RV-Archive.digest.vol-rz
May 30, 2006 - June 13, 2006
Couple of points on this topic:
1. A friend said they used to (probably still do) add steel weights to the tail
of AT-6's that race in Reno for speed improvements. Can't recall, but I believe
they have minimum weights and are probably working with that number but just
shifting the CG aft.
2. A few years back I started trying to quantify this situation with adding weight
aft. I never got a conclusive answer, but wondered if the benefit of adding
ballast to move the CG aft offset the penalty of added overall weight.
Example: I am flying (racing) with a near empty airplane. Would the plane be
faster with 50-lbs of ballast in the rear baggage compartment than without the
50-lbs? Or faster with 50-lbs of ballast and if I lost 20-lbs?? ;)
Seriously, it sounds like there may be some conditions where the added overall
weight to move the CG aft may help.
Bryan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37502#37502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
Passed on for what it's worth ...
I've seen it demonstrated, in the big iron, when the airlines loaded the a/c
tail heavy, the elevator would raise the tail and thereby, create an airfoil
shape. The hs/elevator would sort of act like an airfoil and create lift.
The up movement of the tail would reduce the wing incidence and shed some
induced drag.
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A Electrical
> I discovered the same effect in my RV-6A which is a bit nose heavy. Best
> top speed was when I had the baggage compartment load to the max with
> camping gear and full wing tanks. I suspect you are correct in that the
> aft
> CG results in less down component from the horizonal stabilizer resulting
> in
> less drag. The wing incident may also be a bit more optimum (less) also
> resulting in less drag. As best I could determine my speed increase was
> between 8-10 MPH.
>
> Ed
> Ed Anderson
> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
> Matthews, NC
> eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joseph Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
You could do some very careful calculations, then try adding a much
smaller weight in the far aft tailcone area somewhere. You wouldn't
need remotely as much ballast as something in the baggage compartment
- a few pounds would be pretty significant.
Not something you would want to do casually. If remotely in doubt,
you'd want to reweigh the plane afterwards and reverify the CG
information.
As you say, 50 pounds of ballast could easily offset the advantages
of pushing the CG back. This would at least require far less than 50
pounds.
-Joe
On May 30, 2006, at 4:35 PM, bdjones1965 wrote:
>
> Couple of points on this topic:
>
> 1. A friend said they used to (probably still do) add steel
> weights to the tail of AT-6's that race in Reno for speed
> improvements. Can't recall, but I believe they have minimum
> weights and are probably working with that number but just shifting
> the CG aft.
>
> 2. A few years back I started trying to quantify this situation
> with adding weight aft. I never got a conclusive answer, but
> wondered if the benefit of adding ballast to move the CG aft offset
> the penalty of added overall weight.
>
> Example: I am flying (racing) with a near empty airplane. Would
> the plane be faster with 50-lbs of ballast in the rear baggage
> compartment than without the 50-lbs? Or faster with 50-lbs of
> ballast and if I lost 20-lbs?? ;)
>
> Seriously, it sounds like there may be some conditions where the
> added overall weight to move the CG aft may help.
>
> Bryan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mixture cable flexing |
Erich:
I am not flying yet, but I was also uncomfortable with that short
run. All connections between the firewall and the engine should have
plenty of slack in them. Another local builder whose 6A has been flying
for a long time now advised me to penetrate the firewall well above -
about 12" above - the fuel controller and have the cable do a graceful
"S" down to the attach bracket. That is what I did for both throttle
and mixture. You can have too little slack, but too much is not a
problem, so err on the side of too much.
BTW, mine is a vert. induction, so this may not be an issue for you,
but I found the AFP-supplied cable mounting brackets to be unusable on
a 6A and made my own which were essentially the mirror image of the AFP
brackets. There just isn't room to get the standard brackets to fit
around the engine mount tubes on a 6A without hacking away more of the
bracket than I was comfortable with. This allowed me to maintain a good
separation (about 1/2" as I recall) between the brackets and the engine
mount tubes.
Also, I had very good experience dealing with Cablecraft. They're
expensive, but their cables have a shorter bend radius spec than the
cheaper ones from Spruce. They also claim to have a gradual failure
mode. I had some shipping damage on my first shipment and they made
good on it, no questions asked, no fooling around with UPS claims, so
their customer service was excellent.
Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
>However, with the
>mixture cable in particular, the distance between the firewall pass-through
>point and the point where the cable attaches to the bracket is very short
>- maybe 4 inches. This short distance doesnt allow any room for curving
>the cable and allowing it to flex during engine shaking etc, especially
>since the eyeball socket at the firewall cable does not allow the cable to
>slip in and out at all.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
--- DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>
> I've been exploring the CG range in flight testing
> of my RV8A and have found
> an unanticipated cruise speed effect. At 85.9
> inches, I was getting 155kias
> with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 5,500 ft, and 42 degrees F
> outside. At 79.6 inches,
> I got 142kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 4,500 ft, and
> 64 degrees F outside.
> My whiz wheel gives true airspeeds of roughly 169kt
> and 154kt. Quite an
> improvement just by adding some weight in back.
> Yes, the fast flight was
> with a little bit higher weight!
>
> There's lots of discussion of speed improvements in
> the archives, but
> nothing related to CG location that I could find and
> certainly nothing so
> easy to get and of this magnitude. So, my question
> to everyone is have you
> had similar experience? Do you know anywhere this
> has been quantified or
> further detailed? After all, I'm just comparing two
> test flights here, but
> theoretically, I'd guess the decrease in drag due to
> decreased pitch
> stability requirements as the CG moves aft would
> explain the speed increase.
>
> Excited!
A few comments:
1. If you keep the rpm and MP the same, the power
produced increases as you increase altitude (due, I
think, to the lower exhaust back pressure helping
improve the engine's breathing). So, the test at
5,500 ft was with higher power than the test at 4,500
ft. The air temperature was also quite a bit lower
for the 5,500 ft test point. I don't know what engine
you have, but if you have an IO-360-A series engine,
the power at 5,500 ft was about 67.2%, and the power
at 4,500 ft was about 65.1%. If you had an O-360-A
series engine, the power at 5,500 ft was about 75%,
and at 4,500 ft it was about 72.6%.
As Alex Peterson mentioned, the mixture setting could
also play a role, as you can change the power by
changing the mixture, at the same rpm and MP.
2. ASIs have instrument error, and the error will be
different at different indicated airspeeds. Static
system position error is also different at different
indicated airspeeds.
Given items 1 and 2, it would be very interesting to
repeat these tests at the same altitude. It will also
be interesting to record the fuel flow, to be sure it
is the same for each test.
3. At a given weight, there is less drag as you move
the CG aft (with the CG in approved limits). The tail
has to produce a down force to balance out the nose
down pitching moment from the wing, and the fact that
the CG is ahead of the wing's centre of pressure. The
total lift that the wing has to produce is equal to
the aircraft's weight, plus the amount of down force
that the tail is producing. If you keep the aircraft
weight the same, and move the CG aft, the amount of
down force that the tail needs to produce decreases.
This reduces the drag from the tail, but more
importantly, it also reduces the amount of lift that
the wing has to generate.
So, if you move some item of weight aft (baggage, a
body, etc), that will help reduce drag.
4. If you can't move an item of weight aft, some
people are interested to know if you can improve
performance by adding weight aft. Ideally, the weight
you add would be in the area of the horizontal stab,
or further aft. In this case, the amount of down
force that the tail needs to produce is decreased.
This reduces drag, as there is less induced drag from
the tail. But, the amount of lift that the wing has
to generate has not changed, for as far as it is
concerned, we have simply replaced some down force
from the tail by down force from gravity on our added
weight. So the wing's induced drag does not change.
5. If you can't put the added weight at the HS, what
about putting it in the baggage compartment? In this
case, some of the additional weight is supported by
the wing, and some by the tail. So the amount of tail
down force decreases a bit, but the amount of lift
that the wing has to generate increases. Depending on
how far aft the baggage compartment is, the total drag
may be increased or decreased. My gut feel is that in
most cases the total drag would be increased.
6. it is very difficult to obtain repeatable speed vs
power data. Any one test point may be in error due to
poor air quality, not waiting long enough for the
speed to stabilize, errors in setting the power or
mixture, or errors in recording the data, etc. I
wouldn't draw any conclusions from one set of tests.
If you can do the same test on three or four different
days and get the same speed vs power, then you know
you have something.
Keep us posted as you do more tests.
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Kraus" <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
| Subject: | How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
I see the same thing in my -4. Put about 100-120 lbs in the back seat
and gain about 10 kts. It is very noticeable. Next time you fly solo,
trim out the plane and look at the level the elevator sits relative to
the HS. Add a passenger and look again. In my plane with a 120lb
passenger, the elevators will be almost level with the HS, but flying
solo they are quite a bit different.
-Mike
-----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, May 30, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: RV-List: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight
I've been exploring the CG range in flight testing of my RV8A and have
found an unanticipated cruise speed effect. At 85.9 inches, I was
getting 155kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 5,500 ft, and 42 degrees F
outside. At 79.6 inches, I got 142kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 4,500
ft, and 64 degrees F outside. My whiz wheel gives true airspeeds of
roughly 169kt and 154kt. Quite an improvement just by adding some
weight in back. Yes, the fast flight was with a little bit higher
weight!
There's lots of discussion of speed improvements in the archives, but
nothing related to CG location that I could find and certainly nothing
so easy to get and of this magnitude. So, my question to everyone is
have you had similar experience? Do you know anywhere this has been
quantified or further detailed? After all, I'm just comparing two test
flights here, but theoretically, I'd guess the decrease in drag due to
decreased pitch stability requirements as the CG moves aft would explain
the speed increase.
Excited!
Dave Reel - RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
Joe and others,
5 years ago when I first began racing the Air Venture race and others, I
added a lead pig (approx 10 lbs) to the tail area of my RV8 to improve the
CG. I mounted it just aft of the tail wheel in the tail cone. It fit very
nicely and did improve the airspeed. However after a couple hundred hours ,
I noticed that my tailwheel spring rod was bending (taking a set) . I
removed the tail weight and replaced the tailwheel attach rod. I now use a
lead shot bag, 25 lbs strapped to the baggage floor and installed or removed
as needed with a heavy passenger. The speed improvement is about the same
with either of the about the same.
On a separate note: I am getting ready for the Air Venture race this summer
and would encourage all of you who have flying airplanes to particiipate.
Don't worry about not having the fastest airplane. You will learn a lot by
participating and competing with the other guys.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight
>
> You could do some very careful calculations, then try adding a much
> smaller weight in the far aft tailcone area somewhere. You wouldn't
> need remotely as much ballast as something in the baggage compartment
> - a few pounds would be pretty significant.
>
> Not something you would want to do casually. If remotely in doubt,
> you'd want to reweigh the plane afterwards and reverify the CG
> information.
>
> As you say, 50 pounds of ballast could easily offset the advantages
> of pushing the CG back. This would at least require far less than 50
> pounds.
>
> -Joe
>
> On May 30, 2006, at 4:35 PM, bdjones1965 wrote:
>
>>
>> Couple of points on this topic:
>>
>> 1. A friend said they used to (probably still do) add steel
>> weights to the tail of AT-6's that race in Reno for speed
>> improvements. Can't recall, but I believe they have minimum
>> weights and are probably working with that number but just shifting
>> the CG aft.
>>
>> 2. A few years back I started trying to quantify this situation
>> with adding weight aft. I never got a conclusive answer, but
>> wondered if the benefit of adding ballast to move the CG aft offset
>> the penalty of added overall weight.
>>
>> Example: I am flying (racing) with a near empty airplane. Would
>> the plane be faster with 50-lbs of ballast in the rear baggage
>> compartment than without the 50-lbs? Or faster with 50-lbs of
>> ballast and if I lost 20-lbs?? ;)
>>
>> Seriously, it sounds like there may be some conditions where the
>> added overall weight to move the CG aft may help.
>>
>> Bryan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
better...I'll have to check that out.
Paul B esing
--- Mike Kraus wrote:
>
>
> I see the same thing in my -4. Put about 100-120
> lbs in the back seat
> and gain about 10 kts. It is very noticeable. Next
> time you fly solo,
> trim out the plane and look at the level the
> elevator sits relative to
> the HS. Add a passenger and look again. In my
> plane with a 120lb
> passenger, the elevators will be almost level with
> the HS, but flying
> solo they are quite a bit different.
>
> -Mike
>
> -----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, May 30, 2006 10:48 AM
> To: rvlist
> Subject: RV-List: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by
> adding weight
>
>
>
>
> I've been exploring the CG range in flight testing
> of my RV8A and have
> found an unanticipated cruise speed effect. At 85.9
> inches, I was
> getting 155kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 5,500 ft,
> and 42 degrees F
> outside. At 79.6 inches, I got 142kias with
> 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 4,500
> ft, and 64 degrees F outside. My whiz wheel gives
> true airspeeds of
> roughly 169kt and 154kt. Quite an improvement just
> by adding some
> weight in back. Yes, the fast flight was with a
> little bit higher
> weight!
>
> There's lots of discussion of speed improvements in
> the archives, but
> nothing related to CG location that I could find and
> certainly nothing
> so easy to get and of this magnitude. So, my
> question to everyone is
> have you had similar experience? Do you know
> anywhere this has been
> quantified or further detailed? After all, I'm just
> comparing two test
> flights here, but theoretically, I'd guess the
> decrease in drag due to
> decreased pitch stability requirements as the CG
> moves aft would explain
> the speed increase.
>
> Excited!
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Burnt out MAC indicator? |
One of the rectangluar LED's on my MAC pitch trim indicator seems to be
burnt out. Am I the first to have this happen? Guess the only fix is to
replace the whole thing? ($86!)
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Brick" <jebrick(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
What are we to make of the speeds that Van gives for solo and gross weights?
About one mph slower at gross, tandem or side-by side.
jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LessDragProd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
Van's cruise performance testing is usually done at a 8,000' density
altitude using full throttle and 2500 RPM. (It helps to remove as many variables
as
possible when doing performance testing.)
I have used a 7,500' density altitude for my RV-3 performance testing. This
has been a station altitude of 5,500', at times. I have an RMI MicroEncoder
in my RV-3, so I can get a direct readout on density altitude (I believe the
outside air temperature is even corrected for compressibility effects).
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/30/2006 9:11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jebrick(at)comcast.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Brick"
What are we to make of the speeds that Van gives for solo and gross weights?
About one mph slower at gross, tandem or side-by side.
jb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Schreck" <ronschreck(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
I like both Dan and Rick's explanations and throw in a specific example
of a very unstable airplane to illustrate the aft CG phenomnon. I used
to fly an airplane that had the CG well aft of the center of lift (CL).
In this configuration the tail plane needed to produce lift in order to
keep the aircraft level. The advantage of this configuration was that
both the wing and tail plane created lift in most every flight regime
rather than the wing producing lift and the tail plane producing down
force as for a conventionally balance aircraft. This made for some
extremely tight turns and rapid response to control inputs but also made
the aircraft impossible to control by the most experienced pilots.
Solution: Put a computer in charge of stability and let the pilot input
his desires through an electronic input to the computer. Thus you have
fly-by-wire technology and the only way to control an F-16.
Ron Schreck
RV-8 "Miss Izzy"
Gold Hill Airpark, NC
I like Dan's explanation, but will add a bit more.
Specifically, we require the CG to be forward of the center of
lift (CL) in
order to have a stable aircraft (and one whose nose drops when the
wing is
stalled). The closer the CG gets to the CL, the less induced
drag, but the
less stable the plane will be. If the CG should go aft of the CL,
all bets
are off in terms of controllability.
Another e-mail commented on Bonanzas and how their CG moves with
fuel burn.
Whether the CG moves aft with fuel burn should depend on the CG of
the tank
and its fuel relative to the CG of the plane. I fly an A-36
Bonanza, and
when weight is up (hence, realistically, with a CG farther aft
than when
lightly loaded), I have indeed noticed greater pitch sensitivity
after a
long flight. When I plan flights at higher weights, I check my
loading by
calculating CG for zero fuel, just to be on the safe side. For
extra
margin), I try to land with fuller tanks, too.
Rick
A-36, RV-7 in process
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Beadle
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding
weight
This is basic aerodynamics. To get stability (AKA, hard to
flare), you move
the CG forward. Think Lawn Dart. In this mode, the tail actually
pulls
down, not up. This results in the wing needing to produce more
lift (weight
+ the tails negative lift so that total lift = weight).
If you move the CG back, you have less and less down-lift on the
tail,
letting the wing work less, thus getting less induced drag.
Faster.
A heavier airplane, with the same CG, should fly slower than the
same plane,
same CG, when it is lighter. The reason is the heavier airplane
must have a
higher angle of attack to produce the needed additional lift.
That means
more induced drag.
The CG limits are set to give reasonable handling. The forward CG
is
limited by the ability to flare.
The Aft CG is limited by the need for positive stability. If we
moved the CG
back to where the tail was lifting, we would have no stability.
In the
normal range, as the plane slows from the trimmed AS, the wing and
the tail
both lose some lift. But the tail is now lifting less in the
downward
direction, letting the nose fall down a bit and resume the trimmed
AS.
If we move too far back, we lose the stability feature making the
airplane
difficult or impossible to fly.
Rule of thumb: smooth air, load for aft CG (within limits).
Rough air,
keep a more forward CG.
So your data does make sense. (But the faster/heavier combination
is
probably just due to aft CG.)
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Burnt out MAC indicator? |
I had this happen to me too. I sent an e-mail to RayAllenCo and they took care
of it!
YMMV - but they were good to me!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Larry Bowen <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
>Sent: May 30, 2006 10:52 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Burnt out MAC indicator?
>
>
>One of the rectangluar LED's on my MAC pitch trim indicator seems to be
>burnt out. Am I the first to have this happen? Guess the only fix is to
>replace the whole thing? ($86!)
>
>-
>Larry Bowen
>Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>http://BowenAero.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
Anyone who is thinking about moving the CG aft by
adding some weight needs to keep two things in mind:
1. The weight should be properly secured. You don't
want it coming loose during turbulence or an off-field
landing and hitting you in the back of the head.
2. Adding weight aft will increase the moment of
inertia on the yaw axis, and this will probably
degrade the spin characteristics. I.e the results
from any spin testing you did without that weight are
now invalid.
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
To say nothing of having unsecured weight in the tail that, during a
steep climb-out, slips even further back. You have now just been
promoted to test pilot; one that may have his hands...and shorts full.
Chuck Jensen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:11 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding
weight
>
>
> Anyone who is thinking about moving the CG aft by
> adding some weight needs to keep two things in mind:
>
> 1. The weight should be properly secured. You don't
> want it coming loose during turbulence or an off-field
> landing and hitting you in the back of the head.
>
> 2. Adding weight aft will increase the moment of
> inertia on the yaw axis, and this will probably
> degrade the spin characteristics. I.e the results
> from any spin testing you did without that weight are
> now invalid.
>
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Burnt out MAC indicator? |
Larry you are right about that. I recently replaced mine after losing
several leds over a span of about 1 year. Call Ray Allen. He may cut you a
little slack on the replacement.
Dick
At 10:52 PM 5/30/2006, you wrote:
>
>One of the rectangluar LED's on my MAC pitch trim indicator seems to be
>burnt out. Am I the first to have this happen? Guess the only fix is to
>replace the whole thing? ($86!)
>
>-
>Larry Bowen
>Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>http://BowenAero.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re Aft CG speed gains |
Lots of posts on this, I remeber when I was on Cherokee chat, I read
about Art Matsen, who usually won Cherokee races, and he had to have a
second person, not co-pilot, and would always have him in back seat.
Charlie H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pleasants" <jpleasants(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS Tracking... |
FWIW, my Pilot III handheld shows a "trail of breadcrumbs" on the map
display, and the maps are suprisingly accurate (for me), and will scale way
down.
Jim Pleasants
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Burnt out MAC indicator? |
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Thanks for all the input. I'll give Ray a call and if that doesn't pan
out I'll get the parts book and soldering iron or check for someone
selling one.
Mickey - I reference it almost anytime I'm adjusting it. I know what the
normal positions are for my plane during different phases of flight, so I
can confirm everything is normal in regards to trim.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Richard Seiders wrote:
>
> Larry you are right about that. I recently replaced mine after losing
> several leds over a span of about 1 year. Call Ray Allen. He may cut you a
> little slack on the replacement.
> Dick
>
>
> At 10:52 PM 5/30/2006, you wrote:
>>
>>One of the rectangluar LED's on my MAC pitch trim indicator seems to be
>>burnt out. Am I the first to have this happen? Guess the only fix is to
>>replace the whole thing? ($86!)
>>
>>-
>>Larry Bowen
>>Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>>http://BowenAero.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Burnt out MAC indicator? |
| From: | "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
I lost a couple of elements in several of mine after my voltage regulator failed
and they saw high voltage. Just something you might want to check.
Bryan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37647#37647
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
To answer a few questions that came up, I was leaned out during both tests
but I lean by ear and have no fuel flow meter. At 5,500 ft, I have measured
9.2 to 9.4 gph using the 'fly it half an hour on one tank then see how much
it takes to refill the tank' method. To get the aft CG, I added weight to a
fixture I built for the aft baggage shelf and added a 50 lb sand bag to the
aft seat. Total 142 lb. I can refly the forward CG test at the higher
altitude & will report the result. But it will probably be a while because
I'm flying the RV to Brady TX for paint. I'll have to leave it there about
a month. Of course, I'll put everything in the aft baggage compartment for
the flight!
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:47 AM
Subject: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight
> I've been exploring the CG range in flight testing of my RV8A and have
found
> an unanticipated cruise speed effect. At 85.9 inches, I was getting
155kias
> with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 5,500 ft, and 42 degrees F outside. At 79.6
inches,
> I got 142kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 4,500 ft, and 64 degrees F outside.
> My whiz wheel gives true airspeeds of roughly 169kt and 154kt. Quite an
> improvement just by adding some weight in back. Yes, the fast flight was
> with a little bit higher weight!
>
> There's lots of discussion of speed improvements in the archives, but
> nothing related to CG location that I could find and certainly nothing so
> easy to get and of this magnitude. So, my question to everyone is have
you
> had similar experience? Do you know anywhere this has been quantified or
> further detailed? After all, I'm just comparing two test flights here,
but
> theoretically, I'd guess the decrease in drag due to decreased pitch
> stability requirements as the CG moves aft would explain the speed
increase.
>
> Excited!
>
> Dave Reel - RV8A
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Intercom PS Engineering / Sigtronics...Try NAT |
| From: | "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
I agree that the PS is a far superior intercom. Even better is NAT. NAT
is used by the Hello crowd. Got mine from a salvage yard and the wiring
schematic from their web site. I can't believe the sound quality and
range of the NAT. BTW, paid 75 dollars for the NAT and all the
jacks.......
PS Engineering all the way...can't beat the quality or
customer service...not too much more expensive, but
the audio quality is far superior, IMHO...I've had
both sigtronics and PS Engineering...there's a reason
that sigtronics sells "budget quality" headsets and
avionics.
Spend the extra money on PS Engineering in my opinion.
Paul Besing
--- Charles Heathco wrote:
>
>
> I have a mono flightcom 403 that has alwqys had a
> slight echo, and it
> has a static discharge sound every so often. I want
> to upgrad and am
> thinking Sigtronics steri might be a good choice.
> Would like coments,
> and also will I have to change headst jacks? Charlie
> H
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cheap Thrills |
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
I thought the topic was low level river flying, not air shows or aerobatics performed
by a seasoned professional. In any event, I didn't mean to ruffle anyones
feathers. My opinion was just that, my opinion. Have fun and be safe.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37665#37665
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
| From: | "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
martin(at)gbonline.com wrote:
> Joe and others,
> 5 years ago when I first began racing the Air Venture race and others, I
> added a lead pig (approx 10 lbs) to the tail area of my RV8 to improve the CG.
I sure don't need any corrective ballast, but am thinking I might see what the
effect of moving my battery aft (with an O-320 up front) would have on the CG
envelope... Gotta carry it anyway.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37667#37667
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Bagage compartment balast |
________________________________ Message 53
____________________________________
>I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
>compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
>noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
>better...I'll have to check that out.
Paul: is this for better traction, like in my truck? RV-4's tend to be a
little tail heavy anyway. Did yours come out light? My tool box (bag) and
tie downs are always back there but secured as far forward as able. My
elevator solo cruise is lined up with the horizontal, slightly elevator down
(counterweight slightly above leading edge of horizontal) with a full load.
Haven't noticed much change in speed.
Michael
RV-4 232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Engine mounting bolt question |
Listers,
Can anyone tell me the length of the AN6 bolts which hold the engine
to the motor mount? I'm using a Dynafocal 1 IO-360 Lycoming.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
Not real sure...just the stick forces seem smoother in
pitch, not as squirly. I have a wood prop up front,
and had to add a 10 lb prop weight just to bring the
CG forward...I'm getting ready to have a new weight
and balance done, and will see where we are at..since
I've changed the panel, new stack on the floor, etc, I
need to update it anyway.
I'm going to check the weight and balance after it's
done with just me, and then with my bag of salt in the
back and see where she sits in the envelope. Then I'm
gonna fly her both configurations and see if I can see
a speed difference. I just prefer the feel when I
have the bag of salt back there...never was intended
to be a performance enhancer, but if I get more speed,
great!
Paul Besing
--- Michael wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 53
> ____________________________________
> >I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
> >compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
> >noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
> >better...I'll have to check that out.
>
> Paul: is this for better traction, like in my truck?
> RV-4's tend to be a
> little tail heavy anyway. Did yours come out light?
> My tool box (bag) and
> tie downs are always back there but secured as far
> forward as able. My
> elevator solo cruise is lined up with the
> horizontal, slightly elevator down
> (counterweight slightly above leading edge of
> horizontal) with a full load.
> Haven't noticed much change in speed.
>
> Michael
>
> RV-4 232 Suzie Q
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
>>I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
>>compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
>>noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
>>better...I'll have to check that out.
For what it's worth ...
Please be careful and watch the bag of salt for tiny holes. These holes
develop because of the bag being mishandled at the vendor's store. You may
find corrosion starting from the very fine granules sifting through the tiny
holes and working their way into aluminum joints. The fine granules are
generated from the same mishandling that causes tiny holes.
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A Electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D.Heath" <altoq(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The brake thing some more |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: RV-List: The brake thing some more
>
>>I saw nothing in Wheeler's post that should cause this kind of nasty
>>reply.
>
Here, Here, to that
Now is your chance to delete this nonsense or forever hold your peace.
Michael
I was once teaching a new aviator (3 to 5 hours) Helicopter primary flight,
demonstrating setteling with power. When the Big Scielence (engine failure)
over came us. It being a demonstration only manuver with considerable
altitude, I was already on the controls, entered autorotation, made all the
radio calls, and setteled back to enjoy the quiet. The scielense was almost
immediatly broken when the student pilot screamed in quit an aggitated
tone," What do I do, What do I do." My reply," Grab that switch and recycle
the rotating beacon at three second intervals."
After we were back at the breafing room, I could still see the dismay
covering the student's face. I ask," What's the matter kid?" He said," Sir'
I just can't understand what recycle the rotation beacon.........."
Interupting him, I explaned that it occupied his mind and kept his hands
clear of the controls while I was taking care of bussiness. A big smile
errased the look of pusselment from his face,I winked, and he resumed
telling his fellow student aviators about his hair raising event.
Now from all this you can conclude that almost any action you take that
doesn't make a bad situation worse has a good chance of improving it. On
this list you pick out the salutions you like and file the rest away for
later referance but,you never dismiss any or alienate anyone that offered
them with good intention, because this is an inviorment where you never want
to run out of salutions.
John D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine mounting bolt question |
Mine were 7-43 and 7-44 for my AFP injected O360 - I'll have to look upwhich
mount I have.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:38 PM
Subject: RV-List: Engine mounting bolt question
>
> Listers,
> Can anyone tell me the length of the AN6 bolts which hold the engine
> to the motor mount? I'm using a Dynafocal 1 IO-360 Lycoming.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
| From: | "bdjones1965" <rv_8pilot(at)hotmail.com> |
pbesing(at)yahoo.com wrote:
>
> I just prefer the feel when I have the bag of salt back there...never was intended
to be a performance enhancer, but if I get more speed, great!
>
> Paul Besing
Please reconsider the salt. That, when in the presence of miosture, would be a
very corrosive. Try sand, dirt, rocks or anything but salt.
Bryan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37735#37735
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine mounting bolt question |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
My IO-320 has Dynafocal I and as below they are AN7-43 for the
top and AN7-44 for the bottom.
g
>
>
> Mine were 7-43 and 7-44 for my AFP injected O360 - I'll have to
> look upwhich
> mount I have.....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie Kuss" <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:38 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Engine mounting bolt question
>
>
> >
> > Listers,
> > Can anyone tell me the length of the AN6 bolts which hold the engine
> > to the motor mount? I'm using a Dynafocal 1 IO-360 Lycoming.
> > Charlie Kuss
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
Bird seed works for rear ballast for me.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Burnt out MAC indicator? |
Add me to the list! I had 26 hours on my 6-A when parts of my trim indicator
wouldn't light. Called Ray
Allen and they said to send it in for a look see but that will have to wait
for the annual in October as I am having to much fun right now.
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Burnt out MAC indicator?
>
> I had this happen to me too. I sent an e-mail to RayAllenCo and they took
> care of it!
>
> YMMV - but they were good to me!
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Larry Bowen <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
>>Sent: May 30, 2006 10:52 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Burnt out MAC indicator?
>>
>>
>>One of the rectangluar LED's on my MAC pitch trim indicator seems to be
>>burnt out. Am I the first to have this happen? Guess the only fix is to
>>replace the whole thing? ($86!)
>>
>>-
>>Larry Bowen
>>Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>>http://BowenAero.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
Good point, Jerry. I'll keep an eye on it!
Paul Besing
--- Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
>
>
>
> >>I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
> >>compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
> >>noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
> >>better...I'll have to check that out.
>
> For what it's worth ...
> Please be careful and watch the bag of salt for tiny
> holes. These holes
> develop because of the bag being mishandled at the
> vendor's store. You may
> find corrosion starting from the very fine granules
> sifting through the tiny
> holes and working their way into aluminum joints.
> The fine granules are
> generated from the same mishandling that causes tiny
> holes.
> Jerry Grimmonpre'
> RV8A Electrical
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <batfinks(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to add 15kt to cruise speed by adding weight |
I'll bet there are a lot of replies, but that is exactly what you should
expect. With more weight in back, the tail has to produce less lift
(downward) with it's associated lift drag. Just don't move the CG too
far back, there be dragons there.
Scott
DAVID REEL wrote:
>
>I've been exploring the CG range in flight testing of my RV8A and have found
>an unanticipated cruise speed effect. At 85.9 inches, I was getting 155kias
>with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 5,500 ft, and 42 degrees F outside. At 79.6 inches,
>I got 142kias with 2300rpm, 23 in mp, 4,500 ft, and 64 degrees F outside.
>My whiz wheel gives true airspeeds of roughly 169kt and 154kt. Quite an
>improvement just by adding some weight in back. Yes, the fast flight was
>with a little bit higher weight!
>
>There's lots of discussion of speed improvements in the archives, but
>nothing related to CG location that I could find and certainly nothing so
>easy to get and of this magnitude. So, my question to everyone is have you
>had similar experience? Do you know anywhere this has been quantified or
>further detailed? After all, I'm just comparing two test flights here, but
>theoretically, I'd guess the decrease in drag due to decreased pitch
>stability requirements as the CG moves aft would explain the speed increase.
>
>Excited!
>
>Dave Reel - RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lowell lemay" <llemay1(at)austin.rr.com> |
DAMNNN..............Really appreciate the comments on Brake Drag Fix,
but really sorry I started such a hassle of hurt feelings. Guess I'll
go back to "Van's Air Force"..........llemay1(at)austin.rr.com WABOAH
Please......no archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More on brakes |
Lowell,
You did nothing to be sorry about! You have a few that want to shoot down others
options everytime they post. They just seem to know it all. It gets old really
quick and my opinion (hope they don't shoot this one down) is that my posts
should be read in full and respected as an opinion just the same way the know
it all wants their post read and respected. People on the list get upset with
me about some of my post but in the end I find they really didn't read in full
and understand my post. The information on the brakes was good information
and it DID fix an RV7A's dragging and stiff brake issue.
Live and let live... Sorry if I've offended anyone.
Darrell
lowell lemay wrote:
DAMNNN..............Really appreciate the comments on Brake Drag Fix,
but really sorry I started such a hassle of hurt feelings. Guess I'll
go back to "Van's Air Force"..........llemay1(at)austin.rr.com WABOAH
Please......no archive
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More on brakes |
Lowell ...
I too appreciate all contributions of information, tips, hints and
everything that makes these little RV's a better airplane to fly. We are
very lucky to have an affordable airplane to get our
flight fix satisfied while having the freedom to call the airplane our
creation. All builders/flyers place value on any tip that makes life
easier, safer and affordable. The term "I built it in my garage" really
translates to ... "Me and my 100's of RV'er friends built it in my garage by
solving assembly problems".
Continue offering up your good ideas. Those able to use them, as their own
solutions, will see the value of what you express. None of us has the trump
card on any builder's idea.
Keep on smashing those rivets and squeezing terminals ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
RV8A Electrical
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: More on brakes
>
>
> Lowell,
>
> You did nothing to be sorry about! You have a few that want to shoot down
> others options everytime they post. They just seem to know it all. It gets
> old really quick and my opinion (hope they don't shoot this one down) is
> that my posts should be read in full and respected as an opinion just the
> same way the know it all wants their post read and respected. People on
> the list get upset with me about some of my post but in the end I find
> they really didn't read in full and understand my post. The information on
> the brakes was good information and it DID fix an RV7A's dragging and
> stiff brake issue.
>
> Live and let live... Sorry if I've offended anyone.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> lowell lemay wrote:
>
> DAMNNN..............Really appreciate the comments on Brake Drag Fix,
> but really sorry I started such a hassle of hurt feelings. Guess I'll
> go back to "Van's Air Force"..........llemay1(at)austin.rr.com WABOAH
> Please......no archive
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster(at)flion.com> |
| Subject: | Seat belt anchor hardware |
Ok, I seem to be suffering from a slight vision problem (don't tell my AME).
I can't find a callout for the hardware to attach the seat belt anchor cable
to the seat belt anchors in the rear of the fuselage. No bolts were in the
bag with the cables and I don't have any AN-4 bolts left that would work
there. Oops, forgot to say it's for an RV-6A. Anyone know where the
callout is in the plans? And what bag the hardware was supplied in? Many
thanks.
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - cabin interior progressing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | wing to fuse fairing |
Ok, I have a question about drilling holes in my wing tanks. I am mounting
my -6 wings to my fuse and it seems I am to drill holes in the tank flange
then mount some plate nuts there. The existing rivets are close enough
together that fitting a platenut between them will be tight. Plus there is
some squished out pro seal to make a non flat surface for mounting.
Drilling holes in my tanks even in the flange makes me cringe. Should I be
concerned? I hear the pre drilled airplanes had them already there. Guess
I should have thought about that when I built the tanks.
Tim
RV-6 (ancient kit) N616TB
Plan to fly in about 4-6 weeks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Motor mount question |
Listers,
Has anyone tried the motor mounts sold by Wicks Aircraft (page 74 of the current
catalog)? Part number is EM100-005. I'm wondering if you are happy with them?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: wing to fuse fairing |
Even the3 predrilled kits come without these holes . As long as you stay away
from the rib you will be fine. Make sure that you push the fairing tight to the
fuse before drilling. don
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com>
>
>
> Ok, I have a question about drilling holes in my wing tanks. I am mount
> ing
> my -6 wings to my fuse and it seems I am to drill holes in the tank flang
> e
> then mount some plate nuts there. The existing rivets are close enough
> together that fitting a platenut between them will be tight. Plus there
> is
> some squished out pro seal to make a non flat surface for mounting.
>
> Drilling holes in my tanks even in the flange makes me cringe. Should I
> be
> concerned? I hear the pre drilled airplanes had them already there. Gue
> ss
> I should have thought about that when I built the tanks.
> Tim
> RV-6 (ancient kit) N616TB
> Plan to fly in about 4-6 weeks
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org> |
| Subject: | Re: wing to fuse fairing |
Tim Bryan wrote:
> Ok, I have a question about drilling holes in my wing tanks. I am mounting
> my -6 wings to my fuse and it seems I am to drill holes in the tank flange
> then mount some plate nuts there. The existing rivets are close enough
> together that fitting a platenut between them will be tight. Plus there is
> some squished out pro seal to make a non flat surface for mounting.
>
> Drilling holes in my tanks even in the flange makes me cringe. Should I be
> concerned? I hear the pre drilled airplanes had them already there. Guess
> I should have thought about that when I built the tanks.
Tim,
The nut plates used to mount the wing fairing to the tank go through the
tank skin overhang, not the tank skin/rib flange joint. (The overhang
extends 1/2" inboard of the tank skin/rib flange joint.) Trim the
extruded proseal off the skin overhang with a razor blade and
scotchbrite wherever a nut plate will be installed.
Yea, this is one of those places where holes are at or slightly below
minimum edge distance...........but, they only hold the wing fairing in
place. Measure carefully before drilling.
My early pre-punched wing skins came without these holes. Turned out to
be OK, since my wing fairings were not pre-punched. (Ended up making my
own fairings anyway.) The usual match drill process worked fine:
1) drill pilot holes in the fairing.
2) mark a line on the tank skin overhang and the wing root rib (aft of
the spar).
3) line parts up, tape in place, match drill.
Steve
RV-6A extreme slow build........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Pleasants" <jpleasants(at)bellsouth.net> |
Listers:
I'm to the point where I need to make some choices as regards
autopilots.
The advertisements for TruTrak and Trio each "speak highly of
themselves". I can't get a clue as to which of these would be, for me, the
best choice.
I respectfully request that anyone who has a reason to recommend either
of these, or any other, please share with me their thoughts -- good, bad, or
indifferent.
I have the same quandry regarding glass cockpits -- do I choose Dynon,
AFS, GRT, BMT, Chelton, or some other?
All inputs will be appreciated.
Jim Pleasants
RV-7A QB N1QZ(reserved)
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Jim Pleasants wrote:
>
> Listers:
>
> I'm to the point where I need to make some choices as regards
> autopilots.
>
> The advertisements for TruTrak and Trio each "speak highly of
> themselves". I can't get a clue as to which of these would be, for me, the
> best choice.
>
> I respectfully request that anyone who has a reason to recommend either
> of these, or any other, please share with me their thoughts -- good, bad, or
> indifferent.
>
> I have the same quandry regarding glass cockpits -- do I choose Dynon,
> AFS, GRT, BMT, Chelton, or some other?
>
> All inputs will be appreciated.
>
> Jim Pleasants
> RV-7A QB N1QZ(reserved)
Jim, you are opening a can of worms about as messy as asking "which
primer do I use?"!!!
It would be most helpful if you would reply with the mission profile of
your plane. Whether or not you intend IFR ops, plan to install multiple
electrical systems, budget, etc, etc will have a huge bearing on how you
want to equip your plane. Also, your choice of EFIS will have a big
impact on which autopilot will best suit your needs.
You might also do some digging in the archives of this list. These
matters have been hashed to death during the past few years and you
might find a head start to your research.
I have experience with various autopilots and EFII but will withhold my
observations until we know more about how you intend to use your plane.
Fortunately, the new digital equipment as a general rule works very well
so it comes down mostly to what you like more than what will work.
Sam Buchanan
http://thervjournal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
On 06/01 1:51, Jim Pleasants wrote:
> I'm to the point where I need to make some choices as regards
> autopilots.
>
> The advertisements for TruTrak and Trio each "speak highly of
> themselves". I can't get a clue as to which of these would be, for me, the
> best choice.
>
> I respectfully request that anyone who has a reason to recommend either
> of these, or any other, please share with me their thoughts -- good, bad, or
> indifferent.
>
> I have the same quandry regarding glass cockpits -- do I choose Dynon,
> AFS, GRT, BMT, Chelton, or some other?
>
> All inputs will be appreciated.
I have had zero regrets going with the GRT/TT combination. I have no
experience with the other options you mention.
I would make the same decision again.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bagage compartment balast |
I bought 2 bags of 25 lb lead shot that works well.
shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Bagage compartment balast
>
>
>>>I fly my -4 with a 40lb bag of salt in the baggage
>>>compartment (sans passenger of course)...haven't
>>>noticed the speed difference, but it does fly
>>>better...I'll have to check that out.
>
> For what it's worth ...
> Please be careful and watch the bag of salt for tiny holes. These holes
> develop because of the bag being mishandled at the vendor's store. You
> may
> find corrosion starting from the very fine granules sifting through the
> tiny
> holes and working their way into aluminum joints. The fine granules are
> generated from the same mishandling that causes tiny holes.
> Jerry Grimmonpre'
> RV8A Electrical
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bertrv6(at)highstream.net |
| Subject: | Re: Hanging my IO-320 - lower mount spacer |
Quoting Gerry Filby :
>
>
> Has anyone else had this experience ?
>
> I hung my engine this weekend - but I think it needs to come
> off again. Vans supplies 2 large diameter AN7 washers in the
> engine mount bolt kit that are to shim the forward faces of the
> lower engine mounts off the engine so that the mount clears a
> "step" in the engine casing. The "step" is the mounting flange
> for the oil sump.
>
> All's well on the right lower mount, but on the lower left its
> as if the shim isn't thick enough, or more to the point, the
> flange on the engine protrudes too much. Consequence is that
> mount doesn't sit flush on the engine - its slightly at an
> angle with the top part of the mount making contact and the
> lower part interfering with the oil sump flange.
>
> Is this a common problem or am I breaking new ground here :) I
> guess the obvious solution is to pull the engine and grind off
> the flange on the oil sump mount. I'm more than a little
> hesitant about doing surgery on my engine.
>
> __g__ > =========================================================
> Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Gerry: I am speaking for my own which was a Dynafocal, engine mount
for a Lycoming 0320ED2 Engine...for an rv6a... Now if you have same engine
mount, you should not have to file anything down. I would not do that.
The LOrd Mounts? should fit perfectly with the correct washers. If I recall
they were the same for all four sides...I might be wrong...
I mounteds the engine, all by myself, with no human help...Did not wanted
to wait...
I was able to do it, and it was done correctly..it was a question or
patience, and engine was move to match the Eng. mount...It can be done.
Any questions, you can call me .
Hope I gave you some food for thought....
Bert
rv6a
Flying\
do not archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 0-320 H2AD For Sale |
This engine is on a flying RV-6A and is flying. The owner
has ordered an XP-360 with a Sensenich to do a firewall forward
replacement so all the firewall forward parts go with the 0-320. The
prop is a Hendrickson wood prop and in perfect condition. All baffles,
oil cooler, exhaust, hoses etc. are included with the engine. You can
see the engine run and fly and check it out yourself or have your
mechanic check it.
The new engine will be here in about a week so at that time
we will be removing this one from the plane.
Asking $12,000 for the package.
Jimmy Bennett
830-598-4221
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Homer <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | AffOrdable medicine directly from manufacturer |
AffOrdable medicine directly from manufacturer
GOOd day dear Customer,
Please open your mind for a simple thing
Internet provided products always cheaper than others.
You may agree or not, but this is a fact
Just compare the numbers and get the same goods for a half value
You may agree or not, but this is a fact.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael" <cubflyr(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Front seat, back seat.... |
>I assume you have heel cups or have never flown anyone who has flown
>with them & then gotten into your back seat.
OH, yes. I wouldn't curse anyone with a ride back there with their feet flat
on the original floor. I have flown in the back of several -4s and, of
course, found the heel cups a must-do. Mine are more heel PANS with lots of
room for a whole foot, water bottle, whatever happens to be there at the
time. ALSO: -4 builders: trim the FRONT seat "pleats" Down a little so they
don't rub on legs and put an extra triangle of aluminum in the area just
under the roll-over structure so knees don't get hung up in there. I have
spent a good deal of time in the back seat of Suzie Q to make sure it is
comfortable so my PIB (that's PRINCESS in back) is comfortable. She loves it
back there.
>WAY to much room in the front seat of an -8 ?.
>You will then absolutely hate any Rocket 'cause it has lots more of the
>same.
No way I could hate a Rocket. Except my cheeks hurting from smiling so much.
I'd figure out something.
>Where do you put your arms in turbulence ??
I have an extended "shelf" that my left arm can rest on when on the throttle
making for a very steady, sensitive hand there, much needed in formation
flying and bouncing around flying. (Photo Share available on request.) I'm
just wide enough to have to lean one way or another to be nestled against
the sides of the -4 but find it secure rather than snug or tight.
>But then again as one ages things can get difficult, like getting in & out
of my LT-1 C-4.
Age can do that!!
>KABONG HRII N561FS aka RV-4 on steroids.
BOTH exceptional airplanes!!!
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowles" <schybolt(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing to fuse fairing |
Tim,
I see you've already got your answer but just thought I'd
throw this in. I know the 6's and 7's are different and this may have
nothing to do with a 6. On my 7, the screws for the wing root fairing
replaced existing rivets rather than fitting between rivets. Drilled out
rivets, enlarged hole, drilled for plate nut rivets, ctsk. everything and
rivet plate nut. Worked well.
Larry Bowles
7A starting canopy work
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shirley Harding" <ShirleyH(at)oceanbroadband.net> |
| Subject: | Skytech starter problem |
Listers, I'm running a Superior XP O 360 with a Skytech lightweight starter
(supplied as a package by Superior). After only 7 hours, I noticed the ring
gear was damaged. Replaced the ring gear, but after two subsequent starts,
observed chips on the new gear. I borrowed another Skytech starter and
installed that - it meshed a little better than mine but didn't engage
smoothly - they appear to be under-engaging. I've installed an old
heavyweight Bendix temporarily - that seems to work fine - but has any one
else had problems with the Skytech/Superior combination?
Shirley Harding
Perth, Western Australia
RV6 7 hours - grinding teeth!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Skytech starter problem |
Shirley, a friend of mine recently had the same problem with his F1 Rocket
(skytec starter). I loaned him the B&C starter off my F1. It meshed better
with the ring gear it only went 1/8" or so deep into the ring gear when the
bendix was engaged with the Skytec. The skytec starter wouldn't spin the
motor over compression very well (stock compression), but the B&C spun it
over no problem. When he called Skytec about his starter woes they
initially tried to blame it on the battery, the cable, solenoid etc. but the
conversation quickly changed direction once he told them he borrowed a B&C
to replace the skytec and had no problems. They then offered a
trade-in/upgrade+$$ on the new inline high-torque starter. The new starter
works much better, and works as well as the B&C, if not maybe a little
better. It also meshes with the ring gear fully, which the original skytec
starter didn't.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 6/2/06, Shirley Harding wrote:
>
> ShirleyH(at)oceanbroadband.net>
>
> Listers, I'm running a Superior XP O 360 with a Skytech lightweight
> starter
> (supplied as a package by Superior). After only 7 hours, I noticed the
> ring
> gear was damaged. Replaced the ring gear, but after two subsequent starts,
> observed chips on the new gear. I borrowed another Skytech starter and
> installed that - it meshed a little better than mine but didn't engage
> smoothly - they appear to be under-engaging. I've installed an old
> heavyweight Bendix temporarily - that seems to work fine - but has any one
> else had problems with the Skytech/Superior combination?
>
>
> Shirley Harding
>
> Perth, Western Australia
>
> RV6 7 hours - grinding teeth!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Skytech starter problem |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Shirley,
Is the damage to the back side of the ring gear teeth? If so this is
typical of the starter remaining engaged after a start. Most likely
cause is the back EMF from the PM motor itself continuing to hold the
solenoid in.
You will also hear a ringing sound from the ring gear (some irony here!)
immediately after the key is released.
If this is the case the fix is to electrically isolate the starter
solenoid from the motor (a short link on the starter needs to be
removed). Run a separate wire back to the key switch for the solenoid.
As soon as the start switch is released then the start contactor (relay)
and the starter solenoid will release allowing the gear to immediately
disengage.
There was an article in Rvator at some time.
Doug Gray
Sydney, Eastern Australia...
RV-6 fuse nutplates!!!
>
> Listers, I'm running a Superior XP O 360 with a Skytech lightweight starter
> (supplied as a package by Superior). After only 7 hours, I noticed the ring
> gear was damaged. Replaced the ring gear, but after two subsequent starts,
> observed chips on the new gear. I borrowed another Skytech starter and
> installed that - it meshed a little better than mine but didn't engage
> smoothly - they appear to be under-engaging. I've installed an old
> heavyweight Bendix temporarily - that seems to work fine - but has any one
> else had problems with the Skytech/Superior combination?
>
>
>
> Shirley Harding
>
> Perth, Western Australia
>
> RV6 7 hours - grinding teeth!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Langley Fly-in June 24 |
The annual Western Canada Wing fly-in is Saturday, June 24, at Langley Township
Regional Airport (CYNJ). (Langley is 20 nm northeast of Bellingham, WA.) Gus
Funnell, from Van's Aircraft, will be there, giving a seminar on RV building
along with experienced local builders.
For more information, including border crossing instructions, see our web page
at http://www.vansairforce.org/CYNJ/.
Hope to see you all there!
---
Tedd McHenry
Van's Air Force
Western Canada Wing
tedd(at)vansairforce.org
www.vansairforce.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Wing bolt detail for -6 |
Hi Listers,
I am bolting my wings on today for my -6 and find (or not find) the detail
for the wing bolts to be somewhat lacking. I am wondering if there is to be
a washer on both sides, and what the torque values are. I am looking at Dwg
15 and 46 but no joy. The manual pretty much says "bolt the wings on".
Any help appreciated.
Thanks
Tim -6
N616TB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing to fuse fairing |
Cc: Larry Bowles
Larry,
If you look at the flutes and rivets on the 6 where the fairings will go it would
work out best to drill out every other rivet and use that hole for the center
of the nutplate. I wish I'd done that and am still mad at Van's wording of
"Think and measure carefully before drilling" . I squeezed nutplates in, but
am sure glad they'll be covered with the fairing as they sure ain't pretty.
Ron Burnett
Slowly building RV-6A QB
---- Larry Bowles wrote:
============
Tim,
I see you've already got your answer but just thought I'd
throw this in. I know the 6's and 7's are different and this may have
nothing to do with a 6. On my 7, the screws for the wing root fairing
replaced existing rivets rather than fitting between rivets. Drilled out
rivets, enlarged hole, drilled for plate nut rivets, ctsk. everything and
rivet plate nut. Worked well.
Larry Bowles
7A starting canopy work
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | princeton capactive fuel probe |
I'm looking for a capacitive fuel probe/gauge to use in my old (circa
1999) RV-6A kit (tanks already built). The princeton probes look
interesting because they could probably be used in this tank. You can
specify a bendable section which I think would make it useable with the
standard RV-6A tank configuration.
Has any one used these probes successfully?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Enclosure Support |
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics
Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability,
and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these
days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling
of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the
various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few
Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to
my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating
to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed
themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount
of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats
are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic
plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and
are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting
to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure
posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase
the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter
out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could
result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police
yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using
the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "lowell lemay" <llemay1(at)austin.rr.com> |
| Subject: | My last Brake-drag post |
Thanks for all the suggestions, guys. I tried all of them in reverse
order of difficulty. Of course the last one worked. FYI where the
brake pedals are bolted on at the bottom of the rudder pedals there is
room for a bolt, a thin washer and nut to hold each on. 'Someone' had
installed a thick washer, thereby making the pedals quite tight to
rotate. Spent 3 hours on my belly in 88 degree temp correcting a five
minute error. Following test flight succeeded in changing a frown to a
grin by inverting the ADI. For those who have never benifited from
'Brain Storming Sessions', remember to keep your suggestions POSITIVE
and keep the "DUMB" questions coming...Even I can learn...........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Formation fun in the Fraser Valley |
We've always had the ability to enclose pics on the RV-10 list but
please
consider the problems associated with the increase in message size when
you
enclose pics. I reposted the formation pic (very impressive) after using
the
powertoy suggested by Matt and with one click it reduced the formation
pic
from 200K to 50K. I think it would be a good idea for us to reduce pic
size
whenever possible.
Albert Gardner
40422
Yuma, AZ
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Rob Prior (rv7)
Subject: RV-List: Formation fun in the Fraser Valley
Since we now have this fancy attachment system, it seems a waste not to
at
least try it. This was taken yesterday while flying between Langley, BC
and Chilliwack, BC.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Formation fun in the Fraser Valley |
We've always had the ability to enclose pics on the RV-10 list but
please
consider the problems associated with the increase in message size when
you
enclose pics. I reposted the formation pic (very impressive) after using
the
powertoy suggested by Matt and with one click it reduced the formation
pic
from 200K to 50K. I think it would be a good idea for us to reduce pic
size
whenever possible.
Albert Gardner
40422
Yuma, AZ
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Rob Prior (rv7)
Subject: RV-List: Formation fun in the Fraser Valley
Since we now have this fancy attachment system, it seems a waste not to
at
least try it. This was taken yesterday while flying between Langley, BC
and Chilliwack, BC.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Formation fun in the Fraser Valley |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV Fuel Selector Handle |
>
>
> Got the Cleaveland Aircraft Tool RV Fuel Selector Handle for
> Van's fuel valve but looks to me the set screw should come in
> from the other direction for my RV-4 set up. Wouldn't the set
> screw be on the shaft flat? Anyone got theirs yet?
> Regards,
> Bruce Bell
> RV-4 N23BB
Bruce,
I recall that the standard handle had a flat in the bore which corresponded
with the flat on the shaft. Don't remember where the set screw was.
BTW, I'd recommend giving the Van's selector valve the heave-ho. I flew
with mine for about 700 hours, never quite sure if it would actually stick
or not when changing tanks. It was painful to buy the Andair, but worth
every penny.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 758 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Bell" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Fuel Selector Handle |
The new handle has the set screw.
B. Bell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Fuel Selector Handle |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Landoll Balancer |
Just picked up a used Landoll Balancer. Has anyone got any installation
information available? I have the copy of a sheet that shows pictures of the
components and tell what it does, but I'm looking for torque requirements of the
bolts and general installation information. This is the silicone fluid
balancer with aerobatic plate. Thanks as always.......
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Fuel Selector Handle |
Fuel lube gets extremely stiff at temperatures like we get in Minnesota
in the winter. I could hardly turn my Van's valve at temps around 10F
or colder. Perhaps there is another lube which will make the valve not
creak and groan, and would work in cold temperatures, but I don't know
what it would be.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 758 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Alex,
Suggest you try Dow Corning 3452 flourosilicone valve lube available
from AS. Low temp property is -20F
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/dc3452valvelub.php
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patty Hamilton" <PGILLIES(at)gwm.sc.edu> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Flight Training at Columbia, SC (CUB) in Sept |
Mike Seager will be in Columbia, SC (CUB) on Sept 5 & 6. He will be
giving flight training in the factory RV-10. The cost is 60 per hour for
Mike and the plane rents for 75 per hour for a total of $ 135 per hour.
If you are interested in flying with Mike, please email me at Hamilton(at)sc.e
du Once I get a feel for who and how many would like to fly with Mike I
will set up a schedule to hopefully accommodate everyone's agenda. Thanks,
Patty Hamilton
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ? |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
I'm not impressed with Vans heat muff as supplied in the
firewall forward kit - has anyone used an alternative ? How
about the "Homebuilders Heat Muff 9" in Spruce's catalog ?
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dimpling Boo-boo |
| From: | "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht(at)starkinvestments.com> |
A couple days ago I was dimpling elevator skins with the C-frame. My
helper's hand, pulling back the skin, slipped and it popped out of the
male die as the mallet was coming down, creating a new dimple/hole about
.20" from the existing hole. I pounded it out with a hammer on a steel
backrivet plate, but the hole from the dimple die is still there.
I would consider this to be not too big a deal (I hope). Perhaps a dab
of tank sealant on the underside of the skin would be a good idea to
prevent a vibration-crack from forming? There must be SOP for this sort
of thing?
Paul
9A QB #1176
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ? |
Another one to look at is Larry Vetterman - I got his crossover exhaust with mufflers
- the heater boxes are part of the mufflers - you can see the mufflers
at Aircraft Exhaust technologies (built for the vetterman kits). Rumour has it
that they really pump out the heat - but I haven't flown yet.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
>Sent: Jun 5, 2006 12:56 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ?
>
>
>I'm not impressed with Vans heat muff as supplied in the
>firewall forward kit - has anyone used an alternative ? How
>about the "Homebuilders Heat Muff 9" in Spruce's catalog ?
>
>__g__
>
>==========================================================
>Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ? |
I'm guessing that you had a 912S/914 as you have those parts for sale....
What are you putting in now? More oooomph? Trying to get to the VNE?
Curious as someone else mentioned a Jabiru 6....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
>Sent: Jun 5, 2006 12:56 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ?
>
>
>I'm not impressed with Vans heat muff as supplied in the
>firewall forward kit - has anyone used an alternative ? How
>about the "Homebuilders Heat Muff 9" in Spruce's catalog ?
>
>__g__
>
>==========================================================
>Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
>----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ? |
Sorrry - Ogre Fingers......wrong list!
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Jun 5, 2006 1:44 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ?
>
>I'm guessing that you had a 912S/914 as you have those parts for sale....
>
>What are you putting in now? More oooomph? Trying to get to the VNE?
>
>Curious as someone else mentioned a Jabiru 6....
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
>>Sent: Jun 5, 2006 12:56 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ?
>>
>>
>>
>>I'm not impressed with Vans heat muff as supplied in the
>>firewall forward kit - has anyone used an alternative ? How
>>about the "Homebuilders Heat Muff 9" in Spruce's catalog ?
>>
>>__g__
>>
>>==========================================================
>>Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
>> Tel: 415 203 9177
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dimpling Boo-boo |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
He he ... I'll give you a cent to a dollar it won't be the last
:-) I think I've got about 3 of those so far. The general
wisdom I've heard is to flatten it out and move on, its more of
a cosmetic issue than a structural one ...
g
> A couple days ago I was dimpling elevator skins with the C-frame. My
> helper's hand, pulling back the skin, slipped and it popped out of the
> male die as the mallet was coming down, creating a new dimple/hole about
> ..20" from the existing hole. I pounded it out with a hammer on a steel
> backrivet plate, but the hole from the dimple die is still there.
>
>
>
> I would consider this to be not too big a deal (I hope). Perhaps a dab
> of tank sealant on the underside of the skin would be a good idea to
> prevent a vibration-crack from forming? There must be SOP for this sort
> of thing?
>
>
>
> Paul
>
> 9A QB #1176
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test |
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the "requirement"
for a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to determine
its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in private
aircraft. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test |
I believe it's a DOT reg.
http://www.c-f-c.com/gaslink/docs/dot_cylinder.htm
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 John Fasching
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 4:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the "requirement"
for a
pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to determine
its
applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in private aircraft.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test |
At 02:00 PM 6/5/2006, you wrote:
>Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the "requirement" for
>a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
>
>This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to determine
>its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in private
>aircraft. Thanks.
http://www.bouldermountainfire.org/training/hydro.html
http://tinyurl.com/kbc4v
http://tinyurl.com/z82a8
There is a way around this rule. Fill your own cylinder. But I would never
skimp on this safety regulation just to save a few bucks every five years.
There are places to save and places not to save. This is one where you
follow the rules.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RVer273sb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test |
3AA bottles are due every 5 years.
Most over looked item in an aircraft
Stewart
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans Heat Muff ... alternatives ? |
Make your own, simple, cheap, better. Look in RV-list photo archives
George McNutt
Gerry Filby wrote:
>
>
> I'm not impressed with Vans heat muff as supplied in the
> firewall forward kit - has anyone used an alternative ? How
> about the "Homebuilders Heat Muff 9" in Spruce's catalog ?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tiger10" <tiger10(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test |
It is a DOT requirement to have the bottles checked at regular
inatervals. If I recall the steel bottles are good for 5 years betweeen
checks and no life limit. Them light weight ones are I think 3 years and
some thing like a 20 Year service life. If you have an out of date
bottle you most likely will not find anyone to fill it.
tiger 10
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 2:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the "requirement"
for a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to
determine its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in
private aircraft. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
Cc: sarg314(at)comcast.net
| Subject: | Re: princeton capactive fuel probe |
| From: | Mark E Navratil <czechsix(at)juno.com> |
Hi Tom,
I bought the capacitive Princeton probes through Grand Rapids to use with
my EIS-4000 and the probes came already bent and ready to install in the
RV
tanks. I have an -8A but as far as I know the same bend profile will
work
in the -6 series too. Might not hurt to double-check before ordering.
As far as using them "successfully" goes, I've had decent results with
mine. You go through a calibration setup procedure where you turn power
on, push a button on the probe with the tank empty for the empty set
point,
then fill the tank and push the button again for the full set point. The
first time I did this it worked fine on one tank but the other tank was
reading 0.0 and the LED on the probe was flashing an error code.
Instructions said to try the calibration procedure again before calling
Princeton. This is a bit of a pain because you have to empty the tank
completely....it worked out ok for me because I was flight testing and
figured what the heck, I should run the tank dry in the air anyway just
to
make sure I can really use all the fuel in flight. After resetting it
the
probe has worked fine.
My only complaint--and it's a minor one--is that with the tanks full, the
reading from the senders varies by about a gallon. You can program the
EIS
to show whatever quantity you want when the sender is at the full
level...I
measured about 11 gals in my tank when the fuel is at the top of the
sender
so that's what I programmed into the EIS. But the actual reading after
refueling is anywhere from 10.0 to 10.9, and it varies from day to day.
I
didn't expect capacitive probes to wander in their readings like this.
Anyway, the important part is that they do seem to read accurately when
near empty. I have an alarm on my EIS set up to warn me when fuel level
is
reading 1.0 gals in either tank. It will start to flash at me a few
minutes before the engine quits. So I'm satisfied with that aspect of
it.
One other note of interest, I originally installed Vans float sensors in
my
tanks but decided to change to capacitive in hopes that I'd never have to
yank them out and change them (time will tell...). I made the swap
before
mounting my wings so it was easy. The curious thing is that in order to
install the Princeton probes, I had to install both the probe and the
tank
access plate at the same time, with a series of twists and turns. If you
install the probe in the access plate first, or install the plate and
then
try to put in the probe, it won't work. I just mention this because it
may
be a lot harder to retrofit a flying airplane than it was with the wings
off....
Hope this helps,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D getting ready for 50 hr oil change..
------------------------------------------------------------
From: sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: princeton capactive fuel probe
I'm looking for a capacitive fuel probe/gauge to use in my old (circa
1999) RV-6A kit (tanks already built). The princeton probes look
interesting because they could probably be used in this tank. You can
specify a bendable section which I think would make it useable with the
standard RV-6A tank configuration.
Has any one used these probes successfully?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Purchasing oxygen |
Speaking of oxygen, is there a good place to buy it when your traveling
other than airports to save a buck or two or is in not worth it.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
265 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the "requirement"
for a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to
determine its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in
private aircraft. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Purchasing oxygen |
I get my O2 filled locally at a surgical supply store. Saves me about
$20 on each fill. If I was on the road and had a car and access to
Yahoo yellow pages, I might try searching for "medical oxygen" or
"surgical supply".
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (928 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dowling
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: RV-List: Purchasing oxygen
Speaking of oxygen, is there a good place to buy it when your
traveling other than airports to save a buck or two or is in not worth
it.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
265 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the
"requirement" for a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to
determine its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in
private aircraft. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
Well Im still mulling over the choices. I was ready to take my engine
down to Ft Smith for a $10k Oh prioviding crank ok. I was set up to go
donw and wathc a 360 put back today or wed, but no one returned 2 calls
yesterday so now having 2nd thoughts. I am looking at upgrade to 160 hp
even tho I will loose Mogas ability. I took Tweetybird into a grass
strip Sat and when coming out I was looking at a very high hill covered
with trees a lot closser than I had intended. (Im 150 hp). Wamnted to
get some thoughts on upgrading. Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
Cc: Charles Heathco
---- Charles Heathco wrote:
> snipped I am looking at upgrade to 160 hp even tho I will loose Mogas ability.snipped
Charlie Heathco
Charlie
Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel. It simply
means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87 octane
regular.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
True. I've been paying the 20 cent premium per gallon ever since I upgraded, and
often find myself wishing I could undo it easily. Peformance gain was vanishingly
small, cost increase over 87 octane very real. If I were you, I'd stand
pat at 150 hp and enjoy the economy. Next logical step up: 180 hp O-360...
and still on mogas ;-)
Saving 20 cents a gallon over time will buy a constant speed, perhaps?
-Stormy
-----Original Message----
From: chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
Cc: Charles Heathco
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine OH
---- Charles Heathco wrote:
> snipped I am looking at upgrade to 160 hp even tho I will loose Mogas
ability.snipped
Charlie Heathco
Charlie
Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel. It
simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
octane regular.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________
on demand. Always Free.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel. It
simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
octane regular.
Charlie Kuss
What about the ethanol content in the mogas? Isn't there some long term
potential problems with seals etc.?
DWE
do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
Yes, I believe there is...
Be careful what state you reside in ;-) Some mandate ethanol, some don't.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Ensing <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine OH
Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel. It
simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
octane regular.
Charlie Kuss
What about the ethanol content in the mogas? Isn't there some long term
potential problems with seals etc.?
DWE
do not archieve
________________________________________________________________________
on demand. Always Free.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Purchasing oxygen |
I have a skyox system. Will I need any special fittings to fill it at a
surgical supply store? I dont have my manual with me.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
265 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Checkoway
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Purchasing oxygen
I get my O2 filled locally at a surgical supply store. Saves me about
$20 on each fill. If I was on the road and had a car and access to
Yahoo yellow pages, I might try searching for "medical oxygen" or
"surgical supply".
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (928 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Dowling
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: RV-List: Purchasing oxygen
Speaking of oxygen, is there a good place to buy it when your
traveling other than airports to save a buck or two or is in not worth
it.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
265 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oxygen Bottle Pressure Test
Can anyone point me to the applicable regulation for the
"requirement" for a pressure test for oxygen bottles?
This has the "smell" of an OSHA requirement and I am trying to
determine its applicability (if any) to small portable ones used in
private aircraft. Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel. It
simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
octane regular.
Is this true? This is the first I have heard of it.... if so, I sure could
save some $$$$$ if so
Scott
RV6-A
!60hp O-320
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
>> Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel.
>> It simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather
>> than 87 octane regular.<<
> Is this true? This is the first I have heard of it.... if so, I sure could
> save some $$$$$ if so
>
According to some old documentation I got from Petersen Aviation, owner of
one of the auto gas STCs, the 150hp/160hp O320 and the 180hp O360 engines
were approved by the FAA for auto gas. Oh, yeah. Let's not forget the
normally aspirated O540s, either. I think those are the 235 hp versions for
you -10 builders? H2ADs and fuel injected O360s were not approved. I think
it applies to any fuel injected engine, actually. Of course, he noted that
fuel line sizes, routing, and other variables, could impact the use of auto
gas due to vapor lock. He also mentioned that some materials in our tanks
may not hold up to the rigors of auto gas. The engines were OK, though.
To run the higher compression engines on auto gas, just bump up to 91-93
antiknock gas.
I invested in my first auto gas STC in 1986 and have saved money on gas for
my airplanes, since. My RV-6A has a 150hp O320 that runs well on 87
antiknock. The tanks and fuel system have shown no adverse effects of
having auto fuel in them, other than the minor vapor locking that can happen
during fast turnarounds. The plugs are clean, except for some carbon build
up. Oil, not fuel. No lead to foul plugs. Per Petersen's STC, I do put in
some 100LL a couple of times a year. I can always tell the difference.
Within an hour, or so, the lead deposits start building up and fouling
plugs.
Vapor locking is a minor problem, as was the case in my other two airplanes.
If in doubt, I add some 100LL to the mix to change the vapor pressure so
that the fuel is less apt to vapor lock. About the only time I chose to do
this is if I'm going to take up a lot of kids during a Young Eagles day. If
it's cold outside, I don't bother.
If I ever get around to finishing my -7A, it will have an O320 160hp engine
or an O360 180hp engine. Since I already have some pieces and parts for the
O320, that will probably be my choice. I plan on using premium unleaded in
it. I can't afford to own an airplane and keep it filled with 100LL. I'm
just getting used to putting premium in my new Miata! (It does get good gas
milage, though. :-) )
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (Started on fuse)
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George P. Tyler" <gptyler(at)metrocast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
My understanding is that the engine will work on the mogas but the STC
doesn't cover it. So, it would seem the decision is if you want to keep your
engine certificated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 5:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
>
> Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel.
It
> simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
> octane regular.
>
> Is this true? This is the first I have heard of it.... if so, I sure could
> save some $$$$$ if so
>
> Scott
> RV6-A
> !60hp O-320
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
Once an engine is installed on an experimental aircraft, it looses its
certified status and cannot thereafter be reinstalled on a certified
airframe without a complete disassembly/OH to determine it's status.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of George P. Tyler
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
My understanding is that the engine will work on the mogas but the STC
doesn't cover it. So, it would seem the decision is if you want to keep your
engine certificated.
----- Original Message -----
From: "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 5:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
>
> Converting to 160 hp (8.5 to 1) does not preclude your use of Auto fuel.
It
> simply means that you will have to use 91 -93 octane super, rather than 87
> octane regular.
>
> Is this true? This is the first I have heard of it.... if so, I sure could
> save some $$$$$ if so
>
> Scott
> RV6-A
> !60hp O-320
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net> |
| Subject: | Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area |
Hi RV- Listers ..
I just purchased Ron Awad's RV-4 and will soon fly it from the East side of
Charlotte NC to just West of Chicago O'hare area. I'm wanting to know which
direction most of you would fly heading out of Charlotte. Would you go
South of Charlotte and make an end run around the mountains or would you go
over the pass at Ashville and head straight out for a direct course to
Chicago area? The airplane is VFR only so it's a given that the ground has
to be visible.
I'll make two stops for fuel not more than 300 miles at a time. Any
suggested places to stop or avoid. The first stop will be an over night so
it'd be nice to have it close to a hotel (town area).
Crosswind landings ... what should a newbie pilot (in the 4) avoid in the
way of wind velocity for cross? Any other suggestions that would
help?
Many thanks ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area |
You're in an RV now. I just ran my flight planner for my 6a and found it
would be a 3:20 flight, easily reachable without a stop in an rv. I would
go direct at 8500 ft. Plenty of fuel stops along the way if you want to
play it safe. If you havent used airnav, http://www.airnav.com/, you'll
find it to be very helpful for fuel/flight planning. If you're not used to
an rv, you will be pleasantly surprised.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
265 hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area
>
> Hi RV- Listers ..
> I just purchased Ron Awad's RV-4 and will soon fly it from the East side
> of
> Charlotte NC to just West of Chicago O'hare area. I'm wanting to know
> which
> direction most of you would fly heading out of Charlotte. Would you go
> South of Charlotte and make an end run around the mountains or would you
> go
> over the pass at Ashville and head straight out for a direct course to
> Chicago area? The airplane is VFR only so it's a given that the ground
> has
> to be visible.
>
> I'll make two stops for fuel not more than 300 miles at a time. Any
> suggested places to stop or avoid. The first stop will be an over night
> so
> it'd be nice to have it close to a hotel (town area).
>
> Crosswind landings ... what should a newbie pilot (in the 4) avoid in the
> way of wind velocity for cross? Any other suggestions that would
> help?
> Many thanks ...
> Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Linebaugh" <jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net> |
Guys and Gals,
I have a bunch of stuff for sale, flight instruments, engine instruments
,
and a radio stack... Don't want to spam the list, but this may be just w
hat
somebody is needing....
New Radio Stack For Sale
Bendix King KY97 VHF Com Radios (2)
Bendix King KT-76A Transponder with Encoder
Bendix King 134 Audio Panel
Radio Package Prewired
PS Engineering PS 1000II Intercom
List Price $5500
Asking $4500/OBO
Flight Instruments
Sigma Tek Artificial Horizon (vac) w/ 8 degree tilt for you TD guys $750
United DG (vac) $680
United Airspeed Indicator 3 1/8" $380.00
United Electric Turn Coordinator 3 1/8" $400.00
United Sensatrue Altimeter 3 1/8" $480
Sensatrue VSI 3 1/8" $275
Airpath Liquid Compass (Panel Mount 2 1/4") $90
Engine Instruments
Electonics International UGB-16 with probes $1200
Electonics International Fuel Flow Gauge $400
UMA Tach 2 1/4" $100
UMA MP 2 1/4" $85
UMA Metered Fuel Pressure $100.00
UMA Unmetered Fuel Pressure $200.00
Westech Dual Oil Temp/PSI $225
Westech Dual Volts/Amps $90
Thanks,
Jeff
jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net
901 606-6735
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> Once an engine is installed on an experimental aircraft, it looses its
> certified status and cannot thereafter be reinstalled on a certified
> airframe without a complete disassembly/OH to determine it's status.
As I understand the situation (and I am certainly willing to be
corrected!) the mere act of bolting a certificated engine to an
experimental airframe does not cause the engine to lose its certificated
status.
However, if the engine was to be returned to service on a certificated
airframe, the installation would have to be signed off by an AI.
And.....how many AI's are going to put their career on the line by
signing off on an engine that they are not *absolutely certain* meets
all certification requirements.
The AI covering his backside is why the engine will most likely be torn
down to insure compliance, not just the fact that it was bolted to an
experimental airframe. If you can find an AI that is willing to sign off
the engine installation without a teardown, it will be legal. This
*might* actually happen if the AI owned or had detailed knowledge of the
experimental aircraft the engine was on.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area |
Hi Jerry,
I have done it both ways from Charlotte to Chicago. Just depends on the
day/weather. Last year, on trip to Oshkosh, the flight over the mountains
was good but had to divert west at the Ohio River to get around the weather.
Return flight was direct from 3CK to Charlotte with one stop for the bladder
and some fuel.. It usually gets a bit bumpy over the mountains so altitude
helps.
Do you know when you will be coming down to get the RV-4. If we are home you
are welcome to overnight with us if you need a place. How is the
construction of the RV-8 coming along? My memory says you were doing the
wiring so can't be too long to finish.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area |
I agree with Jeff's remarks. You can easily go direct over the mtns,
respecting wx and winds of course.
During my OSH run last year from N of CLT, I used Putnam county for a pit
stop. It has good facilities and decent fuel prices:
http://www.airnav.com/airport/4I7
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 @ 8A7
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Dowling [mailto:shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:08 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area
>
> -->
>
> You're in an RV now. I just ran my flight planner for my 6a
> and found it would be a 3:20 flight, easily reachable without
> a stop in an rv. I would go direct at 8500 ft. Plenty of
> fuel stops along the way if you want to play it safe. If you
> havent used airnav, http://www.airnav.com/, you'll find it
> to be very helpful for fuel/flight planning. If you're not
> used to an rv, you will be pleasantly surprised.
>
> Shemp/Jeff Dowling
> RV-6A, N915JD
> 265 hours
> Chicago/Louisville
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:49 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area
>
>
> >
> > Hi RV- Listers ..
> > I just purchased Ron Awad's RV-4 and will soon fly it from
> the East side
> > of
> > Charlotte NC to just West of Chicago O'hare area. I'm
> wanting to know
> > which
> > direction most of you would fly heading out of Charlotte.
> Would you go
> > South of Charlotte and make an end run around the mountains
> or would you
> > go
> > over the pass at Ashville and head straight out for a
> direct course to
> > Chicago area? The airplane is VFR only so it's a given
> that the ground
> > has
> > to be visible.
> >
> > I'll make two stops for fuel not more than 300 miles at a time. Any
> > suggested places to stop or avoid. The first stop will be
> an over night
> > so
> > it'd be nice to have it close to a hotel (town area).
> >
> > Crosswind landings ... what should a newbie pilot (in the
> 4) avoid in the
> > way of wind velocity for cross? Any other suggestions that would
> > help?
> > Many thanks ...
> > Jerry Grimmonpre'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> > http://wiki.matronics.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
That's my understanding of the situation also. The engine would have to be
examined to be sure all parts were in compliance and all AD's were up to
snuff. In essence an overhaul.
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 Sam Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> Once an engine is installed on an experimental aircraft, it looses its
> certified status and cannot thereafter be reinstalled on a certified
> airframe without a complete disassembly/OH to determine it's status.
As I understand the situation (and I am certainly willing to be
corrected!) the mere act of bolting a certificated engine to an
experimental airframe does not cause the engine to lose its certificated
status.
However, if the engine was to be returned to service on a certificated
airframe, the installation would have to be signed off by an AI.
And.....how many AI's are going to put their career on the line by
signing off on an engine that they are not *absolutely certain* meets
all certification requirements.
The AI covering his backside is why the engine will most likely be torn
down to insure compliance, not just the fact that it was bolted to an
experimental airframe. If you can find an AI that is willing to sign off
the engine installation without a teardown, it will be legal. This
*might* actually happen if the AI owned or had detailed knowledge of the
experimental aircraft the engine was on.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> That's my understanding of the situation also. The engine would have to be
> examined to be sure all parts were in compliance and all AD's were up to
> snuff. In essence an overhaul.
Only if the AI insisted on the inspection/overhaul, but not because the
FARs require it. If the AI has extensive knowledge of the engine and its
compliance with AD's, he *might* forgo the inspection.
The A&P/AI that helped me with the yellow-tagged and updated logbook
overhaul of the O-320 in my RV-6 might have returned that engine to
certificated service without further inspection since he was familiar
with the overhaul and all major service following the overhaul. But a
different AI who didn't know the engine most likely would have required
an internal look at the engine and logs before he signed off the new
installation.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
Sam,
I believe the FAR's exempt our engines from AD's even if we don't remove the
data plate. I recall emails from our friendly FAA guy that stated that the
FAA considered all appliances when attached to an experimental airframe to
be experimental. If your engine logs state that your engine was installed on
an RV, Glasair, or any other experimental airframe followed by your
signature, I don't know of any AP/IA that would sign if off for a reinstall
on a certified aircraft. The local FSDO would be sure to frown on it. It's a
real grey area. This might be a good question to kick up to the EAA experts.
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 Sam Buchanan
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
Bruce Gray wrote:
>
> That's my understanding of the situation also. The engine would have to be
> examined to be sure all parts were in compliance and all AD's were up to
> snuff. In essence an overhaul.
Only if the AI insisted on the inspection/overhaul, but not because the
FARs require it. If the AI has extensive knowledge of the engine and its
compliance with AD's, he *might* forgo the inspection.
The A&P/AI that helped me with the yellow-tagged and updated logbook
overhaul of the O-320 in my RV-6 might have returned that engine to
certificated service without further inspection since he was familiar
with the overhaul and all major service following the overhaul. But a
different AI who didn't know the engine most likely would have required
an internal look at the engine and logs before he signed off the new
installation.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Ross" <dcr(at)fdltownhomes.com> |
Guys: This is not hard. O2 be O2 and usually in a small to medium size
town there is usually only one shop in town that has the LOX facility,
larger cities may have more depending upon demand. Everyone gets their
gaseous from them, yes the medicos, the welders and the airport! Ever
notice the little trailers with 5 green O2 bottles strapped to it? The, the
bottles look surprisingly identical to the local welders' bottles don't
they? And before anyone starts with the moisture wives tale, all O2
containers are required to be absolutely dry or be purged to insure dryness.
Moisture, medical O2, is added to the supply line downstream from the O2
containers. The five year requirement for testing is done, guess where, the
local welding shop who sends them to a regional hydro testing facility. I
have been using "welder's O2 for 13 years in my bottle and the welding shop
has hydro tested it twice, price about $13 per refill and the same for the
testing. If you are in the McKinney TX airport area there is a welding shop
just of the airport entrance who will do it for free. However, for those
who truly believe that aviation O2 is different, oh well, someone has to pay
those high prices, it may as well be you.
Dan. 90% done and 90% to go on my -9A QB. Test fitted and clecoed the
instrument panel today.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Panel Cutting |
Just a quick thanks to all of you folks you responded to my quest for the
optimum methods for cutting holes in the instrument panel (that are not of
the round variety). After experimenting with several different things, I
found that a (baby size) router used for laminate trimming worked the best
for me. I made a wooden jig for the two rectangular holes needed for the
EFIS and AOA mounting and the results turned out very nice, almost as good a
as a CNC milling machine. Round instrument holes were cut with the common
fly cutter and came out nice as well, I just had to adjust the damn thing
for each my 2.5 inch instruments as they didn't seem to be a common size!
I solved my problem of the funny VM1000 engine monitor display cutout by
sending my blank to Mr Steve Davis of Memphis Tennessee (phone number
901-240-3068). Steve has autocad AND machining facilities and has done some
very nice work on RV panels. He did a very nice job on my cutout and the
price was VERY reasonable, it saved me a lot of work and disappointment. I
highly recommend letting Steve do your panel if you have the resources.
I've spent the better part of the last month (spare time) doing the flight
instrument side of the panel and it was a lot more work than I expected (I
have lots of stuff in there though). I enjoyed doing it but could be
further along towards clearing the prop if I'd let someone else do that part
of it. Oh well, I'll be able to say I built EVERYTHING on the airplane
except the metal stampings. Oh the joys and frustrations of building your
own aircraft!!
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Not long to- Clear-the-prop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Davis" <sdavis12(at)midsouth.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Cutting |
Thanks Dean!!!
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:54 AM
Subject: RV-List: Instrument Panel Cutting
>
>
> Just a quick thanks to all of you folks you responded to my quest for the
> optimum methods for cutting holes in the instrument panel (that are not of
> the round variety). After experimenting with several different things, I
> found that a (baby size) router used for laminate trimming worked the best
> for me. I made a wooden jig for the two rectangular holes needed for the
> EFIS and AOA mounting and the results turned out very nice, almost as good
> a
> as a CNC milling machine. Round instrument holes were cut with the common
> fly cutter and came out nice as well, I just had to adjust the damn thing
> for each my 2.5 inch instruments as they didn't seem to be a common size!
>
> I solved my problem of the funny VM1000 engine monitor display cutout by
> sending my blank to Mr Steve Davis of Memphis Tennessee (phone number
> 901-240-3068). Steve has autocad AND machining facilities and has done
> some
> very nice work on RV panels. He did a very nice job on my cutout and the
> price was VERY reasonable, it saved me a lot of work and disappointment. I
> highly recommend letting Steve do your panel if you have the resources.
> I've spent the better part of the last month (spare time) doing the flight
> instrument side of the panel and it was a lot more work than I expected (I
> have lots of stuff in there though). I enjoyed doing it but could be
> further along towards clearing the prop if I'd let someone else do that
> part
> of it. Oh well, I'll be able to say I built EVERYTHING on the airplane
> except the metal stampings. Oh the joys and frustrations of building your
> own aircraft!!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> Not long to- Clear-the-prop
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 |
> My understanding is that the engine will work on the mogas but the > STC
> doesn't cover it. So, it would seem the decision is if you want > to keep
> your engine certificated.
One has to look at the STCs. The EAA STC may not cover high compression
engines; but, the Petersen seems to cover them. Do keep in mind that STCs,
ADs, etc. do not apply to experimentals; but, one is foolish to not comply,
in many cases. If the testing was done for the Petersen STC for high
compression approval, I'd think it would be OK to use 91-93 antiknock fuels
in them. If not, I wouldn't. Fortunately, his STC does seem to cover them;
so, I'm going to use autogas in my next RV, as well. :-)
As for the certification, Pat Patterson learned in AB-DAR school that a
certifiied engine is indeed decertified when it is attached to an
experimental. It is true, even if one does not remove the data plate, which
I refuse to do. Just as Sam said, all one has to do is have an IA approve
the engine's use on a certified airplane for it to be put back to use as
such. I'm sure mine could be put back to service with a couple of changes
like removing the starter and alternator. I kept mine in certified
condition, I thought, by having an A&P sign off the engine at inspection
time. I quit that when Pat told me what he'd learned. I still have Pat,
the A&P, help me with the inspection; but, I do the sign off, now.
Actually, I don't know why we worry so much about keeping our engines
certified, anyway. How often do you think an engine from an experimental is
going to be put back into a certified airplane? Most likely, it will be
snapped up by another experimental builder before the certified status comes
into play.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Cutting |
In a message dated 6/7/06 12:58:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net writes:
> He did a very nice job on my cutout and the
> price was VERY reasonable, it saved me a lot of work and disappointment. I
> highly recommend letting Steve do your panel if you have the resources.
>>>
I'll second Deans nomination!
Mark Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com> |
| Subject: | Purchasing oxygen |
Is there any reason that a small medical oxygen cylinder and canulas not
be used in an aircraft.
My father, who passed away, had medical oxygen equipment that I now
have. I can not see any reason I couldn't use this in my plane.
Am I wrong?
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Panel Cutting |
Steve did my new panel on my RV-4 as well...check out
www.mykitlog.com/pbesing Nice work, Steve.
Paul Besing
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 12:54 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Instrument Panel Cutting
>
>
> >
> >
> > Just a quick thanks to all of you folks you
> responded to my quest for the
> > optimum methods for cutting holes in the
> instrument panel (that are not of
> > the round variety). After experimenting with
> several different things, I
> > found that a (baby size) router used for laminate
> trimming worked the best
> > for me. I made a wooden jig for the two
> rectangular holes needed for the
> > EFIS and AOA mounting and the results turned out
> very nice, almost as good
> > a
> > as a CNC milling machine. Round instrument holes
> were cut with the common
> > fly cutter and came out nice as well, I just had
> to adjust the damn thing
> > for each my 2.5 inch instruments as they didn't
> seem to be a common size!
> >
> > I solved my problem of the funny VM1000 engine
> monitor display cutout by
> > sending my blank to Mr Steve Davis of Memphis
> Tennessee (phone number
> > 901-240-3068). Steve has autocad AND machining
> facilities and has done
> > some
> > very nice work on RV panels. He did a very nice
> job on my cutout and the
> > price was VERY reasonable, it saved me a lot of
> work and disappointment. I
> > highly recommend letting Steve do your panel if
> you have the resources.
> > I've spent the better part of the last month
> (spare time) doing the flight
> > instrument side of the panel and it was a lot more
> work than I expected (I
> > have lots of stuff in there though). I enjoyed
> doing it but could be
> > further along towards clearing the prop if I'd let
> someone else do that
> > part
> > of it. Oh well, I'll be able to say I built
> EVERYTHING on the airplane
> > except the metal stampings. Oh the joys and
> frustrations of building your
> > own aircraft!!
> >
> > Dean Psiropoulos
> > RV-6A N197DM
> > Not long to- Clear-the-prop
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Purchasing oxygen |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Will work great in your plane!
But he probably has regular cannulas.
Practically speaking, you would want the ones with the little flapper in
them like the one on this page.
http://www.airportshoppe.com/aviation_oxygen/compared.html
or this one
http://aerox.com/Pages/masks.html
Really saves the oxygen. I could pull a tank dry in 3 hours on a std
cannula at 18k'. I can go twice that with the flapper valve one.
Mike
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Danielson
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Purchasing oxygen
Is there any reason that a small medical oxygen cylinder and canulas not
be used in an aircraft.
My father, who passed away, had medical oxygen equipment that I now
have. I can not see any reason I couldn't use this in my plane.
Am I wrong?
John L. Danielson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for RVator article on Johanssen tiptanks |
Does anyone out there have a copy of this article that they would be willing to
scan in for me?
IIRC it came out in '03.
I have a set - just want to complete my documentation.
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chopper 2" <mkellems(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area |
Jerry, I'd like to suggest you stop in at RNC McMinnville, Tn. Their price
for avgas is $3.53 per gal. tax included. Not far from your originally
planned stop. Or. email me offlist for a delivery quote . RV's handle
crosswinds better than any other taildragger I've flown. (2500+ TW) Anyone
else traveling through Tennessee might check your flightplan to save a few
bucks. Tell'em Mike Kellems from Lewisburg sent you for the local price.
Mike K. RV3 29AT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry(at)mc.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Charlotte NC routing to Chicago area
>
> Hi RV- Listers ..
> I just purchased Ron Awad's RV-4 > I'll make two stops for fuel not more
> than 300 miles at a time. Any
> suggested places to stop or avoid. The first stop will be an over night
> so
> it'd be nice to have it close to a hotel (town area).
>
> Crosswind landings ... what should a newbie pilot (in the 4) avoid in the
> way of wind velocity for cross? Any other suggestions that would
> help?
> Many thanks ...
> Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com> |
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders? All
four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first installed
them without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines, cleaned the
fittings and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they still leak a
tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D.Heath" <altoq(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leaking brakes |
If you're talking about the brake line, are the double flared? If they
aren't, double flair them. If they are, they make soft copper washers
that are meant to take care of the same kind of problem in air
conditioner systems. Auto parts stores have them. If you're sure its the
fittings, good but it might not hurt to look at the calipers and make
sure the pistons are not inverted, exposing the "O" rings. Some came
from the manufacturer that way.
Good Luck
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders?
All four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first installed
them without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines, cleaned the
fittings and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they still leak a
tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
I have an RV7 QB kit on the way. I now have to decide on engine. I'm leaning
towards TMX IO-360 with Roller tappets and Cold Air forward facing intake. I
would appreciate any thoughts on carb-vs-injection, roller tappets, etc.
TMX-vs-Superior-vs-Lycomming-vs-??? Have any of you exchanged the Vans cowl,
wing tips, wheel pants for the Same James? If so what results did you get.
Any input would be appreciated.
John Furey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
John,
I have been working with Will James getting the newer "short cowl" (same
dimensions as Van's cowl but with the circular inlets) working on a
"carbureted O-360". I wnated a different look (customization you know) and
hoped there might be a little performance thrown in as a bonus.
I think I have the basics sorted out (there are a few little nuances to work
out with the transition from the circular inlet to the Van's airbox) so
contact me off-list if you decide to go that route.
I do not have any performance data as the plane is nowhere near flying (yet)
but what I am hoping for is enough to offset the drag from the **nosegear**
and **steps** that this plane will have. :-)
BTW, Will and Liz have been very nice to work with on this effort. If I were
not dragging my feet so much (fingers in too many pies) this plane would
have flown a few YEARS ago!!
James
On 6/8/06, John Furey wrote:
>
> I have an RV7 QB kit on the way. I now have to decide on engine. I'm
> leaning towards TMX IO-360 with Roller tappets and Cold Air forward facing
> intake. I would appreciate any thoughts on carb-vs-injection, roller
> tappets, etc. TMX-vs-Superior-vs-Lycomming-vs-??? Have any of you exchanged
> the Vans cowl, wing tips, wheel pants for the Same James? If so what results
> did you get. Any input would be appreciated.
>
> John Furey
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for RVator article on Johanssen tiptanks |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I would be happy to do it for you, just let me know the year and issue #
and I will forward it to you in a PDF.
Dan
40269 RV10 (N289DT)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:42 PM
Subject: RV-List: Looking for RVator article on Johanssen tiptanks
Does anyone out there have a copy of this article that they would be
willing to scan in for me?
IIRC it came out in '03.
I have a set - just want to complete my documentation.
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 Auto Fuel STC's ( fine point missed |
)
| From: | "Condon, Philip M." <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
If you read carefully in the EAA and Perterson STC's for auto fuel
STC's, one notices that all of the STC's are always combined with a
airframe and engine pair, Just to say that the Lycoming-ABCD engine is
STCed is incorrect when this particular example should be Lycoming-ABCD
as installed in a Cessn-1234. Meaning that if the same engine is
installed on a Piper=XYZ may NOT be Stc-able for auto fuel. Everyone
seems to automatically assume that it's the engine only that determines
the STC-ability to use auto fuel, when indeed it's the airframe and
engine PAIR that determines the ability to consume autofeuk
From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320
> My understanding is that the engine will work on the mogas but the >
STC
> doesn't cover it. So, it would seem the decision is if you want > to
keep
> your engine certificated.
One has to look at the STCs. The EAA STC may not cover high
compression
engines; but, the Petersen seems to cover them. Do keep in mind that
STCs,
ADs, etc. do not apply to experimentals; but, one is foolish to not
comply,
in many cases. If the testing was done for the Petersen STC for high
compression approval, I'd think it would be OK to use 91-93 antiknock
fuels
in them. If not, I wouldn't. Fortunately, his STC does seem to cover
them;
so, I'm going to use autogas in my next RV, as well. :-)
As for the certification, Pat Patterson learned in AB-DAR school that a
certifiied engine is indeed decertified when it is attached to an
experimental. It is true, even if one does not remove the data plate,
which
I refuse to do. Just as Sam said, all one has to do is have an IA
approve
the engine's use on a certified airplane for it to be put back to use
as
such. I'm sure mine could be put back to service with a couple of
changes
like removing the starter and alternator. I kept mine in certified
condition, I thought, by having an A&P sign off the engine at
inspection
time. I quit that when Pat told me what he'd learned. I still have
Pat,
the A&P, help me with the inspection; but, I do the sign off, now.
Actually, I don't know why we worry so much about keeping our engines
certified, anyway. How often do you think an engine from an
experimental is
going to be put back into a certified airplane? Most likely, it will
be
snapped up by another experimental builder before the certified status
comes
into play.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dcw(at)mnwing.org> |
Greetings all:
I have recently installed dual LSI electronic ignition in my RV-4. I
installed the mag opening covers just as Klaus recommended with no gasket.
I used my usual Aviation Form-A-Gasket as a sealant but the covers are
leaking oil.
Any suggestions on sealing these better? Did anyone use a gasket?
Doug
N722DW, 290 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leaking brakes |
No, its the fitting at the brake pedal cylinder, and just the bottom
fittings!
----- Original Message -----
From: John D.Heath
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
If you're talking about the brake line, are the double flared? If they
aren't, double flair them. If they are, they make soft copper washers
that are meant to take care of the same kind of problem in air
conditioner systems. Auto parts stores have them. If you're sure its the
fittings, good but it might not hurt to look at the calipers and make
sure the pistons are not inverted, exposing the "O" rings. Some came
from the manufacturer that way.
Good Luck
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders?
All four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first installed
them without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines, cleaned the
fittings and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they still leak a
tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 Auto Fuel STC's ( fine point |
missed )
>> If you read carefully in the EAA and Perterson STC's for auto fuel
>> STC's, one notices that all of the STC's are always combined with a
>> airframe and engine pair, Just to say that the Lycoming-ABCD engine is
>> STCed is incorrect when this particular example should be Lycoming-ABCD
>> as installed in a Cessn-1234. Meaning that if the same engine is
>> installed on a Piper=XYZ may NOT be Stc-able for auto fuel. Everyone
>> seems to automatically assume that it's the engine only that determines
>> the STC-ability to use auto fuel, when indeed it's the airframe and
>> engine PAIR that determines the ability to consume autofeuk <<
This is true if one owns a commercially built aircraft that must adhere to
the STC. However, experimentals do not require an STC for auto gas.
Therefore, we aren't bound by the restrictions that owners of commercially
built airplanes are. My friend owns a 150hp powered Mooney. His engine
would run quite nicely on 87 antiknock fuel. His airframe/engine is not
included in the STCs; so, he can't use auto gas. The AA-5A Cheetah that I
owned before I started flying my RV-6A was listed in Petersen's STC; so, I
bought the STC for it and took advantage of the savings.
As owners of experimental aircraft, our biggest concerns are having fuel
systems, ignition systems, and compression ratios that allow us to use the
fuel. With that, the fine point as indicated was not missed because
experimentals don't abide by the same rules as commercially built airplanes.
The point of our discussion was what engines might be able to use auto gas
safely in our RV airframes. Based on tests in other airframes, some higher
compression ratio engines are good candidates for auto gas in our RVs, as
well. We just need to use gas with a higher antiknock value.
One of the advantages of building and flying experimentals is that we're
supposed to experiment. I did test flights with auto fuel to be sure it
works in my RV. It did; so, I use it. Knowing that I can up the
compression and still possibly use premium auto gas gives me more options
for my next RV. Think of it this way. As we fly more and more hours on
auto fuels, the FAA may open the doors more for those who fly commerically
built aircraft. Not a bad idea, huh? Our experiences will be quite helpful
as 100LL becomes a thing of the past. :-)
By the way, the only difference I've encountered between having the STCs for
my two previous airplanes and my RV is the paperwork. Or, should I say the
lack of it on the RV. I have a placard at the fuel cap that indicates 100LL
or 87 antiknock fuels. I had to fill out paperwork, put placards at the
tanks, and put tags on the engines for the STCs. I also had to pay for the
STCs, which were well worth it. I played it somewhat smart when I did the
fuel system on my RV. I made it almost identical to the one that was on my
AA-5A Cheetah that was allowed the STC. So far, no complaints and much
savings.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (One of these days)
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tru Trak ADI Pilot II |
I'm interested in purchasing a Tru Trak ADI Pilot II. Does anyone sell at a
better price than what is advertised? Willing to pay by check so no credit
card charges to the lucky seller. Who has had the best service on Tru Trak
items?...Maybe I should wait for Oshkosh. Any comments?
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 Auto Fuel STC's ( fine point |
missed )
Jim,
I am not aquainted with STC s and how they apply to use of auto fuel.
You mention purchasing Peterson's STC that you bought. What do you
purchase? Is it the right or license to use the process described in the
STC, like a software license? In the case of the experimental aircraft
is that necessary or did you apply it to your Cheeta? Does that STC
apply to an O-320 160 hp Lycoming? One more question. You mention that
you applied the fuel system design to your RV. Are there unique
details of the fuel system design that differ from the standard Vans design?
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A O-320-D1A flying
Jim Sears wrote:
>
>>> If you read carefully in the EAA and Perterson STC's for auto fuel
>>> STC's, one notices that all of the STC's are always combined with a
>>> airframe and engine pair, Just to say that the Lycoming-ABCD engine
>>> is STCed is incorrect when this particular example should be
>>> Lycoming-ABCD as installed in a Cessn-1234. Meaning that if the same
>>> engine is installed on a Piper=XYZ may NOT be Stc-able for auto
>>> fuel. Everyone seems to automatically assume that it's the engine
>>> only that determines the STC-ability to use auto fuel, when indeed
>>> it's the airframe and engine PAIR that determines the ability to
>>> consume autofeuk <<
>>
>
> This is true if one owns a commercially built aircraft that must
> adhere to the STC. However, experimentals do not require an STC for
> auto gas. Therefore, we aren't bound by the restrictions that owners
> of commercially built airplanes are. My friend owns a 150hp powered
> Mooney. His engine would run quite nicely on 87 antiknock fuel. His
> airframe/engine is not included in the STCs; so, he can't use auto
> gas. The AA-5A Cheetah that I owned before I started flying my RV-6A
> was listed in Petersen's STC; so, I bought the STC for it and took
> advantage of the savings.
>
> As owners of experimental aircraft, our biggest concerns are having
> fuel systems, ignition systems, and compression ratios that allow us
> to use the fuel. With that, the fine point as indicated was not
> missed because experimentals don't abide by the same rules as
> commercially built airplanes. The point of our discussion was what
> engines might be able to use auto gas safely in our RV airframes.
> Based on tests in other airframes, some higher compression ratio
> engines are good candidates for auto gas in our RVs, as well. We just
> need to use gas with a higher antiknock value.
>
> One of the advantages of building and flying experimentals is that
> we're supposed to experiment. I did test flights with auto fuel to be
> sure it works in my RV. It did; so, I use it. Knowing that I can up
> the compression and still possibly use premium auto gas gives me more
> options for my next RV. Think of it this way. As we fly more and
> more hours on auto fuels, the FAA may open the doors more for those
> who fly commerically built aircraft. Not a bad idea, huh? Our
> experiences will be quite helpful as 100LL becomes a thing of the
> past. :-)
>
> By the way, the only difference I've encountered between having the
> STCs for my two previous airplanes and my RV is the paperwork. Or,
> should I say the lack of it on the RV. I have a placard at the fuel
> cap that indicates 100LL or 87 antiknock fuels. I had to fill out
> paperwork, put placards at the tanks, and put tags on the engines for
> the STCs. I also had to pay for the STCs, which were well worth it.
> I played it somewhat smart when I did the fuel system on my RV. I
> made it almost identical to the one that was on my AA-5A Cheetah that
> was allowed the STC. So far, no complaints and much savings.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
> RV-7A #70317 (One of these days)
> EAA Tech Counselor
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg(at)itmack.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Leaking brakes |
Can someone explain "double flared" as opposed to the single flare?
Perhaps a link to a picture or 2 would help.
Thanks Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: John D.Heath
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
If you're talking about the brake line, are the double flared? If they
aren't, double flair them. If they are, they make soft copper washers
that are meant to take care of the same kind of problem in air
conditioner systems. Auto parts stores have them. If you're sure its the
fittings, good but it might not hurt to look at the calipers and make
sure the pistons are not inverted, exposing the "O" rings. Some came
from the manufacturer that way.
Good Luck
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders?
All four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first installed
them without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines, cleaned the
fittings and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they still leak a
tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LSI mag covers |
Yes, I first installed mine without the gasket as spec'd. They leaked.
Then I used the gasket...no more leaks.
John
Doug Weiler wrote:
>
> Greetings all:
>
> I have recently installed dual LSI electronic ignition in my RV-4. I
> installed the mag opening covers just as Klaus recommended with no
> gasket. I used my usual Aviation Form-A-Gasket as a sealant but the
> covers are leaking oil.
>
> Any suggestions on sealing these better? Did anyone use a gasket?
>
> Doug
> N722DW, 290 hours
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
I'm building an RV7. Anyone have experience with the Firewall Forward kit
from Van's, or is it better to piece meal?
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
I don't believe it has been made clear exactly where they are leaking.
However, since you mentioned pipe dope, it would seem to be the pipe
threads. Try some EZ Turn and tighten them as much as you dare. Double
flaring is not generally necessary, and in this case it is not relevant, as
there are not metal lines coming from the bottoms of the brake master
cylinders anyway.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 758 hours
Maple Grove, MN
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg@itmack
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Can someone explain "double flared" as opposed to the single flare? Perhaps
a link to a picture or 2 would help.
Thanks Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: John <mailto:altoq(at)cebridge.net> D.Heath
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
If you're talking about the brake line, are the double flared? If they
aren't, double flair them. If they are, they make soft copper washers that
are meant to take care of the same kind of problem in air conditioner
systems. Auto parts stores have them. If you're sure its the fittings, good
but it might not hurt to look at the calipers and make sure the pistons are
not inverted, exposing the "O" rings. Some came from the manufacturer that
way.
Good Luck
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders? All
four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first installed them
without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines, cleaned the fittings
and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they still leak a tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John D.Heath" <altoq(at)cebridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Leaking brakes |
/ \ _ _
\ / \ / \\ //
! ! ! ! ! !
A special flairing tool is used in two steps. The first step might be
said to make a bubble like form at the end of the line. The second step
folds the end most portion back inside the tube, making the flair its
self double thickness. Hope this comes through.
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg@itmack
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Can someone explain "double flared" as opposed to the single flare?
Perhaps a link to a picture or 2 would help.
Thanks Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: John D.Heath
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaking brakes
If you're talking about the brake line, are the double flared? If
they aren't, double flair them. If they are, they make soft copper
washers that are meant to take care of the same kind of problem in air
conditioner systems. Auto parts stores have them. If you're sure its the
fittings, good but it might not hurt to look at the calipers and make
sure the pistons are not inverted, exposing the "O" rings. Some came
from the manufacturer that way.
Good Luck
John D.
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: RV-List: Leaking brakes
Anyone got any good ideas on how to stop leaking brake cylinders?
All four are leaking a tiny bit at the lower fitting. I first
installed them without any pipe dope. then I drained the brake lines,
cleaned the fittings and reinstalled with prematex sealant and they
still leak a tiny bit.
Ideas please!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]" <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com> |
This is starting to seem a little ridiculous but,
Does anyone know of a commonly available computer font that meets all of the requirements
of FAR 45.29 for registration marks?
Specifically, the way I read it, they want the width of all characters to be two
thirds of the height except for 1's W's and M's. I neglected to get somebody
to make me a stencil and I need to finish spraying the trim and clear tomorrow.
I would like to paint the reg. marking rather than have the stick on.
I would like to just cut my own stencil from a product called "frisket film" and
paint the number on but I'm worried that if I don't meet the letter of the regs
I could be screwed.
Has anyone ever run in to a problem with a DAR over this?
Thanks,
Greg Puckett
Elizabeth, CO
RV-8 (finally getting close)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
Has anyone ever run in to a problem with a DAR over this?
Greg, you may want to check with your DAR. Recently a DAR in our area
required an RV to put on the 12 in. letters because the builder said the
plane was capable of more than 200 mph.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
If you're a first-time builder and you're going mostly "stock" in terms
of your engine/carb/FI/induction/baffles/oil & fuel systems, the FWF kit
will be of high value (convenience in terms of $time$ saved). What type
of engine are you hanging?
The more you stray from Van's stock setups, the less useful the FWF kit
will be imho. For example, if you were going with a Sam James cowl &
plenum, the FWF kit wouldn't be a 100% perfect match for you.
Next time around, I will still probably order the FWF kit but I will
most likely omit several items that I would customize.
I know this is kinda vague, but it really depends on your setup.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (933 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: John Furey
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: FF Kit
I'm building an RV7. Anyone have experience with the Firewall Forward
kit from Van's, or is it better to piece meal?
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
No offense to the DARs on this list, but don't let the DAR push you around.
Here's the reg...from Part 45.29:
(iii) Marks at least 3 inches high may be displayed on an aircraft for which
the FAA has issued an experimental certificate under 21.191 (d), 21.191
(g), or 21.191 (i) of this chapter to operate as an exhibition aircraft, an
amateur-built aircraft, or a light-sport aircraft when the maximum cruising
speed of the aircraft does not exceed 180 knots CAS;
Then the question is...who determines the aircraft's maximum cruising speed?
Is it YOU the builder, or is it Van's, the kit manufacturer? How can you
possibly know your aircraft's max cruising speed prior to actually flying
it? I guess they have to take Van's specs then...
And if so...
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-7per.htm
75% Cruise for an RV-7 with the biggest powerplant Van's "endorses" for the
design...200hp solo weight 75% cruise is 207 mph = 180 knots. But guess
what?! It ain't gonna be INDICATING (calibrating) anywhere near that. CAS
will be waaaay less than 180 knots.
So even for the RV-8 which Van's specs out at 212 mph (184 knots) at solo
weight 75% cruise, CAS won't be anywhere near 180 at 8000'.
The key is "CAS" here. That's what the reg says. If the DAR is gonna push
you on it, follow the reg to the letter!!!
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (933 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: N-Number font
>
> Has anyone ever run in to a problem with a DAR over this?
>
>
> Greg, you may want to check with your DAR. Recently a DAR in our area
> required an RV to put on the 12 in. letters because the builder said the
> plane was capable of more than 200 mph.
> Dale
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
On 19:09:59 2006-06-08 "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]"
wrote:
> Specifically, the way I read it, they want the width of all
> characters to be two thirds of the height except for 1's W's and M's. I
> neglected to get somebody to make me a stencil and I need to finish
> spraying the trim and clear tomorrow. I would like to paint the reg.
> marking rather than have the stick on.
If nothing else, having a set of vinyl letters made first, in the same font
that you would have used for painting, would let you see how it looks
before committing to the final layout.
And it may not be first in your mind right now, but having removable
letters may make your plane a little more attractive down the road to a
potential purchaser (if someone wants to re-reg it with different numbers,
or move it to Canada, etc.)
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
There goes some of those leave it up to the DAR
things...I've seen plenty of RV's with the small
numbers on them...I'm sure they are over 200 MPH quite
often! My -6A had 4" temporary hardware store numbers
on it before it was painted...I'm pretty sure it went
over 200 MPH on many occasions.
Paul Besing
--- Dale Ensing wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone ever run in to a problem with a DAR over
> this?
>
>
> Greg, you may want to check with your DAR. Recently
> a DAR in our area
> required an RV to put on the 12 in. letters because
> the builder said the
> plane was capable of more than 200 mph.
> Dale
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
I am pretty much standard engine, cowling, and the FWF kit saved lots of
time. There were some parts supplied I did not use but the convenience
of having almost everything was nice. I am not an A&P with lots of
spare parts laying around. I wanted parts that was the right part and
the right size. The FWF kit worked very well with my TMX-O-360 engine
installation. I am sure it would work well with a lycoming as well.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: John Furey
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: FF Kit
I'm building an RV7. Anyone have experience with the Firewall Forward
kit from Van's, or is it better to piece meal?
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker(at)hotmail.com> |
I did the FWF kit and I'd do it again. If you already have some of the
parts that are included in the kit, Van's will custom tailor the kit to
your needs. Just let them know what you do not need. They will send the
rest and bill you accordingly.
Just my two cents worth.
Steve Struyk
RV-8, 50 hours.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Furey
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: FF Kit
I'm building an RV7. Anyone have experience with the Firewall Forward
kit from Van's, or is it better to piece meal?
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
Thanks Dan, I am going with the Sam James cowl and probably a TMX IO-360
(still looking for advice here) I have built 2 RV6A in the past. I am
learning a lot from your web site.
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
Larry, I am leaning towards the TMX O or IO-360 and would appreciate any
input.
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi All-
A person could have a lot of fun with this one! I asked a pertinent source
about this subject and got the perfect answer. The cruise speed of a plane
has an FAA definition. Unfortunately I don't have either the citation at
my fingertips or the time to look it up right now, but you can go to the
main fed site and do a search for the info and get it right from the horses
mouth. The short version is that V sub D (design diving speed), V sub NE
(never exceed speed), V sub H (max sea level speed), and V sub C (cruise
speed) are all mathematically defined and interrelated, as well as linked
to wing loading at max gross take off weight. V sub C has a range, the
maximum end of which is defined as 0.9 x V sub H. According to Van's, V
sub H is 192 kts for the RV-8. 192 x .9 = 173. Therefore, the max cruise
speed for an RV-8 is 173 kts as defined by the FAA.
Voila!
Crossing an ADIZ is another matter, of course. We plan on 12" markings for
that reason alone.
>
> Greg, you may want to check with your DAR. Recently a DAR in our area
> required an RV to put on the 12 in. letters because the builder said the
> plane was capable of more than 200 mph.
> Dale
>
>
>
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
| From: | "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]" <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com> |
Thanks for the info everyone.
I know everyone wants to hash out the height issue again and I'm sure I can find
some DAR to disagree but, I think that issue is pretty clear as written in the
regulation. Dan is right, its CAS and at 75% power the RV-8 will see nothing
close to 180kts CAS. Glen's analysis should also be some good ammo.
The question I really needed an answer to is:
With respect to FAR 45.29 (c), has anyone ever had an issue if the width does not
exactly match?
It's not like I'm using some crazy font, just a plain Swis821 LtCn BT in bold and
slightly slanted but, it does not have characters that are exactly 2/3 wide
as they are high and the "1" is not exactly 1/6th wide. The number "8"is exactly
2/3rd but the "N" the "G" and "P" are about as wide as they are high.
After looking a Mike Stewarts font, I can't imagine anyone having a problem with
mine but before I shoot and clear coat, I wanted to know if anyone had ever
heard of an issue with the width and font of the character from their DAR?
Thanks everyone.
Greg
N881GP
(c) Width. Characters must be two-thirds as wide as they are high, except the number
"1", which must be one-sixth as wide as it is high, and the letters "M"
and "W" which may be as wide as they are high.
(d) Thickness. Characters must be formed by solid lines one-sixth as thick as the
character is high.
(e) Spacing. The space between each character may not be less than one-fourth of
the character width.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
Call your AB-DAR and ask him.
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 Puckett, Gregory
[DENTK]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: N-Number font
Thanks for the info everyone.
I know everyone wants to hash out the height issue again and I'm sure I can
find some DAR to disagree but, I think that issue is pretty clear as written
in the regulation. Dan is right, its CAS and at 75% power the RV-8 will see
nothing close to 180kts CAS. Glen's analysis should also be some good ammo.
The question I really needed an answer to is:
With respect to FAR 45.29 (c), has anyone ever had an issue if the width
does not exactly match?
It's not like I'm using some crazy font, just a plain Swis821 LtCn BT in
bold and slightly slanted but, it does not have characters that are exactly
2/3 wide as they are high and the "1" is not exactly 1/6th wide. The number
"8"is exactly 2/3rd but the "N" the "G" and "P" are about as wide as they
are high.
After looking a Mike Stewarts font, I can't imagine anyone having a problem
with mine but before I shoot and clear coat, I wanted to know if anyone had
ever heard of an issue with the width and font of the character from their
DAR?
Thanks everyone.
Greg
N881GP
(c) Width. Characters must be two-thirds as wide as they are high, except
the number "1", which must be one-sixth as wide as it is high, and the
letters "M" and "W" which may be as wide as they are high.
(d) Thickness. Characters must be formed by solid lines one-sixth as thick
as the character is high.
(e) Spacing. The space between each character may not be less than
one-fourth of the character width.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lance Sorensen <lancej(at)charter.net> |
I have a map box kit for the RV7-9 panel. Has been assembled &
primed and includes cut stiffener angles and all hardware. Ready to
install.
$25.00 plus shipping. (lancej(at)charter.net).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Frisby" <flyingj(at)mtaonline.net> |
| Subject: | Squeaking brakes |
With all you guys in rocket ships, I'll probably get laughed of the list,
but here goes.
I have a Zenith CH801, it's maximum speed is around 100mph. I monitor this
list because I'm interested in adding an RV-3 to my "stable", either by
building from a kit, partially built kit, or possibly a flying plane.
Since there are so many RV builders, I thought I might ask here:
What can be done to quiet squealing brakes. My CH801 brakes squeal like the
dickens with anything more than light application. I have heard a
suggestion to put grease on the back side of the pads, between the pads and
the pucks, I plan to try that, but I'd like to hear suggestions from anyone
who has had to deal with this.
When I first taxied the plane, I made sure to season the brakes the same way
I used to season my cleveland brakes on production planes, but they have
squealed since they were new.
Thanks
Jim Frisby
Zenith CH801
N801ZA
Palmer, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
I have been happy at every step taken with Mattituck. I would buy
another engine from them again but would consider others also. Things
to change and at the time I bought mine, I felt it was the best value
available. Mattituck has exceeded my expectations at every opportunity.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: John Furey
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:27 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: FF Kit
Larry, I am leaning towards the TMX O or IO-360 and would appreciate
any input.
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LSI mag covers |
Doug,
Use a gasket with "TITESEAL LIGHT OR MEDIUM".
with a gasket. I have never had good luck with any of the permatex products
on airplanes.
Good luck.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weiler" <dcw(at)mnwing.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: RV-List: LSI mag covers
>
> Greetings all:
>
> I have recently installed dual LSI electronic ignition in my RV-4. I
> installed the mag opening covers just as Klaus recommended with no gasket.
> I used my usual Aviation Form-A-Gasket as a sealant but the covers are
> leaking oil.
>
> Any suggestions on sealing these better? Did anyone use a gasket?
>
> Doug
> N722DW, 290 hours
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LSI mag covers |
John,
I saw your post on the covers which reminded me to tell you that I am
signing up for the Airventure race. I hope you are also.
I just ordered a 10 gal aux tank for my RV8 from Summit racing. Last year
was to close. I almost ran outof fuel. 10 extra gallons should give me a
good cushion.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Huft" <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: LSI mag covers
>
> Yes, I first installed mine without the gasket as spec'd. They leaked.
> Then I used the gasket...no more leaks.
>
> John
>
>
> Doug Weiler wrote:
>>
>> Greetings all:
>>
>> I have recently installed dual LSI electronic ignition in my RV-4. I
>> installed the mag opening covers just as Klaus recommended with no
>> gasket. I used my usual Aviation Form-A-Gasket as a sealant but the
>> covers are leaking oil.
>>
>> Any suggestions on sealing these better? Did anyone use a gasket?
>>
>> Doug
>> N722DW, 290 hours
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dick martin" <martin(at)gbonline.com> |
John,
I was one of the first users of the Sam James cowl and Plenum. It is
designed around a fuel injection system with a forward facing air intake
direct to the fuel injector. It is very efficient. You can expect at
least a 10 knot increase over Vans standard setup. Also, it will cool
much more efficiently. Consider installing your oil cooler behind cyl
number 4 as high as possible and tilt back approx. 25 degrees for better
performance.
Good Luck. I will look for you at one of the future Air Venture Cup
races. I welcome the competition.
Dick Martin
N233M RV8
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
From: John Furey
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV7
I have an RV7 QB kit on the way. I now have to decide on engine. I'm
leaning towards TMX IO-360 with Roller tappets and Cold Air forward
facing intake. I would appreciate any thoughts on carb-vs-injection,
roller tappets, etc. TMX-vs-Superior-vs-Lycomming-vs-??? Have any of you
exchanged the Vans cowl, wing tips, wheel pants for the Same James? If
so what results did you get. Any input would be appreciated.
John Furey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeaking brakes |
Hi Jim
Do a search of the RV-list archives, there is probably a lot of relevant
info there. The way aluminum brake lines are formed and attached to the
wheel cylinder can create a vibration or chattering squeal. I had to
reduce the size of the flexible loop on my aluminum brake lines, somehow
a vibration would develop causing a fluttering or whipping in the large
brake line loop and causing a lot of high pitched brake noise and also
causing one brake line to fail at the wheel cylinder in about 12 hrs.
George in Langley B.C.
6A flying 7A finishing
Jim Frisby wrote:
>
> With all you guys in rocket ships, I'll probably get laughed of the list,
> but here goes.
>
> I have a Zenith CH801, it's maximum speed is around 100mph. I monitor this
> list because I'm interested in adding an RV-3 to my "stable", either by
> building from a kit, partially built kit, or possibly a flying plane.
>
> Since there are so many RV builders, I thought I might ask here:
>
> What can be done to quiet squealing brakes. My CH801 brakes squeal like the
> dickens with anything more than light application. I have heard a
> suggestion to put grease on the back side of the pads, between the pads and
> the pucks, I plan to try that, but I'd like to hear suggestions from anyone
> who has had to deal with this.
>
> When I first taxied the plane, I made sure to season the brakes the same way
> I used to season my cleveland brakes on production planes, but they have
> squealed since they were new.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Frisby
> Zenith CH801
> N801ZA
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Squeaking brakes |
Try cleaning and lubing the shafts that the caliper slides on, and make sure
the caliper slides on the axis of those shafts...that there isn't a twisting
load on it.
Just a WAG, hope it helps.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (934 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Frisby" <flyingj(at)mtaonline.net>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 5:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Squeaking brakes
>
> With all you guys in rocket ships, I'll probably get laughed of the list,
> but here goes.
>
> I have a Zenith CH801, it's maximum speed is around 100mph. I monitor
> this
> list because I'm interested in adding an RV-3 to my "stable", either by
> building from a kit, partially built kit, or possibly a flying plane.
>
> Since there are so many RV builders, I thought I might ask here:
>
> What can be done to quiet squealing brakes. My CH801 brakes squeal like
> the
> dickens with anything more than light application. I have heard a
> suggestion to put grease on the back side of the pads, between the pads
> and
> the pucks, I plan to try that, but I'd like to hear suggestions from
> anyone
> who has had to deal with this.
>
> When I first taxied the plane, I made sure to season the brakes the same
> way
> I used to season my cleveland brakes on production planes, but they have
> squealed since they were new.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Frisby
> Zenith CH801
> N801ZA
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hedrick" <khedrick(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Squeaking brakes |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of G McNutt
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Squeaking brakes
Hi Jim
Do a search of the RV-list archives, there is probably a lot of relevant
info there. The way aluminum brake lines are formed and attached to the
wheel cylinder can create a vibration or chattering squeal. I had to
reduce the size of the flexible loop on my aluminum brake lines, somehow
a vibration would develop causing a fluttering or whipping in the large
brake line loop and causing a lot of high pitched brake noise and also
causing one brake line to fail at the wheel cylinder in about 12 hrs.
George in Langley B.C.
6A flying 7A finishing
Jim Frisby wrote:
>
> With all you guys in rocket ships, I'll probably get laughed of the list,
> but here goes.
>
> I have a Zenith CH801, it's maximum speed is around 100mph. I monitor
this
> list because I'm interested in adding an RV-3 to my "stable", either by
> building from a kit, partially built kit, or possibly a flying plane.
>
> Since there are so many RV builders, I thought I might ask here:
>
> What can be done to quiet squealing brakes. My CH801 brakes squeal like
the
> dickens with anything more than light application. I have heard a
> suggestion to put grease on the back side of the pads, between the pads
and
> the pucks, I plan to try that, but I'd like to hear suggestions from
anyone
> who has had to deal with this.
>
> When I first taxied the plane, I made sure to season the brakes the same
way
> I used to season my cleveland brakes on production planes, but they have
> squealed since they were new.
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Frisby
> Zenith CH801
> N801ZA
> Palmer, Alaska
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mick Muller" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Greetings Listers, I have been told that the safest way to treat flares
brake and fuel fittings is with a double flaring tool. I can get my hands
on a double flaring tool, but it is a 45degree fitting not 37 degree. I was
thinking that I could use the double flaring tool to make the initial folded
over flare, then my single 37degree flaring tool to finish it off. Does
anyone see a problem with this approach??
Thanks, Mick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: DOUBLE FLARING |
On 9 Jun 2006, at 23:53, Mick Muller wrote:
>
> Greetings Listers, I have been told that the safest way to treat
> flares brake and fuel fittings is with a double flaring tool. I
> can get my hands on a double flaring tool, but it is a 45degree
> fitting not 37 degree. I was thinking that I could use the double
> flaring tool to make the initial folded over flare, then my single
> 37degree flaring tool to finish it off. Does anyone see a problem
> with this approach??
The only problem is that there is no service history for this
technique, so there is no way to know how likely a failure is. It
might be acceptable, or they might have a high failure rate.
I wouldn't use this technique on any flare where the failure could
cause a safety problem. Fuel and brake lines are not a great place
to be using an unproven technique.
Yes, double flares are probably a bit more reliable than single
flares. But, there are many thousands of aircraft flying with single
flared tubes, and they aren't falling out of the sky because of
them. Either buy the right double flaring tool, or stick with single
flares.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LSI mag covers |
Dick, you bet I am signed up for the race.
You will beat me again, but I will still have fun. Teresa is going to
ride along this year.
John
dick martin wrote:
>
> John,
> I saw your post on the covers which reminded me to tell you that I am
> signing up for the Airventure race. I hope you are also.
> I just ordered a 10 gal aux tank for my RV8 from Summit racing. Last
> year was to close. I almost ran outof fuel. 10 extra gallons should
> give me a good cushion.
> Dick Martin
> RV8 N233M
> the fast one
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Huft" <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: LSI mag covers
>
>
>>
>> Yes, I first installed mine without the gasket as spec'd. They
>> leaked. Then I used the gasket...no more leaks.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Doug Weiler wrote:
>>>
>>> Greetings all:
>>>
>>> I have recently installed dual LSI electronic ignition in my RV-4.
>>> I installed the mag opening covers just as Klaus recommended with no
>>> gasket. I used my usual Aviation Form-A-Gasket as a sealant but the
>>> covers are leaking oil.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions on sealing these better? Did anyone use a gasket?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>> N722DW, 290 hours
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bertrv6(at)highstream.net |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
Quoting Paul Besing :
>
> There goes some of those leave it up to the DAR
> things...I've seen plenty of RV's with the small
> numbers on them...I'm sure they are over 200 MPH quite
> often! My -6A had 4" temporary hardware store numbers
> on it before it was painted...I'm pretty sure it went
> over 200 MPH on many occasions.
>
> Paul Besing
>
Paul: I thought, that the requirement, for 12" was only if you fly
outside of the U.S.?
Bert
> --- Dale Ensing wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Has anyone ever run in to a problem with a DAR over
> > this?
> >
> >
> > Greg, you may want to check with your DAR. Recently
> > a DAR in our area
> > required an RV to put on the 12 in. letters because
> > the builder said the
> > plane was capable of more than 200 mph.
> > Dale
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DOUBLE FLARING |
I don't think aluminum line will take well to double fares. You would also
have to remove it from your tool and put it in the 37 degree tool which
would not work well. Single fares are the standard for aviation and works
well, I don't think there is any need to go to double fares. The pressures
we are running are just not that high.
Jim
Jim Cimino
N7TL
RV-8 S/N 80039
150+ Hours
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mick Muller" <mmul6471(at)bigpond.net.au>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: DOUBLE FLARING
>
> Greetings Listers, I have been told that the safest way to treat flares
> brake and fuel fittings is with a double flaring tool. I can get my hands
> on a double flaring tool, but it is a 45degree fitting not 37 degree. I
> was thinking that I could use the double flaring tool to make the initial
> folded over flare, then my single 37degree flaring tool to finish it off.
> Does anyone see a problem with this approach??
> Thanks, Mick
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
bertrv6(at)highstream.net wrote:
>
> Quoting Paul Besing :
>
>
>>
>>There goes some of those leave it up to the DAR
>>things...I've seen plenty of RV's with the small
>>numbers on them...I'm sure they are over 200 MPH quite
>>often! My -6A had 4" temporary hardware store numbers
>>on it before it was painted...I'm pretty sure it went
>>over 200 MPH on many occasions.
>>
>>Paul Besing
>>
>
>
>
>
> Paul: I thought, that the requirement, for 12" was only if you fly
> outside of the U.S.?
>
>
> Bert
>
Nope, based on speed and the ADIZ.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Neel" <vortecx(at)fiber.net> |
I have a IO 550 N out of a Cirrus SR22 605 TT NDH 3 Blade Scimitar
propeller and single lever engine management system. Interest for RV
10's ? Price with or without core. JN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
On 10 Jun 2006, at 17:07, linn Walters wrote:
>
>
> Jerry Springer wrote
>
>>>
>>> Paul: I thought, that the requirement, for 12" was only if
>>> you fly
>>> outside of the U.S.?
>>> Bert
>>
>> Nope, based on speed and the ADIZ.
>> Jerry
>
> And where is MOST of the ADIZ??? Out of the country.
You don't fly through an ADIZ to come up to Canada. Come visit us
sometime.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
John,
I bought the Mattituck TMX IO-360 w/AFP fuel injection plus two P-mags. My
engine was built with the hollow crank in case I might later want to change
to a CS prop, but I am going to install and fly with a Catto 3-blade FP.
Like you, I also had to do some head scratching about the FWF kit and what I
came up with was that the best match for my engine was to get the FWF item
#FF-7A O-360 FP.
However, I still made some changes of either straight deletions or exchanges
as follows:
I deleted the gascolator (don't need it with the AFP-FI).
I deleted ALL the electrical harnesses and master relay and starter
solenoid. (I'll get what I need elsewhere).
I deleted the throttle and mixture cables and bracket (I'm using a throttle
quadrant from DJM).
I changed out the standard FWF 60a alternator for the new 60a alternator
w/internal OV protection.
I deleted the standard oil cooler and instead bought the Stewart Warner
replacement from Pacific.
I deleted the standard Vetterman exhaust and instead bought the same exhaust
directly from Vetterman except with the mufflers.
You can obviously see that most of those changes were as per my personal
preference as opposed to changes mandated by my engine installation. For the
most part, I think if you just delete the gascolator, you might be able to
use all the rest.
I am also using the Sam James Cowl and Plenum, so be aware that you need to
ask Mattituck to get the special bracket from AFP that's made to fit with
the Sam James Plenum.
I hope that gets you in the right direction.
Vern Wanzong
RV7-A
Houston, TX
On 6/9/06, John Furey wrote:
>
> Larry, I am leaning towards the TMX O or IO-360 and would appreciate any
> input.
>
> Thanks
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com> |
I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very poor
quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but
don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
John Furey
2 RV6A slow builds
1 RV7 QB (maybe)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rv-List: For Sale |
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.180.82]) by
air-yg04.mail.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILINYG42-288448b46fd2f; Sat, 10
Received: from mr200.mail.mud.yahoo.com (mr200.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.88.233])
by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v109.13) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYG48-288448b46fd2f;
Received: from web55311.mail.re4.yahoo.com (206.190.58.190)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding;
b=RWYr4S3HlxOlcysh6YgW/YQpQH8ScP4s6LQKejJ2i2u9CMtmKAvLUFvZ1VXqFpKLlY3fZyoUpftpbpvM/XcVK7OdobFhWUeIU8Yn5SRL02M0B4FLU1uIfPXC2WBfaGZ8yEnvK+CbZcnH6ejQZzqxs5aRxaiXiIStaMT1t/lE6+s=
;
Received: from [70.191.179.28] by web55311.mail.re4.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 10
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Fleckenstein <texasmtprops(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Yeller Pages Listing
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-727895693-1149978364=:63360"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AOL-IP: 209.191.88.233
X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
--0-727895693-1149978364=:63360
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Gary VanRemortel,
I have two very low time used Hartzell Propellers, Model HC-C2YK-1BF that would
be perfect for RV aircraft. Would it be possible to advertise these on the
Yeller Pages?
Respectfully,
Dave Fleckenstein
Texas MT Props
texasmtprops(at)yahoo.com
936-560-9296
__________________________________________________
--0-727895693-1149978364=:63360
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
--0-727895693-1149978364=:63360--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
Please contact the gentleman below. I'm only forwarding to the list and
have no connection to the seller.
I have two very low time used Hartzell Propellers, Model HC-C2YK-1BF that
would be perfect for RV aircraft. Would it be possible to advertise these on
the Yeller Pages?
Respectfully,
Dave Fleckenstein
Texas MT Props
936-560-9296
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
On 06/10 10:18, John Furey wrote:
> I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very poor
> quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
> occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but
> don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
Hi John,
Mine are fantastic quality. Zero complaints. Well except for the fact that
they pre-drill for vans pitot tube, but you can fill that with a steel snap
fitting.
Now the shipping was a different story. The crate was destroyed on one end
and there was some scuffing of the wing skins since the wings were a bit loose.
But overall the structure was fine, just buff it out.
I've watched and helped another builder build his wings. I'm glad I didn't
have to do it, twice, booooorrrriiinnngggggg. :)
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com> |
For what its worth, my wings were delivered damaged. After a call to
Vans and an e-mail with a picture to Scott I returned them and they were
fixed. No charge.
Steve Glasgow-Cappy
N123SG RV-8
Cappy's Toy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
John,
My QB wings and fuse arrived together a couple of years ago and I confess I
had some misgivings about what to expect concerning the quality of the
build.
I have to tell you that I was pleasantly amazed at what I saw, and I have
yet to see a SB kit that was assembled and riveted as straight and with any
more attention to detail than my parts were.
What I found with my QB kit has been what I have read from others to find
the same, so if there's a bad one out there, it's the exception rather than
the rule.
Vern
On 6/10/06, John Furey wrote:
>
> I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very poor
> quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
> occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but
> don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
>
> John Furey
> 2 RV6A slow builds
> 1 RV7 QB (maybe)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
I received my RV6-A QB in Jan. 2000 and the quality of assembly was "Top
Shelf!" The RV flies hands off with absolutely no adjustment including not
needing rudder trim. I am building an F1-Rocket now so my RV6-A will have a
hanger mate. The F1 will also be a quick build.
Tom in
Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Tondu" <walter(at)tondu.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Quality
>
> On 06/10 10:18, John Furey wrote:
>
> > I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very
> > poor
> > quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
> > occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks
> > but
> > don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your
> > experience?
>
> Hi John,
>
> Mine are fantastic quality. Zero complaints. Well except for the fact
> that
> they pre-drill for vans pitot tube, but you can fill that with a steel
> snap
> fitting.
>
> Now the shipping was a different story. The crate was destroyed on one
> end
> and there was some scuffing of the wing skins since the wings were a bit
> loose.
> But overall the structure was fine, just buff it out.
>
> I've watched and helped another builder build his wings. I'm glad I
> didn't
> have to do it, twice, booooorrrriiinnngggggg. :)
>
> --
> Walter Tondu
> http://www.rv7-a.com
> Flying!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
Now you've done it.
From now on, I will refer to nose wheel RVs as Canadian RVs.
john
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Yea the US sucks, lets complain about the US again. Please there
> are jerk Customs on both side. I have crossed the US/Can border
> 100's of times when I was a commuter pilot. Trust me it goes both
> ways. May be the Canada customs does not harass the C regestered
> planes and visa a verse, but this has NOTHING to do with N-numbers.
>
> How did they name Canada?
>
> Three of the founding fathers of the frozen hinter lands of the North,
> now
> known as C-A-N-A-D-A where sitting around the table. One said, What
> are we going to name this new country? Another said well lets each pick
> one letter. Than each of the founding Fathers sitting around the table
> picked a letter.
>
> The first person said, C, eh'
> The next said: N, eh'
> and the last person said: D, eh'
>
>
> Cheers George, eh'
>
> P.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan <dan(at)rdan.com> |
I got my QB -8 wings and fuse in April this year, I picked them up at the factory
they are Bonanza, Philippines made, They appear to be excellent quality, I
haven't started working on them yet,.,
Dan
-8
Lake Stevens WA
John Furey wrote:
I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very poor quality
on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare occurrence? I
have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but don't want it if
the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
John Furey
2 RV6A slow builds
1 RV7 QB (maybe)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
John
I was just at the Van's factory and got a close look at the in coming QBs.
They were all excellent.
I am building a 7A SB and a friend has a QB. Both the wings and the fuse
were done to very high standards.
Frank @ SGU and SLC.........Finishing up the Tip Up Canopy!!!!!!!!!!!
>From: Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Quality
>Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 09:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
>
>I got my QB -8 wings and fuse in April this year, I picked them up at the
>factory they are Bonanza, Philippines made, They appear to be excellent
>quality, I haven't started working on them yet,.,
> Dan
> -8
> Lake Stevens WA
>
>John Furey wrote:
> I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very
>poor quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
>occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but
>don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
>
> John Furey
> 2 RV6A slow builds
> 1 RV7 QB (maybe)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | VSI reads backwards |
Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port in the back of the VSI
for connecting to the static source.
When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's descending and visa-versa.
Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
Thanks in advance,
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
for the archives
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | VSI reads backwards |
I think you need to fly below sea level. Or maybe inverted? I know, you
need to fly in the southern hemisphere.
Seriously, it would seem to be mechanically mis-assembled, as it is hard to
imagine what else would do it. If it were connected to the pitot, it would
misbehave wildly, but not as you describe.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RGray67968(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: VSI reads backwards
Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port in the back of the VSI
for connecting to the static source.
When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's descending and visa-versa.
Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
Thanks in advance,
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
for the archives
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: N-Number font |
In a message dated 6/10/2006 4:10:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
You don't fly through an ADIZ to come up to Canada. Come visit us
sometime.
==============================
But aren't you guys, like....communists? ;o)
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 795hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VSI reads backwards |
If the port is blocked, and the air pressure is changing within the body
of the instrument...leak in the body or glass face.
jh
RGray67968(at)aol.com wrote:
> Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port in the back of
> the VSI for connecting to the static source.
>
> When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's descending and visa-versa.
>
> Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
> for the archives
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
John:
Just got home from Golden West Fly-In. The same question was asked to Miles
who was giving the talk for Van's Aircraft. Miles is in charge of QUALITY
on the QB kits. He says he fixes everything that is not perfect. If you
have a problem with quick build quality, give him a call on Monday when he
is back in the office.
As an EAA TC and an AB DAR, I have not seen ANY QB product from Van's that
was not better than what the average first time builder can do. (The QB
products from Van's that I have seen are better quality than what I have
seen done by first time builders.)
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,868 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>
Subject: RV-List: Quality
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:18:42 -0400
I just read an article in the RV builders hotline about some very poor
quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent issue or a rare
occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in the next few weeks but
don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has been your experience?
John Furey
2 RV6A slow builds
1 RV7 QB (maybe)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VSI reads backwards |
Rick, I once had a VSI which about drove me crazy. Turns out I cracked
the case when I installed it in the instrument panel which caused
strange indications.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: RGray67968(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: VSI reads backwards
Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port in the back of
the VSI for connecting to the static source.
When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's descending and visa-versa.
Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
Thanks in advance,
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
for the archives
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
My RV-6A QB was 10 years ago almost now, but the
workmanship was perfect. Not sure if the same outfit
is doing it, but my understanding is you can't really
beat the quality today.
Paul Besing
--- RV6 Flyer wrote:
>
>
> John:
>
> Just got home from Golden West Fly-In. The same
> question was asked to Miles
> who was giving the talk for Van's Aircraft. Miles
> is in charge of QUALITY
> on the QB kits. He says he fixes everything that is
> not perfect. If you
> have a problem with quick build quality, give him a
> call on Monday when he
> is back in the office.
>
> As an EAA TC and an AB DAR, I have not seen ANY QB
> product from Van's that
> was not better than what the average first time
> builder can do. (The QB
> products from Van's that I have seen are better
> quality than what I have
> seen done by first time builders.)
>
>
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,868 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Quality
> Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:18:42 -0400
>
> I just read an article in the RV builders hotline
> about some very poor
> quality on quick build wings. Is this a prevalent
> issue or a rare
> occurrence? I have a 7 QB that is to be shipped in
> the next few weeks but
> don't want it if the workmanship is bad. What has
> been your experience?
>
> John Furey
> 2 RV6A slow builds
> 1 RV7 QB (maybe)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Plan to head to Oshkosh and have their NOTAM booklet. Hope to arrive around
9 AM Saturday July 22. What can I expect for incoming traffic the day before
Air Venture starts? If I ask for Home Built Parking or HBP, will they send
me to the RV parking area? I'm just a little intimidated reading their
information. Would like to hear from other who have made the trip. Thanks as usual,
Pat
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VSI reads backwards |
Again, this VSI doesn't behave erratically or give 'strange'
indications......it's works as advertised....only it reads sdrawkcab (backwards).
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
Rick, I once had a VSI which about drove me crazy. Turns out I cracked the
case when I installed it in the instrument panel which caused strange
indications.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: _RGray67968(at)aol.com_ (mailto:RGray67968(at)aol.com)
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: VSI reads backwards
Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port in the back of the VSI
for connecting to the static source.
When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's descending and visa-versa.
Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
Thanks in advance,
Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
for the archives
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Vent from battery requested |
Hello Listers,
As I am nearing completion and eventual inspection of my -6 I had the DAR
out to have a look under the panel and front area before I install the
sticks and other injury items for laying in there. He suggested I instal
l a
vent from the battery box down out of the plane. He apparently had a bad
experience with an overcharged battery when a charge system ran away.
I have not heard of this before. Does anyone have any experience in this
?
If this is a very rare situation, than it hardly seems necessary. What d
o
you think? Outside of this, he was happy with all my work and gave me lot
s
of pointers of little things to tidy up in the engine area.
Tim
RV-6
N616TB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VSI reads backwards |
Turn it 180 degrees in your panel!
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Traffic |
The inbound traffic will not be too bad at 9am on Saturday. It doesn't
get really busy until later that afternoon, and more so on Sunday. Just
follow the Ripon arrival and you'll be fine. And, the show doesn't
start until Monday, so you're two days ahead.
As for signs- yes, have an HBP sign and hold it up to each and every
orange vest you see. When you get in close to the homebuilt parking
area you'll be sorted out by type and parked with the other RVs. It is
not neccessary to have an "RV" sign.
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VSI reads backwards |
You have to fly with the wheels side down and the
canopy side up for it to work properly.
Dave
Had the shot and took it:D
--- RGray67968(at)aol.com wrote:
> Why would a VSI read backwards? There is only 1 port
> in the back of the VSI
> for connecting to the static source.
>
> When the plane goes 'up' the VSI says it's
> descending and visa-versa.
>
> Can this be repaired or reversed to read properly?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Rick in Ohio at the Buffalo Farm
> for the archives
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Jones" <stan.jones(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | That wasted Spark |
It would only be if the sensor for the electronic ignition was mounted at
the front of the crankshaft,
and was triggered each engine rotation would you get that wasted spark.
My E I is triggered by a Hall Effect sensor mounted on the accessory case
,
that is geared
two to one with the crankshaft.
I will not get that Ryton sump destroying Wasted Spark will I.
Am I correct ?
Comments please.
Stan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Vent from battery requested |
What kind of battery are you going to use? If a flooded lead acid
battery, then a sealed box with drain is a real good idea. If a
recombinant gas battery, like the concord RG series or the Odyssey, you
could hold it down with a strap and it would be fine. RG batteries don't
outgas and don't need vents. They also crank the engine over like a SOB.
Read up here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rg_bat.html
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
Hello Listers,
As I am nearing completion and eventual inspection of my -6 I had the
DAR out to have a look under the panel and front area before I install
the sticks and other injury items for laying in there. He suggested I
install a vent from the battery box down out of the plane. He
apparently had a bad experience with an overcharged battery when a
charge system ran away.
I have not heard of this before. Does anyone have any experience in
this? If this is a very rare situation, than it hardly seems necessary.
What do you think? Outside of this, he was happy with all my work and
gave me lots of pointers of little things to tidy up in the engine area.
Tim
RV-6
N616TB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | G McNutt <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: That wasted Spark |
Sorry Stan, you have two coils and each coil has two spark plug leads.
When a coil is triggered a spark goes out each lead and one spark plug
lights a fire and the other spark is wasted.
Stan Jones wrote:
> It would only be if the sensor for the electronic ignition was mounted
> at the front of the crankshaft,
> and was triggered each engine rotation would you get that wasted spark.
> My E I is triggered by a Hall Effect sensor mounted on the accessory
> case, that is geared
> two to one with the crankshaft.
> I will not get that Ryton sump destroying Wasted Spark will I.
> Am I correct ?
> Comments please.
> Stan
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr> |
Thanks for the info as I myself also ordered a TMX-IO360 ' AL sump,
PMags
and Vans standard cow. As you did, I am going personal on all the
electrical
stuff; Mufflers ' also via Vetterman direct. As for gascolators, I am
putting a couple of Andairs at the wing roots.
Not sure about the cables and brackets ' what would you recommend?
Oil cooler ' same here ' going SW from Pacific ' great people to
work with '
good advice.
It seems that after removing the above, all that is left is all of the
little items which a first time builder is sure not to have on hand,
each of
which will take tons of time to get.
Thanks,
Michele ' RV8 Fuselage (France)
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vern W.
Sent: dimanche 11 juin 2006 02:25
Subject: Re: RV-List: FF Kit
Importance: High
John,
I bought the Mattituck TMX IO-360 w/AFP fuel injection plus two P-mags.
My
engine was built with the hollow crank in case I might later want to
change
to a CS prop, but I am going to install and fly with a Catto 3-blade FP.
Like you, I also had to do some head scratching about the FWF kit and
what I
came up with was that the best match for my engine was to get the FWF
item
#FF-7A O-360 FP.
However, I still made some changes of either straight deletions or
exchanges
as follows:
I deleted the gascolator (don't need it with the AFP-FI).
I deleted ALL the electrical harnesses and master relay and starter
solenoid. (I'll get what I need elsewhere).
I deleted the throttle and mixture cables and bracket (I'm using a
throttle
quadrant from DJM).
I changed out the standard FWF 60a alternator for the new 60a alternator
w/internal OV protection.
I deleted the standard oil cooler and instead bought the Stewart Warner
replacement from Pacific.
I deleted the standard Vetterman exhaust and instead bought the same
exhaust
directly from Vetterman except with the mufflers.
You can obviously see that most of those changes were as per my personal
preference as opposed to changes mandated by my engine installation. For
the
most part, I think if you just delete the gascolator, you might be able
to
use all the rest.
I am also using the Sam James Cowl and Plenum, so be aware that you need
to
ask Mattituck to get the special bracket from AFP that's made to fit
with
the Sam James Plenum.
I hope that gets you in the right direction.
Vern Wanzong
RV7-A
Houston, TX
On 6/9/06, John Furey wrote:
Larry, I am leaning towards the TMX O or IO-360 and would appreciate any
input.
Thanks
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: DOUBLE FLARING |
Mick,
I had considered doing EXACTLY what you propose. However, I found
that the vise block on the automotive double flaring tool had
serrations designed to prevent slippage of the steel automotive
tubing. These serrations imprinted themselves onto the soft aluminum
tubing. These creates stress risers, which I found unacceptable. I
created a "favorite search" for the correct tool on EBay. After
several months, I was able to purchase the tool for $137.
Check with your A&P friends or your local EAA Chapter. They may be
willing to loan or rent you the tool.
Charlie Kuss
>
>Greetings Listers, I have been told that the safest way to treat
>flares brake and fuel fittings is with a double flaring tool. I can
>get my hands on a double flaring tool, but it is a 45degree fitting
>not 37 degree. I was thinking that I could use the double flaring
>tool to make the initial folded over flare, then my single 37degree
>flaring tool to finish it off. Does anyone see a problem with this approach??
>Thanks, Mick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rhonda Bewley" <Rhonda(at)bpaengines.com> |
John:
Is the engine damaged? How much are you asking for the engine core?
Thank you.
Rhonda
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Neel
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:02 PM
Subject: RV-List: IO 550 N
I have a IO 550 N out of a Cirrus SR22 605 TT NDH 3 Blade Scimitar
propeller and single lever engine management system. Interest for RV
10's ? Price with or without core. JN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Vent from battery requested |
Hi Ed,
I didn't see any recomendation in that article for venting, but interesti
ng
reading. My battery is the standard concord RG series battery. Van's do
esn
t show or suggest a vent in the pland or manual. Hopefully the issue won
't
be pushed such that I need to install one.
Thanks
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Ed Holyoke
Date: 06/11/06 22:59:47
Subject: RE: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
What kind of battery are you going to use? If a flooded lead acid battery
,
then a sealed box with drain is a real good idea. If a recombinant gas
battery, like the concord RG series or the Odyssey, you could hold it dow
n
with a strap and it would be fine. RG batteries don=92t outgas and don=92
t need
vents. They also crank the engine over like a SOB. Read up here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rg_bat.html
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
Hello Listers,
As I am nearing completion and eventual inspection of my -6 I had the DAR
out to have a look under the panel and front area before I install the
sticks and other injury items for laying in there. He suggested I instal
l a
vent from the battery box down out of the plane. He apparently had a bad
experience with an overcharged battery when a charge system ran away.
I have not heard of this before. Does anyone have any experience in this
?
If this is a very rare situation, than it hardly seems necessary. What d
o
you think? Outside of this, he was happy with all my work and gave me lot
s
of pointers of little things to tidy up in the engine area.
Tim
RV-6
N616TB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for my GPS
antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What I
don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper firewall
quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl without fishing
the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
Appreciate your ideas.
Ron
N8ZD - just weeks now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
Make a shelf on the firewall for the antenna? That way removing the
cowl is independent of the antenna.
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Patterson
To: rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:56 AM
Subject: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall
for my GPS antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling.
What I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a
proper firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off
the cowl without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every
time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
Appreciate your ideas.
Ron
N8ZD - just weeks now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <flyrv6(at)bryantechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: That wasted Spark |
When I turn the light switch off in my office, the electricity isn't bein
g
wasted because there is no load on it. Could this be true for this
situation? No load, no spark
-------Original Message-------
From: G McNutt
Date: 06/12/06 01:15:35
Subject: Re: RV-List: That wasted Spark
Sorry Stan, you have two coils and each coil has two spark plug leads.
When a coil is triggered a spark goes out each lead and one spark plug
lights a fire and the other spark is wasted.
Stan Jones wrote:
> It would only be if the sensor for the electronic ignition was mounted
> at the front of the crankshaft,
> and was triggered each engine rotation would you get that wasted spark.
> My E I is triggered by a Hall Effect sensor mounted on the accessory
> case, that is geared
> two to one with the crankshaft.
> I will not get that Ryton sump destroying Wasted Spark will I.
> Am I correct ?
> Comments please.
> Stan
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
In a message dated 6/12/2006 8:02:35 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
scc_ron(at)yahoo.com writes:
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for my
GPS antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What
I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper
firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl
without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
=========================================
IIRC mine's a TNC type.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 792hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tru Trak ADI Pilot II |
| From: | "Jekyll" <rcitjh(at)aol.com> |
Fabian Lefler at Affordable Panels has good prices on TruTrak products, in fact,
he has great prices on all products year round. (I have no connection to the
company other than being a VERY satisfied customer)
http://www.affordablepanels.com
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40133#40133
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: That wasted Spark |
I am not familiar with the waste spark system you are talking about, but
am familiar with the automotive system. If you have two plugs being
fired by a single coil, then the system fires one plug positive and one
negative creating a complete circuit. The coil fires the first plug
positive the voltage goes to ground continues though the engine block,
jumps from the negative electrode to the positive electrode on the
second plug and continues back to the coil. This means that one plug is
firing on the top of the compression stroke and the other on the exhaust
stroke...the wasted spark. I have a simulator in my classroom that when
slowed way down you can actually see the positive and negative firing.
Jim
Jim Cimino
N7TL
RV-8 S/N 80039
150+ Hours
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bryan
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: That wasted Spark
When I turn the light switch off in my office, the electricity
isn't being wasted because there is no load on it. Could this be true
for this situation? No load, no spark
-------Original Message-------
From: G McNutt
Date: 06/12/06 01:15:35
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: That wasted Spark
Sorry Stan, you have two coils and each coil has two spark plug
leads.
When a coil is triggered a spark goes out each lead and one
spark plug
lights a fire and the other spark is wasted.
Stan Jones wrote:
> It would only be if the sensor for the electronic ignition was
mounted
> at the front of the crankshaft,
> and was triggered each engine rotation would you get that
wasted spark.
> My E I is triggered by a Hall Effect sensor mounted on the
accessory
> case, that is geared
> two to one with the crankshaft.
> I will not get that Ryton sump destroying Wasted Spark will I.
> Am I correct ?
> Comments please.
> Stan
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
=========================
============
he RV-List Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
=========================
============
sp; - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
nics.com
=========================
============
sp; - List Contribution Web Site -
sp; -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
//www.matronics.com/contribution
=========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dcw(at)mnwing.org> |
| Subject: | Stainless steel brackets |
Greetings:
Does anyone know who makes the stainless steel wheel pant brackets for
RVs??
Thanks
Doug Weiler
N722DW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Neel" <vortecx(at)fiber.net> |
Rhonda, There is no damage to the engine or propeller. The total time
is 605hours and they are complete. I would like a IO 360 core or
approximate value. Call with any questions. Regards John Neel Cell
435-632-2917
----- Original Message -----
From: Rhonda Bewley
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:51 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: IO 550 N
John:
Is the engine damaged? How much are you asking for the engine core?
Thank you.
Rhonda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Neel
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:02 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: IO 550 N
I have a IO 550 N out of a Cirrus SR22 605 TT NDH 3 Blade Scimitar
propeller and single lever engine management system. Interest for RV
10's ? Price with or without core. JN
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
6/9/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Orear" <jorear(at)new.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stainless steel brackets |
Fairings Etc at www.fairings-etc.com
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Weiler
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: RV-List: Stainless steel brackets
Greetings:
Does anyone know who makes the stainless steel wheel pant brackets for
RVs??
Thanks
Doug Weiler
N722DW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stainless steel brackets |
Note these fairing are designed for Van's "Pressure Recovery" wheel
pants. They are not suited for the older "slimmer" wheel pants of the
RV-6A. I ordered a pair and tried to adapt them to my older wheel
pants. They are well made and sturdy but I finally ended up making my
own out of Stainless steel. It was just easier than trying to adapt
these - but, perhaps I gave up to easy.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Orear
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 1:27 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Stainless steel brackets
Fairings Etc at www.fairings-etc.com
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Weiler
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:59 AM
Subject: RV-List: Stainless steel brackets
Greetings:
Does anyone know who makes the stainless steel wheel pant brackets
for RVs??
Thanks
Doug Weiler
N722DW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
Aerosport Power installed the Airflow Performance fuel injection on a
Superior IO-360-B1B (180 hp) engine for my RV-8A. I ordered the firewall
forward kit from Vans. There were some duplications. I remember that the
plate that attaches the filtered air box (F.A.B.) to the fuel meter box
came
from both AFP and Van=92s, but I had to make a custom one anyway to move
the
F.A.B. about 3/8=94 to one side to center it in the bottom cowl scoop.
This is
the part that several have experienced cracks with, so I built it out of
heavier aluminum than the original. It=92s a simple flat oval, so it
wasn=92t
difficult to make.
I have a couple of hoses left over that I didn=92t need, and had to
order two
more that I didn=92t get from either source. One is the 42=94 long
=BC=94
firesleeved line that runs from the purge valve on the top of the engine
back to the firewall. The other is the 3/8=94 firesleeved line with a 90
degree pipe bend on one end that runs from the firewall to the
mechanical
fuel pump. Mine will be 15=94 long. I ordered both from Airflow
Performance
last week and expect to get them today or tomorrow. I think the two
hoses
will cost just a little under $200.
I did install an Andair gascolator in the left wing root, although I now
don=92t think that was any improvement over the AFP fuel filter that I
did not
install. But all that bent tubing looks impressive.
Terry
RV-8A firewall forward almost done
Seattle
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mich=E8le
Delsol
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 5:42 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: FF Kit
Thanks for the info as I myself also ordered a TMX-IO360 ' AL sump,
PMags
and Vans standard cow. As you did, I am going personal on all the
electrical
stuff; Mufflers ' also via Vetterman direct. As for gascolators, I am
putting a couple of Andairs at the wing roots.
Not sure about the cables and brackets ' what would you recommend?
Oil cooler ' same here ' going SW from Pacific ' great people to
work with '
good advice.
It seems that after removing the above, all that is left is all of the
little items which a first time builder is sure not to have on hand,
each of
which will take tons of time to get.
Thanks,
Michele ' RV8 Fuselage (France)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | copper antenna tape |
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
Any of you guys need some copper tape to make your hidden antenna??
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8292565445&rd=1&ss
pag
ename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.
I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision -
a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport.
However, a buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and
I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no
compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional
cost and pump installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling
driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there - Is fuel injection really
worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
of why or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Run LOP and fuel injection can "pay for itself" in less time than TBO.
Beyond that, the savings are pure gravy. Gas isn't getting any cheaper,
and the cost savings by burning 1-2 fewer gph is increasing on a daily
basis. That is, the savings increase as gas prices increase.
To those who think the 200hp IO-360-A1B6 angle valve engine "should"
burn more fuel than smaller, less powered engines...I burn about 7.5 gph
at wide open throttle doing 170 KTAS. Injected...wouldn't have it any
other way.
You asked for opinions. 8^)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (935 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Valovich, Paul
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.
I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision -
a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport.
However, a buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and
I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no
compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional
cost and pump installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling
driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there - Is fuel injection
really worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
of why or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
>So a question for all you old hands out there ' Is fuel injection really
>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>
>Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of
>why or why not?
One benefit of Fuel Injection (FI) is the ability to run lean of
peak. That should
save fuel but I cannot show that it is worth the additional cost.
A reported drawback of FI is hard starting under hot conditions (supposedly
after landing then starting a short time later).
You did go with 180 HP which is good. Whether it makes sense to go for
more horsepower is another factor I cannot quantify. However, given that I
could get more horsepower for the same cost of FI personally I would go
for the horsepower.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Paul,
The main reason is fuel economy. You can run lean of peak with
fuel injection and the best you can run is about 50 deg rick of peak with
a carburetor. Fuel distribution with fuel injection can be almost dead
on where as carburetors can not do that. With fuel costs the way they
are and not going to get any better, FI was the way I chose. Plus if
you travel to places where carb heat is necessary - so comes the problems
associated with it. Just my humble opinion.
Jim Nelson
IO-360
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
For me:
A smoother running engine and balanced fuel flow saving an immediate .5 GPH for
the life of the engine. Now, all EGT's peak at the same time. This is a little
work but easy to do. You can also able to run LOP. I have flown side by side
with a carbureated RV-7 (I have an 8a injected) and used 2.0 GPH less than
they did on a 3.5 hr flight one way. Oh, I also have dual EI so that helped. So
I used 14 gallons less!!!!!! Also read ALL of John Deakins articles on running
LOP. Might have to read them 3 times before it all sinks in but worth while
in order to REALLY understand what goes on in a engine. So go here and sort through
and read all articles "Pelicans Pearch"
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/list.html
"Valovich, Paul" wrote:
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Indecision is the
key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: its ok
to change ones mind.
Im about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research
and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision a new 180 hp horizontal
induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually
posed the question: Why fuel injection? and I realized that other than the
fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection
might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isnt a compelling driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really worth
the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why
or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
This is a better link to Deakins articles. Cut and paste?
http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/texis/scripts/avweb-search/search.html?publication=avflash&publication=bizav&publication=avweb&query=john+deakin&Go.x=11&Go.y=6
Scott in San Diego
"Valovich, Paul" wrote:
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } Indecision is the
key to flexibility. One of the great things about building an airplane: its ok
to change ones mind.
Im about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot of research
and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision a new 180 hp horizontal
induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a buddy casually
posed the question: Why fuel injection? and I realized that other than the
fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answer as to why fuel injection
might be worth the additional cost and pump installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isnt a compelling driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really worth
the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of why
or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Valovich, Paul wrote:
> Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
> building an airplane: its ok to change ones mind.
>
>
>
> Im about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
> lot of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision
> a new 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport.
> However, a buddy casually posed the question: Why fuel injection? and
> I realized that other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no
> compelling answer as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional
> cost and pump installation complexity.
Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!
After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and
flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel
injection spend more time and money getting their planes to operate the
way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to hear one of
them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.
The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying. :-)
I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just offering my
observations.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 748 hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Traffic |
| From: | "macrafic" <macrafic(at)charter.net> |
Saturday is actually 2 days before Oshkosh starts (starts on Monday). I live only
1.5 hours flight from Oshkosh and fly in at this time every year. Traffic
is light, but picks up late morning/early afternoon. As long as you read the
NOTAM, and make a cheat sheet for you to follow (frequencies, patterns, etc.),
you should be OK. Also, ATC has posted pictures on the AirVenture web site
that shows you just what you will see from the air and what landmarks to look
for. I've flown in alone without any problem, but a right seater with you surely
lessens the load. Can't comment on your choice or parking, since I don't
(yet) have a completed homebuilt and always park in the North 40. However, I
DO walk around on Saturday and there seems to be PLENTY of space in every parking
sector. Maybe somebody else can comment on the parking situation from personal
experience. Good luck! I LOVE flying into Oshkosh. You get a real sense
of accomplishment, and a real appreciation for the controllers and all the
rest of the Oshkosh ground crews. The only thing missing is the red carpet to
step on when you exit your aircraft! But, there ARE red-carpet people that will
greet you.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40215#40215
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Reiche <charlieray(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
The "big puck" of the 396 antenna is like a usb cable and would be tricky to mount
out there, personally I wouldnt mount any gps antennas inside the engine cowling.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Patterson
To: rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:56 AM
Subject: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for my
GPS antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. What I
don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper firewall
quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cowl without fishing
the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
Appreciate your ideas.
Ron
N8ZD - just weeks now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
> Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!
>
> After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and
> flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel
> injection spend more time and money getting their planes to operate > the
> way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to hear > one of
> them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.
>
> The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying. :-)
>
> I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just offering my >
> observations.
>
I tend to echo Sam's observations.
If a reason for justifying the cost of fuel injection is the fuel savings
one will have, one is missing a good deal. If one really wants to save
money on fuel costs, auto gas has a much higher savings rate than maybe a .5
gallon savings per hour of 100LL. At 8gph of fuel, that equates to about $2
per hour savings on 100LL. Local mogas prices allow me about $10.50 savings
with the same 8 gallons. In 2000 hours of flying, that could equate to $21K
in savings. Whoah! That would go a long way toward the price on another
engine, if one invests the savings. Of course, one who doesn't favor using
mogas might see the fuel injection system as the better approach; but,
taking the savings on the carby and fuel to the bank works well for my
wallet.
I just wonder which system has more problems. It seems I see more folks
having fuel injection systems worked on than I do with carbys. That's not
to say that they have more problems. It's just that I've observed more fuel
injection systems being worked on as I've visited the local FBO's shop. If
I'm right, maybe the predicted savings using a fuel injected engine would be
eaten up by the costs of maintaining it? Just a thought.
I guess I like the simplicity of the carb and will stick with that for
myself. Each of us has his own ways to justify the system used. Pick the
one that works best for you.
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
An even better URL for Pelican's Perch:
http://tinyurl.com/lej9v
---
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RobHickman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
My RV-4 has an Aerosport Power IO-360B1B and it has worked perfectly for the
last 400+ hours. The plane starts very easy when it is cold and has not
been a problem when it is hot. I have never run a battery down trying to get
it
to start.
A good friend has an O-320 from Powersport with a carb and no primer in his
RV-6a. It is a total pain to start when it is cold. He has run the battery
down a number of times trying to get it to start.
Sam Buchanan wrote:
The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying. :-)
you forgot...
After they install and connect a heat muff for carb heat, carb heat control
cable, primer hoses, primer pump, carb temp sensor, carb temp sensor wiring,
.....
The reason I chose fuel injection:
1. No carb heat
2. I had been in an RV and it would sputter when we were down side up.
3. I had been told that Fuel Injection would tolerate water in the fuel
better.
Rob Hickman
N401RH RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james frierson" <tn3639(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
Seems like with the higher fuel pressure one could run Mogas without the
vapor lock problem thus saving more $$$$. I have heard of hot start problems
with FI but I have a carb and have no problems starting hot or cold. I would
like to use Mogas but am afraid of vapor lock so I stick with 100LL.
Scott
>So a question for all you old hands out there - Is fuel injection really
>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>
>
>Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
>of why or why not?
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>-8A QB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
> Your friend is a very perceptive fellow!
>
> After nine years of watching, building, maintaining, inspecting, and
> flying RV's, it has been my observation that those pilots with fuel
> injection spend more time and money getting their planes to
> operate the
> way they want them to than the carbed pilots. I have yet to
> hear one of
> them volunteer how much money they are saving on fuel.
>
> The carburator guys just bolt on the engine and go flying. :-)
>
> I'm not implying one system is better than the other, just
> offering my
> observations.
>
> Sam Buchanan (RV-6, 748 hrs)
Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread. I have no clue
about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,
but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than most
carb equipped planes do. A noticable amount less. I have flown many, many
hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country flights, and at
cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn between 1 and 2
gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22", 2300 rpm, relatively
low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you cruise with fuel flows
of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas? Most carbs cannot be run, even with
electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region. I do not have much
experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would
be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the
"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more
important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.
Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel at
today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my RV.
I would welcome flying side by side with anyone wanting hard data,
particularly where so many variables are involved.
For those building and trying to decide, I simply have offered another
viewpoint.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Point <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Traffic |
Maybe somebody else can comment on the parking situation from personal experience.
You'll have no trouble getting a parking spot in RV land on Saturday morning.
Parking doesn't really get tight until about late Monday into Tuesday. By Wednesday
people begin leaving and spots open up. Monday through Wednesday are the
best days for RV-looking.
With that said, we are getting the same amount of space as last year, to park what
will undoubtably be more RVs than last year. We'll likely end up having to
tail planes into rows in order to fit them in, so nose-gear guys, bring your
tow bars.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Vent from battery requested |
Howdy Tim,
Our plane has been running the Concord RG 25 that fits the standard
battery box for 700 plus hours. There's no vent for the box and no need
for one. You can mount the battery on it's side if you want and it won't
leak. Your DAR is thinking about the old style battery with vent/filler
caps that you had to open up every so often to check the level of the
electrolyte. Our Cessna had one of those and a vented box with a tube
exiting the bottom of the cowl. It was corroded inside from the battery
venting itself. Had to clean it up with baking soda and repaint pretty
much every year. Not going back to that noise!
Educate your DAR as to the newer technology. Concord still makes the old
style flooded battery and the newer RG one. Go to Concord battery's
website or Hawker's (the manufacturer of the Odyssey) for more info.
Panasonic and others also make suitable RG batteries.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----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, June 12, 2006 7:37 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
Hi Ed,
I didn't see any recomendation in that article for venting, but
interesting reading. My battery is the standard concord RG series
battery. Van's doesn't show or suggest a vent in the pland or manual.
Hopefully the issue won't be pushed such that I need to install one.
Thanks
Tim
-------Original Message-------
From: Ed Holyoke <mailto:bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Date: 06/11/06 22:59:47
Subject: RE: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
What kind of battery are you going to use? If a flooded lead acid
battery, then a sealed box with drain is a real good idea. If a
recombinant gas battery, like the concord RG series or the Odyssey, you
could hold it down with a strap and it would be fine. RG batteries don't
outgas and don't need vents. They also crank the engine over like a SOB.
Read up here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/rg_bat.html
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: RV-List: Vent from battery requested
Hello Listers,
As I am nearing completion and eventual inspection of my -6 I had the
DAR out to have a look under the panel and front area before I install
the sticks and other injury items for laying in there. He suggested I
install a vent from the battery box down out of the plane. He
apparently had a bad experience with an overcharged battery when a
charge system ran away.
I have not heard of this before. Does anyone have any experience in
this? If this is a very rare situation, than it hardly seems necessary.
What do you think? Outside of this, he was happy with all my work and
gave me lots of pointers of little things to tidy up in the engine area.
Tim
RV-6
N616TB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Jones" <stan.jones(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Tru Trak ADI Pilot II |
I can second that. He really goes out of his way to ensure things are OK.
I am another satisfied customer.
Stan
-------Original Message-------
From: Jekyll
Date: 06/13/06 04:39:11
Subject: RV-List: Re: Tru Trak ADI Pilot II
Fabian Lefler at Affordable Panels has good prices on TruTrak products, i
n
fact, he has great prices on all products year round. (I have no connecti
on
to the company other than being a VERY satisfied customer)
http://www.affordablepanels.com
Jekyll
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40133#40133
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stan Jones" <stan.jones(at)xtra.co.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
You can get BNC connecters that go through a bulkhead.
I have some.
Stan
-------Original Message-------
From: Ron Patterson
Date: 06/13/06 03:30:58
Subject: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for
my
GPS antenna?
I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling. Wh
at
I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a proper
firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the cow
l
without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time.
Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?
Appreciate your ideas.
Ron
N8ZD - just weeks now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
Another reason for FI would be if you do any negative G aerobatics ' I
believe that float style carburetted engines cannot cope with negative
Gs.
Please someone correct me if I am wrong.
Michele
RV8 ' Fuselage
PS ' negative Gs does not have to be the wrenching loops and turns one
sees
at air shows, it can be as simple as just flying straight upside down,
or
not doing +G figures quite as well as one should.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich, Paul
Sent: lundi 12 juin 2006 20:33
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
building
an airplane: it=92s ok to change one=92s mind.
I=92m about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a
lot of
research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision ' a new
180
hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However, a
buddy casually posed the question: =93Why fuel injection?=94 and I
realized that
other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling
answer
as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump
installation complexity.
I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn=92t a compelling
driver.
So a question for all you old hands out there ' Is fuel injection
really
worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis
of
why or why not?
Paul Valovich
Booger
-8A QB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
>> A good friend has an O-320 from Powersport with a carb and no primer in
>> his RV-6a. It is a total pain to start when it is cold. He has run the
>> battery down a number of times trying to get it to start.<<
I've never understood not having a primer. The engine can be harder to
start and could cause one to have an engine fire. I have a primer system
and have never run a battery down, even when it's really cold.
>>you forgot...
After they install and connect a heat muff for carb heat, carb heat control
cable, primer hoses, primer pump, carb temp sensor, carb temp sensor wiring,
.....<<
Excuse me; but, I don't have a carb temp sensor and wiring. I do have the
primer and carb heat. Both were easy to install. Since I've never had to
use the carb heat on either of my Lycoming powered airplanes, I don't
consider carb ice a major problem for the engines. The Continental I had on
my C172 was another matter. :-(
>> The reason I chose fuel injection:
1. No carb heat
2. I had been in an RV and it would sputter when we were down side up.
3. I had been told that Fuel Injection would tolerate water in the fuel
better.<<
I guess these are good reasons for this contributor; but, none make me jump
up and take notice. As I said, carb ice hasn't been a problem for my
Lycomings. Since I try to keep the top side up, during flights, I don't
have the sputter problems. One who prefers to fly upside down (and have
everything in the cabin trying to go through the canopy) may want fuel
injection, though. I try to keep water out of my fuel systems and have
never had problems with water in my fuel. Sure, I do get some out of the
sumps, from time to time; but, I've never had an engine fail because of
water in the gas. That's with my using mogas, as well. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
The original poster is deciding on whether to order his new engine with or
without FI, not convert an existing engine.
I don't know about Aerosport, but I bought a brand new TMX-IO360 w/Airflow
Performance FI from Mattituck (it arrived just last week) and the differenc
e
in price BETWEEN the standard carb engine and going to the AFP FI was only
$700.
For me, that was a no brainer going with the FI at that price difference
because of the already mentioned advantages. In fact, I went one step
further and paid the additional $1000 for the "Flow Matching" option that
gives you the ability to lean very exactingly by the engines ability to kee
p
all four cylinders running at the same fuel flow.
So even at the additional $1700 for the way I went, it was still a no
brainer.
I admit that if were actually flying with a carbed engine, I would probably
seriously wonder if I wanted to spend more than $3000 to change it over, bu
t
that's not an issue with a brand new engine order.
Vern
RV7-A
Houston, TX
On 6/12/06, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
> Indecision is the key to flexibility. One of the great things about
> building an airplane: it's ok to change one's mind.
>
>
> I'm about at the engine ordering stage for my RV-8A QB. I have done a lot
> of research and thought I had made a rationale, educated decision ' a n
ew
> 180 hp horizontal induction fuel injected engine from Aerosport. However,
a
> buddy casually posed the question: "Why fuel injection?" and I realized t
hat
> other than the fact it seemed newer and sexier, I had no compelling answe
r
> as to why fuel injection might be worth the additional cost and pump
> installation complexity.
>
>
> I live in the Mojave (Ridgecrest, CA); carb icing isn't a compelling
> driver.
>
>
> So a question for all you old hands out there ' Is fuel injection reall
y
> worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>
>
> Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of
> why or why not?
>
> Paul Valovich
>
> Booger
>
> -8A QB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
>> Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread. I have no clue
>> about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,
>> but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than
>> most carb equipped planes do. A noticable amount less. I have flown
>> many, many hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country
>> flights, and at cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn
>> between 1 and 2 gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22",
>> 2300 rpm, relatively low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you
>> cruise with fuel flows
of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas? Most carbs cannot be run, even with
electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region. I do not have much
experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would
be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the
"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more
important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.<<
Alas, my little 150hp engine will not pull my -6A at those speeds at the
altitudes I fly at. With that, I do fly at 75% power, most of the time. At
that setting, it gets about 8gph on a cross country flight. If I pull mine
back to a lesser setting, of say 2300 rpms, mine will also get better fuel
usage per hour. I've gotten as low as 6gph while taking up Young Eagles. I
use 2200 rpms for that. Granted, I can't use the LOP method for leaning;
but, my use of mogas doesn't require major changes in my flying habits to
save money.
>> Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel
>> at today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my
>> RV.<<
That's fairly substantial and something most of us could have if we throttle
back from 75% power. My savings during that same period would be at least
$6K on mogas while flying at 75% power. That's knowing I'd be saving at
least a dollar per gallon over the cost of 100LL, on average. Today, it's
$1.31 per gallon difference.
Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on his
flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine isn't; so, I do have
drag that make mine a little slower. I don't care because I get to build
more time in my airplane, that way. I kinda like that. Mogas allows me to
afford it. That's an option not available to FI engines.
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly Patterson" <kbob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: LOP with carb |
I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought was to run a
FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the carb won out.
The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine is an O-320 w/
9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during WOT operation,
otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich & some lean). I can get to
about 30 LOP before the engine runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns are
7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A dragging steps,
fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around. So the answer to the question
below is that carbs can run economically.
How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm happy with the
results. You make choices and move forward. I'll spend the thousands I saved
on fuel and go places. Have fun everyone!
Kelly Patterson
PHX, AZ
RV-6A 64 hours
----------______________________
Well, clearly there will be disagreements on this thread. I have no clue
about the actual percentage of users which have trouble with carbs vs FI,
but I do know that I burn less fuel with my Airflow Performance FI than most
carb equipped planes do. A noticeable amount less. I have flown many, many
hours side by side with other RV's, on long cross country flights, and at
cruises in the 155 - 160 knot TAS range, where I burn between 1 and 2
gallons per hour less (this is at MAP's of about 22", 2300 rpm, relatively
low percent power, maybe 58 to 60%). How many of you cruise with fuel flows
of 7.1 to 7.3 gph, at 155 to 160 ktas? Most carbs cannot be run, even with
electronic ignition (a big factor), in the LOP region. I do not have much
experience with my plane in the 75% power regime, but the differences would
be expected to be even greater there, since keeping the engine out of the
"red zone" (higher cht's, among other nasty combustion effects) is more
important there, and tends to spread the LOP/ROP fuel flows even more.
Even at 1 gph savings, it equates to something like $3000 worth of fuel at
today's prices that I've saved up to now in 759 hours of flying my RV.
I would welcome flying side by side with anyone wanting hard data,
particularly where so many variables are involved.
For those building and trying to decide, I simply have offered another
viewpoint.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: LOP with carb |
>
> I have to throw in my 2 cents on this one. My initial thought
> was to run a FI system, but the simplicity & budget of the
> carb won out.
>
> The bonus was the economy is better than expected. The engine
> is an O-320 w/
> 9.2:1 CR and a single Emag. The EGT's are only equal during
> WOT operation, otherwise they are 100 degrees off (some rich
> & some lean). I can get to about 30 LOP before the engine
> runs rougher and is unhappy. Fuel burns are
> 7.0-7.2 depending on altitude. This is at 155 kts in a 6A
> dragging steps, fixed pitch Sensenich and a nose gear around.
> So the answer to the question below is that carbs can run
> economically.
>
> How does this compare to others - I don't know - but I'm
> happy with the results. You make choices and move forward.
> I'll spend the thousands I saved on fuel and go places. Have
> fun everyone!
>
> Kelly Patterson
> PHX, AZ
> RV-6A 64 hours
Kelly,
You have a nice setup, which seems to be well balanced. We have a 7A here
which has a carb and is also well balanced (with respect to fuel/air charge
to each cylinder). However, it seems to be more the exception than the
rule, and seems to be luck of the draw.
Again, side by side flight, equalizing ground speeds, is the only real way
to know one's true fuel efficiency compared to others.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 759 hours
Maple Grove, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh Traffic |
For those who don't know, Jeff is one of the volunteers who park us
every year, so you are getting this from the horse's mouth (just an
expression, Jeff ).
One other option is to arrive about Thursday morning. By then many are
leaving, having had all the aviation they can drink from a fire hose.
Lots of parking opening up, and still half the show to see.
If need be, our loyal parkers will steal space from the glass-backward
crowd.
John
RV8 Nuisance
Jeff Point wrote:
>
> Maybe somebody else can comment on the parking situation from personal experience.
>
> You'll have no trouble getting a parking spot in RV land on Saturday morning.
Parking doesn't really get tight until about late Monday into Tuesday. By Wednesday
people begin leaving and spots open up. Monday through Wednesday are
the best days for RV-looking.
>
> With that said, we are getting the same amount of space as last year, to park
what will undoubtably be more RVs than last year. We'll likely end up having
to tail planes into rows in order to fit them in, so nose-gear guys, bring your
tow bars.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
At 06:59 AM 6/13/2006, you wrote:
>
>snipped
>
>Alex obviously has it worked out so that he saves a little money on
>his flying. He may also have a very clean airplane. Mine isn't;
>so, I do have drag that make mine a little slower. I don't care
>because I get to build more time in my airplane, that way. I kinda
>like that. Mogas allows me to afford it. That's an option not
>available to FI engines.
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>EAA Tech Counselor
Jim
What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are
referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However,
any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to
1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp
320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91
octane or better) Mogas.
The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect
anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of
payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't
really care about economy, like you and I.
Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
mogas will yield the best economy.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike jr <mikeco_one(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injected - or Not |
PLEASE TELL YOUR WEBMASTER TO TAKE ME OF THEIR LIST I DON"T KNOW HOW THEY GOT MY
ADDRESS PLEASE I AM TRIED OF YOUR JUNK MAILS TO MY BOX PLEASE I DON"T WANT YOUR
SPAM HERE.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D Paul Deits" <pdeits(at)comcast.net> |
On the Control Vision / Anywhere Map website, as well as in Van's
catalog are several prewired 'synthetic' fuse circuit boards.
What experience has anyone had good or bad. If you wish you may contact
me directly at pdeits(at)comcast.net.
Same question re: the Lamar MC-10
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Hudson" <hudzilla(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active and
contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from its
fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver. That
circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world. It is also
not going to like the corona traveling down each of the spark plug wires
making a high noise samba line.
>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not locate
that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
On 6/12/06, Stan Jones wrote:
>
> You can get BNC connecters that go through a bulkhead.
> I have some.
> Stan
>
> *-------Original Message-------*
>
> *From:* Ron Patterson
> *Date:* 06/13/06 03:30:58
> *To:* rv-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
>
> *Does anyone know how to properly make up a disconnect at the firewall for
> my GPS antenna?*
> **
> *I have mounted the antenna for my Garmin 396 under the engine cowling.
> What I don't know is how to splice into the antenna wire and make up a
> proper firewall quick connect/disconnect that will enable me to take off the
> cowl without fishing the antenna wire through the firewall every time.*
> **
> *Is it OK to splice the antenna wire? how? which connectors do I use?*
> **
> *Appreciate your ideas.*
> *
> Ron
> N8ZD - just weeks now!
> *
>
>
> <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=409&lang=9>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)consolidated.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
>
> Jim
> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you are
> referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct. However,
> any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to 1 or 8.5 to 1
> pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to 1 pistons (160 hp
> 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require using premium (91
> octane or better) Mogas.
> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect anyone
> willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds of payload
> (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't really care
> about economy, like you and I.
> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
> mogas will yield the best economy.
> Charlie Kuss
>
Charlie,
I was hoping someone would bring that up. When I had my engine on the
S1S Pitt's, it had a diet of 93 octane (or whatever octane it was back
then) Shell or Amoco. They finally went to an alcohol additive in this
part of the Midwest and I quit using it. I have a bendix RSA and I
couldn't tell any difference in 100 LL or Shell or Amoco, absolutely
none. I never had any adjustments or babying with it to keep it going.
It goes like a Duracell rabbit
Phil, in Illinois RV6 181RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you > are
> referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct.
> However, any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to > 1 or
> 8.5 to 1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to >1 pistons (160
> hp 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require > using premium (91
> octane or better) Mogas.
If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected engines
listed as approved for auto gas. It could be that the fuel injection system
is more prone to vapor locking. I don't know. I do know that I just looked
at EAA's STC and found no engines starting with IO- in the list. (I've
always assumed IO means fuel injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong. ) My
list of engines from Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either.
That doesn't mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though.
They just need more octane, as I've said before.
If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto gas in a
fuel injected engine. However, I'm thinking there must have been a good
reason for FI engines not being in the STCs. I'm betting it's the fact that
auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than 100LL. If one runs auto gas over
the top of a hot engine, would it not be more prone to vapor locking?
Could be. I'm not willing to spend the money on a FI engine only to find
out I can't use auto gas, after all. It would be most embarrasing to be
flying along and have the engine quit due to vapor lock. Hmmmm. What would
I tell my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me? :-)
> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect anyone
> willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds > of payload
> (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine) don't really care
> about economy, like you and I.
> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with mogas
> will yield the best economy.
I hope Charlie is right. If enough of you guys are willing to take the risk
and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's working out. I may
have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for my current project.
Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go with a carby. I figure I
can suffer a little bit on fuel economy and still be smiling every time I
fill up my tanks with auto gas. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
EAA Tech Counselor
(20 years of flying with auto gas)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
I have read on this list and others many reports of success installing the
GPS antenna under the cowl; none that I recall reported problems. There was
some concern about using metallic paint on the cowl, but I don't think
anyone reported an actual problem.
As for the "400 degree world", that does seem a bit high. There are often
other electronics under the cowl too. My Lightspeed Ignition control box is
there. If you think it might get too hot, maybe pointing a blast tube at it
would help.
And as for them all being active, my understanding is that some are and some
are not. I don't know about that except that my Bluemountain EFIS
instructions say to make sure I use the right one with their system.
But then I design buildings, not antennas, so maybe I'm wrong.
Terry
RV-8A firewall forward
Seattle
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active and
contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from its
fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver. That
circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world. It is also
not going to like the corona traveling down each of the spark plug wires
making a high noise samba line.
>From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not locate
that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
OR, take if from people who have been actually flying with this setup
for YEARS with absolutely no problems. I know many people personally
who have their GPS antenna on top of the engine compartment under the
cowl. The position offers an amazing unobstructed view of the sky. My
first reaction was the same as most: "doesn't that fry the antenna?".
Their reply: "hasn't in the last 6 years!".
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA GPS antenna under the cowl.
Michael Hudson wrote:
> GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active
> and contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from
> its fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver.
> That circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world.
> It is also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the
> spark plug wires making a high noise samba line.
>
> From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to not
> locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McBride" <rickrv8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna firewall quick connect |
My 430 antenna is also under the cowl with no problem. However, what
396 antenna are you referring to; the GPS or the XM weather
antenna/receiver? What may not be a problem for the GPS antenna could
possibly be for the XM antenna/receiver.
Rick McBride
----- Original Message -----
From: Mitchell Faatz<mailto:mitch(at)skybound.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS antenna firewall quick connect
>
OR, take if from people who have been actually flying with this setup
for YEARS with absolutely no problems. I know many people personally
who have their GPS antenna on top of the engine compartment under the
cowl. The position offers an amazing unobstructed view of the sky.
My
first reaction was the same as most: "doesn't that fry the antenna?".
Their reply: "hasn't in the last 6 years!".
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Finish Kit Auburn, CA GPS antenna under the
cowl.
Michael Hudson wrote:
> GPS antenna pucks are different than most antennas. They are active
> and contain high gain amplifiers to boost the satellite signal from
> its fempto-watt apparent level to the level need by the receiver.
> That circuitry is not likely to enjoy living in a 400 degree world.
> It is also not going to like the corona traveling down each of the
> spark plug wires making a high noise samba line.
>
> From a radio designer and RV9A builder take the recommendation to
not
> locate that poor antenna in such a hostile place.
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
ator?RV-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
| Subject: | OSH Parking Comments |
Just a few reminders for all of you going to OSH this year.
As someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in an orange vest at
OSH and many other fly-ins remember the flight ain't over until the plane is
tied down.
For the most part almost all airplane fatalities and injuries occur either
on, or very close to the ground. Oshkosh is no exception in spite of the
higher potential for mid air collisions.
While I don't work in the homebuilt section I do park a lot of aircraft
during that two weeks in July. It is true that you are the pilot and it's
your job to not run into anything, but it's my job to keep things from
running into you. So if you don't like what you see, or you can see that I
don't like what I see then it's time to shut it down and have a chat about
it all.
Fortunately airplanes aren't too hard to push and there's always a bunch of
volunteers that would love to help.
For many the trip in seems kinda fast and hairy, but then it's over and you
are on the ground. Well, this is when the stress really begins. OSH is big
and usually hot, we are moving up 11000 airplanes on and off the field.
Typically there are pre-established routes that aren't very obvious to those
sitting in a cockpit, but the idea is to keep everyone on any taxiway going
the same direction. As such you may toodle around a bit for no apparent
reason kinda like an IFR flight. We realize that you are hot, that you need
to get out and clean your shorts, that a quart of ice cold rum would be just
the thing, but please bear with us.
Have the signs as per the NOTAM, and print them out with a printer, bold,
landscape, 300pt Arial. Big letters with a ball point pen on a sectional
chart will get a nice laugh from many, but you will taxi around for a
while... I think it's the last page of the NOTAM has a great cheat sheet for
frequencies but once you are off the runway that will do nothing for you.
Depending on which runway you land on and where you are going you might see
up to 20 or so volunteers directing you over the course. The sooner each one
of them is able to recognize that three letter sign of yours, the sooner
they will get you on your way to the right location.
As well, there are defined areas for parking various types of airplanes.
Just because it's empty and it is show center doesn't mean you get to park
there. And if you know Paul or Tom Poberezny, that's fine, we'll still park
you where we want and then you can have them come help you move your plane
to where they want it. Speaking of that, while we are willing to relocate
aircraft, we usually try to do it during the lulls. This often doesn't work
out though because lulls come and go. Be patient, we'll do our best to get
you there.
Also, when departing, don't start your engine without an orange vested soul
nearby. As one who has seen airplanes collide into things at OSH it doesn't
matter whose fault it is, everyone is bummed and there are no winners. These
orange vested souls can be hard to find, particularly down in the homebuilt
area. If you are looking for something to do I suggest you volunteer and
wear a vest for a few tours. It will greatly expand your knowledge of the
ground operations there as well as get you a free glass of ice water and a
baloney and butter sandwich.
Make sure you get a briefing before you depart and keep the brief sheet or
you will be stopped and briefed when you get to the runway. This is very
disconcerting to have happen just before takeoff and I have seen many pilots
have to abort because they got rattled and forgot something like a canopy
latch. This of course means they get back in line and do it all over again.
And always remember, no matter how bad it gets, if they are wearing an
orange vest they aren't getting paid. Just like you, they are out there
trying to have a good time. They may not know everything so help them learn,
and help them help you.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
Hi Jim,
I just checked EAA's web site. I note that they state:
"Please note that our STC's are only for engines that are certified
for the use of 80 octane fuel. Engines requiring 100 octane fuel must
still use 100 octane avgas."
I found the following link regarding Peterson Aviation's STCs for
auto fuels. They do show that some models (8.5 to 1 CR) require the
use of 91 octane auto fuel. As Jim stated, all these models are
carbureted. Jim is correct here.
The STC'd use of auto fuel in certified fuel injected aircraft may be
a vapor lock concern as Jim states. It may also simply be that the
STCs were not pursued due to poor return on investment. The
IO-320-Bxx series of engines were not used on many aircraft. (Twin
Comanches if memory serves me) Why waste the money to get the STC if
the number of fleet aircraft using the engine won't recoup your
investment and a reasonable return?
The following is just my opinion, but I think that the physics back
me up. Vapor lock occurs when the fuel boils in the
lines. Carbureted engine fuel pumps generate 1 to 5 psi. Bendix (aka
Precision) and Airflow Performance fuel injected units use 19 to 34
psi ( 25 psi is nominal on 4 cylinder models) fuel pumps.
Pressurizing a liquid will increase it's boiling point. Therefore,
from the electric boost pump to the fuel servo, you should have about
25 psi. The servo modifies (reduces) this pressure, but it stays well
above the 5 psi maximum of carbureted systems. Once running, the FI
system should be less likely to encounter vapor lock. Hot restarts
are another issue.
Jim may be correct that the issue is related to hot restarts on FI
systems. With no pressure at start up, and the small steel lines
going from the fuel distributor to the individual fuel injectors on
top of the engine, this is a prime area for the fuel to boil. It may
also boil at or near the mechanical pump. However, since we are in
the experimental category we are free to use/try this approach. If
your system, be it Bendix or Airflow Performance exhibits hot restart
problems, these can be solved with the addition of Airflow
Performance's fuel purge valve. This valve allows the pilot to
recirculate the heated fuel by means of the boost pump with the purge
valve open.
We are free to stick with the simple, cheaper carburetor
system, or use the fuel injection system of our choice, with or
without a purge valve. Jim wants to err on the side of caution. I
can't fault him for that.
Another option is to simply build a fuel injected engine which uses
the low compression 7.2 to 1 CR pistons. That means a 150 hp 320
cubic inch engine or a 168 hp 360 cubic inch engine. You may be able
to run with 87 octane fuel OR you may need to stick with the higher
octane 91/93 octane high test to avoid vapor lock. Some or all of
this lost power can be reclaimed by the use of electronic ignition
and tuned 4 into 1 exhaust systems.
I think that a low compression, parallel valve 360 cubic inch
engine utilizing fuel injection (with or without purge valve as
operational experience dictates), single electronic ignition, tuned 4
into 1 exhaust using 87 octane fuel would be the miser's
delight! :-) I "guesstimate" that such an engine would still produce
176 to 180 hp.
Charlie Kuss
>
>
>> What makes you think that FI engines can not use Mogas? If you >
>> are referring to the angle valve 200 hp models, you are correct.
>>However, any parallel valve engine (320, 360 or 540) using 7.2 to >
>>1 or 8.5 to 1 pistons CAN use Mogas. Those engines using 8.5 to >1
>>pistons (160 hp 320s, 180 hp 360s and 230 hp 540s) will require >
>>using premium (91 octane or better) Mogas.
>
>If one sticks with the spirit of the STCs, I found no fuel injected
>engines listed as approved for auto gas. It could be that the fuel
>injection system is more prone to vapor locking. I don't know. I
>do know that I just looked at EAA's STC and found no engines
>starting with IO- in the list. (I've always assumed IO means fuel
>injected; so, correct me if I'm wrong. ) My list of engines from
>Petersen is pretty old; but, it shows none, either. That doesn't
>mean that the higher compression engines weren't shown, though. They
>just need more octane, as I've said before.
>
>If one wants to experiment, which we all can do, one can use auto
>gas in a fuel injected engine. However, I'm thinking there must
>have been a good reason for FI engines not being in the STCs. I'm
>betting it's the fact that auto gas tends to vapor lock faster than
>100LL. If one runs auto gas over the top of a hot engine, would it
>not be more prone to vapor locking? Could be. I'm not willing to
>spend the money on a FI engine only to find out I can't use auto
>gas, after all. It would be most embarrasing to be flying along and
>have the engine quit due to vapor lock. Hmmmm. What would I tell
>my passenger, if I can find one brave enough to ride with me? :-)
>
>> The 200 hp crowd is out of luck with Mogas. However, I suspect
>> anyone willing to spend the extra money and sacrifice 20+ pounds >
>> of payload (due to the added weight of the angle valve engine)
>> don't really care about economy, like you and I.
>> Fuel injection, electronic ignition, 4 into 1 tuned exhaust with
>> mogas will yield the best economy.
>
>I hope Charlie is right. If enough of you guys are willing to take
>the risk and run auto gas in FI engines, let us know how it's
>working out. I may have to change my mind and buy a FI engine for
>my current project. Otherwise, I guess I'll be a big chicken and go
>with a carby. I figure I can suffer a little bit on fuel economy
>and still be smiling every time I fill up my tanks with auto gas. :-)
>
>Jim Sears in KY
>EAA Tech Counselor
>(20 years of flying with auto gas)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injection or Not |
Sorry,
I forgot to include the link regarding Peterson Aviation's auto
fuel STCs in my earlier post. Here it is
http://www.webworksltd.com/autofuelstc/pa/ApprovedEngines.html
Charlie red faced Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
I live in the Pacific NW. I'm going with fuel injection to get away from
carb ice, better engine performance and because I can. I just like it
better.
Jim Bowen
RV-8 QB
>From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Injected - or Not
>Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:21:15 -0600
>
>
>>So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really
>>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>>
>>Also, does anyone know of any document that shows an in depth analysis of
>>why or why not?
>
>One benefit of Fuel Injection (FI) is the ability to run lean of peak.
>That should
>save fuel but I cannot show that it is worth the additional cost.
>
>A reported drawback of FI is hard starting under hot conditions (supposedly
>after landing then starting a short time later).
>
>You did go with 180 HP which is good. Whether it makes sense to go for
>more horsepower is another factor I cannot quantify. However, given that I
>could get more horsepower for the same cost of FI personally I would go
>for the horsepower.
>
>Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OSH Parking Comments |
I'd like to add some to this excellent list
as in the years before, the road to RV land and homebuild camping is a
one-way street. We have to stop all traffic coming out when a plane goes
in and vice versa. We have used the entry to the warbirds as a staging
area to wait for planes to come out. If we point u towards the warbird
area, please pull in the area and make a u turn (follow our signals),
chances are there will be more planes waiting. We will get u going as
soon as possible where u need to go.
There is a defined pecking order of who goes first, Ford trimotor heads
the parade, then warbirds, mostly P51s, finally all other, sorry that's
the way it is.
I second Wheeler's comment regarding signs, use the published signs and
colors. it is very frustrating dealing with pilots who 'know' where they
go because da's where they went for the past 20 years now. It is no fun
getting close to propellors, shouting over the blast to find out what
the pilot wants to do, only to get an earful because he/she is being
stopped at each intersection. I am told every year that they don't need
the notam...........
Also, if the parking area fills up, becomes full, please don't argue
with us that u want to park with the birds of a feather, we understand u
want to. We will bend over backwards to get u in. However, take the
space we point out to you, wander over to the area you want to park and
talk to the orange vests in that area. we have had to sent planes to
Fond Du Lac in the past, who argued and lost the last spot.
Please don't plan your departure till the last moment before the airshow
starts, any small hick-up in schedule will cause u to be shut down where
u are that very moment till after the airshow.
Fly save and have fun
Gert
Wheeler North wrote:
>
> Just a few reminders for all of you going to OSH this year.
>
> As someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in an orange vest at
> OSH and many other fly-ins remember the flight ain't over until the plane is
> tied down.
>
> For the most part almost all airplane fatalities and injuries occur either
> on, or very close to the ground. Oshkosh is no exception in spite of the
> higher potential for mid air collisions.
>
> While I don't work in the homebuilt section I do park a lot of aircraft
> during that two weeks in July. It is true that you are the pilot and it's
> your job to not run into anything, but it's my job to keep things from
> running into you. So if you don't like what you see, or you can see that I
> don't like what I see then it's time to shut it down and have a chat about
> it all.
>
> Fortunately airplanes aren't too hard to push and there's always a bunch of
> volunteers that would love to help.
>
> For many the trip in seems kinda fast and hairy, but then it's over and you
> are on the ground. Well, this is when the stress really begins. OSH is big
> and usually hot, we are moving up 11000 airplanes on and off the field.
> Typically there are pre-established routes that aren't very obvious to those
> sitting in a cockpit, but the idea is to keep everyone on any taxiway going
> the same direction. As such you may toodle around a bit for no apparent
> reason kinda like an IFR flight. We realize that you are hot, that you need
> to get out and clean your shorts, that a quart of ice cold rum would be just
> the thing, but please bear with us.
>
> Have the signs as per the NOTAM, and print them out with a printer, bold,
> landscape, 300pt Arial. Big letters with a ball point pen on a sectional
> chart will get a nice laugh from many, but you will taxi around for a
> while... I think it's the last page of the NOTAM has a great cheat sheet for
> frequencies but once you are off the runway that will do nothing for you.
> Depending on which runway you land on and where you are going you might see
> up to 20 or so volunteers directing you over the course. The sooner each one
> of them is able to recognize that three letter sign of yours, the sooner
> they will get you on your way to the right location.
>
> As well, there are defined areas for parking various types of airplanes.
> Just because it's empty and it is show center doesn't mean you get to park
> there. And if you know Paul or Tom Poberezny, that's fine, we'll still park
> you where we want and then you can have them come help you move your plane
> to where they want it. Speaking of that, while we are willing to relocate
> aircraft, we usually try to do it during the lulls. This often doesn't work
> out though because lulls come and go. Be patient, we'll do our best to get
> you there.
>
> Also, when departing, don't start your engine without an orange vested soul
> nearby. As one who has seen airplanes collide into things at OSH it doesn't
> matter whose fault it is, everyone is bummed and there are no winners. These
> orange vested souls can be hard to find, particularly down in the homebuilt
> area. If you are looking for something to do I suggest you volunteer and
> wear a vest for a few tours. It will greatly expand your knowledge of the
> ground operations there as well as get you a free glass of ice water and a
> baloney and butter sandwich.
>
> Make sure you get a briefing before you depart and keep the brief sheet or
> you will be stopped and briefed when you get to the runway. This is very
> disconcerting to have happen just before takeoff and I have seen many pilots
> have to abort because they got rattled and forgot something like a canopy
> latch. This of course means they get back in line and do it all over again.
>
> And always remember, no matter how bad it gets, if they are wearing an
> orange vest they aren't getting paid. Just like you, they are out there
> trying to have a good time. They may not know everything so help them learn,
> and help them help you.
>
> W
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injected - or Not |
I have a carb and fly with a lot of different RV. The guys with Fuel
Injection always burn less fuel than I do. It ranges from 0.5 GPH to 2.0 GPH
less than I do to go the same speed. I have seen a 200 HP FI RV-7 fly on my
wing doing Formation Check Ride maneuvers (Steep pitch and bank lazy 8 type
maneuvers) and burn LESS fuel than I did flying lead with constant power
(2,100 RPM / 22 IN-Hg). We both full at the begining of the day and then
filled up at the end of the day only to see him buy 2 gallons less gas than
I did.
Yes the FI can sometimes be hard to start. There are more carb out there
and I have seen as many problems with carbs as I have FI. Most of the FI
problems that I have seen were because the owner / operator did NOT read the
instruction manual and did not have it set up correctly. One carb problem
went on for a year and end up being a bad float that had fuel in in it. One
fuel injection problem was from a BAD fuel pump being replaced with the
WRONG fuel pump.
The difference in the up front cost when compared to the cost of entire
airplane is small. Put in what YOU really want. I would like FI but do not
want to stop flying long enough to install it. I would like to re-engine to
a 180 and if / when I do, it will be FI.
As for Auto Fuel, I do not want to spend the time transporting it. In the
past 8.75 years of flying my RV, I have only been to ONE airport that had
auto fuel. There was a video clip a few years back where someone fueling
their RV with auto fuel had static electricity ignite the fuel and you could
see the flames on the wing. They put the fire out before the airplane was
damaged.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,869 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>>So a question for all you old hands out there Is fuel injection really
>>worth the extra several thousand bucks? Why or why not?
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up |
Hi to all
Hate to change the subject (IFR or NOT)...........but I need some advice on
the type of fiberglass / carbon cloth (Bi or Uni), and resin / hardner (
West Systems, Aero epoxy) types to start the fiberglass portion of the tip
up canopy build. Best vendors would also be appreciated. I have searched the
archives and google for info but need some more info to make the final
choice.
TIA
Frank @ SGU and SLC Canopy and looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to finish the
project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fiberglass tips for tip up |
I used West Systems. I'd do it again. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fiberglass tips for tip up
>
> Hi to all
>
> Hate to change the subject (IFR or NOT)...........but I need some advice
> on the type of fiberglass / carbon cloth (Bi or Uni), and resin / hardner
> ( West Systems, Aero epoxy) types to start the fiberglass portion of the
> tip up canopy build. Best vendors would also be appreciated. I have
> searched the archives and google for info but need some more info to make
> the final choice.
>
> TIA
>
> Frank @ SGU and SLC Canopy and looking for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to finish the
> project
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Albert Gardner" <ibspud(at)adelphia.net> |
Anybody remember who makes the titanium tiedowns?
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RaNDY Frost" <jamesrfrost(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Kitfox for partial trade |
Jeff: I have a Kitfox 3 and thought I had a deal to trade it with money for
a RV-4 but it fell thru. I'm still trying to get an RV. I have photos if
interested.
Randy 678-859-1861
>From: flamini2 <flamini2(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "rv-list(at)matronics.com"
>Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-6 Chicago area for sale
>Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:15:20 -0500
>
>
>*RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" >
>
>What airport?
>
>Jeff, It's at C56 the old Sanger Airport about 25nm South of MDW (Midway
>Chicago).
>The airport was sold to Bult Corp. and will be closed 7/1/06 for new runway
>and hangers
>and the land is also being fought over by the third Chicago Airport people.
>The registration is N405PP.
>The owner, Paul Pressler is the builder and a true metal craftsman, you
>should see his tools!
>Dennis
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dennis Flamini" <flamini2(at)comcast.net
>>
>To: >
>Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 9:03 PM
>Subject: RV-6 Chicago area for sale
>
>
>>
> >
> > For sale RV-6 tilt-up in Chicago area;
> > Approx 300hrs TT
> > 150hp not H2AD major OH at 0hrs
> > Warnake wood prop
> > Com, Transponder, GPS, Gyros, Intercom
> > Perfect rivits, no bondo
> > $50,000 firm
> > You guys know the parts cost this much, you get 5 years labor for free!
> > Call Paul at 708-534-3042 after 6pm
> > see the photo section of;
May 30, 2006 - June 13, 2006
RV-Archive.digest.vol-rz