rumor, hearsay and urban legend. This is
what I am talking about. You throw out a scenario that is
hard to believe, no offense. I would not be surprised if
someone at AOPA made this up.
There have been people's estates who sue the pilot or
pilot estate for killing the passenger, their family member,
but that has NOTHING to do with selling a plane and being
sued as the builder or manufacture.
(BY THE WAY, waiver and hold harmless waivers work for
passengers. Whether the hold up how know it would no
hurt. ALSO have a LAWYER write these up. It is worth the
few $100 bucks to have it written verses a generic boiler-plate
form you found or dreamed up.)
If you have examples: Names, places, state, city where the
lawsuit is filed I'll look into it. I still stand by NEVER.
Your other points and conjecture is correct and interesting.
Yes lawsuits are expensive even if you win. However put
that into the agreement. The agreement says if you buy and
fly this home-built you can DIE, you accept all risk and waive
all legal rights to sue, you the builder. If you do get sued from
some 3rd party (a passenger) the buyer will pay all your legal
fees. That is the way it should be anyway. That would cut
down the stupid frivolous lawsuits.
As I said these agreements should work but there is no
legal precedence, since no builder has been sued for
building (that I or my aviation lawyer knows of). It is better
than nothing. CAN YOU BE SUED. you bet your sweat
rudder you can. However as I said your dog bites someone
you can get suied. Build a good plane, don't sell to an idiot,
get a waiver drawn up by a Lawyer and allow or insist that
the buyers faimly and their lawyer read and approve it.
If for some reason you got sued the defense should not
break the bank. Slam dunk, the buyer killed them self for
say, doing low level acro.
Cheers George
>From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: AOPA hates homebuilts?
>
>posted by: "Dan Morrow"
>
>"Never" is a big word. I can think of two lawsuits against builders
>just from casual reading of the news in the last few years.
>Lawsuit 1: In the John Denver crash, the newspapers reported that
>Denver's relatives sued several people including the builder. I don't
>know the outcome however.
>
>Lawsuit 2: This one was somewhat complicated involving several sales
>and owners. Step 1: Individual A builds aircraft and flies for several
>years. Sells aircraft to individual B.
>Step 2: B flies aircraft for several years and then sells aircraft
>to individual C. Step 3: C flies aircraft for several years. Then one
>day he takes a friend's wife for a ride and performs low level aerobatics
>in view of the husband. Crashes killing himself and friend's wife.
>Step 4: Husband sues individual A.
>Step 5: Individual A sues B. I don't know the outcome of the
>lawsuits.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: <erichweaver(at)cox.net>
Subject: AFP purge valve
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Howdy
Thought I would share with the list the folowing question I e-mailed to Airflow
Performance and their reply:
"I have one of your fuel injection units on my new IO-360 B1B engine and RV-7A
aircraft. It would seem prudent to have a spring or other similar device on the
purge valve control arm to insure that if the cable controlling the pure valve
were to fail, the control arm would remain in the normal run position. Do
you agree, and if so, do you offer a product for this purpose? If not, perhaps
you have some suggestions for obtaining or fabricating such a device?"
Here is the replay that I received:
"We typically recommend that the system is installed with good quality cables with
rod ends. This should eliminate any need for return springs. I always ask;
"Did you put a return spring on the mixture control or throttle?" But of course
the choice is yours. If you feel a return spring on the purge valve will
give you piece of mind, by all means do it. I have seen some installations
use a simple extension spring connected to the purge valve lever to a adel clamp
on a push rod tube to pull the lever to the run position."
Don Rivera
Airflow Performance
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy(at)jhill.biz>
Subject: Re: Dakotas
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Jerry:
Thanks for the reply re. Black Hills.
My son and I returned from Custer Airport yesterday. It is a real pretty
area, with a lot to see.
Jimmy
Stillwater RV8A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Dakotas
>
> My wife and I are planning a trip to South Dakota in July. Will be
> staying
> over at Custer County Airport http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCUT which is
> southwest of Rapid City.
>
> Plenty of places to stay, state parks with wild life, Mount Rushmore
> nearby,
> Black hills country, should be places to camp. Rental cars are available.
>
> Jerry Calvert
> RV 6 N296JC
> Edmond Ok
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jimmy Hill" <jimmy(at)jhill.biz>
> To: "rv-list"
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 7:07 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Dakotas
>
>
>>
>> Fellow RV'ers:
>>
>> My son and I plan a flight in our 8A this weekend from Okla. up to the
> Dakotas, and surrounding areas.
>> Would appreciate knowing of any RV friendly locations--good sightseeing,
> possibly airport camping spots, etc.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Jimmy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Blended Airfoil 72" vs. 74"
Hi Jim,
I don't have any cruise performance flight test data yet.
By my calculation (with some very rough assumptions):
The 74" diameter requires 3% more power to turn at cruise than the 72" dia.
(Or about a 3 mph reduction in cruise speed.)
The 74" diameter could provide a slight increase in initial climb rate.
The advantage of the 74" dia. Hartzell propeller would be when the blade
tips are damaged.
>From what I understand from Hartzell, if the blades can be trimmed and
reformed to at least a 72" dia., they are still serviceable.
>From what I understand from Hartzell, if the 72" dia. Hartzell blade tips
are damaged, the complete propeller is scrap.
Regards,
Jim Ayers
>
> Does anyone have any information on pros and cons on choosing a 72" vs.
> 74" Hartzell blended airfoil prop? Have searched archives and was unable
> to find any specific information relative to propeller diameter.
>
> Jim Thorne
> 7A-QB CHD
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Sensenich prop data
Date: Apr 23, 2006
I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
1680 lbs. After doing the math that wound up being 185 mph TAS and the
ground speed according to my GPS was 195 mph which would be about right as
there should have been a slight 5-8 knot tail wind component according to
Dans web sites wind calculator. After climbing to 9500 the results were
still 158 mph indicated, 58deg F, 2500 rpm at WOT which works out to 188 mph
TAS, 197 mph GPS ground speed. Again with the expected tail winds this was
right on. This is the first time I have been able to fly at WOT and the CHTs
and the EGTs were much more uniform.
All in all the new prop is doing exactly as advertised. Note: These are not
super picky test pilot figures, just what was noted during a flight from a
fly-in with my lovely bride taking notes
__________________
Scott Frierson
N162RV
RV6A 160HP
________________________________________________________________________________
From: pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
damages.
A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by the buyer and
spouse, however that is only an agreement between those individuals.
The agreement must not be found unconscionable and signed by both
parties after an arms-length negotiation with each party having an equal
bargaining position.
The new owner's minor children who lose their parent cannot legally
enter into a contract, nor can a parent enter into a contract on their
behalf, therefore the risk remains. The builder's negligent product has
taken away the minor children's parental love, support and college
tuition payments and someone gets to take over with their checkbook.
Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured airplane harms
someone or property on the ground the waiver between the buyer and
seller will not apply to their claims against the negligent builder.
The victims will all come after the negligent builder who must then file
a lawsuit against the buyer for indemnity and hope the buyer has enough
money to pay any judgments rendered against the builder. Lots of up
front legal expenses even with an an attorney's fee provision.
A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were offering continuing
products liability for up to three years after sale for insured builders
who had been covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years. Each
year of insurance extended the after sale coverage for one year up to a
maximum of three years coverage after sale. This was a wonderful program
for we homebuilders who decided to sell our aircraft. Regardless of
the builder's ultimate liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for
an attorney to defend the builder.
AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products liability coverage
available . . . without getting in line with Detroit automakers,
passenger jet aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers, makers of
Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major manufacturer's product liability
policy for your one single manufactured product. Hopefully after three
years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or as a true EAA member
make enough changes that none of your original work remains untampered
with.
John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of the fuel valve that
failed leaving about 45 minutes of fuel in the tank the valve had been
switched to when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert
testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer knew of the corrosion
problem and failed to issue proper lubricants specifications for
periodic maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from the same
problem that caused John Denver's to corrode. The maker of the fuel
valve was forced to finally issue proper lubrication maintenance
guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part of the settlement.
The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over the pilot's
shoulder by the builder as a safety modification to eliminate having
fuel lines running in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the
plastic rear-engined aircraft.
John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by a line person at
the Monterey airport when he started his plane to takeoff to do some
touch and go practices. With the larger engine on his particular
aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for practice flights
remaining within the local pattern.
Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
around.
Pete Cowper
RV8 #81139
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2006
From: Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Pete,
Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to
define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,
such as an LLC? Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the
liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works
out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Cowper" <pcowper(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
>
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
> builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
> causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
> damages.
>
> ...........
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Good idea, but you can't. You no longer can even define the "mfgr" as
multiple people like you used to. Has to be a single person now.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul Trotter
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates
homebuilts?)
Pete,
Do you think that there is any advantage from a liability perspective to
define the manufacturer of a homebuilt as a corporate entity of some kind,
such as an LLC? Theoretically the purpose of an LLC is to limit the
liability of the stockholders, although I don't know how it actually works
out in reality, if a lawsuit were to occur.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Cowper" <pcowper(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
>
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If the
> builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture which
> causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that victim's
> damages.
>
> ...........
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 23, 2006
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
On 15:21:44 2006-04-23 pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper) wrote:
> A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of that aircraft. If
> the builder is found to be negligent in the design or manufacture
> which causes harm to another, they can be held liable for that
> victim's damages.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
> Please get the facts before throwing the term "frivolous litigation"
> around.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't do anything to contradict the
claim in the previous post, which was that no builders, themselves, had
ever been sued. Manufacturers of parts, yes. But no builders.
I'm not saying that the claim was valid, just that it hasn't been done yet.
Or does someone have some citations of cases where it's happened?
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)consolidated.net>
Subject: Re: Sensenich prop data
james frierson wrote:
>
>I recently put a new 80 pitch Sensenich propeller on my 160HP RV6A. I made
>a cross country trip and here are my initial results. At 8500 at
>approximately 60 degrees F, I was indicating 158 mph, 2530 rpms at WOT and
>1680 lbs. After doing the math that wound up being 185 mph TAS and the
>ground speed according to my GPS was 195 mph which would be about right as
>there should have been a slight 5-8 knot tail wind component according to
>Dans web sites wind calculator. After climbing to 9500 the results were
>still 158 mph indicated, 58deg F, 2500 rpm at WOT which works out to 188 mph
>TAS, 197 mph GPS ground speed. Again with the expected tail winds this was
>right on. This is the first time I have been able to fly at WOT and the CHTs
>and the EGTs were much more uniform.
>All in all the new prop is doing exactly as advertised. Note: These are not
>super picky test pilot figures, just what was noted during a flight from a
>fly-in with my lovely bride taking notes
>__________________
>Scott Frierson
>N162RV
>RV6A 160HP
>
>
>
>
>
sounds pretty good.......... Phil
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Builder's Liability
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Guys, guys, guys,
It's not about providing for the orphaned children. Most lawyers could care
less about the orphans; SHOW ME THE MONEY! You may find a lawyer that cares
about the orphans, but they gotta earn a living too. Here's how it works
(usually). A poor, destitute, (hopefully) taken-advantage of individual is
injured or killed while using a defective product foisted on an unsuspecting
public by a big, fat juicy manufacturer -- with mucho dinero and product
liability insurance. The altruistic lawyer comes to the rescue offering to
"help" the poor, destitute plaintiff(s) by taking the case without a
retainer (usually because the plaintiff has no money); they'll only take a
third (sometimes even more) of any court awarded damages or pre-trial
settlement. Our altruistic friend has researched the situation and knows
the evil manufacturer has cash, otherwise why waste the time?
Now let's consider the case of the "manufacturer" of an experimental
aircraft. A lawyer must be willing to bring a product liability suit
against an individual with no real liquid assets (you spent all your money
on your kitplane, right!?!) and (probably) no product liability insurance.
Assuming the plaintiff wins, a big assumption considering the plaintiff was
injured or killed flying an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft built in someone's garage
(do ya think they assumed some risk?), the plaintiff still has to collect a
judgement. If the jury awards my house, plane and cars -- my only real
assets -- the plaintiff has to hassle with selling them. If they're in a
hurry then those items won't sell at market value. And after all that
hassle, they only get a third of the total proceeds -- a few year's work for
maybe 30 or 40 grand (for the lawyer). No matter how much the lawyer cares
about the orphans, they're not gonna take a case like this. A lawyer stupid
enough to take a case like this won't make much of a legal attack.
I'll even suggest that if you carry a tail (liability insurance held beyond
ownership) you are MORE likely to get slapped with a suit since you (or your
insurance company) have MONEY!
On the other hand, if you've got millions in the bank, you might just
consider buying a plane instead of building one. Come to think of, that's
what I'd do!
Regards,
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: McCauley Governor Repair
Date: Apr 24, 2006
I'd like to hear about price or quality experiences from people who have had a
governor repaired. My new McCauley governor is seeping oil out the back so I
guess it needs new seals/gaskets and I need to find a good shop to do this work
as I am advised one can't do it without special tools. Letting it sit for 5
years before using it probably wasn't real good for it.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: stuff for sale
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
> Guys,
> I apologize for the spam to those who aren't interested in this type
> of thing.
> There was an auction last Saturday in Vincennes, IN and in a moment of
> weakness... I bought a Piper Tomahawk. Complete, no damage... minus
> the engine and prop and a few instruments.
> I plan to part it out. Please let me know if you know anyone who wants
> a wing, tail, small parts, fuselage.... or the whole darn thing.
> Geez..... a Tomahawk..... what will my friends say?
> I also bought a boatload of other stuff including (4) Beech 18
> rudders, a Beech 18 elevator, a Champ rudder, Stinson 108 aileron,
> misc. steel tubing rudders (Cub type.. not sure exactly what planes
> they came from), 7 Cessna wings, an Ercoupe wing, Cessna 150 lift
> struts, Stinson 108 leading edge wingtip metal. All of this stuff
> appears in useable condition, not new, and with the usual storage
> scuffs and scrapes. Some stuff is in perfect shape... some not so
> good. You'd have to be the judge.
> I also picked up old Piper cowl sides with the Piper emblems, Cessna
> 150 center console plastic covers and sun visors, a couple doors that
> look like old Piper or T-craft, an elevator from a Rockwell Commander,
> a couple Piper type hor. stab. pieces, a couple props.. unairworthy
> decorative types,10 Simpson voltmeters, several instrument panels with
> instrument cutouts, lots more, etc.... all this stuff is for sale.
> Email me OFFLIST if interested in any of this stuff. It will all go
> to Ebay if nobody is interested.
> Thanks,
> Vince Frazier
> 3965 Caborn Road
> Mount Vernon, IN 47620
> 812-464-1839 work
> 812-985-7309 home
> F-1H Rocket, N540VF
> http://vincesrocket.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Suffoletto" <suffy(at)starstream.net>
Subject: Wing tip paint prep
Date: Apr 24, 2006
The wing tips on my 7A came with some minor gel coat voids in the area of
the cut out for position lights. Other than that the gel coat is in good
shape. Is there something I should be doing to prep them for paint other
than roughing them up ?
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Builder's Liability
I have known of cases where the lawyer took the case because of friendship.
But, the best protection if for you personally NOT to own anything of value.
Your assests could be in a trust of other protected entity. Don't loose
control, just ownership.
You could sue me if you want, but I don't own a darn thing. The cost to
defend a lawsuit could in itself be more than one can afford to loose.
Prevent it!
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Mark & Lisa
Date: 04/24/06 06:46:23
Subject: RV-List: Builder's Liability
Guys, guys, guys,
It's not about providing for the orphaned children. Most lawyers could care
less about the orphans; SHOW ME THE MONEY! You may find a lawyer that cares
about the orphans, but they gotta earn a living too. Here's how it works
(usually). A poor, destitute, (hopefully) taken-advantage of individual is
injured or killed while using a defective product foisted on an unsuspecting
public by a big, fat juicy manufacturer -- with mucho dinero and product
liability insurance. The altruistic lawyer comes to the rescue offering to
"help" the poor, destitute plaintiff(s) by taking the case without a
retainer (usually because the plaintiff has no money); they'll only take a
third (sometimes even more) of any court awarded damages or pre-trial
settlement. Our altruistic friend has researched the situation and knows
the evil manufacturer has cash, otherwise why waste the time?
Now let's consider the case of the "manufacturer" of an experimental
aircraft. A lawyer must be willing to bring a product liability suit
against an individual with no real liquid assets (you spent all your money
on your kitplane, right!?!) and (probably) no product liability insurance
Assuming the plaintiff wins, a big assumption considering the plaintiff was
injured or killed flying an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft built in someone's garage
(do ya think they assumed some risk?), the plaintiff still has to collect a
judgement. If the jury awards my house, plane and cars -- my only real
assets -- the plaintiff has to hassle with selling them. If they're in a
hurry then those items won't sell at market value. And after all that
hassle, they only get a third of the total proceeds -- a few year's work for
maybe 30 or 40 grand (for the lawyer). No matter how much the lawyer cares
about the orphans, they're not gonna take a case like this. A lawyer stupid
enough to take a case like this won't make much of a legal attack.
I'll even suggest that if you carry a tail (liability insurance held beyond
ownership) you are MORE likely to get slapped with a suit since you (or your
insurance company) have MONEY!
On the other hand, if you've got millions in the bank, you might just
consider buying a plane instead of building one. Come to think of, that's
what I'd do!
Regards,
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Oshkosh (Airventure) camping
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Darwin Barrie and I have been working on setting up an area in Camp Scholler for
RVers of all stripes to camp. We're at the point where we need to know how
many people -- if anyone -- would be interested in having us reserve spots starting
on Friday July 21.
If you're interested, more information is available here (http://home.comcast.net/~bcollinsrv7a/eaa/index.htm), but we'll probably need to make a firm decision within the next 3 weeks.
Also, we're still looking for a few volunteers to help out with the RV Family Reunion
BBQ on Wednesday July 26th. Information is available at:
. And in the next month or so, we'll start take a head count to see if there's
enough interest to pull it off.
One more, unrelated thing, in Hotline this week, there was a survey that I'm conducting
to try to get a general picture of the insurance situation for RVers.
If you're interested, there's a blue box on the right side of the Hotline. Please
fill out the form. Everything's confidential and all that.
Bob Collins
St. Paul
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30348#30348
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Builder's Liability
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Yep, it's called 'judgment proofing' yourself. Ironically, a lot of lawyers
use this to protect themselves from judgments. If you live in a
non-community property state, it can be as simple as putting all your assets
except your airplane in your wife's name. Of course, you REALLY have to
trust your wife.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder's Liability
I have known of cases where the lawyer took the case because of friendship.
But, the best protection if for you personally NOT to own anything of value.
Your assests could be in a trust of other protected entity. Don't loose
control, just ownership.
You could sue me if you want, but I don't own a darn thing. The cost to
defend a lawsuit could in itself be more than one can afford to loose.
Prevent it!
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Builder's Liability
On 9:14:27 2006-04-24 UFOBUCK(at)aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 04/24/2006 10:54:48 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> Bruce(at)glasair.org writes:
>>
>> If you live in a
>> non-community property state, it can be as simple as putting all
>> your assets except your airplane in your wife's name.
>
> What happens if your wife gets sued ??
Nothing. She doesn't own the plane, she didn't build the plane, and she
wasn't (presumably) flying the plane. She's an unrelated third party.
Hence the "non-community property" statement above. I believe Canada falls
into this category.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
>posted by: pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
>
>A builder of a kit plane becomes a manufacturer of
>that aircraft. If the builder is found to be
>negligent in the design or manufacture which causes
>harm to another, they can be held liable for that
>victim's damages.
FIRST KIT PLANE BUILDERS DONT DESIGN THEIR
PLANE.
We all know that as the builder we are the SO CALLED
manufacture, SO what. However its not a product held
out by a company for the general public in mass. No
one is arguing there is liability, but it has to be
related to the building of the aircraft. There is NO
legal precedence of a builder being sued or loosing a
product liability case TO DATE. (deal with facts please.)
>A waiver of liability can be prepared and signed by
>the buyer and spouse, however that is only an
>agreement between those individuals. The agreement
>must not be found unconscionable and signed by both
>parties after an arms-length negotiation with each
>party having an equal bargaining position.
Are you a lawyer or legal expert. As I mentioned on
a previous post hold harmless agreements should work,
but then no one has needed to prove it in a law suits against
a BUILDER, since there has been ZERO to date.
>The new owner's minor children who lose their parent
>cannot legally enter into a contract, nor can a
>parent enter into a contract on their behalf,
>therefore the risk remains. The builder's negligent
>product has taken away the minor children's parental
>love, support and college tuition payments and
>someone gets to take over with their checkbook.
You are getting into the minutia of legalities and
WHAT IFS. My dog can sue you but he is not going to
win. Your FICTITIOUS scenarios prove nothing but you
have an imagination. Fiction does not make law, legal
precedence does. THE adult parent in your scenario
assumes all responsibility flying a homebuilt amateur
built plane the DOES NOT MEET Federal regulations. If
anyone is going to get sued it is the CHILD and
his parents estate for being an idiot and killing
himself and who ever else they killed or damaged. I have
a question, ARE YOU A Liberal? Do you think gun and
ammo makers should be sued when someone gets shot?
You are the kind of person I would NOT want to sell my
plane to, someone who looks to blame and not take
responsibility for their actions and choices.
>Likewise, if the negligently designed or manufactured
>airplane harms someone or property on the ground the
>waiver between the buyer and seller will not apply to
>their claims against the negligent builder.
Again SO WHAT. You are a chicken little sky falling
kind of guy and worry way to much. I mean that is cool
and works for you, however life has risks and
liabilities. I am surprised you fly at all. Flying
little planes is VERY risky. You can crash into an
elementary school. You are going to get an ulcer. If a
guy flies into a house with an amateur built plane you
or I built and sold because of HIS stupidity, than OUR
liability is nil, small. If sued the defense should be
straight forward. AGAIN THERE IS NO Legal Precedence.
THAT COUNTS A LOT. If you are going to give case
history or examples give real ones not made up
scenarios that have no REAL meaning.
>The victims will all come after the negligent builder
>who must then file a lawsuit against the buyer for
>indemnity and hope the buyer has enough money to pay
>any judgments rendered against the builder. Lots of
>up front legal expenses even with an attorney's fee
>provision.
LOOK you keep saying the victims WILL all come after
the negligent builder. WHY IS THE BUILDER NEGLIGENT?
YOU MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, Like WILL come after. Chance is
they will NOT sue at all. Why not sue the kit
manufacture of the plane parts? How about Lycoming?
Hartzell? I mean the list is long and your point is
full of conjecture, assumptions and over wrought
paranoia. Again your statements are sensational and
emotional from your overactive paranoid mind. Go on
FACTS and REAL risk, not what you can dream up can
happen. S#@t happens. All you can do is protect
yourself with documentation and agreements.
TO be clear however, if you build and sell a plane and
don't put the bolts in the rear spar you should get sued,
bankrupted and thrown in jail.
>A few years ago AVEMCO announced that they were
>offering continuing products liability for up to three
>years after sale for insured builders who had been
>covered by an AVEMCO policy the previous three years.
>Each year of insurance extended the after sale
>coverage for one year up to a maximum of three years
>coverage after sale. This was a wonderful
>Program for we homebuilders who decided to sell our
>aircraft. Regardless of the builder's ultimate
>liability or lack thereof, AVEMCO is paying for an
>attorney to defend the builder.
WOW good old AVEMCO wants to take your money. Gee
what great guys. Look they OFFER IT because they know
the liability is low and they can defend against it
easily. They dont offer it out of the goodness of
their heart. THEY ARE MAKING MONEY, Bottom line.
AVEMCO is all about MAKING MONEY. That is why
AVEMCO, for all intensive purposes has priced homebuilts
out of the (their) insurance market. They have dropped first
flight and under construction insurance for most
people. There premium of course is the highest and
they will viciously sue YOU, their customer to NOT pay
if they smell any breach in the conditions of the
insurance. WOW gee what great guys.
>AVEMCO's policy was the only economical products
>liability coverage available . . . without getting
>in line with Detroit automakers, passenger jet
>aircraft manufactures, cigarette manufacturers,
>makers of Vioxx, etc. to try to purchase a major
>manufacturer's product liability policy for your one
>single manufactured product. Hopefully after three
>years the new owner would learn to fly it safely or
>as a true EAA member make enough changes that none
>of your original work remains untampered with.
First of all jet manufactures like Boeing dont have
product liability insurance. They defend themselves
vigorously in court (and usually win) and are self
covered if you will. Now you are just stretching and
rambling about Vioxx. KEEP IT SIMPLE. Homebuilt plane,
well built, per planes, with a PLACARD THIS IS A
Amateur built plane and may not MEET federal
standards. If you sell your plane, KEEP DETAILED
records, pictures, logs and so on. AGAIN there is SOME
liability but its not likely the worst case scenarios you
dream up will happen. Also despite the cost of defending
yourself, it is a long shot they will win. Look if you
want to scrap your RV-8 when you loose your medical
(soon with your blood pressure) that's your business.
>John Denver's estate went after the manufacturer of
>the FUEL VALVE that failed leaving about 45 minutes
>of fuel in the tank the valve had been switched to
>when the plane was pulled from the water. In expert
>testimony it became apparent that the manufacturer
>knew of the corrosion problem and failed to issue
>proper lubricants specifications for periodic
>maintenance. Hundreds of the valves had failed from
>the same problem that caused John Denver's to
>corrode. The maker of the fuel valve was forced to
>finally issue proper lubrication maintenance
>guidelines to prevent the continuing problem as part
>of the settlement.
SO? They sued the valve maker NOT the builder. They
not only sued the valve maker Gould Electronics Inc.,
they sued Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co. who sold it.
I stand by my previous statement NO **BUILDER** HAS
BEEN SUED TO DATE THAT I OR MY LAWYER KNOW OF.
>The fuel valve had been mounted on the bulkhead over
>the pilot's shoulder by the builder as a safety
>modification to eliminate having fuel lines running
>in the front near the pilot's feet and crotch in the
>plastic rear-engined aircraft.
SO WHAT, What is your POINT?
>John Denver was observed switching the tank valve by
>a line person at the Monterey airport when he started
>his plane to takeoff to do some touch and go
>practices. With the larger engine on his particular
>aircraft he intentionally did not want full tanks for
>practice flights remaining within the local pattern.
Again SO WHAT? What is your point? AGAIN THE BUILDER
DID NOT GET SUED! (Even though he did a weird thing.)
You state the KNOWN facts of the accident as if you are
going some where with it. SO WHAT! HE KILLED HIMSELF.
>Please get the facts before throwing the term
>"frivolous litigation" around.
YOU HAVE NO FACTS. Everything I stated is correct.
There has NEVER been any lawsuits TO DATE against a
builder. Get YOUR facts straight. Also please have a
beer or calm down before writing. You are scaring
people for no reason. I hope you dont act like this
in the cockpit if you have an emergency. I think you
are going to have a massive heart attack and sue me.
You make ZERO points, made up a few fictitious
examples you dreamed up and prove nothing. AGAIN
LEAGAL precedence against BUILDERS is (zero) so that
your REAL liability risk is SMALL. Lawyers and judges
go by previous case history and precedence. That does
not mean your exposure is ZERO. I does NOT mean you
cant be sued, but it does mean that the chance is
small, and there are things to limit your exposure and
help defend yourself if the worse happens, as I
suggested. HOWEVER I am not going to give legal
advice, because I dont want to be sued for giving out
advice. My advice is get a lawyer when you sell your
plane.
When I sell my plane I will have independant inspections,
agreements written up. I will put a placard across the panel
saying USE AT YOUR OWN RISK (documented in the
agreement, log book and photos). Of course they will take
it off but that is not my problem since its documented in the
agreement it will not be removed (like pillow tags). I will make
log book entries, have excellent documentation. Could I still
get sued, sure, but for what? Bad design? I did not design it.
The case will be thrown out with my evidence.
>Pete Cowper
>RV8 #81139
Pete I suggest you never sell your plane I dont think
your heart will take it. :-) lol. Take care and fly
safe. We agree to disagree. Please stop making
stuff up like it has happened. It than gets spread
around that it did, than there is an issue where
none exist. All the liability issue is trumped up but
AOPA or Cessna because they want people the buy
a $200,000 C172 that has the performance of a
C-172. They would love to spread this urban legend.
HOMEBUILTS RULE!
George RV-7
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 24, 2006
From: chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Subject: Nose Wheel Questions
Listers,
I recently aquired a spare set of Cleveland 5:00 X 5" main wheels. I recently
spoke to the owner of Matco Engineering, the current supplier of Vans Nose wheel.
I asked him what differed between the product listed for our nose wheel and
his standard 5:00 X 5" wheel offering.
He stated that the only difference was the location of the hole in the wheel for
the inner tube. It seems that the Lamb tire and tube supplied by Vans locates
the exit of the valve stem in a different location, as compared to the main
tires.
I have three questions
#1 When did Vans switch from Cleveland to Matco for the nose wheel?
#2 Is there any weight difference between the Magnesium Cleveland wheel and the
aluminum Matco wheel?
#2a Has anyone used a 5:00 X 5" tire on their nose wheel?
#2b Did this require modification of the fork or wheel pant?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
Subject: McCauley Governor Repair
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Try John at SouthWest Aero (Seattle, WA, 206-575-8732). He was helpful a
couple years ago when I got a Woodward governor from him.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DAVID REEL [mailto:dreel(at)cox.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:05 AM
> To: rvlist
> Subject: RV-List: McCauley Governor Repair
>
>
> I'd like to hear about price or quality experiences from
> people who have had a governor repaired. My new McCauley
> governor is seeping oil out the back so I guess it needs new
> seals/gaskets and I need to find a good shop to do this work
> as I am advised one can't do it without special tools.
> Letting it sit for 5 years before using it probably wasn't
> real good for it.
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
Date: Apr 23, 2006
Aerocomposites quotes a 20 week delivery.
I have only seen 1 performance comparison between MT, Aerocomposites, and
Hartzel. All props were
within 6 mph top speed of each other. I have ordered the MT anyways
despite the 16 week wait.
Steve
RV7A
> Steve,
> Suggest you consider a Aero Composites carbon fiber prop. It we be on
> average 10 knots faster, same weight, has lightning protection, is
> considerably stronger etc. ad infinitum. Also more expensive, but worth
it.
> Delivery is usually 70 to 90 days.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Denny M. Dennison" <Denny(at)DennisonSoftware.com>
Subject: RV-8 Tail Kit For Sale --- Save 25%
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Complete, unassembled RV-8/8A empennage kit with plans and assembly manual from Van's Aircraft. Electric Elevator Trim. Van's price is $1775.00 for the same items. My price $1331. Located near Yosemite, California. Call (209) 878-0810. Pictures at http://www.dennisonmountain.com/pages/2/index.htm
Regards,
Denny
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RVer273sb(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Subject: (no subject)
Listers, I have a never been touched RV-8 tail kit for sale.
Complete with electric elevator trim kit.
Will sell for $1300 plus freight costs. Located in
Denver Colorado.
Stewart Bergner
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Is there a delay or is it just a quoted long lead time. From the above post it
looks like the MT will arrive 1 month sooner than the aerocomposite.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30434#30434
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
From: "Paul Richardson" <prichar(at)mail.win.org>
Date: Apr 24, 2006
One of my fellow aviators was taking off from a grass strip in our RV-6A when the
tail tie down contacted a clump of grass and was bent backward, cracking the
bottom rudder fairing. Anyone experience that, and do you have any good or bad
news as far as expected damage? Specifically, I'm wonder about how much is
really bent back where you can't see anything. He said there were no flight problems.
He didn't know it happened until postflight cleaning.
--------
Paul Richardson
RV-6A 106RV
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30440#30440
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
Guys,
I know others have commented on how much speed an RV picks up when fairings are
installed. Just for kicks though I took some data in my RV-8A without any fairings
and then again with wheel pants, gear leg and intersection fairings installed.
My data was taken with four-way GPS runs using one of the calculators
on Kevin Horton's website (the advantage of the four-way run vs. three-way is
that the spreadsheet gives you a sanity check to show how good/bad your data
is).
Anyway, at 4000' density altitude, power set to 24 squared and mixture 50 ROP,
I saw an 18 kt gain in TAS when when fairings were put on. I would imagine that
the speed increase would be less in a taildragger since there are only two
big gear legs/wheels to clean up. I wish now I'd taken some numbers at full power
and lower altitude...I bet the speed increase would have been at least 20
kts. Even so I've told several of my spam-can buddies and they can't believe
that fairings would make that much difference.
Cool!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D with O-360-A1A and blended Hartzell
Flying 29.2 hours now....
Guys,
I know others have commented on how much speed an RV picks up when fairings are
installed. Just for kicks though I took some data in my RV-8A without any fairings
and then again with wheel pants, gear leg and intersection fairings installed.
My data was taken with four-way GPS runs using one of the calculators on
Kevin Horton's website (the advantage of the four-way run vs. three-way is that
the spreadsheet gives you a sanity check to show how good/bad your data is).
Anyway, at 4000' density altitude, power set to 24 squared and mixture 50 ROP,
I saw an 18 kt gain in TAS when when fairings were put on. I would imagine that
the speed increase would be less in a taildragger since there are only two big
gear legs/wheels to clean up. I wish now I'd taken some numbers at full power
and lower altitude...I bet the speed increase would have been at least 20 kts.
Even so I've told several of my spam-can buddies and they can't believe that
fairings would make that much difference.
Cool!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D with O-360-A1A and blended Hartzell
Flying 29.2 hours now....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Milt,
Aero Composites will usually quote a longer lead time because most customers
are happier when the prop is available sooner than expected, rather than
later.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
Ps: I now have over 300 hours on my RV8, IO390 and Aero Composite 74"
Propeller. It is lighter and faster than my Hartzell
----- Original Message -----
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: MT Props delay
>
> Is there a delay or is it just a quoted long lead time. From the above
> post it looks like the MT will arrive 1 month sooner than the
> aerocomposite.
>
> --------
> Milt
> N395V
> F1 Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30434#30434
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: Vx, Vy, Best Glide for O-360/Hartzell
Guys,
I'm getting ready to do performance testing for Vx, Vy, and best glide speeds in
my RV-8A with O-360/Hartzell setup. I know there are some POH's floating around
out there with these numbers in them but I'm curious how many people have
measured this data carefully themselves? In particular to get good glide data
one would have to pull the mixture and ideally test with the prop stopped, prop
rotating with oil pressure & lever aft, and prop rotating without oil pressure
(fine pitch). This could take quite a few engine-off glide tests and the
numbers should be pretty close from one RV to the next...
Which brings me to my point: if there's any "consensus" on these speeds amongst
those of you who've taken good data it would be nice to have those numbers as
a starting point for my testing. For example if Vy is typically 80-90 kts I
would narrow the range of my test from 75 to 95 instead of a much broader span
of numbers.
It would be cool if someone made a spreadsheet collecting this kind of data from
different airplanes. Checkoway are you listening?
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D flying 29.2 hours now...
Guys,
I'm getting ready to do performance testing for Vx, Vy, and best glide speeds in
my RV-8A with O-360/Hartzell setup. I know there are some POH's floating around
out there with these numbers in them but I'm curious how many people have
measured this data carefully themselves? In particular to get good glide data
one would have to pull the mixture and ideally test with the prop stopped, prop
rotating with oil pressure lever aft, and prop rotating without oil pressure
(fine pitch). This could take quite a few engine-off glide tests and the numbers
should be pretty close from one RV to the next...
Which brings me to my point: if there's any "consensus" on these speeds amongst
those of you who've taken good data it would be nice to have those numbers as
a starting point for my testing. For example if Vy is typically 80-90 kts I would
narrow the range of my test from 75 to 95 instead of a much broader span
of numbers.
It would be cool if someone made a spreadsheet collecting this kind of data from
different airplanes. Checkoway are you listening?
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D flying 29.2 hours now...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Paul,
Shortly after my first few flights, while I was still trying to land my 6A
like a Cessna, I bent the tie down ring in the same way...grass strip, drop
on from 2 feet trying to flare. Anyway, I took the tiedown ring off and
straightened it, checked the rear bulkhead for damage,(found none) and built
a 2" diameter cupped recess into the rudder fairing for clearance for when
it happened again. When it happened again, I was pondering the newly bent
ring and fresh cracks in the fairing when an IA who I have trusted with my
life on more than one occasion, commented that it was entirely possible that
the next time it could cause rudder travel problems when I needed it the
most. I worked at fabricating some sort of skid/guard to protect the tiedown
ring but finally removed it altogether.
I have since learned to land without abusing my gear and have not missed
the tie down ring.
The stainless weldment which was on my 6A bent above the ring stem...saving
the bulkhead. Foolishly, I reinforced it before it was reinstalled. The
second time it bent in the same place in spite of the reinforcement, still
no bulkhead damage. Van designs them hell bent for stout. I am sure one
could come up with a ring and mount which would tear the tail off before it
bent...but I would rather spare the tail and lose the ring, and I don't have
to worry about the ring jambing the rudder if I slam it during takeoff.
Charlie Ennis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
Date: Apr 24, 2006
Can't speak for the later models and or the removable ones; however
the old original tail tie down was welded to mild steel and would
usually bend without causing any damage to the bulkhead on such
strikes. Simply remove three bolts, pound it straight, and re install.
If it were jamming the rudder, it could be realigned by lying behind
plane and using foot to shove it forward. This to get it home to do
above precision fix.
Voice of experience.
Denis Walsh
On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:35 PM, Paul Richardson wrote:
>
>
> One of my fellow aviators was taking off from a grass strip in our
> RV-6A when the tail tie down contacted a clump of grass and was
> bent backward, cracking the bottom rudder fairing. Anyone
> experience that, and do you have any good or bad news as far as
> expected damage? Specifically, I'm wonder about how much is really
> bent back where you can't see anything. He said there were no
> flight problems. He didn't know it happened until postflight cleaning.
>
> --------
> Paul Richardson
> RV-6A 106RV
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30440#30440
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean that it can't happen
tomorrow. Witness 9/11.
Steve Glasgow
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Hi Paul,
I made a spectacularly hard landing (cause was failure to fully check out
the effect of a propeller change on my rate of descent - it turned out it
was considerable {:>)) in my RV-6A. It was HARD and I ended up having to
eventually replace both main gear rods). When the bottom unexpectedly fell
out, I did managed to yank the stick back just before impact getting the
nose gear elevated to avoid tucking it under the belly. As a result, the
tail tie down and bottom rudder fairing contacted the runway. The tie-down
was bent back into the fiberglass rudder fairing, the fairing was abraded
where it contacted the runway.
On initial inspection that appeared to be the extent of the damage. After
getting the aircraft into the hangar and upon further inspection I
discovered that the rudder was slightly harder to turn than normal (even
after removing the bent tie down from its embedded position in the rudder
fairing). Upon closer examination, it was clear that the bearing races for
the rudder hinge fittings had been distorted by the impact. The hinge
fitting attached to the vertical stab being of thin 4130 had apparently
flexed under the landing impact but the stiffer end rod fittings attached to
rudder had not. As a result the bearing races had been distorted. The
hinge bolts were now rotating rather than staying fixed I had to replace
all three rudder hinge fittings.
Given that this happened to your friend on a grass strip, the impact was
undoubtedly less severe than mine - but have him check the rudder hinge
bolts to make certain they are not rotating when the rudder is moved.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Richardson" <prichar(at)mail.win.org>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:35 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
>
> One of my fellow aviators was taking off from a grass strip in our RV-6A
> when the tail tie down contacted a clump of grass and was bent backward,
> cracking the bottom rudder fairing. Anyone experience that, and do you
> have any good or bad news as far as expected damage? Specifically, I'm
> wonder about how much is really bent back where you can't see anything. He
> said there were no flight problems. He didn't know it happened until
> postflight cleaning.
>
> --------
> Paul Richardson
> RV-6A 106RV
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30440#30440
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: Re: MT Props delay
From: marknlisa(at)hometel.com
Last year at S-n-F I spent about 20 mins at the Aerocomposites booth. The
gentleman manning the booth spent the majority of the time showing me why
the Aerocomposites prop is better than MT's prop. No wood, no screws,
more carbon fiber, etc. Then I went to MT's booth and asked the gentleman
there to respond to the comments from the Aerocomposites guy.
The MT guy paused for a moment, then said it wasn't his company's policy
to bash competitor's products. He suggested if I was concerned about the
quality of MT props I should take a walk around the ramp. He said I'd
find that about 90% of the aircraft used by the aerobatic performers
during the show are equipped with MT props.
Things that make you go hmmmm.....
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
Aerocomposites quotes a 20 week delivery.
I have only seen 1 performance comparison between MT, Aerocomposites,
and Hartzel. All props were within 6 mph top speed of each other.
I have
ordered the MT anyways despite the 16 week wait.
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: Gary Childers <cowboy286(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Lycoming 0320 E2D For Sale
Lycoming 0320 E2D For Sale. Currently running in my 68 C177 Cardinal. $12,500
OBO outright
1100 SMOH 500 STOH 130 Since Bottom overhault. 3,000 TT. Complete Logs. Previous
owners did top then did bottom later as part of oil pump replacement. This
engine is strong and will be sold complete with mags, vaccume pump, starter,
alternator, and carb. Removing engine for 180hp conversion. Call 517-449-8142
or email cowboy286(at)sbcglobal.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: Re: RV-6A Tail Tie Down
In a message dated 4/24/06 9:02:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
c.ennis(at)insightbb.com writes:
> but I would rather spare the tail and lose the ring, and I don't have
> to worry about the ring jambing the rudder if I slam it during takeoff.
>>>>
I welded a piece of 5/16" or 3/8" stainless steel rod (not sure which size)
about 12" long to a stainless plate that is located in the same location as the
ring mount. The rod is bent aft just below the plate and extends rearward at
a slight downward angle, maybe 20-25 degrees from the rudder bottom.
Originally, I had bent the rear end of it into a loop that I used to tie-down the
rear for the climb test before first flight.
After about 20 hours I cut the loop off with about 5" of the rod remaining
aft of the plate, then fabricated a small clamp out of stainless. It is simply
a rectangular block with a hole near one end that slips over the end of the
"tail skid". A slot is cut from the opposite end of the block to the hole, then
another hole is drilled through ninety degrees from the first- this passes
through the slot. On one side of the slot, the hole is tapped for the same size
tie down ring used for the wings, and the other side of the slot is bored out
to clear the threads. Slip the block over the rod, insert the tie-down ring
on the un-threaded side and screw it in until it clamps down on the rod.
Easily removed and stored in the plane. You have tail protection without risk
of
damaging the ring and without the ring hanging in the breeze, I'm sure it gets
me at least .0005 additional knots due to less drag...
I've got some fotoz of this gizmo somewhere, but not on this machine- if the
above description is really confusing I could dig one up and forward...
>From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips - N51PW, almost 300 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 25, 2006
I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something significant about
my heavy left wing condition but I'm having trouble getting it. So, here goes.
In level flight, I'm applying full right manual aileron trim to stay level
with the left tank empty. On the ground, I've established a visual picture of
the neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to the wingtips by measurement
with a digital level. So, when I look in the air, I expect to see the left
aileron displaced down from neutral and the right aileron displaced up. What
I actually see is the reverse situation. The left aileron is displaced up
and the right down. What does this mean?
I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to neutral trail,
and found no vertical displacement errors in the ailerons themselves where they
attach to the wing spar using the wing template. So, according to Van's instructions
posted on their web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage.
Could there be some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly reversed
in-flight position? Something that should be corrected before squeezing?
Or should I just follow Van's advice and squeeze til it flys level?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: "D.Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Don't do anything until you try it without the manual trim connected
(assuming the spring system). The trim system can mask the symptoms and
could actually be causing the problem.
Dave -6 SoCal
EAA Technical Counselor
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something significant about
my heavy left wing condition but I'm having trouble getting it. So, here goes.
In level flight, I'm applying full right manual aileron trim to stay level
with the left tank empty. On the ground, I've established a visual picture of
the neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to the wingtips by measurement
with a digital level. So, when I look in the air, I expect to see the
left aileron displaced down from neutral and the right aileron displaced up.
What I actually see is the reverse situation. The left aileron is displaced up
and the right down. What does this mean?
>
>I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to neutral trail,
and found no vertical displacement errors in the ailerons themselves where
they attach to the wing spar using the wing template. So, according to Van's
instructions posted on their web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage.
Could there be some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly reversed
in-flight position? Something that should be corrected before squeezing?
Or should I just follow Van's advice and squeeze til it flys level?
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "SteinAir, Inc." <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Is the ball centered or are you flying with the ball off center somewhat?
This is the 1st thing to look at with heavy wings. If you are skidding
through the air somewhat, that can cause a surprisingly heavy wing. This
can and is caused by either the Vertical Stab needing adjustment, or more
commonly the gear legs fairings being mis-aligned. If that isn't the cause,
then you need to get to "squeezing" the light wing down and start fixin. If
that doesn't work, then the only solution left is to remount the ailierons
with a new hinge and place them up or down as needed.
Cheers,
Stein.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DAVID REEL
>Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM
>To: rvlist
>Subject: RV-List: Interpreting Aileron Position
>
>
>I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something
>significant about my heavy left wing condition but I'm having
>trouble getting it. So, here goes. In level flight, I'm applying
>full right manual aileron trim to stay level with the left tank
>empty. On the ground, I've established a visual picture of the
>neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to the wingtips by
>measurement with a digital level. So, when I look in the air, I
>expect to see the left aileron displaced down from neutral and the
>right aileron displaced up. What I actually see is the reverse
>situation. The left aileron is displaced up and the right down.
>What does this mean?
>
>I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to
>neutral trail, and found no vertical displacement errors in the
>ailerons themselves where they attach to the wing spar using the
>wing template. So, according to Van's instructions posted on
>their web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage. Could
>there be some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly
>reversed in-flight position? Something that should be corrected
>before squeezing? Or should I just follow Van's advice and
>squeeze til it flys level?
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
If the left tank is empty, then to compensate, the left aileron would be
UP to compensate. In essence, the left wing needs less lift - up
aileron - (less weight) and the right wing more lift - down aileron -
(more weight with the fuller tank). So what you are seeing is what I
would expect.
I'm not clear about what you mean by 'full right aileron trim' - which
way are you moving the trim lever?
I agree with Dave Bristol - disconnect the manual trim and fly before
doing anything.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A
I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something significant
about my heavy left wing condition but I'm having trouble getting it.
So, here goes. In level flight, I'm applying full right manual aileron
trim to stay level with the left tank empty. On the ground, I've
established a visual picture of the neutral trail position of the
ailerons relative to the wingtips by measurement with a digital level.
So, when I look in the air, I expect to see the left aileron displaced
down from neutral and the right aileron displaced up. What I actually
see is the reverse situation. The left aileron is displaced up and the
right down. What does this mean? I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up
the yaw, set the flaps to neutral trail, and found no vertical
displacement errors in the ailerons themselves where they attach to the
wing spar using the wing template. So, according to Van's instructions
posted on their web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage.
Could there be some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly
reversed in-flight position? Something that should be corrected before
squeezing? Or should I just follow Van's advice and squeeze til it flys
level?
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 25, 2006
On 25 Apr 2006, at 10:51, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something
> significant about my heavy left wing condition but I'm having
> trouble getting it. So, here goes. In level flight, I'm applying
> full right manual aileron trim to stay level with the left tank
> empty. On the ground, I've established a visual picture of the
> neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to the wingtips by
> measurement with a digital level. So, when I look in the air, I
> expect to see the left aileron displaced down from neutral and the
> right aileron displaced up. What I actually see is the reverse
> situation. The left aileron is displaced up and the right down.
> What does this mean?
>
> I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to
> neutral trail, and found no vertical displacement errors in the
> ailerons themselves where they attach to the wing spar using the
> wing template. So, according to Van's instructions posted on their
> web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage. Could there be
> some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly reversed
> in-flight position? Something that should be corrected before
> squeezing? Or should I just follow Van's advice and squeeze til it
> flys level?
1. Disconnect the trim springs and try it.
2. Remove the gear leg fairings and fly it, to confirm they are not
causing the problem.
3. Level the aircraft side-to-side on the ground, and be sure your
ball is centered. If not, slot the holes on the TC (or EFIS, or
where ever the ball is), and rotate it to center the ball. Then, in
flight, use rudder as required to center the ball. Add a rudder trim
tab if required.
4. Carefully inspect the aileron trailing edges. Are the trailing
edge radii and contours the same on each side?
5. How is the upper wing skin contour ahead of the ailerons? If you
lay a straight edge on the wing skin, is there a difference in
contour from one side to the other? If so, this could affect the air
pressure on top of the aileron, and cause an aileron deflection.
Keep us posted.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
My heavy left wing seems to be caused by a little twist in the flap, so
you might want to check that I also don't have much faith in either
digital levels or the wing template. Make sure the tooling holes in the
wing ribs and aileron ribs are lined up. That's the way we do it on the
-7's and since the wing is the same it should work on your -8 too.
And just in case nobody mentioned this... try it without the trim hooked
up. :-)
If I had to guess I think the aileron is trying to tell you that your
airplane is straight and the aileron trim is off.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB
http://www.myrv7.com
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something significant about
my heavy left wing condition but I'm having trouble getting it. So, here goes.
In level flight, I'm applying full right manual aileron trim to stay level
with the left tank empty. On the ground, I've established a visual picture of
the neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to the wingtips by measurement
with a digital level. So, when I look in the air, I expect to see the
left aileron displaced down from neutral and the right aileron displaced up.
What I actually see is the reverse situation. The left aileron is displaced up
and the right down. What does this mean?
>
>I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to neutral trail,
and found no vertical displacement errors in the ailerons themselves where
they attach to the wing spar using the wing template. So, according to Van's
instructions posted on their web site, I'm at the trailing edge squeezing stage.
Could there be some other factor that would account for the unexpectedly reversed
in-flight position? Something that should be corrected before squeezing?
Or should I just follow Van's advice and squeeze til it flys level?
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Recently I was prescribed a medication that will prevent me from acting as
PIC. Unfortunately this will have to be a lifetime commitment. I am building
a RV9-A and I am approximately 8-10 month from finishing the project. You
probably understand the total devastation this development created in my
life (close to depression). I loved the building process and was looking
forward to flying my airplane. Now all these dreams are wiped out. Perhaps
light sport plane is still an option. I was not an active contributor to the
list since I am a first time builder and my philosophy is to keep silent if
you can't add better advice than already offered. All I can say is that this
list and other RV lists were invaluable aid to me. A big hart felt thank to
all of you. I am writing this to see if any of you guys know someone who
might be interested in taking over the project. I would like to get as much
of my basic cost back as possible. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
My kit had the quick build wing and fuselage, have the firewall forward kit
and a new Lycoming O-320 engine. 90% of the riveting and 100% of the priming
is done, the canopy is assembled. Essentially from here on it is an assembly
project. I have full documentation on everything including cost. Thanks for
any help.
John
RV9-A
jszantho(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oliver Washburn" <ollie6a(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
John
Sorry to hear of your problem, but if you enjoy building why don't you
finish the plane. I think you would recoup more money from a finished plane
than the kit and you will have the enjoyment of seeing it take shape. I also
have had medical problems but I am lucky in that my wife also has a license
so I take her along and keep right on a flyin, I also have a Rans S7S kit on
order that is to be shipped May 8th so I can fly alone under the LSA rules.
Hang in there.
Ollie 6A Central Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
>
> Recently I was prescribed a medication that will prevent me from acting as
> PIC. Unfortunately this will have to be a lifetime commitment. I am
> building
> a RV9-A and I am approximately 8-10 month from finishing the project. You
> probably understand the total devastation this development created in my
> life (close to depression). I loved the building process and was looking
> forward to flying my airplane. Now all these dreams are wiped out. Perhaps
> light sport plane is still an option. I was not an active contributor to
> the
> list since I am a first time builder and my philosophy is to keep silent
> if
> you can't add better advice than already offered. All I can say is that
> this
> list and other RV lists were invaluable aid to me. A big hart felt thank
> to
> all of you. I am writing this to see if any of you guys know someone who
> might be interested in taking over the project. I would like to get as
> much
> of my basic cost back as possible. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
> My kit had the quick build wing and fuselage, have the firewall forward
> kit
> and a new Lycoming O-320 engine. 90% of the riveting and 100% of the
> priming
> is done, the canopy is assembled. Essentially from here on it is an
> assembly
> project. I have full documentation on everything including cost. Thanks
> for
> any help.
>
>
> John
>
> RV9-A
>
> jszantho(at)gmail.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
I agree. Stay with the project! Finish it, see it fly, then move over to
the LSA if you can. We all are behind you!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Washburn
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
John
Sorry to hear of your problem, but if you enjoy building why don't you
finish the plane. I think you would recoup more money from a finished plane
than the kit and you will have the enjoyment of seeing it take shape. I also
have had medical problems but I am lucky in that my wife also has a license
so I take her along and keep right on a flyin, I also have a Rans S7S kit on
order that is to be shipped May 8th so I can fly alone under the LSA rules.
Hang in there.
Ollie 6A Central Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
>
> Recently I was prescribed a medication that will prevent me from acting as
> PIC. Unfortunately this will have to be a lifetime commitment. I am
> building
> a RV9-A and I am approximately 8-10 month from finishing the project. You
> probably understand the total devastation this development created in my
> life (close to depression). I loved the building process and was looking
> forward to flying my airplane. Now all these dreams are wiped out. Perhaps
> light sport plane is still an option. I was not an active contributor to
> the
> list since I am a first time builder and my philosophy is to keep silent
> if
> you can't add better advice than already offered. All I can say is that
> this
> list and other RV lists were invaluable aid to me. A big hart felt thank
> to
> all of you. I am writing this to see if any of you guys know someone who
> might be interested in taking over the project. I would like to get as
> much
> of my basic cost back as possible. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
> My kit had the quick build wing and fuselage, have the firewall forward
> kit
> and a new Lycoming O-320 engine. 90% of the riveting and 100% of the
> priming
> is done, the canopy is assembled. Essentially from here on it is an
> assembly
> project. I have full documentation on everything including cost. Thanks
> for
> any help.
>
>
> John
>
> RV9-A
>
> jszantho(at)gmail.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com>
Subject: Re: Vx, Vy, Best Glide for O-360/Hartzell
Date: Apr 25, 2006
> I'm getting ready to do performance testing for Vx, Vy, and best glide
> speeds in my RV-8A with O-360/Hartzell setup. I know there are some POH's
> floating around out there with these numbers in them but I'm curious how
> many people have measured this data carefully themselves? In particular
> to get good glide data one would have to pull the mixture and ideally test
> with the prop stopped, prop rotating with oil pressure & lever aft, and
> prop rotating without oil pressure (fine pitch). This could take quite a
> few engine-off glide tests and the numbers should be pretty close from one
> RV to the next...
> Which brings me to my point: if there's any "consensus" on these speeds
> amongst those of you who've taken good data it would be nice to have those
> numbers as a starting point for my testing. For example if Vy is
> typically 80-90 kts I would narrow the range of my test from 75 to 95
> instead of a much broader span of numbers.
> It would be cool if someone made a spreadsheet collecting this kind of
> data from different airplanes. Checkoway are you listening?
> Thanks,
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D flying 29.2 hours now...
Mark, I did quite a bit of testing for Vy in my RV-8 in the course of doing
prop climb rate testing. Interestingly I found a slightly different Vy for
each prop, but if you stay within the 115-125 mph (99-107 kts) range you
will find your number. 120-122 mph (103-105 kts) was the sweet spot so be
sure and check there.
I always meant to check my glide with the prop turning and with it not, but
never did.
Randy Lervold
www.rv-3.com
www.rv-8.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Why don't you talk to the AOPA and your physician to see if there is an
alternative drug you can take and still keep your medical. If that fails,
petition the FAA for a waiver, or just keep your mouth shut, the AME only
knows what you tell him.
In any case, you'll get more for your collection of parts if you turn it
into an airplane.
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 Oliver Washburn
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
John
Sorry to hear of your problem, but if you enjoy building why don't you
finish the plane. I think you would recoup more money from a finished plane
than the kit and you will have the enjoyment of seeing it take shape. I also
have had medical problems but I am lucky in that my wife also has a license
so I take her along and keep right on a flyin, I also have a Rans S7S kit on
order that is to be shipped May 8th so I can fly alone under the LSA rules.
Hang in there.
Ollie 6A Central Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
>
> Recently I was prescribed a medication that will prevent me from acting as
> PIC. Unfortunately this will have to be a lifetime commitment. I am
> building
> a RV9-A and I am approximately 8-10 month from finishing the project. You
> probably understand the total devastation this development created in my
> life (close to depression). I loved the building process and was looking
> forward to flying my airplane. Now all these dreams are wiped out. Perhaps
> light sport plane is still an option. I was not an active contributor to
> the
> list since I am a first time builder and my philosophy is to keep silent
> if
> you can't add better advice than already offered. All I can say is that
> this
> list and other RV lists were invaluable aid to me. A big hart felt thank
> to
> all of you. I am writing this to see if any of you guys know someone who
> might be interested in taking over the project. I would like to get as
> much
> of my basic cost back as possible. Any advice would be greatly
> appreciated.
> My kit had the quick build wing and fuselage, have the firewall forward
> kit
> and a new Lycoming O-320 engine. 90% of the riveting and 100% of the
> priming
> is done, the canopy is assembled. Essentially from here on it is an
> assembly
> project. I have full documentation on everything including cost. Thanks
> for
> any help.
>
>
> John
>
> RV9-A
>
> jszantho(at)gmail.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: <erichweaver(at)cox.net>
Subject: identification of fuel level sender type
Cc: RV-List Digest Server
My rv-7A kit came to me half finished from a builder who passed away before he
could finish. I now need some help identifying the type of fuel level sender
that was installed in my tanks. From memory, there is a small circular metal
plate at the wing root rib, with five bolt heads around the perimeter of the
plate. Cant quite picture it, but there is some sort of additional connector
and/or wiring point in the center of the plate. Can anyone tell from this poor
description whether this is a float or capacitive type sender, or is more info
needed? A bonus would be any info on where to find associated info for wiring
the sender to my GRT EFIS.
regards
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: identification of fuel level sender type
That is the float sender. The capacitance has no external parts except
a BNC connector the internal plates.
What GRT EIS do you have? (2000, 4000, 6000)
Dick
erichweaver(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>My rv-7A kit came to me half finished from a builder who passed away before he
could finish. I now need some help identifying the type of fuel level sender
that was installed in my tanks. From memory, there is a small circular metal
plate at the wing root rib, with five bolt heads around the perimeter of the
plate. Cant quite picture it, but there is some sort of additional connector
and/or wiring point in the center of the plate. Can anyone tell from this poor
description whether this is a float or capacitive type sender, or is more info
needed? A bonus would be any info on where to find associated info for wiring
the sender to my GRT EFIS.
>
>regards
>
>Erich Weaver
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: identification of fuel level sender type
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Yep, it's a float...should be a Stewart Warner 385B-F. Sorry, can't help
with the GRT EFIS.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
erichweaver(at)cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:58 PM
Cc: RV-List Digest Server
Subject: RV-List: identification of fuel level sender type
My rv-7A kit came to me half finished from a builder who passed away
before he could finish. I now need some help identifying the type of
fuel level sender that was installed in my tanks. From memory, there is
a small circular metal plate at the wing root rib, with five bolt heads
around the perimeter of the plate. Cant quite picture it, but there is
some sort of additional connector and/or wiring point in the center of
the plate. Can anyone tell from this poor description whether this is a
float or capacitive type sender, or is more info needed? A bonus would
be any info on where to find associated info for wiring the sender to my
GRT EFIS.
regards
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: identification of fuel level sender type
Date: Apr 25, 2006
If I understand you correctly, then it is highly likely a float type sender.
The capacitance senders are flat plates -inside- the tank, and an unobstructed
coverplate with no provision for a sender poking out.
----- Original Message -----
From: erichweaver(at)cox.net
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Cc: RV-List Digest Server
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: identification of fuel level sender type
My rv-7A kit came to me half finished from a builder who passed away before he
could finish. I now need some help identifying the type of fuel level sender
that was installed in my tanks. From memory, there is a small circular metal
plate at the wing root rib, with five bolt heads around the perimeter of the
plate. Cant quite picture it, but there is some sort of additional connector
and/or wiring point in the center of the plate. Can anyone tell from this poor
description whether this is a float or capacitive type sender, or is more
info needed? A bonus would be any info on where to find associated info for wiring
the sender to my GRT EFIS.
regards
Erich Weaver
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RVer273sb(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: rv8 tail kit for sale
I have an untouched RV-8 tail kit for sale.
With electric trim option. $1300 plus freight.
Located in the Denver Co. area.
Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
I agree with the others , go ahead and finish the plane.
DON'T ask the FAA for anything !!!!!!!! Once they get a hint of any
problem, you're duck soup !! As the other guy said , check the AOPA website
and
you can get a list of approved medicines. Work with you own doctor to switch
to an approved one. Use it for awhile before you go to an AME for your
medical.
Try to get an AME recommended by other pilots.
I had a problem with a partially clogged small artery and sent letters from
my internal medicine specialist and cardiologist saying I was OK. I sent 2
pounds of paper to the FAA about 3 weeks before the LSA was approved , with
the medical change sneaked in. They denied my medical and now I have a 62
hour RV-4 sitting in my hangar. NO LSA for me either.
Don't trust the FAA for anything !!
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Joe Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Write your congressmen. They can update the laws the FAA works under.
-Joe
On Apr 25, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Oldsfolks(at)aol.com wrote:
> DON'T ask the FAA for anything !!!!!!!! .....
> They denied my medical and now I have a 62
> hour RV-4 sitting in my hangar. NO LSA for me either.
> Don't trust the FAA for anything !!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Dave,
Six years ago when I first flew my RV8 I experienced a similar problem.
After trying every remedy under the sun, I finally noticed that the outer
aeleron hinge positioned the aeleron about 1/8 inch lower than the inboard
hinge next to the flap. I had tried all of the other remedies to no avail.
After many discussions with everybody who had an opinion, it was decided
that I was experiencing "flow separation" on that aeleron. I got a new
hinge from Vans and very carefully fitted it so that the top aeleron surface
was perfectly even with the wing trailing edge. this
corrected the problem and I have flown hands off ever since. I now have
1300 hours and still enjoy every minute.
Good luck,
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:51 AM
Subject: RV-List: Interpreting Aileron Position
>
> I have a feeling my ailerons are trying to tell me something significant
> about my heavy left wing condition but I'm having trouble getting it. So,
> here goes. In level flight, I'm applying full right manual aileron trim
> to stay level with the left tank empty. On the ground, I've established a
> visual picture of the neutral trail position of the ailerons relative to
> the wingtips by measurement with a digital level. So, when I look in the
> air, I expect to see the left aileron displaced down from neutral and the
> right aileron displaced up. What I actually see is the reverse situation.
> The left aileron is displaced up and the right down. What does this mean?
>
> I've checked wing incidence, trimmed up the yaw, set the flaps to neutral
> trail, and found no vertical displacement errors in the ailerons
> themselves where they attach to the wing spar using the wing template.
> So, according to Van's instructions posted on their web site, I'm at the
> trailing edge squeezing stage. Could there be some other factor that
> would account for the unexpectedly reversed in-flight position? Something
> that should be corrected before squeezing? Or should I just follow Van's
> advice and squeeze til it flys level?
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Mark,
Welcome to the world of faster airplanes. A giant engine helps, but a
CLEAN, LIGHT airplane always wins the speed contests. I have an RV8 and
during my initial testing, I experimented with various gear leg to fuselage
fairings and found that a considerable speed increase is available at this
junction. An easy way to test the efficiency of the fairing is to spray
some waste oil on the fuselage in the area where the landing gear attachs,
and then go up an fly the airplane. If the fairing is efficient, you will
see perfectly shaped oil lines on the side of the fuselage depicting the
airflow (just like the pictures in the technical magazines). If the flow
lines are erattic, you know you need to try some variations in shape of the
fairing. As a general statement, the upper gear to fuse fairing will be
more efficient when it has a lead is between 1 and 2 inchs long with a long
,narrow taper to the gear leg. A side note: some RV8s experience a sliight
tail shudder when stall landing. If the above fairing is correct, the tail
shudder disappears.
Good luck with your project and hope to see you and others in the Air
Venture Races.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
>
> Guys,
> I know others have commented on how much speed an RV picks up when
> fairings are installed. Just for kicks though I took some data in my
> RV-8A without any fairings and then again with wheel pants, gear leg and
> intersection fairings installed. My data was taken with four-way GPS runs
> using one of the calculators on Kevin Horton's website (the advantage of
> the four-way run vs. three-way is that the spreadsheet gives you a sanity
> check to show how good/bad your data is).
> Anyway, at 4000' density altitude, power set to 24 squared and mixture 50
> ROP, I saw an 18 kt gain in TAS when when fairings were put on. I would
> imagine that the speed increase would be less in a taildragger since there
> are only two big gear legs/wheels to clean up. I wish now I'd taken some
> numbers at full power and lower altitude...I bet the speed increase would
> have been at least 20 kts. Even so I've told several of my spam-can
> buddies and they can't believe that fairings would make that much
> difference.
> Cool!
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D with O-360-A1A and blended Hartzell
> Flying 29.2 hours now....
>
>
> Guys,
>
>
> I know others have commented on how much speed an RV picks up when
> fairings are installed. Just for kicks though I took some data in my RV-8A
> without any fairings and then again with wheel pants, gear leg and
> intersection fairings installed. My data was taken with four-way GPS runs
> using one of the calculators on Kevin Horton's website (the advantage of
> the four-way run vs. three-way is that the spreadsheet gives you a sanity
> check to show how good/bad your data is).
>
>
> Anyway, at 4000' density altitude, power set to 24 squared and mixture 50
> ROP, I saw an 18 kt gain in TAS when when fairings were put on. I would
> imagine that the speed increase would be less in a taildragger since there
> are only two big gear legs/wheels to clean up. I wish now I'd taken some
> numbers at full power and lower altitude...I bet the speed increase would
> have been at least 20 kts. Even so I've told several of my spam-can
> buddies and they can't believe that fairings would make that much
> difference.
>
>
> Cool!
>
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D with O-360-A1A and blended Hartzell
> Flying 29.2 hours now....
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: vft(at)aol.com
Subject: Stuff for sale
I've started to clean out some of the stuff accumulated in my shop.
Falcon vertical card compass, mounted in panel but never used. --$100
F1 MK1 engine mount-- free to anyone who will pay shipping
Lancair 4P engine mount (TSIO-550)-- same as above
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Melbourne (FL) Rocket Factory
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Sorry to hear that Bob, did you have an angioplasty to clear the problem?
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 Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:47 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
I agree with the others , go ahead and finish the plane.
DON'T ask the FAA for anything !!!!!!!! Once they get a hint of any
problem, you're duck soup !! As the other guy said , check the AOPA
website and
you can get a list of approved medicines. Work with you own doctor to
switch
to an approved one. Use it for awhile before you go to an AME for your
medical.
Try to get an AME recommended by other pilots.
I had a problem with a partially clogged small artery and sent letters from
my internal medicine specialist and cardiologist saying I was OK. I sent 2
pounds of paper to the FAA about 3 weeks before the LSA was approved , with
the medical change sneaked in. They denied my medical and now I have a 62
hour RV-4 sitting in my hangar. NO LSA for me either.
Don't trust the FAA for anything !!
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 25, 2006
From: William Scaringe <bscaringe(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: For Sale: ENR Headset, 3X Rivet Gun, Misc. Tools
Please see the following items that I posted on Ebay:
Noise Reduction Headset, DRE-6000
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4635038942
Tony Bingelis Book Set (4 books)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=8060162187
3X Rivet Gun, U.S. Industrial Tool
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613777680
3.5" Rivet Sets, Cupped AN470
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613778633
AN470 solid aluminum aircraft rivets, 1lb 3-3, .5lb 3-4
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=4635043751
7 Bucking Bars
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613765837
New Fluting Pliers with Nylon Jaws (flute aluminum parts without marking them)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613772961
3.5" Offset Hand Seamer
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613774520
Pop Air Rivet Gun Pneumatic Riveter with 1000 rivets
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=7613776848
15 Warbird Videos
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=9130185151
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
I may get flamed for this, but...............
Don't tell the FAA squat. Do you feel safe?
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I agree with the others , go ahead and finish the plane.
> DON'T ask the FAA for anything !!!!!!!! Once they get a hint of any
> problem, you're duck soup !! As the other guy said , check the AOPA website
and
> you can get a list of approved medicines. Work with you own doctor to switch
> to an approved one. Use it for awhile before you go to an AME for your
> medical.
> Try to get an AME recommended by other pilots.
> I had a problem with a partially clogged small artery and sent letters from
> my internal medicine specialist and cardiologist saying I was OK. I sent 2
> pounds of paper to the FAA about 3 weeks before the LSA was approved , with
> the medical change sneaked in. They denied my medical and now I have a 62
> hour RV-4 sitting in my hangar. NO LSA for me either.
> Don't trust the FAA for anything !!
>
> Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
> A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
> Charleston,Arkansas
> Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Stuff for sale
Date: Apr 25, 2006
Hello. If it's a 2.25 inch compass I'll take it.
Thanks,
Jim Bowen
RV-8
Lake Tapps, Wa.
jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com
>From: vft(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com, rv-list(at)matronics.com,
>f1rocketbuilder(at)hotmail.com
>Subject: RV-List: Stuff for sale
>Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:27:23 -0400
>
>
>I've started to clean out some of the stuff accumulated in my shop.
>
>Falcon vertical card compass, mounted in panel but never used. --$100
>F1 MK1 engine mount-- free to anyone who will pay shipping
>Lancair 4P engine mount (TSIO-550)-- same as above
>
>
>Danny Melnik
>F1 #25
>Melbourne (FL) Rocket Factory
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Who would support a candidate that wants the FAA to be removed from 3rd class medicals.
So much is clincal evaluation that the FAA will second guess.
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2/min with
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Garrett Bray" <braygarrett(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Make sure you don't try to get your medical renewed and are denied. You then
can not fly sport pilot rules until you get the reason for the denial
resolved with the FAA. I am taking meds that would preclude me from passing
a medical, but I haven't gone to renew mine. If I decide to fly certified
aircraft in the future I will be able to at least fly sport pilot rules.
Good luck.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Subject: Re: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Dick ...
Can you expand on the description starting with:
As a general statement, the upper gear to fuse fairing will be
> more efficient when it has a lead is between 1 and 2 inchs long with a
> long
> ,narrow taper to the gear leg.
Pictures would be good if you have them.
Thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A Electrical
>
> Mark,
> Welcome to the world of faster airplanes. A giant engine helps, but a
> CLEAN, LIGHT airplane always wins the speed contests. I have an RV8 and
> during my initial testing, I experimented with various gear leg to
> fuselage
> fairings and found that a considerable speed increase is available at this
> junction. An easy way to test the efficiency of the fairing is to spray
> some waste oil on the fuselage in the area where the landing gear attachs,
> and then go up an fly the airplane. If the fairing is efficient, you will
> see perfectly shaped oil lines on the side of the fuselage depicting the
> airflow (just like the pictures in the technical magazines). If the flow
> lines are erattic, you know you need to try some variations in shape of
> the
> fairing. As a general statement, the upper gear to fuse fairing will be
> more efficient when it has a lead is between 1 and 2 inchs long with a
> long
> ,narrow taper to the gear leg. A side note: some RV8s experience a
> sliight
> tail shudder when stall landing. If the above fairing is correct, the
> tail
> shudder disappears.
> Good luck with your project and hope to see you and others in the Air
> Venture Races.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Oldsfolks(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
I had a small artery with 'estimated' 60% blockage - FAA allows 50%. The
cardiologist's letter stated that I wasn't likely to be incapicitated. FAA
didn't even consider that ??
I have been driving my class 8 diesel tractor,riding our Goldwing motorcycle
and anything else I would normally do. I had done the 40 hours
testing(Including +4 & -3.5 aerobatic tests) on the RV-4 and was flying just fine
until
my medical was expiring. I appealed the decision and was denied again.
The RV-4 will be sold and more time will be spent motorcycling - I'll see if
I can wear out a Goldwing !!
Keep flying guys - while you can and Good luck.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X
A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
Charleston,Arkansas
Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Apr 26, 2006
This is a touchy subject for me as I am going through much the same thing. A lot
of folks have suggested to me that I lie to the FAA and try to squeeze through
a medical.... but let me ask you this. I have bouts of vertigo (Meniere's Disease).
Do you really want me flying formation with you?
Look, I get the whole "big bad federal government" thing, but the first step any
pilot should consider when getting this news isn't "how can I fool the federal
government and keep flying, " it's : am I safe to fly? Would I put my kids
in the back seat and my wife in the front and launch?
If you're not sure, then you already know the answer. Alternately, this is a
long discussion you can and should have with your doctor (but definintely not
your AME).
Not telling the FAA is a silly suggestion -- imho -- because you've already told
the person responsible for making the decision. You. Your medical records are
on file, your prescriptions can be traced. and your insurance isn't going to
pay for your careening into a schoolyard if it's determined you flew with a
known disqualifying condition. And LSA was never meant to allow you to either.
Can you get away with it? Maybe. Lots of folks will tell you you can. And you might
even be able to rationalize it by telling yourself you're just striking a
blow for pilot's freedom; that's it's really not about flying safely. But let's
dig a little deeper. Where do you draw the line? An epileptic seizure? A
debilitating bout of vertigo? Narcolepsy?
Would you get into a plane as a passenger with one control stick and a pilot with
no license and no training? Why not? They're just exercising their freedom.
I'm with you. I probably will never fly again and there's nothing right now more
depressing than that. I'm searching for ways to do so, but lying and breaking
the law isn't an option for me. Why? Because if I do, I can never again look
in the mirror and say I'm a responsible pilot. I can never advocate for us to
fly safer and fly smarter and lead by example. And those are important to me.
I can try to kid myself and say it's just me striking a blow against the bureacracy.
Except for one thing. I know that it's not safe for me to fly. And I know
it's not safe for YOU for me to fly.
I can read the FAR as well as anyone and I can see I have a disqualifying condition.
I KNOW that I'm required to ground myself and I KNOW I'm required to tell
the FAA...not at my next medical. Right now.
Do I like it? Hell no. It changes the entire rest of my life, including big plans
for how my wife and I were to spend our retirement. But that's what being an
adult is about in this world. Making sound decisions.
So what do I recommend? I can't tell you what to do. I can only tell you what
I'm doing. I'm going to keep building, and I may accelerate my building, basically
for the same reason someone else posted: I finished plane is worth more
than an unfinished one. If I'm never going to fly it but sell it when it's done...I
can load more goodies into it, because I won't have to pay for it. Someone
else will.
In the meantime, I'm not giving up. I'm still going to investigate what alternatives
are out there -- medically speaking -- that might allow me to one day fly
again. But I'm not going to count on it. And I'm not going to risk anyone's
life -- including my own -- or leave my estate stuck with a $1 million dollar
payout because I wanted to fly illegally.
One of the reasons I started the RV Builder's Hotline, is it's one way to still
be a part of the RV community, even though I probably won't have an RV. That's
why I'll probably build another RV when this one is done. Maybe folks will
stop when they're flying via Minnesota and give me a ride in THEIR RV sometime.
Hey, it's not the way I thought things were going to work out, but that's still
a hell of a lot better than 99% of the people on this planet.
We homebulders build becaue we love challenges. Well...now I've got one. And you've
got one too. Meet it the same way you approach meeting the building challenge
-- like a professional.
YMMV.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30824#30824
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Subject:
From: marknlisa(at)hometel.com
Cc: jszantho(at)gmail.com
John,
Please, please, please listen to the good advice from the group and finish
your project. You'll never forgive yourself if you don't build that -9
and see it fly, especially after all the hard work you've invested. The
worst-case is you can't renew your FAA medical and someone has to fly with
you. There are two individuals in my area in that situation and they fly
regularly -- all they need is a qualified pilot to ride along and log the
time. Somehow they never seem to have trouble finding a volunteer, even
on short notice!
Definitely contact AOPA for help with your medical issue vis-a-vis the
FAA. You might be surprised what you can get waived if you follow the
right procedure. AOPA has been helping folks with these problems for a
long time and they have a staff of experts for just that purpose. If it
turns out that you and AOPA feel that your medical condition will never
pass FAA muster, then DON'T APPLY, REPEAT, DON'T APPLY! Once medically
disqualified for a Private Certificate you can't get a Sport Pilot
Certificate either. Proceed cautiously!
Again, please reconsider your decision to sell your unfinished kit. One
of the first major symptoms of depression is cessation of activities that
one loves and brings one pleasure -- YOU CAN BEAT THIS! Nothing will help
you feel better than seeing that -9 flying, and knowing that YOU finished
it!
Hoping you stick it out,
Mark Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
Recently I was prescribed a medication that will prevent me from acting as
PIC. Unfortunately this will have to be a lifetime commitment. I am building
a RV9-A and I am approximately 8-10 month from finishing the project. You
probably understand the total devastation this development created in my
life (close to depression). I loved the building process and was looking
forward to flying my airplane. Now all these dreams are wiped out. Perhaps
light sport plane is still an option. I was not an active contributor to the
list since I am a first time builder and my philosophy is to keep silent if
you can't add better advice than already offered. All I can say is that this
list and other RV lists were invaluable aid to me. A big hart felt thank to
all of you. I am writing this to see if any of you guys know someone who
might be interested in taking over the project. I would like to get as much
of my basic cost back as possible. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
My kit had the quick build wing and fuselage, have the firewall forward kit
and a new Lycoming O-320 engine. 90% of the riveting and 100% of the priming
is done, the canopy is assembled. Essentially from here on it is an assembly
project. I have full documentation on everything including cost. Thanks for
any help.
John
RV9-A
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Bob,
You raise a good point about responsibility resting with the pilot.
This is particularly so if one starts taking liberties with the rules.
While not suggesting that one ignores rules, limits, requirements, I
would suggest that anyone contemplating doing so take a long hard look
at the medical circumstances. Certainly, in your case, Meniere's
disease, with an acute attack which may be fully unpredictable, can
render a person absolutely unable to fly an aircraft.
On the other hand, a poster that has 60% blockage when the FAA may allow
50%, and with the 'best-guess' from his cardiologist that it is not a
problem, and he's exercising, eating right to lower the overall risk,
may well reach a different conclusion about being a miscreant. In the
end, it's all about risk management--with your health and with the
FAA...both are important.
Regarding the poster with the 60% blockage, I'd suggest that he redo the
test and quiz his Cardiologist about the '60% rating'...is he sure it's
60%? It feels like 50% and sure looks like 50% to you? There is a high
degree of subjectivity in many of these measurements and diagnosis. The
Cardiologist may have 10% to give. Then again, it was maybe closer to
70% and he already 'gave' as much as he can. It's worth asking.
Chuck Jensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 9:35 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Medical in trouble
>
>
> This is a touchy subject for me as I am going through much the same
thing.
> A lot of folks have suggested to me that I lie to the FAA and try to
> squeeze through a medical.... but let me ask you this. I have bouts of
> vertigo (Meniere's Disease). Do you really want me flying formation
with
> you?
>
> Look, I get the whole "big bad federal government" thing, but the
first
> step any pilot should consider when getting this news isn't "how can I
> fool the federal government and keep flying, " it's : am I safe to
fly?
> Would I put my kids in the back seat and my wife in the front and
launch?
>
> If you're not sure, then you already know the answer. Alternately,
this
> is a long discussion you can and should have with your doctor (but
> definintely not your AME).
>
> Not telling the FAA is a silly suggestion -- imho -- because you've
> already told the person responsible for making the decision. You.
Your
> medical records are on file, your prescriptions can be traced. and
your
> insurance isn't going to pay for your careening into a schoolyard if
it's
> determined you flew with a known disqualifying condition. And LSA was
> never meant to allow you to either.
>
> Can you get away with it? Maybe. Lots of folks will tell you you can.
And
> you might even be able to rationalize it by telling yourself you're
just
> striking a blow for pilot's freedom; that's it's really not about
flying
> safely. But let's dig a little deeper. Where do you draw the line?
An
> epileptic seizure? A debilitating bout of vertigo? Narcolepsy?
>
> Would you get into a plane as a passenger with one control stick and a
> pilot with no license and no training? Why not? They're just
exercising
> their freedom.
>
> I'm with you. I probably will never fly again and there's nothing
right
> now more depressing than that. I'm searching for ways to do so, but
lying
> and breaking the law isn't an option for me. Why? Because if I do, I
can
> never again look in the mirror and say I'm a responsible pilot. I can
> never advocate for us to fly safer and fly smarter and lead by
example.
> And those are important to me.
>
> I can try to kid myself and say it's just me striking a blow against
the
> bureacracy. Except for one thing. I know that it's not safe for me to
fly.
> And I know it's not safe for YOU for me to fly.
>
> I can read the FAR as well as anyone and I can see I have a
disqualifying
> condition. I KNOW that I'm required to ground myself and I KNOW I'm
> required to tell the FAA...not at my next medical. Right now.
>
> Do I like it? Hell no. It changes the entire rest of my life,
including
> big plans for how my wife and I were to spend our retirement. But
that's
> what being an adult is about in this world. Making sound decisions.
>
> So what do I recommend? I can't tell you what to do. I can only tell
you
> what I'm doing. I'm going to keep building, and I may accelerate my
> building, basically for the same reason someone else posted: I
finished
> plane is worth more than an unfinished one. If I'm never going to
fly it
> but sell it when it's done...I can load more goodies into it, because
I
> won't have to pay for it. Someone else will.
>
> In the meantime, I'm not giving up. I'm still going to investigate
what
> alternatives are out there -- medically speaking -- that might allow
me to
> one day fly again. But I'm not going to count on it. And I'm not going
to
> risk anyone's life -- including my own -- or leave my estate stuck
with a
> $1 million dollar payout because I wanted to fly illegally.
>
> One of the reasons I started the RV Builder's Hotline, is it's one way
to
> still be a part of the RV community, even though I probably won't have
an
> RV. That's why I'll probably build another RV when this one is done.
> Maybe folks will stop when they're flying via Minnesota and give me a
ride
> in THEIR RV sometime. Hey, it's not the way I thought things were
going to
> work out, but that's still a hell of a lot better than 99% of the
people
> on this planet.
>
> We homebulders build becaue we love challenges. Well...now I've got
one.
> And you've got one too. Meet it the same way you approach meeting the
> building challenge -- like a professional.
>
> YMMV.
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30824#30824
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 26, 2006
The flying community is truly unique. You realize you have friends you never
knew existed. Thank you guys, but expressing this in words will never be
enough. Your words of encouragement mean everything for me. I put into this
project heart and sole and you are right it would be a shame to quit
something I enjoyed so much. As you suggested I will try to go on. I am
still in the dumper, but maybe just working on my RV project will help. I
have talked to AOPA and EAA but they could not come up with any suggestions.
The sad part of this is that I feel I am not a danger to anyone on the
ground or in the air. Except for the medication I have to take I could fly.
Obviously I do not know if my condition will become more serious in the
future. If that would happen I would ground myself without FAA's help.
According to two doctors I will have to stay on the pills for life and these
are the mildest of the bunch. I wish the FAA would be less bureaucratic
(even the word is a mouthful). Many of your suggestions were really helpful
and I will try to follow up on them. I hope these discussions will be
helpful for others now or in the future, they sure helped me. Thanks
again!!!
John
RV9-A
Firewall Forward
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Apr 26, 2006
jszantho(at)gmail.com wrote:
> The flying community is truly unique. You realize you have friends you never
> knew existed.
John, Best of luck to you and working on the RV will, at times, be tough... or
bittersweet is perhaps a better word. The minute you sell it, you lose touch with
the RV community. Losing flying privileges is bad....losing a community is
worse.
What you and I -- and others -- are going to have to figure out...is how to build
an RV and get it flight tested and hangared etc., when it isn't going to be
hours. Doesn't make sense buying or renting a hangar.... so we'll need that RV
FLYING community to really help us out.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=30857#30857
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
John, do you mind sharing what the medication is? Only so we know if it
is
ever mentioned to any of us.
thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The Fourth Annual Rebel's Bluff Fly-In
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
Posted on behalf of Les Featherston. I can vouch that he puts on a real
nice fly-in. Be there or be square. Vince
*************************************************************************
***********************************************************************
The Fourth Annual Rebel's Bluff Fly-In
Les Featherston will host the Fourth Annual Rebel's Bluff Fly-In on
Saturday, May 6th at 10:00 A.M. until 5:00 P.M. Come on over for a great
day of flying and visiting pilots from all over the Midwest. All
aircraft are welcome and we should see some very nice homebuilt RV's,
lovely antiques, Cessna, Beech, Piper, etc. And I wouldn't by surprised
by a few "surprise" ships.
Rebels Bluff Airstrip is located 2 miles NNE of Mt. Vernon Municipal
Airport (2MO) and 2 =BD miles west of the town of Mt. Vernon, Missouri.
The lat/longs are N37 06.1 W93 52.2. The runways 14/32 are 2,200'of very
nice sod. Right traffic is preferred to RW14. Use UNICOM 122.9, and
announce "Mt. Vernon Traffic, landing at Rebel's Bluff". AvGas is
available.
The best news is food. "The ladies at FBC will be serving lunch as a
fund raiser" and promise some scrumptious items on the menu.
Your R.S.V.P. really helps with the planning and is greatly appreciated.
Last but not least, the Rain Date is Saturday, May 13th. See Ya'll at
the 'Bluff.
Les Featherston #17-4666-4663 (home), #-425-3595 (cell)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:
Good advice. If it is something that might take a special issuance,
there are folks such as Virtual Flight Surgeons that supposedly
facilitate getting all the right data to the FAA and through their
system. I've been grounded with kidney stone in the past and AOPA was
very helpful in getting my medical restored once the condition had
passed.
Quoting marknlisa(at)hometel.com:
>
> John,
>
> Please, please, please listen to the good advice from the group and finish
> your project. You'll never forgive yourself if you don't build that -9
> and see it fly, especially after all the hard work you've invested. The
> worst-case is you can't renew your FAA medical and someone has to fly with
> you. There are two individuals in my area in that situation and they fly
> regularly -- all they need is a qualified pilot to ride along and log the
> time. Somehow they never seem to have trouble finding a volunteer, even
> on short notice!
>
> Definitely contact AOPA for help with your medical issue vis-a-vis the
> FAA. You might be surprised what you can get waived if you follow the
> right procedure. AOPA has been helping folks with these problems for a
> long time and they have a staff of experts for just that purpose.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Szantho B. Szantho" <jszantho(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Tim Bryan asked me about the medication I take. If any of you guys want to
know, send me an e-mail and I will send it to your mailbox.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cleaveland Aircraft Tool" <mail(at)cleavelandtool.com>
Subject: New fuel valve handle
Date: Apr 26, 2006
We have designed a new fuel handle for those using Van's stock fuel
valve.
They will be available in a few weeks for $47.
See our website for more info or to pre-order at:
http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=3DRVFS1
Mike
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, Iowa 50036
515-432-6794
mike(at)cleavelandtool.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
>posted by: "Steve Glasgow"
>
>Just because something has never happened before doesn't mean that
>it can't happen tomorrow. Witness 9/11.
No KIDDING! Daaaaa,
AND you invoke 9/11 somehow to make a point. Shame on you! Not
only is that distastefully its ridiculous.
Look your chance of flying your RV into the ground and killing yourself
is way way way greater than being sued, so my suggestion is dont sell
your plane or even fly at all, it is safer.
No one said that you could NOT be sued but the risk is small with some
common sense precautions. When talking legal issues you have to be
rational and think in terms of RULE OF LAW. Get a Lawyer, specifically
an aviation lawyer who understands product liability; ask them to get a
perspective. Just get educated and cover your A, that's all.
Let me repeat for you, legal precedence indicates the sensational fear of
lawsuit is OVER hyped, although it is possible. Any thing is possible.
Heck, Piper got sued for a 65 year old Piper Cub because the plane did
not have shoulder harness. Of course the idiot pilot took off on a closed
runway and hit a truck. So sure someone could sue you, but their chance
of winning is small if you take some precautions, that others and myself
have spoke to which I will not repeat. Get smart not concerned and anxious.
If someone does a low level loop in a plane you built, that has changed
hands three times, crashes, dies, your liability is small. Yes you may
need to defend yourself, but unless they can prove you contributed to it,
than the case is weak. You could counter sue them for a frivolous lawsuit.
Now if the wing folded because you did not put the rivets in, than yes
you are liable and should be.
Van was sued for a factory RV-8 in-flight wing failure. Van prevaliled.
This was a factory plane with an employee and the employees friend.
A professional waiver could have all kinds of legal stipulations to cover
your A. I am not going to give advice here. GET A GOOD LAWYER.
Spend the time, money and effort to cover yourself per your legal
council, and you can sell a RV or whatever with confidence and
reduced risk of lawsuit, which statistically from legal precedence
is already small (small but not non-existent). You have to weigh the
risk with good counsel. I don't recommend a homemade waiver.
Nuff Said. George
---------------------------------
at 1¢/min.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 26, 2006
After digesting all the replies, for which I thank you all, I got this
idea from Phil Birkelbachs. I have adjusted the ailerons so that they
are both at the same angle of attack on the assumption that they would
be equally balanced in flight. Right now, when one is lined up with
it's flap, the other lines up with the other flap. Seeing that they are
indicating a roll to the left by their in-flight position even though
I'm applying considerable roll right stick input to stay level tells me
they're not balanced in this position. What I should be doing is
decreasing the angle of attack on the powerful aileron, the left one,
and increasing the angle of attack of the right one to get an in-flight
balance position with the ailerons closer to the known neutral in-trail
position. This will look funny on the ground because they won't line up
with the flaps but something I can't see or measure is changing the
airflow each sees & I should adjust to that.
Is this reasonable? I think I'll just adjust one aileron or the other a
little 'out of line' to see how this works.
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2006
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Why don't we all pitch in a dollar and get a good waiver written that we
could all use. Why should we each spend the money to have these things
drawn up.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "charles heathco" <cheathco(at)junct.com>
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
Date: Apr 26, 2006
As for me, if I dont feel right, I dont fly, and if Im feeling ok, but
not up to snuff, i will fly, but wont tack anyone else up with me. I
think this is a paoint that Faa is missing. I would assume this is the
way most of us think. If I dont feel right, I dont fly, Yes?? Charlie
Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com>
Subject: Re: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Jerry,
Call me at 920 619 6968 and I will explain in detail. It would take a week
to type out an explanation on email.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Datapoint for Fairings Speed Improvement
>
> Dick ...
> Can you expand on the description starting with:
>
> As a general statement, the upper gear to fuse fairing will be
>> more efficient when it has a lead is between 1 and 2 inchs long with a
>> long
>> ,narrow taper to the gear leg.
>
> Pictures would be good if you have them.
>
> Thanks ...
> Jerry Grimmonpre'
> RV8A Electrical
>
>
>>
>> Mark,
>> Welcome to the world of faster airplanes. A giant engine helps, but a
>> CLEAN, LIGHT airplane always wins the speed contests. I have an RV8 and
>> during my initial testing, I experimented with various gear leg to
>> fuselage
>> fairings and found that a considerable speed increase is available at
>> this
>> junction. An easy way to test the efficiency of the fairing is to spray
>> some waste oil on the fuselage in the area where the landing gear
>> attachs,
>> and then go up an fly the airplane. If the fairing is efficient, you
>> will
>> see perfectly shaped oil lines on the side of the fuselage depicting the
>> airflow (just like the pictures in the technical magazines). If the flow
>> lines are erattic, you know you need to try some variations in shape of
>> the
>> fairing. As a general statement, the upper gear to fuse fairing will be
>> more efficient when it has a lead is between 1 and 2 inchs long with a
>> long
>> ,narrow taper to the gear leg. A side note: some RV8s experience a
>> sliight
>> tail shudder when stall landing. If the above fairing is correct, the
>> tail
>> shudder disappears.
>> Good luck with your project and hope to see you and others in the Air
>> Venture Races.
>> Dick Martin
>> RV8 N233M
>> the fast one
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 26, 2006
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
In a message dated 4/26/2006 4:50:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com writes:
Why don't we all pitch in a dollar and get a good waiver written that we
could all use. Why should we each spend the money to have these things
drawn up.
================================
They're readily available. Would you like one?
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 780hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Medical in trouble
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Apr 26, 2006
When dealing with medication, a lot of times what the FAA is looking is side effects.
We all know, of course, how important it is to "stay ahead of" our machines.
That's not easy sometimes with a clear head. Some of these meds are aimed
directly at the brain and are intended to slow or change the signals it gets.
It's very hard to stay ahead of a machine at that point. Even though we might
feel "fine."
The perfect solution? Meds with no side effects. But then they probably wouldn't
work.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=31003#31003
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 27, 2006
Don't you dare shame me.
The idea of this forum is to make helpful suggestions about various
topics, not to shame people because they post a message you personally
do not agree with.
Steve Glasgow
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Mysterious Oil Leak
Date: Apr 27, 2006
Whenever I remove the nosewheel fairing cap to check the security of my
RV8A nose gear leg fairing, I notice a ring of oil collected atop the
nosewheel rotation limit stop. I can't think of any possible source for
oil down here. Grease yes, but not oil. Has anyone observed a similar
mystery? Has anyone got a clue?
Dave Reel - RV8A 10 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Belue, Kevin" <KBelue@drs-tem.com>
Subject: Mysterious Oil Leak
Date: Apr 27, 2006
I've noticed when I change oil, if I get any oil in the nose gear mount (the
boxed section where the nose gear goes into the engine mount) oil will
appear at the bottom of the gear leg for a long time. I spray engine cleaner
in this boxed area and spray it with a high pressure hose to clean it out.
Kevin D. Belue
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 27, 2006
From: "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mysterious Oil Leak
I have seen something similar on a friends RV9A.
I suspect there is some low pressure/suction in the area that is pulling a
drop or two from the engine compartment down the faring. Have not
investigated further.
James
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 27, 2006
From: sportav8r(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Mysterious Oil Leak
Ditto. The spilled engine oil weeps out of the rivet holes all along the fairing
as well as out the bottom, onto the pant. Disgusting looking, but really cool
how it shows the air streamlines ;-)
I try to avoid spilling any oil into the gear/engine mount for this reason, but
when cleaning the high pressure screen, it's hard not to drop some down there.
-Stormy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 27, 2006
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Here is the text of the one I have used. Now let's all parse the language
and argue about how to make it better and impenetrable by clever lawyers.
As
Former President Clinton said, define "is". ;o)
EXPERIMENTAL-AMATEUR BUILT AIRCRAFT SALES AGREEMENT
THIS FORM SUPPLEMENTS, BUT DOES NOT REPLACE, FAA AC FORM 8050-2. THE FAA
REGISTRATION-NUMBER OF THIS AIRCRAFT IS NXXXX. THIS AIRCRAFT WAS CONSTRUCTE
D IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS SERIAL NUMBER XXXXX, AND IS A FACSIMILE OF AN AIRCRAF
T
KNOWN AS AN XX-XX. THE AIRCRAFT IS DESCRIBED IN GREATER DETAIL ON SHEET 2
OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The experimental-amateur built aircraft being sold is not designed and/or
built to meet any defined standards of airworthiness as are =E2=80=9CStanda
rd Aircraft=E2=80=9D
. This aircraft does not have an FAA Form 317 Statement of Conformity on
file, as there are no FAA approved data with which to conform. In the case
of
experimental-amateur built aircraft, the registered owner(s) is/are the
experimenter(s). Most parts of this aircraft were not built in permanent j
igs
and, as such, may not be directly interchangeable with like parts on other
aircraft of the same facsimile. The original builder of this experimental
aircraft may possess a repairman=E2=80=99s certificate for purposes of main
taining and
performing condition inspections on this aircraft only, although he/she may
not
be a professional mechanic nor possess an FAA A&P license. FAA records lis
t
the registered owner(s) as the manufacturer of an experimental-amateur buil
t
aircraft as the manufacturer and, as manufacturer, the registered owner(s)
is/are free to make any modifications or changes to the design as they see f
it,
although notification of major alterations have and must be made to the FAA
.
This aircraft is an example of the builder/owner=E2=80=99s creative abilit
y and was
built for their education and recreation. Upon sale, the newly registered
owner of this experimental-amateur built aircraft in fact will be considere
d
its new manufacturer. As of the date of sale, the new owner becomes
responsible for its aerodynamic and structural function and/or concept. Th
e new
owner is responsible for the performance, fit and/or purpose of every part/
piece
on the aircraft.
No warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, is made to the
Purchaser or anyone else as to the merchantability or airworthiness of NXXX
X. This
experimental-amateur built aircraft is sold on an =E2=80=9CAS IS, WHERE-IS a
nd WITH
ALL FAULTS PRESENTLY INCORPORATED=E2=80=9D basis.
Flying poses certain inherent risks that can result in serious injury or
death. Any person who pilots or acts as passenger in this experimental air
craft
does so at his/her own risk. Because of the sale hereof and in receipt of
other good and valuable consideration, the Purchaser/new Owner hereby Waive
s
and Releases the seller(s) from any and all Demands, Claims of every kind,
including but not limited to, Liability, Breach of Warranty or Negligence,
which the Purchaser, owner , pilot, and/or passenger in this experimental
aircraft may have. This Release and Waiver is binding on all Heirs, Persona
l
Representatives and Assigns of the Purchaser, Subsequent Owners, Pilots and
/or
Passengers.
As Purchaser/new Owner, I accept the terms of this Sales Agreement for the
experimental-amateur built aircraft identified above and agree to be bound
by
the above stipulations. I agree that any subsequent sale of this aircraft
will be made with the same disclosures, agreements and assurances listed ab
ove
as a minimum.
Name of Purchaser/new Owner:
Name of Purchaser/new Co-Owner:
Purchaser=E2=80=99s Address:
Co-Owner=E2=80=99s Address:
Signature of Purchaser:
Signature of Co-Owner:
As Seller(s), on this XXth day of Month, XXXX in the County of XXXX, State
of XX, I/We do hereby sell, grant, transfer, release and deliver all rights
,
title, interest, possession and responsibility for/to such experimental
aircraft to the above Purchaser and acknowledge the receipt of a Cashier
=E2=80=99s Check in
the amount of $XXXX.00, payable to the Seller. No sales tax was collected
pursuant to State Law and this becomes the responsibility of the Purchaser.
Total Hours Engine and Airframe at time of sale XXX.X
Name of Seller/Owner:
Name of Seller/Co-Owner:
Seller/Owner=E2=80=99s Address:
Seller/Co-Owner=E2=80=99s Address:
Signature of Seller/Owner:
Signature of Co-Owner:
Witness:
Signature of Witness:
This Bill of Sale is to be signed by all parties. The FAA dropped the
requirement for notarizing in 1972. Seller retains the original and a cop
y is
given to the Purchaser/new Owner. Seller sends a copy of the original docu
ment
to the FAA along with Cancellation of Registration FAA AC FORM 8050-73.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Interpreting Aileron Position
Date: Apr 27, 2006
On 26 Apr 2006, at 18:33, DAVID REEL wrote:
>
> After digesting all the replies, for which I thank you all, I got
> this
> idea from Phil Birkelbachs. I have adjusted the ailerons so that
> they
> are both at the same angle of attack on the assumption that they
> would
> be equally balanced in flight. Right now, when one is lined up with
> it's flap, the other lines up with the other flap. Seeing that
> they are
> indicating a roll to the left by their in-flight position even
> though
> I'm applying considerable roll right stick input to stay level
> tells me
> they're not balanced in this position. What I should be doing is
> decreasing the angle of attack on the powerful aileron, the left
> one,
> and increasing the angle of attack of the right one to get an in-
> flight
> balance position with the ailerons closer to the known neutral in-
> trail
> position. This will look funny on the ground because they won't
> line up
> with the flaps but something I can't see or measure is changing the
> airflow each sees & I should adjust to that.
>
> Is this reasonable? I think I'll just adjust one aileron or the
> other a
> little 'out of line' to see how this works.
If you are talking about adjusting the length of the various aileron
pushrods, as a way to fix your roll trim problem, I believe you are
wasting your time. If you have the aileron trim in neutral, and you
let go of the stick, the ailerons will move to the position that
balances the forces on the left and right ailerons. If you screw
around with the pushrods, you might move both ailerons up a bit, or
down a bit, but I don't believe you will make any significant
difference the relative positions between the two ailerona.
Go ahead, try it if you want. But don't be surprised if it doesn't
fix your problem.
The aileron positions are a symptom of the real problem. They are
not the problem. You need to find the underlying problem, rather
than trying to treat the symptoms.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Morrow" <DanFM01(at)butter.toast.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 27, 2006
In my earlier e-mail on this topic I stated that I had read that the builder
was named as a defendant in the John Denver case. Mr. gmcjetpilot expressed
doubt and asked for references. After searching around I found one on the
EAA website. The following two paragraphs are copied from the website.
"In today's litigious society, there is, perhaps, some justification for the
anxiety homebuilders express about theoretical financial loss arising out of
their efforts. Experience, to date, does not support these fears. I checked
carefully with other aviation attorneys and insurers, and the number of
lawsuits that have actually been litigated against homebuilders is
minuscule.
"Moreover, at the time of this writing there doesn't appear to be any
instance in which an actual case was filed, tried, reduced to judgment, and
collected against a homebuilder. There is one pending arising out of the
John Denver crash, but that case is focused against the fuel valve
manufacturer and its retailer, who appears to have coverage, although the
builder is also being sued."
The lawsuit was later settled out of court. News reports I have read don't
give a complete list of the parties to the settlement, so I cann't say how
the builder, Adrian Davis, fared. Details of the settlement were
apparently not released, as is common in such cases.
You can reach the source for the above quotation as follows:
Navigate to members.eaa.org. Login--you must be an EAA member to do this.
Follow the following links: building,homebuiders
HQ->Selling/Buying,Articles->Part 5.
Or for a short cut navigate to members.eaa.org. Login and enter "john
denver" in the search box with the quotes. Click on the link to Part 5
Liability etc. Scroll down near the bottom to find the quoted text.
The EAA web site has some extensive articles on legal issues for
homebuilders. In particular if you follow the first method of navigation
above, you get to page with links to 8 or 9 legal topics related to the
homebuilder. One of them, Part 3, discusses waivers and releases. The
author is sceptical of their value.
The long and short of all this seems to me to be like this:
1. There is no legal impediment to prevent lawsuits against a homebuilder
before or after he sells the aircraft.
2. Lawsuits after the sale are rare. The lawyers don't have a way of
counting the number of lawsuits, however, so it's impossible to quantify
the risk.
3. If you are Daddy Warbucks with lots of dough and own a homebuilt, you
might consult a lawyer.
4. For the rest of us the risks are low compared with the ordinary risks of
aviation.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Pleasants" <jpleasants(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 27, 2006
Fellow listers:
I hate to get involved in this, but I can't hold off any longer.
Waiver forms are, in my opinion, just as good as Yogi Berra allegedly
said of oral contracts: "Not worth the paper they're written on." I say
this after 40+ years of law. I am unaware of any lawyer whose acumen I
respect using any of these, or if they are using them because their client
insists, opining that they have any immunizing effect at all.
Having said that, if you want to prepare one, and insist the buyer sign
it, have at it. It may make you feel better, but don't delude yourself into
thinking that it adds any protection from suit or recovery. Indeed, it may
have the opposite effect -- can't you just see that mean ol' plaintiff's
lawyer asking the jury why the builder was so worried about the safety of
his aircraft that he felt it necessary to get a signature on such a paper?
It might be more efficient to wave a cross at any lawyer who shows up,
or bury a silver bullet in the structure.
Somewhere in this thread, the subject of asset protection came up. I
urge each one of you to talk to a knowledgeable lawyer before you take any
steps in that direction, and be sure to get him to explain the fraudulent
transfer laws in your state. Judges and juries get very upset if they smell
anything of that kind.
And before you flame me, please take a few deep breaths and make sure
you are taking your medicine.
Jim Pleasants
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates
homebuilts?)
--
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Helms" <jhelms(at)nationair.com>
Subject: Chopping up your plane for sale doesn't help.
Date: Apr 27, 2006
I've posted this information before, but understand that a customer called
one of my agents about this issue again today. So, I think it must not be
too soon to post this again.
For purposes of this discussion I refer to Van's Aircraft as the
manufacturer, and the builder as the assembler. I'm not trying to step on
any toes. only trying to help everyone understand better.
When selling your plane, the liability that you would have as the assembler
of the airplane would not be lessened by "parting it out" and selling the
various parts to different people. Actually, it could, in essence, increase
the liability exposure.
Selling the wings to one person, the engine to another, etc. could
potentially increase your exposure to liability. If any of the planes which
your former parts go into crash, then you could be sued. Your part which is
now in that plane wouldn't even necessarily have had to fail. Families
often sue despite the cause of the crash or facts of the case. Their loved
one couldn't have been at fault. In my opinion, the cost of defending the
lawsuit could be as bad or worse than the eventual judgement. So, having 4
or 5 aircraft out there with your former parts and the potential to crash
broadens the risk of a lawsuit being brought against you.
A very few aviation insurance policies cover "liability for the sale of the
aircraft" (AIG provides that but only for production aircraft, and AVEMCO
offers it on all their policies) but that is designed to cover any aircraft
owner from lawsuits arising out of poor maintenance and the like. It was
not designed to cover your liabilities as the assembler of a kit aircraft.
In fact, AVEMCO's coverage for sale of the aircraft even states that it is
intended to provide coverage arising out of your "ownership, maintenance,
and use" of the aircraft. It specifically does not state it covers
liability arising out of "assembly of" or "manufacture of" the aircraft.
As previously mentioned today on this forum, verbal and even written
agreements to waive liability are pretty much worthless.
The very best things which you as the assembler of the plane can do to
lessen your exposure are:
1. Follow the plans exactly, don't substitute parts, or change
anything. Any modification or substitution could be increasing your
liability by crossing over into the manufacturer or engineering type
liability areas. Obviously, there are differences amongst all your planes,
and places in the plans where it calls for you to make a choice (i.e. tip
up/slider) or whether or not to install an autopilot. In any event, if they
exist I'd suggest following the plans or recommendations as closely as
possible.
2. Have a third party A+P do an annual as the pre-buy. Don't do it
yourself as the builder or if you're an A+P or allow an A+P who might be
buying it from you do it. This applies to any airplane (production or
homebuilt) that you might sell. The annual is a declaration by that A+P
attesting to the airworthiness of the plane for another year. Having it be
a third party will support your position if you are sued, and you might be
able to even sue them if there was a problem which you were sued for
successfully. Or, the buyer might sue the A+P and not you (although they'd
likely sue both of you.)
3. Maintain the airplane well.
4. Don't own anything (and all the other legal things you can do to
make yourself less of a target to go after). A lawyer once told me that the
2nd best thing you can do is have a ton of coverage, the best thing is to
have none (and no assets).
While product liability coverage exists, it exists for manufacturers. It is
not realistic to believe it'd be affordable for any of you for having built
one plane. It'd cost more than the value of your plane. Anything is
insurable, but the starting price for special stuff like that thru Lloyd's
would be in the multiple tens of thousands of $'s if not $50,000. One might
as well make their plane into paperclips.
Just please don't think that parting your plane out for sale achieves a
lessening of liability exposure.
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Jessen" <jjessen(at)rcn.com>
Subject: RE: RV10-List: New fuel valve handle
Date: Apr 27, 2006
See if the picture below gets through...
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Lauritsen -
Work
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: RV10-List: New fuel valve handle
We have designed a new fuel handle for those using Van's stock fuel valve.
They will be available in a few weeks for $47.
See our website for more info or to pre-order at:
http://www.cleavelandtoolstore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=RVFS1
RV Fuel Selector Handle
Mike
Mike Lauritsen
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool
2225 First St.
Boone, Iowa 50036
515-432-6794
mike(at)cleavelandtool.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 27, 2006
Subject: Platenut Life
Hi all,
Do I need to worry about platenuts loosing their locking ability from
running screws in and out too frequently? Anyone know what the life expectancy
is
in terms of this? I am working on the tanks and was scratching my head about
when to rivet on the platenuts.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wings (tanks)
San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates homebuilts?)
Date: Apr 27, 2006
I'm not a lawyer but I thought that 'fraudulent transfer laws' only applied
after the tort was commited.
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 Jim Pleasants
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lawsuits against builders (Was AOPA hates
homebuilts?)
Fellow listers:
I hate to get involved in this, but I can't hold off any longer.
Waiver forms are, in my opinion, just as good as Yogi Berra allegedly
said of oral contracts: "Not worth the paper they're written on." I say
this after 40+ years of law. I am unaware of any lawyer whose acumen I
respect using any of these, or if they are using them because their client
insists, opining that they have any immunizing effect at all.
Having said that, if you want to prepare one, and insist the buyer sign
it, have at it. It may make you feel better, but don't delude yourself into
thinking that it adds any protection from suit or recovery. Indeed, it may
have the opposite effect -- can't you just see that mean ol' plaintiff's
lawyer asking the jury why the builder was so worried about the safety of
his aircraft that he felt it necessary to get a signature on such a paper?
It might be more efficient to wave a cross at any lawyer who shows up,
or bury a silver bullet in the structure.
Somewhere in this thread, the subject of asset protection came up. I
urge each one of you to talk to a knowledgeable lawyer before you take any
steps in that direction, and be sure to get him to explain the fraudulent
transfer laws in your state. Judges and juries get very upset if they smell
anything of that kind.
And before you flame me, please take a few deep breaths and make sure
you are taking your medicine.