RV-List Archive Browser

Michele RV8 Finishing _____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob J. Sent: lundi 15 janvier 2007 19:25
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV
Tim, a good book to read is "Better Aerobatics" by Alan Cassidy. I have read/thumbed through a few aerobatic books, and by far this one is the best. A couple of years ago I went up in my -6 with Greg Koontz, and learned a lot of good stuff from him, which just reiterated some things I read from the book. Up until that point I went up with a few experienced guys who showed me the ropes. But for the most part you will have to teach yourself and practice with plenty of altitude after you get someone competent to show you how, and I emphasize "competent" (someone who either does airshows or competitive acro). You'll be better, safer and have more confidence if you are properly taught. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "JDELPESO(at)terra.es" <JDELPESO(at)terra.es>
Subject: LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER
I think this question and answer from vans can be usefull for some of you Asunto: Re: LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER go with the drawing .....van's Subject: LEVEL THE HORIZONTAL STABILIZER Copies to: jdelpeso(at)teleline.es Hi, Acording with the instructions on page 8-17 to set the zero incidence angle to the fuselage, I have to do the following steps: 1.- Set the F-810E 1/8" spacers underneath the front spar. 2.- Set a temporary 3/16" spacer underneath the rear spar. 3.- Check a zero incidence angle placing a ....... 1/16"........ spacer on top of the rear spar and use a carpenter level between spars. According with drawing 41 (leveling of horizontal stabilizer), once I have leveled the stabilizer (steps 1 and 2 of the other paragraph), I check the zero incidence placing a 1/8" spacer over the front spar and 1/4" spacer over the rear spar, so the increment is...... 1/8".... In the instructions on page 8-17 the increment is 1/16". Wich value is the right one? Thanks Jose del Peso #80981 Prueba el Nuevo Correo Terra; Seguro, rápido, fiable. Prueba el correo Terra ( http://www.terra.es/correo ); Seguro, rpido, fiable. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GRRRRRINNNNNNN !!!! N696WG First Flight !!
From: "shirleyh" <shirleyh(at)oceanbroadband.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Congratulations! Sounds like you've done a great building job! Shirley RV6 50 hours now :-) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=87972#87972 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Wood prop torque?
> >I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a wood >prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque? > >Thanks in advance. Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque to 312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours (per manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, ie. from real hot to real cold (winter vs summer). Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "Patty Hamilton" <PGILLIES(at)gwm.sc.edu>
Subject: Partnership contract for building process
Hi, I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking for ideas on how to deal with: what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane is completecharging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal on man hours and cash)Who pays for ruin parts?In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is completeAny other issues I have not thought aboutThanks, Patty Hamilton Columbia, SC RV-6 N996PJ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV
>At the risk of being politically incorrect and accused of advocating >dangerous antisocial behavior, I do know of one guy who taught himself >aerobatics. It was awhile back, of course, and his name was Bob Hoover. > >Disclaimer: My guess is that if he were starting over today, he would >read the books and take the lessons. I thought he was an Army Air Corps Pilot, trained by the Army. I know he was trained in dog fighting, is that not the same as aerobatics? If he went through the same WW II Army Flight Training (Aviation Cadets) as my Uncle then he got aerobatic instruction from the Army. Yes, there are a lot of people who are self taught in aerobatics. Some of them, but not all, are dead! Some aerobatic pilots who are trained in aerobatics are also dead due to aerobatics. Aerobatic training will not insure success, it just puts more of the odds in your favor. Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Danielson" <johnd(at)wlcwyo.com>
Subject: Wood prop torque?
Date: Jan 16, 2007
I used 240 to 280 inch pounds. Can't remember where I got that. You might Search the archives. John L. Danielson -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:57 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Wood prop torque? > >I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a wood >prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque? > >Thanks in advance. Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque to 312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours (per manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, ie. from real hot to real cold (winter vs summer). Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron rolls in an RV
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Offered in the interest of fact finding: Bob Hoover learned to fly at Nashville's Berry Field while working at a local grocery store to pay for the flight training. He enlisted in the Tennessee National Guard and was sent for pilot training with the Army. He was sent to Casablanca where his first major assignment of the war was test flying the assembled aircraft ready for service. He was later assigned to the Spitfire-equipped 52nd Fighter group in Sicily. After 58 successful missions, on the 59th his malfunctioning Mark V Spitfire was shot down by a Focke-Wulf 190 off the coast of Southern France in 1944 and was taken prisoner. He spent 16 months at the German prison camp Stalag Luft 1 in Barth, Germany Denis Walsh On Jan 16, 2007, at 07:14 296990001, Bob wrote: > > >> At the risk of being politically incorrect and accused of >> advocating dangerous antisocial behavior, I do know of one guy who >> taught himself aerobatics. It was awhile back, of course, and his >> name was Bob Hoover. >> >> Disclaimer: My guess is that if he were starting over today, he >> would read the books and take the lessons. > > > I thought he was an Army Air Corps Pilot, trained by the Army. I > know he was trained in dog fighting, is that not the same as > aerobatics? If he went through the same WW II Army Flight Training > (Aviation Cadets) as my Uncle then he got aerobatic instruction > from the Army. > > Yes, there are a lot of people who are self taught in aerobatics. > Some of them, but not all, are dead! Some aerobatic pilots who are > trained in aerobatics are also dead due to aerobatics. Aerobatic > training will not insure success, it just puts more of the odds in > your favor. > > > Bob > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO ROLLS)
Dear Acro Want-to-be's: *Aerobatics is not a black art and we can talk about it. *The plane flys the same upside down as right side-up. *As a CFI, I recommend you get dual instruction. *With that said there are many books on the subject. *HERE IS MY RV ACRO "for dummies" explanation: (note: I assume you are current and can fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls (accel, power on/off) and slow flight, unusual attitude recover. Go practice all PVT maneuvers till you are comfortable. QUICK: What is nose low unusual attitude recovery? (power back, wings lever, pitch up to recover, 1,2,3) This should be done smoothly with rushing or panic. **ACRO FOR RV's** First consider a G meter? I don't do acro without one and also a parachute. You can do acro all day at 3 g's. Any more you are doing it wrong. A split-S started at cruise could kill you, meaning speed will go over Vne easy if entered at a speed that is too high, about 100-110 mph. Get some dual with an experienced pilot. Fly under acro gross weight. If you can't do that in your RV use another RV for dual instruction. To be legal with two people, both need a parachute. Strangely solo you don't need a parachute. (Anyone want to bet me? I could use the $20.) The old joke: "Anyone who teaches them self to do acro has a fool for an instructor." Many famous acro pilots had fools for instructors. We don't hear from those who where not successful who taught there self. General rules: You should plan on starting (and finishing) all maneuvers at Va or less, about 135-140 mph, at altitudes at or above 3,000 agl. Also before undertaking Acro, you should practice and be proficient on all your private pilot maneuvers, like: slow flight, steep turns, stall (power on/off/accelerated from different attitudes), unusual attitude recovery and explore initial stall entry / recovery. ROLLS I break it down into two lessons. Lesson one practice leading up to doing rolls starts with first practicing pitching up smoothly to 30-45 degrees and than neutralize the stick (release back pressure). A quick (small) push forward so you unload the plane, but no pitch down or zero g's, just natural. That is the end of the first maneuver. Just lower the nose, accelerate and recover level. Repeat until you smoothly pitch up to 45 and neutralize the elevator quickly and naturally (remember speed 140 max, 3,000' agl and look for traffic). The second lesson: Series of rapid left and right banks while staying on a heading or point - Start with 20 degrees and increase the bank angle until you can smoothly roll rapidly back and forth w/ out the heading going all over. This teaches you to use larger stick deflections than usual and not to put pitch inputs into it. We all tend to bank, than yank. You don't do that when you roll. In fact you may add fwd stick with full stick aileron deflection as you get more advance. "THE ROLL" combines the two lessons. Start at Va (about 135-140 mph) with the pitch up, than stick relaxed. One is your natural 45 pitch attitude, smoothly apply a large (near full) aileron deflection in the desired direction and HOLD IT THERE until the world looks right again. Left is easier due to engine torque. You can keep your feet flat on the floor for beginners. Wrong rudder inputs are worse than none. Quickly neutralize the stick when you come around 360 degrees of roll level. You should be in a slight nose low attitude, close to your original heading. Recover straight and level. DONE Cautions: DONT RELAX THE ROLL INPUT. HOLD IT ALL THE WAY. It's common to not to put enough aileron in or neutralize it during the roll as it progresses to the inverted. Now you're inverted, diving. Lesson is keep the roll going by keeping the aileron into it. Get in trouble keep rolling. DO release the back pressure before you roll or you'll do a Barrel Roll or worse. That's not what you are after. Too much back pressure can result in a dive or a Split-S. Speed can build quickly in a dive. Remember your unusual attitude recovery and pull the power back to idle if you get pointed down and going too fast, roll to nearest wings level and recover. I described a basic beginner RV aileron roll, not a perfect one. That's the beauty of the RV's, they roll very nicely with no rudder due to the Frise type ailerons. There's more to it, but this should keep you out of trouble. You can enter these maneuvers faster, but it requires more skill and control. You can pull the wings of the plane if you pull/push to hard at higher speeds. Fly Safe, George --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
Dear Acro Want-to-be's: PART II - Loops Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls (accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few. If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are comfortable. LOOPS The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again 140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G- meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice. Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2 to 3 seconds or so. Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up you do smoothly and can be very near 1G; there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you will need to for a loop. In a loop however if your initial pitch up G's are too low you might stall before getting over the top. As you get more advanced in aerobatics you will see there are similar elements in all maneuvers. At the beginning of the loop you will have the max back pressure, it will be less thru the first 1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half, where at the end or bottom of the loop you will have the same back pressure as you did at the entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and altitude should be the same. After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a little; This is because as airspeed varies control pressure changes. By looking outside the plane you determine the pitching rate. It should be constant. Remember you go from near 140mph to near stall in the 50's mph, so control pressure and control response change throughout. Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input based on speed while looking outside to control the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never go upside down, but they are great practice leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to show you these maneuvers. The entry is important. Too much elevator (G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight loop. This can result in excess airspeed and altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you really pull hard and keep the pressure up you can do an accelerated stall in the vertical- plane. Not what you want. Too little pressure at the entry and you will not get over the top and will stall or roll off potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle. Unfortunately most, including myself, make oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve that is with a ground observer, coaching you over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's, egg shaped and all. As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon over the nose so you need to look over you head, behind you and mostly look off to the right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level. On the top of the loop, too much back pressure can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax the back pressure (as you do right side up). When you are upside down you can check the road or your refrence point and make coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on heading. (Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers) If you have a fixed prop you may need to make adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set RPM and forget it (nice). Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are making big control deflections and loading the airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things jam and parts break. Also you may screw up and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the subjects. Also you have to look for traffic when doing loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers well, within the standards, you are ready. If you are weak in any area you should practice honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro. However Acro improves your skill and confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN. Go buy and read some acro books. Do at your own risk, solo with a chute. Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl. Cheers George --------------------------------- Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com>
Subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have) been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the PIC. How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this pilot's mistakes. This is sick. If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I mention that I have an opinion on this ???? Larry E. James Pacific Northwest ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
I'm really going to regret wading into this but in the interest of accuracy, from my reading of the matter (not via ANN would was not very professional in its coverage, imho)suit wasn't over the fact the plane crashed. The suit was about the contention the pilot survived the crash but died because the responders the EAA contracted with to provide services, took more than minutes to arrive. The trial took 2 1/2 weeks, which is quite a long time in a trial so I'm going to suggest that maybe the details that went into the verdict were considered and were numerous, and beyond our present ability to judge the worth of the family to continue living on this planet until we know a bit more. I would advocate for more information before we lynch the family and burn down the town. In the meantime, I suspect that help on a runway is now less than 5 minutes away at major fly-ins, so maybe some good can come of it. Let's hold fire and learn more. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88090#88090 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Partnership contract for building process
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "Puckett, Gregory [DENTK]" <Greg.Puckett(at)united.com>
Patty, Another thing you may want to consider is that, as I understand it, only one person's name can go on the Airworthiness Certificate as the 'Builder'. I'm not a Lawyer but, I would not be surprised that if the airplane were ever sold to a third party, that person (the 'builder') may have his/her neck stuck a bit further out. I have no idea how you would account for this but, it's probably something to think about. Greg Puckett RV-8 N881GP >> Hi, >> >> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out >> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking >> for ideas on how to deal with: >> >> what if some one wants out of the agreement before the airplane >> is complete > Then one partner buys out the other for 1/2 the COST of materials. > Who buys out who may be an agreement beforehand, or decided by a > flip of the coin ..... >> charging an hourly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal >> on man hours and cash) > You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the > fact that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the > kit close to home. >> Who pays for ruin parts? > Equal shares. You are supposed to be doing the work together so a > screw-up is shared by both parties. >> In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is complete > See the first answer. >> Any other issues I have not thought about > Yes ..... who gets the repairman's certificate. Should be the most > mechanically inclined ...... or maybe the one most likely to > survive the other. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Larry, I couldn't agree more. I blame the lawyers much more than the family. The lawyer seek out this kind of high profile incident, talk the family into cooperating, then walk away with an outrageous proportion of the settlement. I submit that a large majority of Americans despise this practice (although wouldn't turn down a few million bucks if offered by the legal team). This practice is destroying America, our freedoms, and our economy. Medical costs for example, a large percentage of the GNP, are driven largely by CYA practices to keep the sharks away. There is no way to accurately estimate this cost, but it is well in excess of 50% of all costs associated with medicine. But the American population is powerless to do anything about it because the lawyers make the laws to suit their own interests. A physician can loose his career and sometimes even get jail time for making an honest mistake while doing his very best for a patient. Meanwhile, the D.A. in the Duke case is immune from both civil an criminal action despite the fact that his actions were clearly deliberate and ruined the lives of many people. Ok, time to stop, I am making myself really mad... -- David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY My websites at: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com On 1/16/07, Larry E. James wrote: > > I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in > Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of > $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. > > First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not > crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. > Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could > have (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire > suppression system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have > (should have) been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. > Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the > passenger seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this > pilot messed up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an > aircraft's control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to > hold the control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and > good practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is > also common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all > flight controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously > these two items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. > This is also the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes > can add up and have rather large consequences ........ and the person > responsible is the PIC. > > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of > pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained > this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this > pilot's mistakes. This is sick. > > If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or > if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be > talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should > go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from > their husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, > did I mention that I have an opinion on this ???? > > Larry E. James > Pacific Northwest > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
wdleonard(at)gmail.com wrote: > Larry, > Medical costs for example, a large percentage of the GNP, are driven largely by CYA practices to keep the sharks away. There is no way to accurately estimate this cost, but it is well in excess of 50% of all costs associated with medicine. Due respect and all. This is stated as fact so often that people accept it as such. Do a Google search for "what drives medical costs" and you can see. My wife, who's in the health care industry, insists that burdensome paperwork does the same thing. Who knows. But the jury -- pun intended -- is still out. Anyway, I can see this thread is heading for "talk radio" land so I'll just say..."hey, how about those RV airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!" I think they're pretty cool. How about you? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88113#88113 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Larry, Thanks for bringing this up here on the RV list where I think it needs to be aired. I too was shocked and disappointed to read in the local papers about the award. I knew Don Corbitt slightly; I had flown down to Scappoose and back with him maybe a month or so before the accident at Arlington. I didn't see the accident but I know some on this list were there and did see it. The curious thing in the newspaper article and the Avweb version of the story was the difference in the time it took the fire department to respond. I think the Corbitt's layer said in the Seattle Times that it was half an hour; others said less than 5 minutes. My only disagreement with your description of what happened is about Don having taken off with the stick still strapped down. My understanding is as I described it in a discussion with a friend about it last night, that no one knows for sure but it seems highly probable, given the evidence. But regardless of the reason, I find it hard to imagine a pilot saying it was anyone other than Don's fault that his plane crashed. But when bad things happen, someone has to be blamed and if the most certainly culpable person is already dead, it seems to be human nature to start casting about for someone else to hang the blame on, and in today's world that means make them pay and pay dearly. So instead of putting the blame on the pilot, we put the blame on the people who couldn't save him from the fire after the crash. I can just imagine the jury deliberations where a group of non-pilots have no appreciation for the absolute responsibility that resides with the pilot. I hope some appeal to the verdict backs it way, way down. I don't think they every get dismissed. The thing that this leaves me with is this: Don was a good man - smart, full of energy and well liked and respected by those who knew him. But like most of us, I don't think he realized just how far our responsibility extends out behind us like some sort of wake turbulence when we climb into a cockpit. I am sure he would have been devastated to know that his moment of bad decision would not only take his life and cause enormous loss to his family, but could possibly bring about the end of the annual Arlington EAA air show. He was intent on bringing his talent and capitol to make experimental aviation better; instead he lost everything and is dragging many others off track too. I understand that he left his wife and four small kids pretty well off. Ironically, that may have contributed to the size of the jury's award. Since he was capable of earning a lot more than most of us, then the financial damage of his loss was greater than for most people, so the jury gives them more. I hate to be so cynical, but the only winner I see in this whole disaster is Mrs. Corbitt's lawyer. Everyone else - Don and his family and friends, you and I and the EAA and general aviation all lost. Sorry to be so long winded. Terry RV-8A finishing Seattle _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry E. James Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 12:14 PM Subject: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have) been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the PIC. How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this pilot's mistakes. This is sick. If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I mention that I have an opinion on this ???? Larry E. James Pacific Northwest ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
There must be something in there that we are missing. Sure, lawyers are scum and lawsuits can be bogus but I have to think that $10.5M is not awarded unless someone did something pretty bad. I don't know the details of this suit, but that kind of money is not just handed out. Taking responsibility for a fly-in is taking the world on your shoulders...I sure hope they are not doing so with nothing but volunteers making safety decisions. If they are...well, they are risking everyone who attends. Lets hope there is more foresight than that at work. All the good intentions in the world are no substitute for a professional in charge who understands safety. I nominate Charlie Kuss. Still..we could just hang all the lawyers. Bill -4 wings --- "Larry E. James" wrote: > I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in > Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of > $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. > > First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not > crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. > Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have > (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression > system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have) > been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. > Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger > seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed > up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's > control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the > control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good > practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also > common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight > controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two > items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also > the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and > have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the > PIC. > > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of > pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained > this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this > pilot's mistakes. This is sick. > > If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or > if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be > talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should > go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their > husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I > mention that I have an opinion on this ???? > > Larry E. James > Pacific Northwest > Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ernie & Margo" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Wood prop torque?
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Wood props are "owned" by the manufacturer. Do not search the archives. Look at the documentation supplied with the prop. My prop was supplied by Ed Sterba. I was the first RV-9A builder to use a wood prop with a O-235-N2C engine. He was very PARTICIPATIVE. Extremely helpful regarding my flight profile, offering several reworks to make my prop perfect - aircraft to engine to personal mission profile. The proven craftsmen take your prop as a personal obligation. I have recently run my engine at full strength - very quiet, little vibration, totally smooth. I am anxious to repeat this with the canopy closed - and wearing my ANR headsets. It's looking really good. I'm getting very itchy about spring ! ! Ernest Kells RV-9A C-FKEL > > I used 240 to 280 inch pounds. > Can't remember where I got that. You might > Search the archives. > > John L. Danielson > > >> >>I have a RV 6A with 180 hp O260 A1A using 1/2 inch prop bolts for a > wood >>prop. What is the proper torque? How often to re-torque? >> >>Thanks in advance. > > Normally this is determined by the prop manufacture. Mine stated torque > to > 312 inch pounds. I also have an 180 0-360. Re-torque every 25 hours > (per > manufacture). I retorque after significant change in the weather, i.e.. > from > real hot to real cold (winter vs. summer). > > Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Partnership contract for building process
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Close but not exact. The builder may place any name on the plane as a manu facturer as long it is not the kit manufacturers name. For example if Mike Jones and John Smith built the plane together they could call it the Smith Jones RV-8A. They could even call it a Mike John RV-8A if they so desired . I know of an RV-6A that uses all three last names of the partners that b uilt that one. The key is that the name can't be the same as the kit manuf acturers, I.E. Van's. But that is not to say that the Kit Manufacturers na me (Van's) can't appear in the Model name, for example, Smith Jones, Van's RV-8A. Mike Robertson Das Fed Subject: RV-List: Re: Partnership contract for building processDate: Tue, 1 .com Patty, Another thing you may want to consider is that, as I understand it, only on e person=92s name can go on the Airworthiness Certificate as the =91Builder =92. I=92m not a Lawyer but, I would not be surprised that if the airplane were ever sold to a third party, that person (the =91builder=92) may have his/he r neck stuck a bit further out. I have no idea how you would account for th is but, it=92s probably something to think about. Greg Puckett RV-8 N881GP >> Hi,>> >> I am getting into a partnership to build a RV-10. Does anyone out >> there have an agreement for the building process. I am looking > > for ideas on how to deal with:>> >> what if some one wants out of the ag reement before the airplane >> is complete> Then one partner buys out the other for 1/2 the COST of materials. > Who buys out who may be an agreeme nt beforehand, or decided by a > flip of the coin .....>> charging an hour ly rate for work ( so every one is somewhat equal >> on man hours and cash )> You can't quantify hourly rate due to levels of expertise and the > fac t that one of the partners won't have the luxury of having the > kit clo se to home.>> Who pays for ruin parts?> Equal shares. You are supposed to be doing the work together so a > screw-up is shared by both parties.>> In case of a death or serious injury, before the airplane is complete> See th e first answer.>> Any other issues I have not thought about> Yes ..... who gets the repairman=92s certificate. Should be the most > mechanically inc lined ...... or maybe the one most likely to > survive the other. _________________________________________________________________ Fixing up the home? Live Search can help. e=en-US&source=wlmemailtaglinenov06 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
Date: Jan 16, 2007
I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 G's, so the following is just my opinion: In my light RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, I do not believe the airplane would make it over the top of a 140 mph/3 G loop. Instead, I'd get to experience a full power departure stall while inverted. My entry speed and initial target G are both higher than 140/3... If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a good idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with someone who has an airframe/engine/prop combination that is very similar to yours. I'm sure a light RV-4 with a constant speed prop can be looped from far slower speeds than my airplane. KB ----- Original Message ----- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:49 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) Dear Acro Want-to-be's: PART II - Loops Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls (accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few. If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are comfortable. LOOPS The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again 140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G- meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice. Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2 to 3 seconds or so. Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up you do smoothly and can be very near 1G; there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you will need to for a loop. In a loop however if your initial pitch up G's are too low you might stall before getting over the top. As you get more advanced in aerobatics you will see there are similar elements in all maneuvers. At the beginning of the loop you will have the max back pressure, it will be less thru the first 1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half, where at the end or bottom of the loop you will have the same back pressure as you did at the entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and altitude should be the same. After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a little; This is because as airspeed varies control pressure changes. By looking outside the plane you determine the pitching rate. It should be constant. Remember you go from near 140mph to near stall in the 50's mph, so control pressure and control response change throughout. Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input based on speed while looking outside to control the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never go upside down, but they are great practice leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to show you these maneuvers. The entry is important. Too much elevator (G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight loop. This can result in excess airspeed and altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you really pull hard and keep the pressure up you can do an accelerated stall in the vertical- plane. Not what you want. Too little pressure at the entry and you will not get over the top and will stall or roll off potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle. Unfortunately most, including myself, make oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve that is with a ground observer, coaching you over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's, egg shaped and all. As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon over the nose so you need to look over you head, behind you and mostly look off to the right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level. On the top of the loop, too much back pressure can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax the back pressure (as you do right side up). When you are upside down you can check the road or your refrence point and make coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on heading. (Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers) If you have a fixed prop you may need to make adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set RPM and forget it (nice). Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are making big control deflections and loading the airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things jam and parts break. Also you may screw up and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the subjects. Also you have to look for traffic when doing loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers well, within the standards, you are ready. If you are weak in any area you should practice honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro. However Acro improves your skill and confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN. Go buy and read some acro books. Do at your own risk, solo with a chute. Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl. Cheers George ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- --> http://forums.matronics.com =========== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
Terry Watson wrote: > [img]cid:image001.gif(at)01C73978.5F4B2F10[/img] > I can just imagine the jury deliberations where a group of non-pilots have no appreciation for the absolute responsibility that resides with the pilot. Again, perhaps I'm reading the wrong account but reading this thread seems to suggest that the jury was asked to decide who was responsible for the plane crashing, and suggested the jurors got it wrong. I don't believe the jurors were asked to determine any such thing. I would also contend that the fact someone makes a mistake and has responsibility for it, does NOT give a pass to anyone else to be negligent. Now, it seems to me we're roasting the lawyer, the court, and the award, but we haven't really thought about what EXACTLY it was about. IF the EAA hired someone to provide emergency services and IF that agency was negligent in doing so (on this thread it seems to be anywhere from 5 minutes to a half hour. Do anybody KNOW for certain what was entered into evidence.), and if the pilot survived the crash but died as a result of that emergency service not being provided, then there's a basis of culpability. I'm all for personal responsibility, but not absolute personal respnsibility. If a fire breaks out in my home, and I pay taxes for fire protection and the fire department can't come because they're all drunk at the firehouse, then the fact that I shouldn't have been building a house in that town in the first place doesn't absolve the fire department for performing its responsibility for which it was contracted. Look, all I know is the jury heard the evidence and looked at the evidence and listened to EXACTLY what the judge was instructing them to decide. And then they decided. Maybe we should consider that maybe -- just maybe -- they put more into it than we -- so far -- have. Let's get the whole story. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88148#88148 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
..."hey, how about those RV airplanes!!!!!!!!!!!" We will all be saying this when nobody can afford to insure and fly one. (RV Airplane) GAR... (Get a rope)... and hang an attorney ;-) Darrell Reiley RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved N469RV Reserved CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com Get your own web address. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com>
Subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 16, 2007
I just have a couple of things to say on this. First, I was there and I did see the crash. The emergency services did NOT take 30 minutes to arrive. I don't know if it was 5 minutes as I didn't time it, but it wasn't much longer than that. As far as a fire extinguisher; I have serious doubts if he would have survived regardless of the fire. He came down very vertical and very hard. I was shocked he survived the initial crash at all. Bill, air show or not, this is a general aviation airport where this accident could have happened even without the fly-in going on. I am convinced they had more available services and professionals on site than had this happened any other time. We all have an obligation to do our due diligence every time we get in an airplane weather there is paramedics standing by or not and weather there is a fly-in going on or not. I will sadly hate if Arlington and other fly-ins get shut down because they can't protect every pilot from themselves. The loss is SAD! Very SAD! But nobody else is responsible for it. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill shook > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:36 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M > > There must be something in there that we are missing. Sure, lawyers are > scum and > lawsuits can be bogus but I have to think that $10.5M is not awarded > unless someone did > something pretty bad. I don't know the details of this suit, but that > kind of money is > not just handed out. Taking responsibility for a fly-in is taking the > world on your > shoulders...I sure hope they are not doing so with nothing but volunteers > making safety > decisions. If they are...well, they are risking everyone who attends. > Lets hope there > is more foresight than that at work. All the good intentions in the world > are no > substitute for a professional in charge who understands safety. I > nominate Charlie > Kuss. > > Still..we could just hang all the lawyers. > > Bill > -4 wings > > > --- "Larry E. James" wrote: > > > I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in > > Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of > > $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. > > > > First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had > not > > crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. > > Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could > have > > (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire > suppression > > system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should > have) > > been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. > > Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the > passenger > > seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot > messed > > up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's > > control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the > > control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good > > practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is > also > > common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all > flight > > controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these > two > > items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is > also > > the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up > and > > have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is > the > > PIC. > > > > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series > of > > pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and > maintained > > this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for > this > > pilot's mistakes. This is sick. > > > > If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. > Or > > if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be > > talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We > should > > go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from > their > > husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I > > mention that I have an opinion on this ???? > > > > Larry E. James > > Pacific Northwest > > > > > > > Be a PS3 game guru. > Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! > Games. > http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121 >
> > List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List> > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Subject: Landing an RV-9 sans flaps ...
I'd be interested to hear other's experiences with flaps on the RV-9. So far I haven't used them on takeoff per Mike Seager's teaching. I haven't had much use for them on landing either. Admittedly its early days and I haven't been able to really get into the pattern what with the brand new engine, but she seems mushy and floaty with 1/2 flaps in the flare. With no flaps it just parks with a touch more speed and directional control. T his could be my Citabria experience speaking .. ain't got no flaps. g ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: Tedd McHenry <tedd(at)vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Larry E. James wrote: > We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit > from their husband / father / son / client's death. You'll be lynching the wrong people. If it's a jury trial it's the jurors who are to blame. If not, then it's the judge. Or perhaps it's past juries and judges who've set a precedent that was followed in this case. It's generally a bad idea, though, to assume the results of a trial are unjust unless you know all the details. It's in the same league as speculating on the cause of a crash before the facts are known. But I agree that in this case it's hard to see how anyone but the pilot could have been found negligent. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
//I just have a couple of things to say on this. First, I was there and I did see the crash. The emergency services did NOT take 30 minutes to arrive. Just for the record, the lawyer in the case never said, as near as I can tell, that it took 30 minutes. On an EAA board, from what I read. he said five. //I was shocked he survived the initial crash at all. But he did and because he did, it must now be dtermined -- and this is a tough task -- as to whether he could have survived had he not burned to death? I don't have the answer to that. But, again, I'm not ready to say these jurors are idiots because they don't know as much as I do about a case they heard and evidence they viewed and deliberations they made that I didn't. //Bill, air show or not, this is a general aviation airport where this accident could have happened even without the fly-in going on. The case, though, is about a legal contract. The EAA is not blameless because as someone putting on an airshow, they had a responsibility to provide proper services. The people they contracted with had an obligation because they signed a contract and a contract is a legal document with -- and here's the key, I think -- it's own set of responsibilities. It may be true that nobody but the pilot is responsible when a plane crashes. OTOH, if someone here bends an airplane tomorrow and the insurance company refuses to pay, even though it had a contract, because, well, if you hadn't been flying you wouldn't have had a loss, that we'd all be wanting to hang insurance companies tomorrow and the idea of "personal responsibility" would be conveniently forgotten. The gentlemen who died had a responsibility to fly his plane correctly. He didn't and he crashed as a result. The people who were paid to provide emergnecy services had a responsibility to provide those services. The fact he didn't fly his plane correctly doesn't alleviate the others of THEIR responsibility. Cases like this don't usually get to the jury if there isn't something to the case. So in 2 1/2 weeks, I'm guessing the jury got some information that we haven't considered in 2 1/2 hours. Me? I'd personally start with the autopsy and the cause of death. I'd also like to know exactly where the fire services were at the time of the crash. If the equipment wasn't at the airport and there weren't people sitting IN the equipment ready to go.... well... in my opinion y'all need another tree and more rope. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88159#88159 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
[quote="n616tb(at)btsapps.com"]Unless the pilot hired someone to provide those emergency services, how can he than expect it would be provided. What the EAA or Arlington group contracted for was their business only. Now if there was some published document indicating certain services will be provided during this event, maybe that could be construed as a failure. > -- I'm not a lawyer although I suspect there are plenty of RV owners who are (and who are probably ducking this whole deal), but to the extent that one person's negligent has an impact on someone else, I don't believe it's just the business of those who had a contract. The issue isn't whether the plane would or wouldn't have crashed through some action of the EAA or the group contracted to provide services. The question, as I read it, is whether the inaction of one party CONTRIBUTED to the death of another. There's too many "ifs" here for me to give into the "ready, fire, aim" thing that our emotions naturally lead us to do. I'd very anxious to read more about this verdict because I believe if the actions of the emergency crews and EAA are easily documented and defended, this case never gets to a jury and it sure as heck doesn't take 2 1/2 weeks to get there. Believe me, I love the EAA and I'd hate to see any of their airshows go away. On the other hand, if you have an airshow and invite a thousand pilots to fly into your field, you've got some responsibility to ensure as much safety as can practically be provided. The EAA's responsibility for that was right up until the moment when there was no other expectation of an outcome other than the pilot's death. That's why I want to know if the pilot could've survived his crash. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88164#88164 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 16, 2007
lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo wrote: > We will all be saying this when nobody can afford to > insure and fly one. (RV Airplane) > Well, keep in mind, that insurance is a matter of spreading around the responsibility for paying for your mistakes. I suppose the ultimate expression of personal respnsibility would be to fly without it. (g) -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88171#88171 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
You can fly well below the stall speed at zero-g. If you feel the onset of a stall at the top of a loop, unload the airplane and you won't stall. I have done rolls at the top of a loop at zero-g below the stall, what's neat about zero-g is there is no adverse yaw so when you roll out you be spot-on your intended heading. Whenever I do ballistic rolls I always unload the airplane, and can watch the ball stay close to center without touching the pedals, and end up on heading, feet off the pedals. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. On 1/16/07, Kyle Boatright wrote: > > I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 G's, so the following > is just my opinion: > > In my light RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, I do not > believe the airplane would make it over the top of a 140 mph/3 G loop. > Instead, I'd get to experience a full power departure stall while inverted. > My entry speed and initial target G are both higher than 140/3... > > If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a good > idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with someone who has an > airframe/engine/prop combination that is very similar to yours. > > I'm sure a light RV-4 with a constant speed prop can be looped from far > slower speeds than my airplane. > > KB > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com > *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:49 PM > *Subject:* RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) > > Dear Acro Want-to-be's: > > PART II - Loops > > Again the prerequisites are: you are current and can > fly all private pilot maneuvers, steep turns, stalls > (accel, power on/off) and slow flight to name a few. > If not go practice all Pvt maneuvers till you are > comfortable. > > LOOPS > The other famous maneuver is the Loop. Again > 140 mph entry is fine. It starts with a > maximum 3 G pull-up. As suggest, get a G- > meter to learn what that feels like. (YOU NEED > A G-meter) Just start with learning what a 3G > pull feels like. Similar to the roll practice. > Starting a 3G pitch up to and recover. It is not > a jerk maneuver but a smooth rapid pull about 2 > to 3 seconds or so. > > Note: A loop and roll entry are similar but > DIFFERENT. The roll set up or initial pitch up > you do smoothly and can be very near 1G; > there is no need to pitch up as abruptly as you > will need to for a loop. In a loop however if > your initial pitch up G's are too low you might > stall before getting over the top. As you get > more advanced in aerobatics you will see > there are similar elements in all maneuvers. > > > At the beginning of the loop you will have the > max back pressure, it will be less thru the first > 1/2 of the loop and than build on the back half, > where at the end or bottom of the loop you will > have the same back pressure as you did at the > entry. The start and end heading, airspeed and > altitude should be the same. > > After initial pitch up (max g's), stick pressure > relaxes slightly but deflection may increase a > little; This is because as airspeed varies control > pressure changes. By looking outside the plane > you determine the pitching rate. It should be > constant. Remember you go from near 140mph > to near stall in the 50's mph, so control > pressure and control response change > throughout. > > Pilots getting a commercial rating do lazy 8's > and chandell's. This teaches you to adjust input > based on speed while looking outside to control > the plane. These are not aerobatic, you never > go upside down, but they are great practice > leading to aerobatics. Get an instructor to > show you these maneuvers. > > The entry is important. Too much elevator > (G's) or initial pressure will make a very tight > loop. This can result in excess airspeed and > altitude loss at the end of the loop. If you > really pull hard and keep the pressure up you > can do an accelerated stall in the vertical- > plane. Not what you want. > > Too little pressure at the entry and you will not > get over the top and will stall or roll off > potentially. The idea is to make a perfect circle. > Unfortunately most, including myself, make > oval or egg shape loops. The best way to solve > that is with a ground observer, coaching you > over a radio as you do maneuvers. However for > fun a basic loop can be done well under 3g's, > egg shaped and all. > > As the loop progresses you will lose the horizon > over the nose so you need to look over you > head, behind you and mostly look off to the > right and left wing tips, to keep the wings level. > On the top of the loop, too much back pressure > can cause a stall buffet. The recovery is relax > the back pressure (as you do right side up). > When you are upside down you can check the > road or your refrence point and make > coordinate rudder aileron input to keep on > heading. > (Key pick gnd landmarks for all maneuvers) > > If you have a fixed prop you may need to make > adjustments all the way thru to keep the rpm > w/in limits. I have a constant speed prop, set > RPM and forget it (nice). > > Consider buying a parachute. WHY? You are > making big control deflections and loading the > airframe over 50% of its limit strength. Things > jam and parts break. Also you may screw up > and pull the wings or tail off. Acro can be very > safe and fun, but there are risks. Consider the > acro groups like IAC (EAA) and books on the > subjects. > > Also you have to look for traffic when doing > loops and rolls. Know they self. If you are a > master of your plane, can land, takeoff in gusty > X-winds, do all the private pilot maneuvers > well, within the standards, you are ready. If > you are weak in any area you should practice > honing your basic pilot skills before doing acro. > However Acro improves your skill and > confidence. FOLLOW THE RULES, COMMON > SENSE, BE CONSERVATIVE and have FUN. > > Go buy and read some acro books. > Do at your own risk, solo with a chute. > Never start a maneuver below 3000 ft agl. > > Cheers George > > > ------------------------------ > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listthe Web href=" > http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ========== > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 16, 2007
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: wigwag switch
For those of you looking to to wire your landing lights through one switch and also have a wigwag position, like the 4TL1-10 shown in Electric Bob's wigwag diagram but not ridiculously expensive and simpler to wire up, I have found a switch that is perfect. It is made by Carling and the part number is 2GP51-73. No distributors seem to carry this switch as an in-stock item, but if someone like Steinair (Stein are you listening) could order/stock it, it would be a simpler and better solution than any of the diagrams in Electric Bob's wigwag diagram. The switch is a DP3T toggle, OFF-ON-ON so you can wire it to be OFF-WIGWAG-ON for both landing lights yet still keep both lights in separate circuits/fuses when they're not "wagging". I have obtained an engineering sample of this switch from Carling and verified that it will do the job. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Bob, I totally agree with you. Hopefully, my local airport and others take heed to the logic inferred by your statement/opinion that the EAA has a responsibly to provide "proper" service to GA pilots who crash as no direct result of the airport (or EAA, or whoever) - especially with respect to "proper" being defined by an arms-length jury thinking that it is the airport's (or EAA, or whoever has $) responsibility to save pilots from crashes, even if he/she was in the perfect position to avoid it in the first place, or worst yet, caused it. If setting the rules and guidelines for "proper" (emergency) service is left to a preponderance of the pilots who might potentially use the service, and who have a likely stake in the economic cost, we are probably not going to get nearly as much "proper service" as we will with a jury of the general public with little or no stake in the costs. Hopefully this realization will catch on and we'll have ever increasing levels of emergency services at all venues and airports. After all, I'm just a likely to have an incident at a desolate remote strip as at an airshow, perhaps more, so it should apply to all. If an airport or airshow can't justify the "proper" service levels because of infrequent activity, or whatever, then it should probably be closed. Anything less would be unsafe. Likewise, if some of the good (still alive) pilots can't pony up the added implicit $ to cover the costs of the increased services for the bad (dead, or soon to be dead) ones, then they should just fly less, in the name of safety. NOT! If anything, pilots have a responsibility to safely operate their airplane (explicitly mandated in the FARs). Thus in this case, the EAA should be suing the pilot's estate for recovery of the entire cost of having whatever safety provisions were provided (regardless of their ultimate mortal affectivity) since this pilot was clearly the ex-post-fact causal need for those contract services to be provided (versus spreading the cost onto all the other good pilots and spectators that participated safely). Additionally, the suit should also cover all the other added costs associated with the crash caused by the pilot's carelessness and negligence, including compensation to "all" pilots and attendees that may have been impacted and/or economically disadvantaged. For those interested enough, sounds like a class action suit against the negligence of the pilot (his estate). Seems there might be $10 million in the kitty, but then again that might not be enough. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 7:15 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M ... The case, though, is about a legal contract. The EAA is not blameless because as someone putting on an airshow, they had a responsibility to provide proper services ... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: wigwag switch
Date: Jan 17, 2007
RocketBob, Do you have a link to this switch? I tried going to Carling's site but could not pull up that number. Thanks, Bill Settle. Winston-Salem, NC -8 Wings > > From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> > Date: 2007/01/16 Tue PM 09:54:53 EST > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV-List: wigwag switch > > For those of you looking to to wire your landing lights through one switch > and also have a wigwag position, like the 4TL1-10 shown in Electric Bob's > wigwag diagram but not ridiculously expensive and simpler to wire up, I have > found a switch that is perfect. It is made by Carling and the part number > is 2GP51-73. No distributors seem to carry this switch as an in-stock item, > but if someone like Steinair (Stein are you listening) could order/stock it, > it would be a simpler and better solution than any of the diagrams in > Electric Bob's wigwag diagram. The switch is a DP3T toggle, OFF-ON-ON so > you can wire it to be OFF-WIGWAG-ON for both landing lights yet still keep > both lights in separate circuits/fuses when they're not "wagging". I have > obtained an engineering sample of this switch from Carling and verified that > it will do the job. > > Regards, > Bob Japundza > RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: wigwag switch
http://www.carlingtech.com/pdf/s_g.pdf On 1/17/07, Bill Settle wrote: > > > RocketBob, > > Do you have a link to this switch? I tried going to Carling's site but > could not pull up that number. > > Thanks, > Bill Settle. > Winston-Salem, NC > -8 Wings > > > > From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com> > > Date: 2007/01/16 Tue PM 09:54:53 EST > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RV-List: wigwag switch > > > > For those of you looking to to wire your landing lights through one > switch > > and also have a wigwag position, like the 4TL1-10 shown in Electric > Bob's > > wigwag diagram but not ridiculously expensive and simpler to wire up, I > have > > found a switch that is perfect. It is made by Carling and the part > number > > is 2GP51-73. No distributors seem to carry this switch as an in-stock > item, > > but if someone like Steinair (Stein are you listening) could order/stock > it, > > it would be a simpler and better solution than any of the diagrams in > > Electric Bob's wigwag diagram. The switch is a DP3T toggle, OFF-ON-ON > so > > you can wire it to be OFF-WIGWAG-ON for both landing lights yet still > keep > > both lights in separate circuits/fuses when they're not "wagging". I > have > > obtained an engineering sample of this switch from Carling and verified > that > > it will do the job. > > > > Regards, > > Bob Japundza > > RV-6 flying F1 under const. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Here is the relevant passage from the NTSB report: "Within a minute after the aircraft impacted the ground, the volunteer fire truck arrived at the scene. After pulling out the necessary hose and completing the hook-up of their respirator system, which they began while en route, the firefighters applied water on the flaming wreckage. Within a minute to a minute and a half after their arrival, the fire was extinguished." The report seems to indicate the fire was out within two to two-and-a-half minutes of the crash, but the report is based on witness accounts. The jury's verdict is also based on witness accounts - I'm sure none were actually at the scene of the crash. If the jury heard different witnesses, the version of the story they considered during their deliberations may have been much different. Was the NTSB report even admitted into evidence? What should be considered a "normal" or "appropriate" emergency response time for an accident such as this? Should that response time be different because of the air show? Why? As some have said, without having been at the trial and heard what the jury heard you can't know what you're criticizing. Mark Sletten 9840 Beacon Street Saint Jacob, IL 62281 (618) 644-2524 - Home (618) 791-3939 - Mobile ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
rtitsworth wrote: > Bob, > > I totally agree with you. > > Hopefully, my local airport and others take heed to the logic inferred by > your statement/opinion that the EAA has a responsibly to provide "proper" > service to GA pilots who crash as no direct result of the airport (or EAA, > or whoever) - especially with respect to "proper" being defined by an > arms-length jury thinking that it is the airport's (or EAA, or whoever has > $) responsibility to save pilots from crashes, even if he/she was in the > perfect position to avoid it in the first place, or worst yet, caused it. > If the jury award really was inappropriate, why also the need to make up what the jury award was about? It wasn't about what caused a plane to crash. I suggest -- and I have before -- that we -- you -- read the court records and learn what the case is about, what evidence was put into place, and what each side presented as its case and then consider it from a position of knowledge. I simply don't have that data and neither, apparently, does anyone else here. Until that data is provided, it's all just speculaytive caterwalling of no particular usefulness int he construction of an RV. If the jury s decision really is as outrageous as folks think it is -- and it might be -- then the week or two it'll take to research it won't take away the need for a lynch mob. Like I said, I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers out there who would assist in obtaining the relevant information. If folks really wanted it. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88254#88254 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Bob Collins wrote... The EAA's responsibility for that was right up until the moment when there was no other expectation of an outcome other than the pilot's death. That's why I want to know if the pilot could've survived his crash. ***** Not to split too many fine legal hairs, but even if the autopsy showed that he would have eventually died of his injuries, fire or no, does not preclude monetary damages if the fire company was negligent or whatever the jury finding was in this case. Even if he would have died anyhow, but the immediate cause of death was by fire, something I'd rather not dwell on or contemplate, then the claim in based on the unusual, cruel and horrendous means of death. Yes, he would have died any (assuming that was the case), but the means of death was unnecessarily horrific due to the negligence of others. After all, we all are going to die--that's not in doubt (except for the belief of a few individuals, but there are medications and medical facilities for those people), but we have a right to die a natural, peaceful deather unless others unrightfully cause it to be otherwise, in which case, there may be a cause for legal action. My personal opinion; we should wait to find out and know all the facts the jury considered....but in the mean time, it'd be okay to hang a few personal injury lawyers since little harm can come from it--unless I need one! Chuck ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
I believe that there are really 2 issues here. The 1st is personified by..... > if the pilot survived the crash but died as a result of that emergency service not being provided, then there's a basis of culpability. This is the argument that our current legal system agrees with and as such allows judgements like the one in question. The 2nd is personified by........................................ > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of pilot errors is beyond me. This line of reasoning is held by many, including myself, and is really a philosophic or political argument. Common sense would suggest that the crash was in no way the fault of the eaa or fire department. Unfortunately our current legal system does not recognize common sense. The result is many, me included, feel that................................. > We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit In reality we are all the problem. We have allowed our elected representatives and through them the appointed judiciary to put in place a legal system that does not recognize personal responsability or common sense. This is no different than the government re distributing wealth through taxation and seemingly ridiculous spending programs. This will continue until we as a society get so fed up that we make a drastic change at the polls. I am not encouraged that this will ever happen givn the almost 50/50 result of most recent elections. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88269#88269 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net>
Subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
One more angle to consider - never underestimate the stupidity of jurors - after all, even the worst of shark lawyers (in both civil and criminal cases) can't do their dirty deeds without idiotic juries going along with the outrageous claims. brian -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of bill shook Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 5:36 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M There must be something in there that we are missing. Sure, lawyers are scum and lawsuits can be bogus but I have to think that $10.5M is not awarded unless someone did something pretty bad. I don't know the details of this suit, but that kind of money is not just handed out. Taking responsibility for a fly-in is taking the world on your shoulders...I sure hope they are not doing so with nothing but volunteers making safety decisions. If they are...well, they are risking everyone who attends. Lets hope therec is more foresight than that at work. All the good intentions in the world are no substitute for a professional in charge who understands safety. I nominate Charlie Kuss. Still..we could just hang all the lawyers. Bill -4 wings --- "Larry E. James" wrote: > I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in > Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of > $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. > > First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not > crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. > Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have > (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression > system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have) > been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. > Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger > seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed > up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's > control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the > control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good > practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also > common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight > controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two > items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also > the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and > have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the > PIC. > > How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of > pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained > this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this > pilot's mistakes. This is sick. > > If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or > if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be > talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should > go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their > husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I > mention that I have an opinion on this ???? > > Larry E. James > Pacific Northwest > Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/N avigator?RV-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
-- 8:25 AM -- 4:36 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Furey" <john(at)fureychrysler.com>
Subject: Transition training
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Bob, I'm no expert but I Had been an instructor for the BPPP(Beechcraft Pilot Proficiency Program) for many years. We did 3 day recurrent and advanced instruction all over the US in all Beechcraft models up through pressurized twins. We had the most diverse and experienced instructors imaginable. Hank was Commander of the Thunderbirds(his son is now a t-bird). Kent was Commander of the USS America. Ron was a nuclear physicist. Greg was a young, world renown Brain surgeon who's goal was to retire and just instruct full time. Bill was an inventor with many patents who put instructing ahead of everything else, and the list goes on. They all had a passion for aviation that they loved to share. The administrator for the program is one of my closest friends. Sorry to ramble on, and I'm not sure any of this is germane to your needs so I'll close by saying I'd be happy to answer you questionnaire if you like. Regards, John ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
//The guy crashed entirely and completely due to his own fault Not a matter of dispute in the case. //Fire & rescue were on the scene in under 5 minutes (NTSB report) Not a matter of dispute in the case. (The attorney said 6) //Volunteers were trying to put out the fire even prior to fire and rescue arrival They weren't part of the case. //5 minutes is not a huge amount of time. It's unreasonable (my opinion) to expect fire and rescue to sit in the trucks for 14 hours at a time. It's unreasonable to expect fire & rescue to be in their gear for 14 hours at a time. Well, again, we really don't know the "facts" here about what was considered reasonable. Let's assume your airline slides off the end of the runway and breaks into flames today. Is 5 minutes considered a "reasonable" amount of time for an emergency response. We don't know the answer to that. But I'd be willing to bet the guy in charge of emergency response down the road at Minneapolis St. Paul airport would say "no." MSP is a bigger airport -- a busier airport than Arlington and I'm guessing the response time would be faster for the first truck to arrive merely because it's been determined ahead of time that getting there is a priority for those services. Again, not knowing the FACTS of 2 1/2 weeks of testimony (and you don't either), I'd be willing to bet that the reasonableness of five minutes was very much considered in this case. // Do you think that's what happened? I doubt it, but that's the only thing I can think of that would justify this sort of finding. I've said dozens of times over two days that I don't KNOW what happened. The difference is that I'm not willing to substitute what I THINK happened as fact. I'm merely advocating we get more information before determining that everyone was a scumbag here. A lot of folks spend a lot of time on these boards following accidents lambasting the media -- and sometimes appropriately so -- for writing stuff without knowing what they're talking about. This is a time when we ought to listen to our own advice, and at least consider educating ourselves on the case, and the testimony, before declaring what is and isn't fact. Why is that such a bad thing? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88333#88333 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Learning Basic Aileron in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS)
>"If you want to use internet advice for acrobatics >(which ain't a good idea, by the way), make sure >you are talking with someone who has an >airframe/engine/prop combination that is very >similar to yours." Kyle, you are entitled to your opinion but if you need more than 140 mph or 3gs to get over the top of a LOOP you are doing it wrong. Pulling MORE g's than 3 will cause more loss of airspeed. If you are flying faster than 140 mph that's fine, but NO one needs to do that and it's MORE hazardous to fly fast aerobatics as the load factors increase. In fact a 2.5 g's initial pull up will work at 120 mph depending on weight, 140/3g's is plenty. ITS NOT A MATTER OF GETTING OVER THE TOP ITS A MATTER OF MAKING A NICE ROUND LOOP. Now you did remind me of one thing, I forgot to mention. I have a constant speed prop. For those with fixed pitch prop you may consider adding power after starting a LOOP and reducing it on the back side to maintain RPM, to get max performance. HOWEVER my basic advice is valid for typical RV's. I know I've flown a 1/2 dozen RV's. Stall? so what, recover. If its buffeting on the top release back pressure, it will go over the top. Constant speed props really shine doing aerobatics. Rolls are not and issue because the airspeed remains fairly constant, but with a fixed pitch prop, as the speed decays/increases, throttle adjustment is needed. As a CFI let me tell you I would rather have my fellow RV'er follow my practice and self evaluation and guide lines (g-meter, min alt 3000 feet, max speed 140, max 3 g's) than have some knowledge than NONE. You say internet advice like that is a slam. I have well over 1000 hours in RV's, total time about 15,000 hours. I clearly recommend getting some dual and reading some basic acro books. However 30 hours of Acro dual is a lot. MANY MANY pilots have taught themselves basic acro. To deny it and make it secret info is not going to change the reality, people are going to try it. I would rather they have my advice than nothing. Bottom line know thy self. If you are a weak pilot, have a hard time landing and taking off, you can't do private pilot maneuvers within the standards, than ACRO is not for you. HOWEVER acro is what RV's are about and they do make better pilots. Acro has risk, but solo at 3,000 ft is not high risk if you use your head. I think my step by step practice and advice is good. Take it or leave it. Cheers, George >From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Learning Basic Aileron >in RV (HOW TO DO LOOPS) >I have not tried initiating a loop at 140 mph and 3 >G's, so the following is just my opinion: In my light >RV-6 with a 160 hp engine and a cruise pitched prop, >I do not believe the airplane would make it over the top >of a 140 mph/3 G loop. Instead, I'd get to experience a >full power departure stall while inverted. My entry speed >and initial target G are both higher than 140/3...If you >want to use internet advice for acrobatics (which ain't a >good idea, by the way), make sure you are talking with >someone who has an airframe/engine/prop combination >that is very similar to yours.I'm sure a light RV-4 with a >constant speed prop can be looped from far slower speeds >than my airplane. --------------------------------- Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Landing an RV-9 sans flaps ...
Date: Jan 17, 2007
I have over 350 hours on the RV-9A that I have been flying and have found t he following things about the flaps on it. For landings I have found that up to about 2/3 to 3/4 you do get added lift and controlability. The last quarter is pretty much just drag to help slow the plane down. My final app roach speed is 72-74 mph indicated. (yours may differ). With that being sa id my stall speed with full flaps is right around 47 mph indicated. We als o happen to have an AOA sensor that agrees with the 47 mph. If I use the m id yellow range for approaches then my final indicated speed would be right around 68 mph but I find that the plane's controlability is better at just a slightly higher speed. For take-offs I never use flaps unless it is a short field (less than 2000 ft), then I only use half flaps. I have also found out that the plane will go just fine up to around 140 IAS with flaps still down. You feel somewha t funny trying to figure out why the plane isn't going as fast as you think it should with 75% power until you notice the loose nut behind the control stick forgot to raise the flaps after take-off. Again, this is just what I have found. Your results may vary. Mike Robertson Das Fed RV-8A, RV-6A, RV-9A From: gerf(at)gerf.comTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comDate: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:09:54 hear other's experiences with flaps on the RV-9. So far I haven't used the m on takeoff per Mike Seager's teaching. I haven't had much use for them o n landing either. Admittedly its early days and I haven't been able to rea lly get into the pattern what with the brand new engine, but she seems mush y and floaty with 1/2 flaps in the flare. With no flaps it just parks with a touch more speed and directional control. This could be my Citabria exp erience speaking .. ain't got no flaps.g _________________________________________________________________ Get the Live.com Holiday Page for recipes, gift-giving ideas, and more. www.live.com/?addtemplate=holiday ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Subject: Re: Landing an RV-9 sans flaps ...
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Thanks Mike, Us newbies who are about to launch into the wonderful world of "RV's" (especially the 9-A) appreciate the data. I hope to be launching in about 4 months in my 9-A. Jim Nelson RV9-A QB (Finishing up FWF) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Someone asked for the NTSB report. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 001212X19356&key=1 http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=SEA99FA105&rpt=fa Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,976 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA _________________________________________________________________ The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: RV blast from the past story
Date: Jan 17, 2007
The cold weather got me thinking about famous RVating in the cold and thought I'd share an old story with some of the RV newbies who might not know about one famous little RV4 and its brush with cold weather fame... http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/jj-persn.htm and at the bottom of this link there's 3 more pages enjoy the reading with your hot chocolate. lucky
The cold weather got me thinking about famous RVating in the cold and thought I'd share an old story with some of the RV newbies who might not know about one famous little RV4 and its brush with cold weather fame...

http://www.southpolestation.com/news/rv4/rv4.html

http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/jj-persn.htm and at the bottom of this link there's 3 more pages

enjoy the reading with your hot chocolate.

lucky

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Weekend
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Looks like Cappy is out for the weekend. I took Cappy's Toy up this afternoon and she had fuel pressure problems. Reading HIGH. Probably just a sensor problem. My ears still did not feel right either from the cold that is almost gone. So I'm out. Hope you guys have a great time without me and drink one to me when you are out at night. CNX my room reservation please on Crotherocity.com. That's you Reno. Cappy ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Glasgow" <willfly(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Fuel Pressure Problems
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Today my Fuel Pressure was consistently reading above 7.5 psi and at one point was reading 9.1. This was at cruise with the Facet pump off at 45 F. Additionally, it was erratic sometimes as low as 4.5. Im flying behind an XP 0-360, MA 4.5 carburetor and EIS 4000 with standard plumbing. Some time ago I was having low pressure problems and changed the sensor which seemed to fix the problem. Im thinking the sensor is just reading to high. It doesnt seem like the engine pump could actually be producing too much pressure. If it were, does anyone know if there is any potential harm to the carburetor? Has anyone else experienced similar problems? What should the Fuel Pressure actually be? Has anyone got any ideas? Thanks, Steve Glasgow-Cappy N123SG RV-8 Cappy's Toy - 400 Hours ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Weekend
Cappy- what kind of malfunction are you concerned about with a high reading? Clogged injector or something? Just trying to reason out why this is a trip-cancelling item for you. Hope I am never faced with the same dilemma. Best wishes to all the Florida-bound SERVers. -Stormy On 1/17/07, Steve Glasgow wrote: > > Looks like Cappy is out for the weekend. I took Cappy's Toy up this > afternoon and she had fuel pressure problems. Reading HIGH. Probably just > a sensor problem. My ears still did not feel right either from the cold > that is almost gone. So I'm out. Hope you guys have a great time without > me and drink one to me when you are out at night. CNX my room reservation > please on Crotherocity.com. That's you Reno. > > Cappy > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Transition training
Date: Jan 17, 2007
I built an RV-7 and did transition training in RV-6 because that is what was available locally. I suggest training be in like type and model. Flying a Cessna 140 to get tailwheel endorsement is quite a bit different from flying an RV6 or 7 or 9 and it would not have prepared me as well as flying the RV-6. Larry in Indiana. ----- Original Message ----- From: lucky To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 11:27 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Transition training I did mine with Jan a year ago as well and it was just what the Dr. ordered. No acro but he's preparing you for first flight, not first IAC competition. His return to field after takeoff is a real eye opener to the RV performance. lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: bertrv6(at)highstream.net > > Quoting Bob Collins : > > > > > I've wanted to write a piece for the RV Builder's Hotline (and some other > > pubs) about transition training for some time, but I've never had much luck > > getting some of the main "players" to get back to me. So I've been sending > > out some questionairres to RV jockeys who've had transition training. > > > > If you've taken transition trianing classes or programs, and would be > > interested in answering about five e-mailed quesitions, could you please send > > me a note at rvnewsl etter ====== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Fuel Pressure Problems
Date: Jan 17, 2007
On 17 Jan 2007, at 16:39, Steve Glasgow wrote: > > > Today my Fuel Pressure was consistently reading above 7.5 psi and > at one point was reading 9.1. This was at cruise with the Facet > pump off at 45 F. Additionally, it was erratic sometimes as low as > 4.5. > > Im flying behind an XP 0-360, MA 4.5 carburetor and EIS 4000 with > standard plumbing. Some time ago I was having low pressure > problems and changed the sensor which seemed to fix the problem. > Im thinking the sensor is just reading to high. > > It doesnt seem like the engine pump could actually be producing > too much pressure. If it were, does anyone know if there is any > potential harm to the carburetor? > > Has anyone else experienced similar problems? What should the > Fuel Pressure actually be? Has anyone got any ideas? There should be fuel pressure limits in the operating manual for that engine. How does your observed pressure compare to those limits? Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net>
Subject: RV9a pushrod to aileron question
Date: Jan 17, 2007
I'm trying to get the pushrod to the aileron on the right wing to move smoothly, however, the pushrod is hitting the inboard side of the aft spar where the pushrod travels through the hole. Can I file the hole bigger so the rod and the rivets will not drag and or hit the aft spar? Thanks. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
Terry Watson wrote: > It relates because this one incident may cost us one of the best EAA flyins > in the country. Why not require everyone who flies in sign a waiver that absolves the EAA, the city, and its agents of all liability. That says specifically if you crash, you're on your own. We offer no emergency services. Period. People would sign before they're allowed to fly in. Also, maybe this will solve the other problem that people flying in seem to have -- the great unwashed being allowed on the flight line. Maybe EAA will see everyone as a potential lawsuit and limit access. I'm guessing EAA will be just fine. It's a flippin' money machine with deep pockets and fat cat corporate benefactors. For the record, btw, I'll be making doubly sure at OSH at this year's RV BBQ that the food is safe to eat; not that anyone here would hold it against me if they ate bad meat, mind you. (g) -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88422#88422 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
jpl(at)showpage.org wrote: > Bob, I think the problem is that most of us don't think the EMS team > should be held responsible for being slow, and certainly not to this > amount, regardless of the details. I understand that. I even share some of those concerns (except for the "regardless of the details" part. Those tend to matter to me). But, then again, I didn't have a loved one burn to death, either. Like I said, however, it depends on whether the guy could have survived his injuries. I haven't seen the autopsy report. I presume the jury did. If the guy could have lived but died because the agency responsible for emergency response was unreasonably slow (again, I'm not saying they were. I'm not saying they weren't), then that would seem to me there's something to deliberate over. As for you not thinking the EMS should be held liable, I fully appreciate that stance which, I assume, is formed via some deliberation in your own mind. But I actually DO respect the jury process becuase juries are made up of people like you and me and everyone else we know and while it's fun to say "juries are stupid," I don't think you're stupid, and I don't think I'm stupid. I don't know, by the way, if you've ever sat in a courtroom as a judge instructs a jury but it's an excrutiatingly long process and very intricate with specifics about what can and what can't be considered. I don't know what the judge's instructions were in this case but, again, I DO know that there's more to this story than what ANN , in its less-than-objective fashion, decided to write. And, of course, they weren't there either. As someone said earlier, just as we demand that people hold off judging what happened in any plane crash until the facts are known, so too is it an appropriate instruction here. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88428#88428 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2007
Subject: Re: RV9a pushrod to aileron question
I had to open the hole on mine to get clearance. To minimize the amount you have to bore away, rotate the pushrod so the shop heads of the rivets are the furthest away from closest edge of the hole. Another option is t o weld the rod end to the rod rather than riveting it - that eliminates t he extra interference issue you have to deal with caused by the rivets. g -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty [mailto:jfogarty(at)tds.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 03:10 PM Subject: RV-List: RV9a pushrod to aileron question I'm trying to get the pushrod to the aileron on the right wing to move sm oothly, however, the pushrod is hitting the inboard side of the aft spar where the pushrod travels through the hole. Can I file the hole bigger so the rod and the rivets will not drag and or hit the aft spar? Thanks. Jim ========================_ ===== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
[quote="rvbuilder(at)sausen.net" Everyone expects something for nothing and if they don't get it they sue anyone they can find. [/quote] OK, not to quibble, but I will. I think what bothers me is an otherwise intelligent group of people, smart enough to fly, and smart enough to build airplanes.... aren't at all interested in learning more about what exactly this case was about. Instead we've decided that (1) juries are stupid (2) the family of a dead pilot should be hanged (3) everyone wants something for nothing. That's an awful lots of generalization (and not to quibble but if that last one is true, that includes the person who said it.). I'm trying to turn this whole thing on its ear because -- being in the news media -- I read the same sort of generalizations here and on VAF whenever there's a story in the mainstream media about a plane crash or about an aviation event. Onlyt hen it goes like this: (1) Reporters are stupid (2) Reporters don't check their facts before deciding what the story is (3) Reporters should wait until they know the facts before speculating on what happened. So that's why I'm pretty awestruck by this thread which leads me to wonder..... which way do you want it? 'Cuz I recognize a lot of the same names that said a few months ago "The media is stupid because it doesn't check facts before spewing" now saying "we don't care about the facts or details." This is an interesting and newsworthy case precisely because the jury verdict is unusual. Not because it happens all the time. Isn't there anyone out there who wants to learn more? Or at least take the same advice some of you have given to the media about wild speculation and uninformed generalizations? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88450#88450 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Randy Hooper" <krhooper(at)gmail.com>
Subject: RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun
Has anyone seen anything posted about RV's at Sun-n-Fun this weekend? I will be in Palm Beach and plan to drive up on Saturday. Since I haven't seen any chatter, I don't want to be there by my lonsome. Randy Hooper ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: how to wire basic resistive Isspro fuel gauges
I find myself in need of the wiring schematic for the Isspro fuel gauges that Van's sells - I think they're #8690, and am unable to find it at the company website or with Google. I need to know how the senders wire to the gauges and where the 12V and GND connections are made. Confession time: I have these gauges in my plane now, but have lost the old wiring diagram I drew at the time (which would have been an embarassment if it still existed, like the rat's nest behind my present panel). I need the info to design relevant parts of the diagram for the new electrical system. Thanks, -Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
Bob I do not think the issue is about not wanting the details, because based on the facts we do have we are making the decision that it should never have gone farther than he crashed and it is over. Instead, we all feel that the lawyer talked the family into proceeding. I do not think most people automatically blame someone else, especially in a case like this. They know he was the one to do it, rather I feel it is the family grasping at straws to make it okay in their mind, that the pilot would not be that dumb to kill himself and it could not possibly be his fault. But the lawyer is playing on those fears of wrongness and talked the family into going after whoever had the money, we all know the lawyers follow the deep pockets, and in this case, 3.5 million in commission plus expenses looks pretty good and I too would try to talk someone into going for it. Just my .02 Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:38 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing [quote="rvbuilder(at)sausen.net" Everyone expects something for nothing and if they don't get it they sue anyone they can find. [/quote] OK, not to quibble, but I will. I think what bothers me is an otherwise intelligent group of people, smart enough to fly, and smart enough to build airplanes.... aren't at all interested in learning more about what exactly this case was about. Instead we've decided that (1) juries are stupid (2) the family of a dead pilot should be hanged (3) everyone wants something for nothing. That's an awful lots of generalization (and not to quibble but if that last one is true, that includes the person who said it.). I'm trying to turn this whole thing on its ear because -- being in the news media -- I read the same sort of generalizations here and on VAF whenever there's a story in the mainstream media about a plane crash or about an aviation event. Onlyt hen it goes like this: (1) Reporters are stupid (2) Reporters don't check their facts before deciding what the story is (3) Reporters should wait until they know the facts before speculating on what happened. So that's why I'm pretty awestruck by this thread which leads me to wonder..... which way do you want it? 'Cuz I recognize a lot of the same names that said a few months ago "The media is stupid because it doesn't check facts before spewing" now saying "we don't care about the facts or details." This is an interesting and newsworthy case precisely because the jury verdict is unusual. Not because it happens all the time. Isn't there anyone out there who wants to learn more? Or at least take the same advice some of you have given to the media about wild speculation and uninformed generalizations? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88450#88450 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Date: Jan 17, 2007
BlankThis sort of thing used to drive me to distraction but I think my head has instituted some sort of self defense mechanism in the last few years. To reduce the time wasted by me writing and others reading, I'll make this mercifully short. We as a nation (along with all the others) have the country, government, laws, and legal system that we deserve. Seriously, try it on for size, it really helps! Do what you can to fix this sorry state of affairs but realize that beyond staying true to Reason and freedom in your own head, there isn't much you can do. The other thing that helps is to shove the throttle forward and feel the wings of your RV lift you above it all. Ahaaaa........ :) Tracy Crook ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry E. James<mailto:larry(at)ncproto.com> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:13 PM Subject: RV-List: pilot's family awarded $10.5M I'll start an interesting and likely charged thread. A court here in Washington State has awarded the family of Don Corbitt a settlement of $10.5M; from the EAA and Northwest EAA. First, what happened to personal responsibility ?? If this pilot had not crashed in the first place, this would not be an issue. Second, how is this not the sole fault of the pilot ?? The pilot could have (and we can now argue "should have") installed an on-board fire suppression system; again eliminating the issue. Or the pilot could have (should have) been a better pilot; again, elimination the issue. Third, the rest of the story: this pilot took off having left the passenger seat-belt buckled around the control stick. That's right, this pilot messed up pretty big. It is common and good practice to secure an aircraft's control surfaces while parked and one easy way to do this is to hold the control stick full aft with a seat belt. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to pre-flight the aircraft before flying. It is also common and good practice (mandatory) to perform a control check (all flight controls full and correct movement) before launching. Obviously these two items were not done and the pilot paid heavily for his error. This is also the nature of flying; it is relatively safe, however mistakes can add up and have rather large consequences ........ and the person responsible is the PIC. How our court system determined that someone should pay for this series of pilot errors is beyond me. And the family that instigated and maintained this suit is a disgrace. And it is now they that will be rewarded for this pilot's mistakes. This is sick. If this guy didn't crash in the first place there wouldn't be an issue. Or if he had installed a built-in-fire-suppression system we wouldn't be talking about it either. Why is it always someone else's fault ?? We should go lynch the family and heirs and attorneys that will now profit from their husband / father / son / client's death. What a bunch of crap. Oh, did I mention that I have an opinion on this ???? Larry E. James Pacific Northwest ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
Actually, I wasn't commenting about the trial or the rest of the thread. I do believe I was pretty specific in my first line on what I was commenting on. I didn't read anything about the settlement so I can't comment on that. As a journalist I would think the facts of my statement are clear to you. :-) Oh ya, and seeing how this disappeared or was forgotten.... do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:38 PM Subject: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing [quote="rvbuilder(at)sausen.net" Everyone expects something for nothing and if they don't get it they sue anyone they can find. [/quote] OK, not to quibble, but I will. I think what bothers me is an otherwise intelligent group of people, smart enough to fly, and smart enough to build airplanes.... aren't at all interested in learning more about what exactly this case was about. Instead we've decided that (1) juries are stupid (2) the family of a dead pilot should be hanged (3) everyone wants something for nothing. That's an awful lots of generalization (and not to quibble but if that last one is true, that includes the person who said it.). I'm trying to turn this whole thing on its ear because -- being in the news media -- I read the same sort of generalizations here and on VAF whenever there's a story in the mainstream media about a plane crash or about an aviation event. Onlyt hen it goes like this: (1) Reporters are stupid (2) Reporters don't check their facts before deciding what the story is (3) Reporters should wait until they know the facts before speculating on what happened. So that's why I'm pretty awestruck by this thread which leads me to wonder..... which way do you want it? 'Cuz I recognize a lot of the same names that said a few months ago "The media is stupid because it doesn't check facts before spewing" now saying "we don't care about the facts or details." This is an interesting and newsworthy case precisely because the jury verdict is unusual. Not because it happens all the time. Isn't there anyone out there who wants to learn more? Or at least take the same advice some of you have given to the media about wild speculation and uninformed generalizations? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88450#88450 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "N395V" <n395v(at)hughes.net>
Date: Jan 17, 2007
> I'm guessing EAA will be just fine. It's a flippin' money machine with deep pockets and fat cat corporate benefactors Gosh, that makes it crystal clear to me why it was OK to hose the eaa with a huge settlement. Bet several of the brilliant, open minded, unbiased, absolutely fair jurors think exactly the same way. -------- Milt N395V F1 Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88516#88516 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: how to wire basic resistive Isspro fuel
gauges Bill Boyd wrote: > I find myself in need of the wiring schematic for the Isspro fuel > gauges that Van's sells - I think they're #8690, and am unable to find > it at the company website or with Google. I need to know how the > senders wire to the gauges and where the 12V and GND connections are > made. I still have a pair of these in the boxes. No documentation with them (wouldn't have thrown it out, so they probably didn't come with any). The three studs are marked on the back +, ground symbol, and S. This is basically the same setup as the new Van's gages marked I (input +12v), G (ground), and S (signal from the sender). The new Van's gages install drawing is here: http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Gauge_Install.pdf Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2007
From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Non -RV heroes
Read this article today. . National Journal cover story this week titled " The Other Three Thousand" ( http://www.nationaljournal.com). The article, by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr., points out that the media, and even the military, have devoted more attention in this war to the 3,000-plus who have died than to the 3,000-plus who have been awarded medals for valor. The lists overlap, as in Dunham's case, but most of the awardees are still alive. They are people such as Army Staff Sgt. Thomas Stone, who on Feb. 21, 2005, curled himself around a wounded comrade to protect him from an expected insurgent's blast. "If it goes off, you're going to be okay," Stone told him. "Hug your wife and kids, and don't ever forget me." It didn't, and both were rescued. Stone remains in uniform today. fredhiatt(at)washpost.com Sherman Butler RV-7a Wings Idaho Falls --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: EMAproducts(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 18, 2007
Subject: Re: RV-List Digest: 41 Msgs - 01/16/07
In a message dated 1/17/2007 12:03:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, rv-list(at)matronics.com writes: The EAA's responsibility for that was right up until the moment when there was no other expectation of an outcome other than the pilot's death. That's why I want to know if the pilot could've survived his crash. I also was at Arlington when the accident occurred and witnessed the takeoff, climb, stall & crash. It was a takeoff stall & crash, with the difference from a normal takeoff stall was the extreme climb angle the aircraft climbed at until the stall, I was not close enough to verify the actual position of the controls during the climb and remainder of the airborne time, but from all appearances and discussions at the time was the stick must have been full back, possibly tied back with the seat belt to give the excessive climb angle. I've seen my share of takeoff stall accidents in my 45+ years of flying for a living and aircraft do not climb that steep unless there is something out of the ordinary causing it. Elbie Elbie Mendenhall President EM Aviation, LLC _http://www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jbker(at)juno.com" <jbker(at)juno.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2007
Subject: Sun-n-Fun RV's
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:54 PM Subject: RV-List: RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun Has anyone seen anything posted about RV's at Sun-n-Fun this weekend? I will be in Palm Beach and plan to drive up on Saturday. Since I haven't seen any chatter, I don't want to be there by my lonsome. Randy Hooper _________________________________________________ I plan on being there Randy and know a lot of others who are planning on coming. Hope to see you there. Bernie Kerr, RV9A N10VX
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
&nb sp; Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:54 PM
Subject: RV-List : RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun

Has anyone seen anything post ed about RV's at Sun-n-Fun this weekend?
I will be in Palm Beach and plan to drive up on Saturday. Since I
haven't seen any chatte r, I don't want to be there by my lonsome.

Randy Hooper

_________________________________________________

I plan on being there Randy and know a lot of others who are planning on coming. Hope to see you there.

Bernie Kerr, RV9A N10VX

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Sun-n-Fun RV's
Date: Jan 18, 2007
Randy, Here is what I have on the "RV weekend" at Lakeland this weekend Ed PLEASE NOTE ON YOUR CALENDAR THE JANUARY RV FLY-IN EVENT AT SUN-N-FUN: RV Weekend at the Sun N Fun Campus January 19, 20, 21 2007 LAL Lakeland Linder Airport Tower 124.5 Ground 121.4 Contact ground upon landing for parking instructions. This is the BIG EVENT of the year for our group so PLAN TO ATTEND! This is a grass roots fly in with no vendors and is open to all RV pilots, builders AND dreamers. Drive in or fly in. All aircraft types are welcome but RVs get "premier" parking. Format will be the same as prior years - arrivals Friday afternoon . All food will be catered this year at the Sun n Fun Cafe (self pay)) Dinner Friday Night Breakfast/Lunch/Dinner served Saturday. doughnuts and coffee Sunday morning with leisurely departures after that. Door prizes and WELCOME in Forum area at 12:30. Door prizes graciously provided by Van's Aircraft and Sun n Fun Activity Schedule Speaker Friday night 6:00 pm at Sun n Fun Museum Ron Lowery "Chasing Lewis and Clark Across America" Tickets $10 in advance ($8 for members)/ $12 on site ($10 for members) Forums SATURDAY 1:00 Ev Williston "Final Glide" 2:00 To be Announced 3:00 Sam James FiberGlass 101 ----- Original Message ----- From: jbker(at)juno.com To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 6:44 AM Subject: RV-List: Sun-n-Fun RV's To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:54 PM Subject: RV-List: RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun Has anyone seen anything posted about RV's at Sun-n-Fun this weekend? I will be in Palm Beach and plan to drive up on Saturday. Since I haven't seen any chatter, I don't want to be there by my lonsome. Randy Hooper _________________________________________________ I plan on being there Randy and know a lot of others who are planning on coming. Hope to see you there. Bernie Kerr, RV9A N10VX ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: how to wire basic resistive Isspro
fuel gauges Thanks, Steve. That's perfect. I had no idea Van's hosted this kind of beautifully-drawn info online. Maybe I should look around the Van's site more often. Did my building from a slowbuild 1994 kit, and didn't even discover any online builders' communities until about 3 years into it. I think my set of RV-6 plans were drawn in crayon. Now we have crisp CAD, available online. All I can say is, Wow. What a great, new day to be in experimental aviation :-) -BB On 1/17/07, Steve Allison wrote: > > Bill Boyd wrote: > > I find myself in need of the wiring schematic for the Isspro fuel > > gauges that Van's sells - I think they're #8690, and am unable to find > > it at the company website or with Google. I need to know how the > > senders wire to the gauges and where the 12V and GND connections are > > made. > I still have a pair of these in the boxes. No documentation with them > (wouldn't have thrown it out, so they probably didn't come with any). > The three studs are marked on the back +, ground symbol, and S. This is > basically the same setup as the new Van's gages marked I (input +12v), G > (ground), and S (signal from the sender). > > The new Van's gages install drawing is here: > http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Gauge_Install.pdf > > > Steve > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oliver Washburn" <ollie6a(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun
Date: Jan 18, 2007
You won't be. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/VAF-FL-Wing.html Ollie ----- Original Message ----- From: Randy Hooper To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:54 PM Subject: RV-List: RV Weekend @ Sun-n Fun Has anyone seen anything posted about RV's at Sun-n-Fun this weekend? I will be in Palm Beach and plan to drive up on Saturday. Since I haven't seen any chatter, I don't want to be there by my lonsome. Randy Hooper ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Florida Surtax on Aviation Insurance
Listers, I recently received quotes for renewal of my aircraft insurance. The insurance company was careful to note that the premium is the same as last year but "Effective January 2007 the State of Florida is applying a surcharge of 3% to assist The Florida Hurricane Catatrophe Fund". This was the first that I heard of a surtax on aviation insurance. It is a very subtle, underhanded way to affect a small segment of the population who has only a small voice. How about trying to apply it to automobile insurance, gasoline, milk, bottled water etc? Be ready Florida aircraft owners for your insurance renewal!!! Richard Dudley RV-6A flying ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jae Chang" <jc-matronics_rv(at)jline.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Date: Jan 18, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/24/SP1 62388.DTL Read it and weep! Someone mentioned requiring every participating pilot to sign a waiver form. According to this judgement, that still could be null and voided. Quote: A key issue is a standard disclaimer form that participants sign on guided trips or when accessing private property. The intent of the form is to relieve the host guide or outdoors company of legal risk should a participant have an accident of his or her own creation. Yet in last week's decision, the judge did not recognize the disclaimer form. He ruled that the injured party was not responsible for her own safety. start to accept that responsibility for our actions. If a person is skiing and runs into a tree, and dies from the cold before the ski patrol arrives, the ski resort is not responsible, read the back of the lift ticket, skiing is an inherently dangerous sport...yadda, yadda, yadda. Just like flying, if you take off with the ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: high fuel pressure readings
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: joelrhaynes(at)aol.com
Steve, I experienced the same problem in my 7A (ECI 0-360, MA 4.5 carb, and Dynon EMS engine monitor). In my case I saw fluctuating fuel pressure going back and forth from 7 to 15 psi on two flights. Bart at AeroSport Power believes that it is highly unlikely that the engine driven fuel pump would be producing that much pressure (which is why I didn't have a problem flying the plane again). My conversation with Dynon suggested it was likely a sensor problem. The problem has not come back but interestingly, my monitor shows 1 psi of pressure when there is no pressure on the system. I suspect I will be replacing the sensor in the near future. Joel Haynes 7A N557XW 70 hours Bozeman >Today my Fuel Pressure was consistently reading above 7.5 psi and at one >point was reading 9.1. This was at cruise with the Facet pump off at 45 F. >Additionally, it was erratic sometimes as low as 4.5.> > >Im flying behind an XP 0-360, MA 4.5 carburetor and EIS 4000 with standard >plumbing. Some time ago I was having low pressure problems and changed the >sensor which seemed to fix the problem. Im thinking the sensor is just >reading to high. > >It doesnt seem like the engine pump could actually be producing too much >pressure. If it were, does anyone know if there is any potential harm to >the carburetor? > >Has anyone else experienced similar problems? What should the Fuel >Pressure actually be? Has anyone got any ideas? > >Thanks, > >Steve Glasgow-Cappy >N123SG RV-8 >Cappy's Toy - 400 Hours ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
And he built the plane KNOWING it was experimental and that he COULD die in the plane. Darrell Reiley RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved N469RV Reserved CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
We are in an age where people do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. It's very sad! I'm in favor... FAA new ruling: Build an experimental aircraft... you're on your own. Kill yourself, blame yourself put in writing before you can acquire your airworthy certificate. Darrell Reiley RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved N469RV Reserved CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com Want to start your own business? http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Appeal: Testify for EAA etc...
I'm sending in my letter to testify for the EAA defense on their appeal of this decision. I would hope many will follow and show your support. We all are experimental builders! Be responsible. We don't need to blame the EAA or fire department for not saving lives. Darrell Reiley RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved N469RV Reserved CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Date: Jan 18, 2007
You know, I was reading the ComAir report today. One of the pilots, in violation of the bottle to throttle rule, had a couple of drinks at dinner the night before. Then, in their sleepiness, they got on the wrong runway and ...well, you know the rest. The tower apparently wasn't paying attention, the pilots obviously didn't know what they were doing (and also violated the sterile cockpit rule) and the people in the back who burned death in the wreckage? Screw 'em. They knew a plane crash was a possibility. Bottoms up, boys! -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Darrell Reiley Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:52 PM Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing --> And he built the plane KNOWING it was experimental and that he COULD die in the plane. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2007
ptrotter wrote: > I also assume > that the pilot was not participating in the airshow itself and had just > flown in as a spectator. I also assume that he did not take off during the > waivered period. If these assumptions are correct, then I don't see how > EAA, as the airshow sponser, could be responsible, as they do not control > the airport during non-waivered time, and have no responsibility for airport > operations and services outside of the time the airshow is actually going > on. For all practical purposes, the pilot was simply taking off as he > probably has from many airports. In fact, I don't see how the EAA could be > responsible for providing any airport operation services to non-participants > of the airshow. Quite possibly the most cogent argument I've heard... anywhere.... ever.... about anything. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88753#88753 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2007
lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo wrote: > > We are in an age where people do not want to take > responsibility for their own actions. > I had a guy once tell me exactly this, and then lapsed into a rant about how much child support he was paying. I still shake my head when I think about it. I finally said to him, "Ben, you took vows to be married in sickness and health, and then you agreed to have a child together, and then -- and it doesn't matter why, an action is an action -- and you not only didn't take responsibility by not providing a family for him on a fulltime basis, you're whining about how much you have to pay in order to support him and the woman you left behind to raise him." The irony of it all was funny. But that's about all that was. So maybe you're right. Nobody accepts responsibility for their actions. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88756#88756 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Appeal: Testify for EAA etc...
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 18, 2007
lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo wrote: > I'm sending in my letter to testify for the EAA > defense on their appeal of this decision. I would hope > many will follow and show your support. We all are > experimental builders! Be responsible. We don't need > to blame the EAA or fire department for not saving lives. > Sign me up. But given that an appeal of a court decision has to be based on matters of material fact that were in evidence in the trial phase, what exactly are we offering to testify about since none of us know anything about what was in the trial phase? Why not just send them some money to help pay their lawyers? -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88758#88758 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 18, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Maybe the families should sue the FAA tower employees, the fire department for a slow response, the diner that served the pilots the night before too...? Darrell --- Bob Collins wrote: > > > You know, I was reading the ComAir report today. One > of the pilots, in > violation of the bottle to throttle rule, had a > couple of drinks at dinner > the night before. Then, in their sleepiness, they > got on the wrong runway > and ...well, you know the rest. The tower apparently > wasn't paying > attention, the pilots obviously didn't know what > they were doing (and also > violated the sterile cockpit rule) and the people in > the back who burned > death in the wreckage? Screw 'em. They knew a plane > crash was a possibility. > > Bottoms up, boys! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Darrell Reiley > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:52 PM > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing > > --> > > > to the autopsy, he died > because he burned to death in that plane.> > > And he built the plane KNOWING it was experimental > and that he COULD die in > the plane. > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Web Forums! > > > > > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2007
From: Danny Lawhon <dlawhon(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV9a pushrod to aileron question
yes thats what your suppose to do there.. because of the angle the tube travels through the hold.. Danny.. --- Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty wrote: > I'm trying to get the pushrod to the aileron on the > right wing to move smoothly, however, the pushrod is > hitting the inboard side of the aft spar where the > pushrod travels through the hole. Can I file the > hole bigger so the rod and the rivets will not drag > and or hit the aft spar? > > Thanks. > > Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing
Date: Jan 19, 2007
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
ptrotter wrote: > I also assume > that the pilot was not participating in the airshow itself and had just > flown in as a spectator. I also assume that he did not take off during the > waivered period. If these assumptions are correct, then I don't see how > EAA, as the airshow sponser, could be responsible, as they do not control > the airport during non-waivered time, and have no responsibility for airport > operations and services outside of the time the airshow is actually going > on. For all practical purposes, the pilot was simply taking off as he > probably has from many airports. In fact, I don't see how the EAA could be > responsible for providing any airport operation services to non-participants > of the airshow. Quite possibly the most cogent argument I've heard... anywhere.... ever.... about anything. Bob Collins ***** Even this situation isn't as simple as it may seem. There is a legal theory about an attractive nuisance. The EAA and Fly In operators created an attractive nuisance by publicizing and hold the fly in. But for the fly in, it's quite reasonable to expect that the accident pilot would never have flown into this airport. And, if he hadn't been at the airport, the accident could not have happened. Railroads crossings are held to be an attractive nuisance before the law, which automatically places a certain burden on them including train lighting, keeping the weeds cut away and other ordinary and necessary precautions because of the nuisance they created. The analogy is not a long stretch. Had there been no air show, there would have been no accident...at least at that time to that pilot. So, the fly in has a duty to provide general rule-of-the-road directions, instructions, parking area, flight line personnel to direct planes, wing walkers, et al. Absent these, chaos would reign (even more than usual). Fair? I don't know, but its intended to create a fair and safe playing field for all participants. Chuck Jensen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: RV7AODYSSEY(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 19, 2007
Subject: Re: Appeal: Testify for EAA etc...
Gentlemen, I have followed this thread with amusement, those on both sides. I am wondering about the taxi way accident at Oshkosh last year in which a passenger lost his life in an RV 6. I for one can understand crashes caused by pilot error, but I find it unacceptable that a pilot could lose his life while taxiing. The EAA seems to be adopting the stance , that an investigation into what happened is all that is necessary. Untill they express some outrage,that this could happen they will get no help from me. Ed ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Appeal: Testify for EAA etc...
Date: Jan 19, 2007
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com>
With the way the system works, we are still about 5 years from anything happening with last year. The accident we are discussing now happened in '99, so sit back and relax and we will be talking about the TBM/RV incident in 2012 or so.... Dan _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV7AODYSSEY(at)aol.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 10:13 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Appeal: Testify for EAA etc... Gentlemen, I have followed this thread with amusement, those on both sides. I am wondering about the taxi way accident at Oshkosh last year in which a passenger lost his life in an RV 6. I for one can understand crashes caused by pilot error, but I find it unacceptable that a pilot could lose his life while taxiing. The EAA seems to be adopting the stance , that an investigation into what happened is all that is necessary. Untill they express some outrage,that this could happen they will get no help from me. Ed ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer
Date: Jan 19, 2007
I am trying to recall the name of a South African maker of digital instruments. Their products were originally aimed at the ultralight sector of aviation, but they have moved more into the mainstream now. Their products and/or perhaps their name was three letters, like MDL or MGC or somesuch...neither of these are correct. I can't recall or locate the company. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ' John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
$10 > >//However no one has given me reason to sway my original premise. > >Nobody's trying -- as near as I can tell -- to sway anyone's opinion.... >unless the opinion is "I don't need any facts" to form one. You know, this is really pissing me off. Based upon the facts we do know, it is hard to justify the $10.5 award. The people who are defending the award do so by saying we do not know the facts to determine if the award is excessive. So what are the facts? Why are they being kept "TOP SECRET". Has our legal system devolved into a third word Fascist system where the government is always right and if you question, or ask for the facts that the decision was based upon, then you are not a "Patriot" and labeled a traitior?!!! Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin(at)qc.aira.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer
Date: Jan 19, 2007
Hi, The name of the company is MGL Avionics. Antoine ----- Original Message ----- From: John Fasching To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 1:15 PM Subject: RV-List: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer I am trying to recall the name of a South African maker of digital instruments. Their products were originally aimed at the ultralight sector of aviation, but they have moved more into the mainstream now. Their products and/or perhaps their name was three letters, like MDL or MGC or somesuch...neither of these are correct. I can't recall or locate the company. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ' John ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 18/01/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall E Russell" <rer51(at)netscape.ca>
Subject: Tip-up Canopy Drilling
Date: Jan 19, 2007
I searched the archives...but could not locate the info. I am ready to drill the screw holes in the C-603 canopy side skin. Some say that one should countersink the C-603 and screw through the canopy. Others seem to indicate that dimpling the C-603 is preferable with countersinking to be done on the canopy. The instructions and drawings are very lacking. Any experience on cracking issues would be appreciated. Randy C-FYOO ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
$10
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 19, 2007
//You know, this is really pissing me off. //Based upon the facts we do know, it is hard to justify the $10.5 award. //The people who are defending the award do so by saying we do not //know the facts to determine if the award is excessive. I'm kinda hoping some of you are reading the plans and instructions in building your RV more closely than you're reading the messages in this thread. Not one SINGLE person -- not one -- in this debate has defended the award. Not one. Got it? What some of us are saying is: it's better -- much better -- to know the facts about something before rendering a judgment rather than NOT knowing the facts before rendering a judgement. But unfortunately, someone changed the name of the thread to "What so Bad -- $10 million judgement" to make it APPEAR that the question was "what's so bad about the $10 million judgment." They were quoting one of my posts which asked "what's so bad... about waiting to learn the facts in this case?" A question, by the way, that not a single person answered. Now, if you think that's screwed up logic, let me ask you this: Suppose the jury didn't listen to any testimony. Suppose it didn't look at any evidence. Suppose that -- as some people here have suggested -- they showed up with their preconceived notions and just said "give th widow the money." That would -- I think we can (and have) agree -- is a terrible, terrible way to run the court system. And it's EXACTLY the technique many of you have used in the court of public opinion. So what are the facts? Why are they being kept "TOP SECRET". Has our legal system devolved into a third word Fascist system where the government is always right and if you question, or ask for the facts that the decision was based upon, then you are not a "Patriot" and labeled a traitior?!!! Facts are the difference between knowledge and ignorance. I happen to like 'em. Bob -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=88957#88957 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Tip-up Canopy Drilling
Date: Jan 19, 2007
Randy, Dimple the canopy side skin for rivet and screw locations Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randall E Russell Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: RV-List: Tip-up Canopy Drilling I searched the archives...but could not locate the info. I am ready to drill the screw holes in the C-603 canopy side skin. Some say that one should countersink the C-603 and screw through the canopy. Others seem to indicate that dimpling the C-603 is preferable with countersinking to be done on the canopy. The instructions and drawings are very lacking. Any experience on cracking issues would be appreciated. Randy C-FYOO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net>
Subject: Tip-up Canopy Drilling
Date: Jan 19, 2007
My C603 work starts on this page. I dimpled mine http://brian76.mystarband.net/CanopyDec04.htm#dec29 HTH, brian -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Randall E Russell Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 4:21 PM Subject: RV-List: Tip-up Canopy Drilling I searched the archives...but could not locate the info. I am ready to drill the screw holes in the C-603 canopy side skin. Some say that one should countersink the C-603 and screw through the canopy. Others seem to indicate that dimpling the C-603 is preferable with countersinking to be done on the canopy. The instructions and drawings are very lacking. Any experience on cracking issues would be appreciated. Randy C-FYOO -- 6:47 PM ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Tip-up Canopy Drilling
Date: Jan 19, 2007
The best way to minimize cracking is to spread the load over as wide an area as possible. Countersinking the plexi and dimpling the metal is the way to proceed. After the plexi is drilled using the special plexi drill bits and countersunk, use the next larger size bit to open the plexi holes up to minimize the contact of the bolts with the plexi. The canopy will be held by the angle of the plexi countersink and the dimpled skin rather than touching the bolt. Larry with SunSeeker in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: Randall E Russell To: RV-List Digest Server Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 3:21 PM Subject: RV-List: Tip-up Canopy Drilling I searched the archives...but could not locate the info. I am ready to drill the screw holes in the C-603 canopy side skin. Some say that one should countersink the C-603 and screw through the canopy. Others seem to indicate that dimpling the C-603 is preferable with countersinking to be done on the canopy. The instructions and drawings are very lacking. Any experience on cracking issues would be appreciated. Randy C-FYOO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douglas Kohser" <dckoh(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: how to wire basic resistive Isspro fuel gauges
Date: Jan 19, 2007
Finally something other than this waste of bandwidth....sorry did I say that out loud....I have them somewhere, I will try to find them this weekend, scan them and send you a copy in an email.... I find myself in need of the wiring schematic for the Isspro fuel gauges that Van's sells - I think they're #8690, and am unable to find it at the company website or with Google. I need to know how the senders wire to the gauges and where the 12V and GND connections are made. Confession time: I have these gauges in my plane now, but have lost the old wiring diagram I drew at the time (which would have been an embarassment if it still existed, like the rat's nest behind my present panel). I need the info to design relevant parts of the diagram for the new electrical system. Thanks, -Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
$10Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot
Date: Jan 20, 2007
Bob (?) said: =93You know, this is really pissing me off. Based upon the facts we do know, it is hard to justify the $10.5 [million] award.=94 No one is trying to justify a $10.5 million award Bob, we are all (well, at least some of us anyway) just trying to understand it=85 Bob added: =93The people who are defending the award do so by saying we do not know the facts to determine if the award is excessive.=94 I assume you are counting me as one who is =93defending=94 this award (since I don=92t agree with your bombastic statements?), but the fact is, I=92m as troubled as everyone on this list who has expressed (appropriately or inappropriately) his or her outrage. This situation reminds me of a couple of people in a crowd having a bad case of flatulence outside in a strong wind ' no one in the crowd notices just how powerful the odor is (thank god, who wants to deal with that!) because it=92s attenuated by the wind. Some of you seem to think Bob Collins and I are trying to shovel a load of bulls#!t. Folks, all I=92m suggesting is we need to calm the winds of rhetoric and emotion here long enough to smell the=85 roses, yeah, that=92s it! Watching the way some have reacted with the wailing and gnashing of teeth brings to mind an old Air Force clich=E9: When we had a particularly excitable individual at the controls ' one given to rash action ' he or she was said to be =93all thrust with no vector.=94 We need to calm down, take a deep breath (grin) and THINK! This is like any other emergency situation=85 we either lose complete control and start flipping switches, pushing buttons and yankin=92 and bankin=92, or we do as my old primary flight instructor taught me, we wind our collective clocks. You see, he told me no matter what happens in an airplane while the wings are level, the airspeed is under control and the nose isn=92t pointed at something hard, it=92s going to fly just fine. In those (just unusual, not emergency) situations, it does no good to take action until you KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS! And that=92s where winding your clock comes in. All the planes back then had mechanical clocks ' you had to wind =91em up. He taught me winding the clock gives one something to do with that urge to *DO SOMETHING,* and provides time to slow down and THINK before taking further action. I learned thoughtless action in unusual situations can (and often does) just make the situation worse=85 I assure you, our little figurative plane flying through the vastness of the United States jurisprudence system is still wings level, although with all the wind blowing around here I=92m not so sure about the airspeed or direction=85 Please, please, PLEASE=85 everyone just LISTEN! For those of you who say the EAA shouldn=92t have to pay $10.5 million to the family (and lawyers) of an individual who dies in a crash at an EAA fly-in ' I AGREE! ***UNLESS THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY!*** There is no question the unusual size of the award under the (not fully understood at this time) circumstances of this situation warrants further investigation. I urge all of you in the strongest possible terms: If you are not helping in investigating the situation to find out ALL THE FACTS, then please tone down the fury ' maybe wind your watch, or pound some rivets=85 work off some stress! Further wailing and gnashing of teeth will only add to the confusion and dismay taking us all farther from understanding. Larry (I assume, no signature) said: =93Interesting, the NTSB report identifies the airport as S88 instead of AWO. Anyone know why that would be?=94 Here is a link to the NTSB report. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19356 <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19356&ntsbno=SEA9 9FA105& akey=1> &ntsbno=SEA99FA105&akey=1 I searched thru it and found no reference to =93S88=94 or =93Skykomish State Airport.=94 At the very top of the report it states the aircraft =93=85impacted the terrain during takeoff from Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, Washington.=94 I=92m not sure where you got S88 from Larry, but it does illustrate an interesting point. How many of you after reading Larry=92s post actually went to the NTSB report to confirm what Larry wrote, or just assumed the report had an error? Sometimes it=92s easier to discount something someone says than it is to discount something somebody writes ' seeing it in print tends to make it more believable somehow. Please think about the point I=92m trying to make the next time you consider this case and believe you have all the =93facts.=94 Mark Sletten ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: Charles Reiche <charlieray(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Basis wiring HELP
Dana, The main problem with Bright/Dim kind of circuits is that you have to know the over all current flow for all the lights per circuit. If you go and change something in the future of one set of bulbs burn out, it changes your total brightness on the dim setting. You do this with the basic V=IR equation, you have to know the total current flow of your lights when hooked to your power source. Here is an example. I hook all my lights to a power supply that can give me my "running" voltage of about 13.85 volts when the airplane is running, with an ammeter inline I measure 2 amps of lighting load..... 13.85=2xI Solving for I you get 6.925 Ohms. This is the basic resistance of all your lights put together. To make the lights half dim, you need to make the resistance twice that of what you start with. So you need a 7 ohm resistor that is rated for, P=IE..... P= 2x13.85 so roughly 30 Watts!!! Thats kind of a LARGE resistor. and its there under your panel in a small place baking away making heat. I would suggest researching Transistorized dimming circuits like the one here that EDMO dealers sell. http://www.edmo.com/index.php?module=products&func=display&prod_id=18485 I know you are pressed for time and have put all the HARD parts off till the last minute :) but I think you will find a variable dimming system will make your night flying much more enjoyable. An appropriately rated rehostat will dissapate power (again a heat machine under your panel) and something like this may be what you want... http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/rheostat.php put a on off switch ahead of this sucker so its not contantly making heat when you have the lights off. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lc40.php This system looks nice due to its 4 channels of 1.5A each that can be tied together and controlled with one knob. I suggest keeping radios separate from flight instruments due to variations in overall brightness. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/k11aircraft.php This one has an adjustable master following system where you can have those bright systems lag behind say the less bright flight instruments. Hope some of this helps. Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: RV-List: Basis wiring HELP:-) Changed subject line, my bad. >>Need some electrical help here gang....................remember, I am the >>world's worst at understanding electric "stuff".........don't ask me, >>electrical just flat out doesn't click between my ears, possibly a blown >>fuse from my college days. >> >>Anyway, I have not attached any of the various instrument HI/LOW (two >>wires each)light intensity. I don't want to go with a control knob but >>was thinking a ON/OFF/ON for down is low intensity middle standard and up >>as high intensity. OK, simple question............how in the heck do I >>make the magic work????? >> >>Gotta get this last stuff done this weekend, forward deck/windscreen has >>got to be completed this time next week. >> > Dana Overall ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
$10Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot
Date: Jan 20, 2007
Mark, try searching this data base. I think you will understand what I am saying about AWO and S88. Look at airport identifier in top section of the report. http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/search_ntsb.cfm Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Sletten To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded $10Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot Larry (I assume, no signature) said: "Interesting, the NTSB report identifies the airport as S88 instead of AWO. Anyone know why that would be?" Here is a link to the NTSB report. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19356&ntsbno=SEA99 FA105&akey=1 I searched thru it and found no reference to "S88" or "Skykomish State Airport." At the very top of the report it states the aircraft ".impacted the terrain during takeoff from Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, Washington." I'm not sure where you got S88 from Larry, but it does illustrate an interesting point. How many of you after reading Larry's post actually went to the NTSB report to confirm what Larry wrote, or just assumed the report had an error? Sometimes it's easier to discount something someone says than it is to discount something somebody writes - seeing it in print tends to make it more believable somehow. Please think about the point I'm trying to make the next time you consider this case and believe you have all the "facts." Mark Sletten ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
$10Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot Put on you ski's and go to S88 Skykomish http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/WebCam/Skykomish.htm LarryRobertHelming wrote: st1\:* { BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui) } Mark, try searching this data base. I think you will understand what I am saying about AWO and S88. Look at airport identifier in top section of the report. http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/search_ntsb.cfm Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Sletten To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:40 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded $10Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot Larry (I assume, no signature) said: Interesting, the NTSB report identifies the airport as S88 instead of AWO. Anyone know why that would be? Here is a link to the NTSB report. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 001212X19356&ntsbno=SEA99FA105&akey=1 I searched thru it and found no reference to S88 or Skykomish State Airport. At the very top of the report it states the aircraft impacted the terrain during takeoff from Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, Washington. Im not sure where you got S88 from Larry, but it does illustrate an interesting point. How many of you after reading Larrys post actually went to the NTSB report to confirm what Larry wrote, or just assumed the report had an error? Sometimes its easier to discount something someone says than it is to discount something somebody writes seeing it in print tends to make it more believable somehow. Please think about the point Im trying to make the next time you consider this case and believe you have all the facts. Mark Sletten ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M
>I'm really going to regret wading into this but in the interest of >accuracy, from my reading of the matter (not via ANN would was not very >professional in its coverage, imho)suit wasn't over the fact the plane >crashed. The suit was about the contention the pilot survived the crash >but died because the responders the EAA contracted with to provide >services, took more than minutes to arrive. The NTSB report mentioned arrival within a minute or so. Hardly seems excessive to me. Then you have a low-time pilot with minimal time in an RV, in a hurry, and likely had a seat belt around the co-pilot stick. Frankly from what I have read it appears pure and simple pilot error. Then someone has to find deep pockets when at the end of the day if the pilot screwed up then just accept it and move on. Quit going after someone else. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Basis wiring HELP
A diode differs from a resistor in this application; the forward drop in voltage across a diode is virtually constant regardless of current draw. As long as diode current ratings are followed, there will not be excessive heating of the diode in this application (similar to the wattage rating of a resistor, but you have to know the final current ahead of time to size one of those.) Just more to think about. -Bill On 1/20/07, Charles Reiche wrote: > > Dana, > The main problem with Bright/Dim kind of circuits is that you have to know > the over all current flow for all the lights per circuit. If you go and > change something in the future of one set of bulbs burn out, it changes your > total brightness on the dim setting. You do this with the basic V=IR > equation, you have to know the total current flow of your lights when hooked > to your power source. Here is an example. I hook all my lights to a power > supply that can give me my "running" voltage of about 13.85 volts when the > airplane is running, with an ammeter inline I measure 2 amps of lighting > load..... 13.85=2xI Solving for I you get 6.925 Ohms. This is the basic > resistance of all your lights put together. To make the lights half dim, > you need to make the resistance twice that of what you start with. So you > need a 7 ohm resistor that is rated for, P=IE..... P= 2x13.85 so roughly 30 > Watts!!! Thats kind of a LARGE resistor. and its there under your panel in > a small place baking away making heat. I would suggest researching > Transistorized dimming circuits like the one here that EDMO dealers sell. > http://www.edmo.com/index.php?module=products&func=display&prod_id=18485 > > I know you are pressed for time and have put all the HARD parts off till the > last minute :) but I think you will find a variable dimming system will make > your night flying much more enjoyable. > > An appropriately rated rehostat will dissapate power (again a heat machine > under your panel) and something like this may be what you want... > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/rheostat.php > put a on off switch ahead of this sucker so its not contantly making heat > when you have the lights off. > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lc40.php > This system looks nice due to its 4 channels of 1.5A each that can be tied > together and controlled with one knob. > I suggest keeping radios separate from flight instruments due to variations > in overall brightness. > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/k11aircraft.php > This one has an adjustable master following system where you can have those > bright systems lag behind say the less bright flight instruments. > > Hope some of this helps. > > Charles Reiche > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs(at)hotmail.com> > To: > Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:29 AM > Subject: RV-List: Basis wiring HELP:-) Changed subject line, my bad. > > >>Need some electrical help here gang....................remember, I am the > >>world's worst at understanding electric "stuff".........don't ask me, > >>electrical just flat out doesn't click between my ears, possibly a blown > >>fuse from my college days. > >> > >>Anyway, I have not attached any of the various instrument HI/LOW (two > >>wires each)light intensity. I don't want to go with a control knob but > >>was thinking a ON/OFF/ON for down is low intensity middle standard and up > >>as high intensity. OK, simple question............how in the heck do I > >>make the magic work????? > >> > >>Gotta get this last stuff done this weekend, forward deck/windscreen has > >>got to be completed this time next week. > >> > > Dana Overall > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Basis wiring HELP
Actually, for the same voltage drop and the same current draw there WILL be exactly the same heating of the diodes, albeit spread over all the diodes used vs the one resistor used. Diodes do have the advantage you pointed out of having a relatively constant voltage drop up to their rated current. Dick Tasker Bill Boyd wrote: > > A diode differs from a resistor in this application; the forward drop > in voltage across a diode is virtually constant regardless of current > draw. As long as diode current ratings are followed, there will not > be excessive heating of the diode in this application (similar to the > wattage rating of a resistor, but you have to know the final current > ahead of time to size one of those.) > > Just more to think about. > > -Bill > > On 1/20/07, Charles Reiche wrote: > >> >> Dana, >> The main problem with Bright/Dim kind of circuits is that you have to >> know >> the over all current flow for all the lights per circuit. If you go and >> change something in the future of one set of bulbs burn out, it >> changes your >> total brightness on the dim setting. You do this with the basic V=IR >> equation, you have to know the total current flow of your lights when >> hooked >> to your power source. Here is an example. I hook all my lights to a >> power >> supply that can give me my "running" voltage of about 13.85 volts >> when the >> airplane is running, with an ammeter inline I measure 2 amps of lighting >> load..... 13.85=2xI Solving for I you get 6.925 Ohms. This is the basic >> resistance of all your lights put together. To make the lights half >> dim, >> you need to make the resistance twice that of what you start with. So >> you >> need a 7 ohm resistor that is rated for, P=IE..... P= 2x13.85 so >> roughly 30 >> Watts!!! Thats kind of a LARGE resistor. and its there under your >> panel in >> a small place baking away making heat. I would suggest researching >> Transistorized dimming circuits like the one here that EDMO dealers >> sell. >> http://www.edmo.com/index.php?module=products&func=display&prod_id=18485 >> >> I know you are pressed for time and have put all the HARD parts off >> till the >> last minute :) but I think you will find a variable dimming system >> will make >> your night flying much more enjoyable. >> >> An appropriately rated rehostat will dissapate power (again a heat >> machine >> under your panel) and something like this may be what you want... >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/rheostat.php >> put a on off switch ahead of this sucker so its not contantly making >> heat >> when you have the lights off. >> >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/lc40.php >> This system looks nice due to its 4 channels of 1.5A each that can be >> tied >> together and controlled with one knob. >> I suggest keeping radios separate from flight instruments due to >> variations >> in overall brightness. >> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/k11aircraft.php >> This one has an adjustable master following system where you can have >> those >> bright systems lag behind say the less bright flight instruments. >> >> Hope some of this helps. >> >> Charles Reiche >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs(at)hotmail.com> >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 7:29 AM >> Subject: RV-List: Basis wiring HELP:-) Changed subject line, my bad. >> >> >>Need some electrical help here gang....................remember, I >> am the >> >>world's worst at understanding electric "stuff".........don't ask me, >> >>electrical just flat out doesn't click between my ears, possibly a >> blown >> >>fuse from my college days. >> >> >> >>Anyway, I have not attached any of the various instrument HI/LOW (two >> >>wires each)light intensity. I don't want to go with a control knob >> but >> >>was thinking a ON/OFF/ON for down is low intensity middle standard >> and up >> >>as high intensity. OK, simple question............how in the heck >> do I >> >>make the magic work????? >> >> >> >>Gotta get this last stuff done this weekend, forward >> deck/windscreen has >> >>got to be completed this time next week. >> >> >> > Dana Overall >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Linebaugh" <jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Garmin 396 XM Reception
Date: Jan 20, 2007
I am having trouble with XM radio reception on my 396 and wonder if anyone has a fix I am running an extension (mini-d connections) so that I can place the antenna behind the back seaters head on the deck. It also makes the antenna easily removable so that I can use it in the car, etc Problem: with the extension, XM music clips off every second or so like I have poor receptioneven though I am showing full signal strength. Without the extension, it still shows full strength, but music comes in fine. With or without the extension, I can receive data..metars, tafs, etc Anybody experienced this or have a solution? Thanks! Jeff Linebaugh jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net F1 Rocket #33 N240KT Memphis, TN. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za>
Subject: Re: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer
Date: Jan 20, 2007
Hi John Their name is MGL Avionics and they make the Enigma EFIS. Try contacting rianier(at)iafrica.com or visit their web page at www.mglavionics.co.za Trevor ----- Original Message ----- From: John Fasching To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:15 PM Subject: RV-List: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer I am trying to recall the name of a South African maker of digital instruments. Their products were originally aimed at the ultralight sector of aviation, but they have moved more into the mainstream now. Their products and/or perhaps their name was three letters, like MDL or MGC or somesuch...neither of these are correct. I can't recall or locate the company. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ' John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART III
(LONG POST) Dear RV group: How many RV's have crashed from an inverted spin? I know inverted (death) spin, has some emotional connotation, but the fear is ignorance squelched w/ facts. I got a few responses from my How to do a Roll and Loop article, several complimentary and one just plan odd and wrong, so let me clarify a few things: Number one, acro in a RV is not F-16, Pitts or F-14 acro. I think some folks have watched top gun too much (the inverted spin scene where "Goose" dies). RV's are stable and WANT to fly right side up. I am not going to explain basic aerodynamics, but due to wing dihedral, design (NACA 23013.5) and pitch, yaw, roll controls and stability with proper CG, RV's are stable in any attitude. RV's also resist spinning unless intentionally spun. Spins: RV's don't like to even spin right side up, much less inverted. You have to hold controls aggressively and keep and keep them there to the control stops. Once you release or neutralize the controls it will stop spinning in most cases. Some RV's (power on, to the left, fully developed +3 turn stall) might need a touch of anti-spin rudder. By all means be familiar will basic stall / spin recovery. INVERTED SPIN: I have not tried it in a RV and doubt you can even do it intentionally, due to lack of elevator authority and the basic design of the plane. Again dihedral, airfoil design and CG (which is still the same inverter or right side up) makes the plane want to recover naturally in a nose down attitude right side up. The dihedral will naturally make the plane roll upright. Also to spin you need a yaw input or forces, ie rudder. Leave the rudder alone (as I said before) for beginners in rolls and loops. *G LOAD (The MAGIC of 3 Gee's) G load: IF YOU ARE PULLING 4.5 g's to do acro in a RV you are doing it wrong and its not wise. The drag (induced) is proportional to the lift coefficient. As you pull on the stick and load up the wing you increase drag, and drag gets exponentially greater. When you plot lift v drag you will see the curve gets real steep. Over 3 g's is a waste and needlessly bleeds energy (speed) and is like throwing the anchor out. Don't do it unless you want to slow down or in worst case scenario break the airframe (3.5 g's OK fine, +4 g's no not needed). *SPEED Speed for loops: Look for a loop if you want to do 200 mph and pull 6 g's, fine. However I can loop almost ANY plane at 140 mph, Cessna aerobatic for example (of course you have to dive first). It has more drag and less power and about the same weight as an RV. It can loop at 130-140 mph. Stearman? Same thing. The recommend RV loop entry speed is 140-160 mph. You can do it faster. Some guy wrote me and say he can't loop at less than 150kt (173mph) & pulling 4.5g's! OH MY GOSH, that is dangerous for a beginner's. 135-140 mph is "Va", maneuver speed. Flying closer to Va is safer. Even if you mess up and pull too hard, you will not break the plane, it will stall first. To stall is NOT DEATH. It is a normal maneuver you should have mastered as a 10-20 hour private pilot student. Now breaking the wing off? I don't have a recovery for that. Flying fast and pulling more G's is counter productive and gives less margin (structural and airspeed limits). If you pull less G's you lose (need) less speed!!! Yes you need speed for any vertical maneuver but going faster to overcome poor technique or lack of understanding is not good. RV's have low drag and great power/weight. If a Cessna C152 can do it a RV can. IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF STALLS OR NOT PROFICIENT IN ALL KINDS OF STALLS: recognizing impending stall, recovery from stalls: straight, turns, accelerated, power on climb, power off climb, with minimal loss of altitude and effort, THAN DON'T DO AEROBATICS. It does not mean you can't learn and conquer stalls but you will need an instructor, say in an Aerobat or Citabria. I thought I made that clear, but some folks have been spreading fear about stalls. I would rather a guy stall at 3,000 feet and recover than pull the wings OFF. For beginners work at lower entry speeds 140-160 mph and use 3 g's as a basic limit for your maneuvers. At high speed and g's you are very close to the structural and speed limits, especially if you mess up and get nose down with power on. Some folks are worried about stalls and inverted spins. How many inverted stall spin accidents have you heard of in RV's? Pitts special? (several) RV's? (none); Now may be that its the pilot, plane or may be the Pitts is flown in aggressive acro more? Pitts can have symmetric airfoil wings and they have very little roll stability and no dihedral. You are more likely to get killed from a stall or stall-spin in the traffic pattern (from pilot miss handling the controls and not maintaining airspeed) than doing a loop at a safe altitude. Now I am not saying everyone loop your RV. Truth be told there are some pilots that may be should be flying at all, straight and level much less trying acro. Please read what I wrote before and all the cautions and caveats. IF YOU STALL INVERTED, THE RV WILL NOT SNAP INTO AN INVERTED SPIN. In fact if you do nothing the nose will just drop and it will just roll/dish-out and end up the way it was designed to fly, nose down probably flying wings level straight ahead or in a bank / spiral. A simple recovery is all that is needed. Even in you stalled upside down, and pushed the stick forward and added rudder it would probably snap roll. If you just release the controls it would fly again. You really have to put in PRO stall and PRO spin (yaw) controls to get a RV to stall and spin. However even a stall from inverted with rudder kicked in the spin would likely be up-right, not inverted. It would take talent to do an inverted spin in a RV. *FLOATING? (i.e., less than +1g to plus side of zero-g) The fear of having less than 1 g over the top a loop, so called FLOATING, from one guy that wrote me, who likes to enter a loop at very high speeds and G's scares me. A FULL ONE G is ridiculous at the top of a loop. Since gravity is a negative 1 g at that point, than you need to still be accelerating down @ +2 g's vertical pitch. That is a very tight loop and really what I call a "Whiffer- Dale" (any maneuver that is really not a recognized aerobatic maneuver) a kind of a vertical climb with a hook on the end and a dive and level off, not a loop. Lots of g's and not necessary or elegant. Than he said some stuff about a perfect loop is not for beginners. I have no idea what he is talking about. One my technique is far from the perfect loop, just a safe loop. Second I have been flying for over 20 years and doing acro for at least 15 years, I still can't do a perfect loop. The RV fly's fine on +1 g, +1/2 g, +1/10th g. You do not need inverted systems to fly around "light" in the seat. With an inverted systems great, but the RV design (wing, dihedral, CG) likes to fly right side-up. Intentional inverted maneuver in most planes are hard, especially the RV. Now planes with no dihedral and symmetric airfoils are easy to fly upside down. That is not the RV. I have several RV buddies with inverted oil/fuel. When they are upside down and the wing needs a lot of neg AOA to fly, very nose up attitude in level -1g inverted flight. RV's don't like to fly negative G's. Also the stall speed of a RV at acro weight is what? 50-55 mph at 1g. At 1/2 g stall speed will be way lower. At zero g's it will be basically nothing. YOU WILL NOT STALL,SPIN AND DIE IF YOU LOOP AT 140-160 mph, IF YOU DON'T PULL TOO MANY G's and BLEED ALL YOUR ENERGY OFF (as some recommend). RV's also because of the great wing don't do snap rolls well because the wing wants to fly. You have to put stall strips on it, which raises the stall speed. RV's are good basic fun acro planes but not serious hard core acro planes. The actual problem with RV's is they acro TOO easily and make pilots think they are better than they are. Many acro planes are not as forgiving, demanding more skill and technique to properly loop and roll around the sky. Basic acro the RV is the best there is. Good Luck, again because of people who wrote me and said scary things who think they know, is the reason I wrote the article. As I stated you need to be competent and confident in you airmanship before undergoing acro. However acro is not inherently dangerous. The plane fly's fine in all attitudes. However professional airshow and competition pilots that are dedicated to acro do crash from time to time. Flying has risk folks. Do ignore the alarmist's. However if you have GOOD basic skills and follow GOOD basic common sense than acro in RV's is very safe, but of course NOTHING is without risk. I suggest you find an OLD back issue of the RVator and Van's two or three part article on doing ACRO. It basically was from the same point of view, you should get dual BUT I know you are going to do it, so at least have some advice. The problem is getting dual anything in RV's, much less dual acro in a RV. You can go up in a Pitts and have a guy loop, roll and show off and it will not help you fly the RV. The RV is not a Pitts. It would probably be better to go up in a Cessna Aerobat or Citabria and learn some basics if you can't get RV dual. Also many RV's are too heavy to for dual acro. *Mo Knowledge: Books to read: "Roll Around a Point", by Duane Cole "The Conquest of Lines and Symmetry", by Duane Cole "Aerobatics", by Neil Williams "Aerobatics Today", by Bob O'Dell "Flight Unlimited", by Eric Mueller "The Basic Aerobatic Manual", by Bill Kershner "Stalls, Spins and Safety", by Sammy Mason Check out some of the aerobatic clubs like EAA's IAC http://www.iac.org/ "A person who teaches himself to do aerobatics has a fool for an instructor". Author unknown However I know some are going to do it any way. I also know there are a few out there that are doing and have been doing acro who don't have a clue and they scare me. I hope the info is help full. *Mo Practice The information I presented is basic outline. There is NO FAR that prohibits you from doing aerobatics with out an endorsement or training as long as you are off the airways and not too low or close to persons, places and things. Of course that does not mean you will not get the catch all of reckless and careless operation. I personally am a very conservative pilot, former CFI-II-MEI with 1000's of hours of dual given and now airline pilot. I have looped and rolled many planes (not airliners of course) and its fun. Just use common sense and KNOW THY SELF. Training is BEST but many have lost their acro virginity solo. *G TOLERANCE To get use to G's I highly recommend 70 degree banks is about 3 g' (level turn). 60 degree banks are only 2 g's. You will need to add LOTS of POWER for 70 degrees. Again respect the structural and speed limits and do not enter at higher than Va. Va is your safe speed. Also the g's will acclimate you. Some people go cationic or freeze when they see the sky and earth flip or their body experiences more than 1.5 g's. *Hate Mail (not you Bob) One guy wrote me and scolded me about how dare I teach or post on the web how to do aerobatics, "beginners don't have the touch or feel". That is either pure ignorance or pure ego, like its so difficult and only he can do it. Please again read all my previous caveats. I recommend not doing acro with passengers, and do acro over remote areas. Why? Well if you kill your self than you will not hurt anyone else. Hate to be grim but Aerobatic accidents are from many reasons but mostly pilots doing them 1) too low and 2) with out knowledge and 3) no skill. I have addressed all three. RULES: safe altitude, respect limits SKILL: Practice the prerequisites to acro maneuver's KNOWLEDGE: Read and ask questions YOU CAN LEARN RULES, YOU CAN GET KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE ACRO SKILL WILL NOT COME UNLESS YOU PRACTICE AND ACTUALLY DO IT. YOU CAN'T LEARN WITH OUT EXPERIENCING IT. Many times the practice or initial acro experience comes solo and is self taught, but if I explain how to do an ILS instrument approach I don't expect a VFR pilot to launch into solid IMC. Same with aerobatics, however a skilled private pilot should have the basic tool kit of skills and knowledge to understand aerobatics. You never can have enough info, skill or knowledge, but there is a first time for every thing. Ideally when you lose your roll or loop virginity you have some one there to back you up. Can I roll on takeoff. Yes, but I don't because I know my chance of death go up 10,000 fold. Do I fall out of acro maneuvers? Yes but not basic ones like I described previously, aileron roll and loop. Respect the airplane's limits and your personal limits. Acro is not for everyone. Fly Safe, George ATP B73/75/76, CFI-II-MEI, RV-4, RV-7 --------------------------------- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 20, 2007
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART
III On 15:47 2007-01-20 Ron Lee wrote: > > Number one, acro in a RV is not F-16, Pitts or F-14 > > acro. I think some folks have watched top gun too > > much (the inverted spin scene where "Goose" dies). > > My recollection is that scene was a flameout which caused a flat spin. > They were upright and Goose hit the canopy before it was totally gone. Perhaps the confusion was from the way the scene was filmed, not the way it was supposed to have happened. The scene was filmed by an aerobatic pilot flying an inverted flat spin. My recollection is that the pilot did not recover from that spin, due to unexpected changes in spin performance with the camera rig attached. He died filming it. In the movie, however, Goose dies due to hitting the canopy during the ejection, not due to hitting his head during the (upright) spin. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART III
Date: Jan 20, 2007
Great post by George. Very informative. Two questions however........if one does not have a G meter, is there any other way to do rolls and loops? Second, George says don't do aerobatics with a passenger. Really? How else can I show off my new skills? Garry Stout RV7A in progress Tampa Florida ----- Original Message ----- From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ; panamared5(at)brier.net ; kboatright1(at)comcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 6:15 PM Subject: RV-List: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART III (LONG POST) Dear RV group: How many RV's have crashed from an inverted spin? I know inverted (death) spin, has some emotional connotation, but the fear is ignorance squelched w/ facts. I got a few responses from my How to do a Roll and Loop article, several complimentary and one just plan odd and wrong, so let me clarify a few things: Number one, acro in a RV is not F-16, Pitts or F-14 acro. I think some folks have watched top gun too much (the inverted spin scene where "Goose" dies). RV's are stable and WANT to fly right side up. I am not going to explain basic aerodynamics, but due to wing dihedral, design (NACA 23013.5) and pitch, yaw, roll controls and stability with proper CG, RV's are stable in any attitude. RV's also resist spinning unless intentionally spun. Spins: RV's don't like to even spin right side up, much less inverted. You have to hold controls aggressively and keep and keep them there to the control stops. Once you release or neutralize the controls it will stop spinning in most cases. Some RV's (power on, to the left, fully developed +3 turn stall) might need a touch of anti-spin rudder. By all means be familiar will basic stall / spin recovery. INVERTED SPIN: I have not tried it in a RV and doubt you can even do it intentionally, due to lack of elevator authority and the basic design of the plane. Again dihedral, airfoil design and CG (which is still the same inverter or right side up) makes the plane want to recover naturally in a nose down attitude right side up. The dihedral will naturally make the plane roll upright. Also to spin you need a yaw input or forces, ie rudder. Leave the rudder alone (as I said before) for beginners in rolls and loops. *G LOAD (The MAGIC of 3 Gee's) G load: IF YOU ARE PULLING 4.5 g's to do acro in a RV you are doing it wrong and its not wise. The drag (induced) is proportional to the lift coefficient. As you pull on the stick and load up the wing you increase drag, and drag gets exponentially greater. When you plot lift v drag you will see the curve gets real steep. Over 3 g's is a waste and needlessly bleeds energy (speed) and is like throwing the anchor out. Don't do it unless you want to slow down or in worst case scenario break the airframe (3.5 g's OK fine, +4 g's no not needed). *SPEED Speed for loops: Look for a loop if you want to do 200 mph and pull 6 g's, fine. However I can loop almost ANY plane at 140 mph, Cessna aerobatic for example (of course you have to dive first). It has more drag and less power and about the same weight as an RV. It can loop at 130-140 mph. Stearman? Same thing. The recommend RV loop entry speed is 140-160 mph. You can do it faster. Some guy wrote me and say he can't loop at less than 150kt (173mph) & pulling 4.5g's! OH MY GOSH, that is dangerous for a beginner's. 135-140 mph is "Va", maneuver speed. Flying closer to Va is safer. Even if you mess up and pull too hard, you will not break the plane, it will stall first. To stall is NOT DEATH. It is a normal maneuver you should have mastered as a 10-20 hour private pilot student. Now breaking the wing off? I don't have a recovery for that. Flying fast and pulling more G's is counter productive and gives less margin (structural and airspeed limits). If you pull less G's you lose (need) less speed!!! Yes you need speed for any vertical maneuver but going faster to overcome poor technique or lack of understanding is not good. RV's have low drag and great power/weight. If a Cessna C152 can do it a RV can. IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF STALLS OR NOT PROFICIENT IN ALL KINDS OF STALLS: recognizing impending stall, recovery from stalls: straight, turns, accelerated, power on climb, power off climb, with minimal loss of altitude and effort, THAN DON'T DO AEROBATICS. It does not mean you can't learn and conquer stalls but you will need an instructor, say in an Aerobat or Citabria. I thought I made that clear, but some folks have been spreading fear about stalls. I would rather a guy stall at 3,000 feet and recover than pull the wings OFF. For beginners work at lower entry speeds 140-160 mph and use 3 g's as a basic limit for your maneuvers. At high speed and g's you are very close to the structural and speed limits, especially if you mess up and get nose down with power on. Some folks are worried about stalls and inverted spins. How many inverted stall spin accidents have you heard of in RV's? Pitts special? (several) RV's? (none); Now may be that its the pilot, plane or may be the Pitts is flown in aggressive acro more? Pitts can have symmetric airfoil wings and they have very little roll stability and no dihedral. You are more likely to get killed from a stall or stall-spin in the traffic pattern (from pilot miss handling the controls and not maintaining airspeed) than doing a loop at a safe altitude. Now I am not saying everyone loop your RV. Truth be told there are some pilots that may be should be flying at all, straight and level much less trying acro. Please read what I wrote before and all the cautions and caveats. IF YOU STALL INVERTED, THE RV WILL NOT SNAP INTO AN INVERTED SPIN. In fact if you do nothing the nose will just drop and it will just roll/dish-out and end up the way it was designed to fly, nose down probably flying wings level straight ahead or in a bank / spiral. A simple recovery is all that is needed. Even in you stalled upside down, and pushed the stick forward and added rudder it would probably snap roll. If you just release the controls it would fly again. You really have to put in PRO stall and PRO spin (yaw) controls to get a RV to stall and spin. However even a stall from inverted with rudder kicked in the spin would likely be up-right, not inverted. It would take talent to do an inverted spin in a RV. *FLOATING? (i.e., less than +1g to plus side of zero-g) The fear of having less than 1 g over the top a loop, so called FLOATING, from one guy that wrote me, who likes to enter a loop at very high speeds and G's scares me. A FULL ONE G is ridiculous at the top of a loop. Since gravity is a negative 1 g at that point, than you need to still be accelerating down @ +2 g's vertical pitch. That is a very tight loop and really what I call a "Whiffer- Dale" (any maneuver that is really not a recognized aerobatic maneuver) a kind of a vertical climb with a hook on the end and a dive and level off, not a loop. Lots of g's and not necessary or elegant. Than he said some stuff about a perfect loop is not for beginners. I have no idea what he is talking about. One my technique is far from the perfect loop, just a safe loop. Second I have been flying for over 20 years and doing acro for at least 15 years, I still can't do a perfect loop. The RV fly's fine on +1 g, +1/2 g, +1/10th g. You do not need inverted systems to fly around "light" in the seat. With an inverted systems great, but the RV design (wing, dihedral, CG) likes to fly right side-up. Intentional inverted maneuver in most planes are hard, especially the RV. Now planes with no dihedral and symmetric airfoils are easy to fly upside down. That is not the RV. I have several RV buddies with inverted oil/fuel. When they are upside down and the wing needs a lot of neg AOA to fly, very nose up attitude in level -1g inverted flight. RV's don't like to fly negative G's. Also the stall speed of a RV at acro weight is what? 50-55 mph at 1g. At 1/2 g stall speed will be way lower. At zero g's it will be basically nothing. YOU WILL NOT STALL,SPIN AND DIE IF YOU LOOP AT 140-160 mph, IF YOU DON'T PULL TOO MANY G's and BLEED ALL YOUR ENERGY OFF (as some recommend). RV's also because of the great wing don't do snap rolls well because the wing wants to fly. You have to put stall strips on it, which raises the stall speed. RV's are good basic fun acro planes but not serious hard core acro planes. The actual problem with RV's is they acro TOO easily and make pilots think they are better than they are. Many acro planes are not as forgiving, demanding more skill and technique to properly loop and roll around the sky. Basic acro the RV is the best there is. Good Luck, again because of people who wrote me and said scary things who think they know, is the reason I wrote the article. As I stated you need to be competent and confident in you airmanship before undergoing acro. However acro is not inherently dangerous. The plane fly's fine in all attitudes. However professional airshow and competition pilots that are dedicated to acro do crash from time to time. Flying has risk folks. Do ignore the alarmist's. However if you have GOOD basic skills and follow GOOD basic common sense than acro in RV's is very safe, but of course NOTHING is without risk. I suggest you find an OLD back issue of the RVator and Van's two or three part article on doing ACRO. It basically was from the same point of view, you should get dual BUT I know you are going to do it, so at least have some advice. The problem is getting dual anything in RV's, much less dual acro in a RV. You can go up in a Pitts and have a guy loop, roll and show off and it will not help you fly the RV. The RV is not a Pitts. It would probably be better to go up in a Cessna Aerobat or Citabria and learn some basics if you can't get RV dual. Also many RV's are too heavy to for dual acro. *Mo Knowledge: Books to read: "Roll Around a Point", by Duane Cole "The Conquest of Lines and Symmetry", by Duane Cole "Aerobatics", by Neil Williams "Aerobatics Today", by Bob O'Dell "Flight Unlimited", by Eric Mueller "The Basic Aerobatic Manual", by Bill Kershner "Stalls, Spins and Safety", by Sammy Mason Check out some of the aerobatic clubs like EAA's IAC http://www.iac.org/ "A person who teaches himself to do aerobatics has a fool for an instructor". Author unknown However I know some are going to do it any way. I also know there are a few out there that are doing and have been doing acro who don't have a clue and they scare me. I hope the info is help full. *Mo Practice The information I presented is basic outline. There is NO FAR that prohibits you from doing aerobatics with out an endorsement or training as long as you are off the airways and not too low or close to persons, places and things. Of course that does not mean you will not get the catch all of reckless and careless operation. I personally am a very conservative pilot, former CFI-II-MEI with 1000's of hours of dual given and now airline pilot. I have looped and rolled many planes (not airliners of course) and its fun. Just use common sense and KNOW THY SELF. Training is BEST but many have lost their acro virginity solo. *G TOLERANCE To get use to G's I highly recommend 70 degree banks is about 3 g' (level turn). 60 degree banks are only 2 g's. You will need to add LOTS of POWER for 70 degrees. Again respect the structural and speed limits and do not enter at higher than Va. Va is your safe speed. Also the g's will acclimate you. Some people go cationic or freeze when they see the sky and earth flip or their body experiences more than 1.5 g's. *Hate Mail (not you Bob) One guy wrote me and scolded me about how dare I teach or post on the web how to do aerobatics, "beginners don't have the touch or feel". That is either pure ignorance or pure ego, like its so difficult and only he can do it. Please again read all my previous caveats. I recommend not doing acro with passengers, and do acro over remote areas. Why? Well if you kill your self than you will not hurt anyone else. Hate to be grim but Aerobatic accidents are from many reasons but mostly pilots doing them 1) too low and 2) with out knowledge and 3) no skill. I have addressed all three. RULES: safe altitude, respect limits SKILL: Practice the prerequisites to acro maneuver's KNOWLEDGE: Read and ask questions YOU CAN LEARN RULES, YOU CAN GET KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE ACRO SKILL WILL NOT COME UNLESS YOU PRACTICE AND ACTUALLY DO IT. YOU CAN'T LEARN WITH OUT EXPERIENCING IT. Many times the practice or initial acro experience comes solo and is self taught, but if I explain how to do an ILS instrument approach I don't expect a VFR pilot to launch into solid IMC. Same with aerobatics, however a skilled private pilot should have the basic tool kit of skills and knowledge to understand aerobatics. You never can have enough info, skill or knowledge, but there is a first time for every thing. Ideally when you lose your roll or loop virginity you have some one there to back you up. Can I roll on takeoff. Yes, but I don't because I know my chance of death go up 10,000 fold. Do I fall out of acro maneuvers? Yes but not basic ones like I described previously, aileron roll and loop. Respect the airplane's limits and your personal limits. Acro is not for everyone. Fly Safe, George ATP B73/75/76, CFI-II-MEI, RV-4, RV-7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART III
Date: Jan 20, 2007
On Jan 20, 2007, at 4:15 PM, wrote: > ... > RV's also because of the great wing don't do snap rolls > well because the wing wants to fly. You have to put stall > strips on it, which raises the stall speed.... Ok, George, you've got me curious about how the RVs you have flown snap. I have a 6 with an O-360 and fixed Sensenich and it seems to snap just fine (I have only done it solo). I have never flown an all out aerobatic plane, so maybe I don't know what is supposed to happen. At the recommended entry speed I put in full elevator and rudder and bam, it goes around smartly. I have difficulty timing the recovery so it happens at exactly wings level, but I have that same problem with Citabrias. Larry Pardue ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: GRRRRRINNNNNNN !!!! N696WG First Flight !!
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Gerry, CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!! Chuck & Dave Rowbotham RV-8A >From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com> >Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >To: norcal-rvlist.com(at)yahoo.com, socal-rvlist.com(at)yahoo.com, >rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RV-List: GRRRRRINNNNNNN !!!! N696WG First Flight !! >Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:11:16 +0000 > >This morning N696WG (RV-9 #90842) flew into the ice blue skies over KHAF >for the first time. > >What an incredible experience. > >Bart's Aerosport IO-320 hauled her off the runway like we were late for an >angel's wedding _________________________________________________________________ The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop. http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za>
Subject: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer
Date: Jan 21, 2007
----- Original Message ----- From: Trevor Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:06 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer Sorry made a mistake with the e-mail address should be : rainier(at)iafrica.com or info(at)mglavionics.co.za Their name is MGL Avionics and they make the Enigma EFIS. Try contacting rianier(at)iafrica.com or visit their web page at www.mglavionics.co.za Trevor ----- Original Message ----- From: John Fasching To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:15 PM Subject: RV-List: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer I am trying to recall the name of a South African maker of digital instruments. Their products were originally aimed at the ultralight sector of aviation, but they have moved more into the mainstream now. Their products and/or perhaps their name was three letters, like MDL or MGC or somesuch...neither of these are correct. I can't recall or locate the company. Any suggestions would be appreciated. ' John href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics. com/Navigator?RV-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randall E Russell" <rer51(at)netscape.ca>
Subject: Tip-up canopy drilling DNA
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Thanks for the help on countersinking question. Randy C-FYOO DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Basicwiring HELP
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Heck, Dana, I am electrically challenged myself. I am humble. do not archive Sure, you could use one switch and put a resistor in it and run it to all your lights. One of the others responded and gave you a very answer. Depending what each lighted instrument requires, the brightness might be less or more than desired with the SIMPLE approach. I used the knob thingy from Vans. It works. Heck, it is an experimental plane. You could put on some sunglasses each time you look at one particular instrument if it is too bright. Better to put a resistor on each instrument low setting to get it just the way you want that one. Then do the next one. I prefer the switch to turn the lights off or on and the rheostat to bring them up or down to desired brightness. I only used the rheostat, and I am creating hear all the time which is nice in the winter. I did not want another switch on the panel. Keep it simple. Hope this helps. Best wishes. Sounds like you will be ready for your fly in in a month or so. I am going on a cruise and am not sure if I will be able to make it this year. So, you might need so many donuts. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Subject: Re: Basicwiring HELP
Dana, Not sure if this will help or not, but attached is a way to dim panel lights with only a DPDT switch. No resistors or dimmer circuitry is necessary. You need to group the loads so that the total current draw of the top half and bottom half are the same, or one group will be dimmer than the other when the switch is in the dim position (or LO). If you don't have a center off switch, you could put another switch in the line to plus 12 volts. Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Subject: Re: Basicwiring HELP corrected schematic
Drat, I goofed up the simple schematic. Here is the corrected version. The loads are in series in the DIM position and in parallel in the BRIGHT position. Dan In a message dated 1/21/2007 8:00:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes: Dana, Not sure if this will help or not, but attached is a way to dim panel lights with only a DPDT switch. No resistors or dimmer circuitry is necessary. You need to group the loads so that the total current draw of the top half and bottom half are the same, or one group will be dimmer than the other when the switch is in the dim position (or LO). If you don't have a center off switch, you could put another switch in the line to plus 12 volts. Dan Hopper RV-7A ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MikeEasley(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Subject: TruTrak DFC 250 AS For Sale
I have a TruTrak DFC 250 AS autopilot for sale. It's been in my plane for a couple years and now I'm replacing it with a Sorcerer. TruTrak will only discount the Sorcerer $2,100 if I trade in my DFC 250. I thought there might be someone out there who didn't care about GPSV and would like a great deal on the autopilot. The Sorcerer slides into the exact same tray, same wiring, etc. so the buyer would get the brand new Sorcerer tray and hardware. You would need to buy servos, about $2,200 for whatever aircraft you would be installing the AP in. I'm not making any money on this, just thought someone would want just about all the bells and whistles TruTrak offers for about half price. First $2,100 get it. Mike Easley Colorado Springs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it such a bad thing - was family of pilot awarded
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Sorry for all the garbage in my last post... if anyone wants a "clean" copy to make for easier reading let me know off line. Gotta set format to "plain text" for this list -- I forgot to use that checklist! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: TruTrak DFC 250 AS For Sale
Date: Jan 21, 2007
I=92d like to call dibs on this, but I=92m having a hard time finding specific info because it was discontinued when the sorcerer was released. What does it do more than the dfc200 model??? Steve _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of MikeEasley(at)aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:10 AM Subject: RV-List: TruTrak DFC 250 AS For Sale I have a TruTrak DFC 250 AS autopilot for sale. It's been in my plane for a couple years and now I'm replacing it with a Sorcerer. TruTrak will only discount the Sorcerer $2,100 if I trade in my DFC 250. I thought there might be someone out there who didn't care about GPSV and would like a great deal on the autopilot. The Sorcerer slides into the exact same tray, same wiring, etc. so the buyer would get the brand new Sorcerer tray and hardware. You would need to buy servos, about $2,200 for whatever aircraft you would be installing the AP in. I'm not making any money on this, just thought someone would want just about all the bells and whistles TruTrak offers for about half price. First $2,100 get it. Mike Easley Colorado Springs "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navi gat or?RV-List "http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com 1/20/2007 -- 1/20/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Crosley" <rcrosley(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Aerobatics, CG
Date: Jan 21, 2007
One of the more important considerations in doing aerobatics is CG. Below is the short version of what happened to The Christen Eagle I built many years ago after I sold it. The Eagle does great aerobatics, but in can still be crashed. The pilot weighed 268 lbs (rear seat) passenger weighed 225 lbs (front seat). Plus he went light on fuel because he knew he was heavy. The fuel is forward of the panel, moving the CG further aft. Below is the link to the long version. Having an airplane you built crash and kill two guys is terrible, being in it is far worse. Take a little duel. Rich Crosley, RV-8, N948RC http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 041215X01994&ntsbno=DFW05 LA037&akey=1 NTSB Identification: DFW05LA037. The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division 14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation Accident occurred Sunday, December 12, 2004 in Morris, OK Probable Cause Approval Date: 6/8/2005 Aircraft: Crosley Christen Eagle II, registration: N222CE Injuries: 2 Fatal. According to a witness, who was in a field approximately 1 mile north of the accident site, the airplane was performing aerobatic maneuvers in the area when the airplane flew straight up into the air, and then "fell over into a flat spin." At this point, the witness estimated that the airplane at an approximate altitude of 5,000 feet above the ground. The witness heard the engine "revving up" as the airplane descended behind a tree line. He then heard the airplane impact the ground and the engine stop running. The 1,040-hour pilot, who was occupying the rear seat of the tandem seating experimental bi-plane, purchased the airplane during the first week of July 2004. Post-accident calculations revealed that the airplane was over maximum gross weight and the center of gravity (CG) was aft of the rearward limit. According to page 3-8 of the Christen Eagle II Airplane Flight Manual, "Any particular Christen Eagle II aircraft will recover from any spin type using standard recovery techniques ONLY IF THE AIRCRAFT IS PROPERLY BALANCED. The CG of the aircraft must be within design limits to ensure safe spin recovery. Any aircraft can be dangerously loaded (CG beyond design limits) making spin recovery extremely difficult or impossible. Weight and balance considerations must be taken seriously and pilots must be absolutely certain that the flight CG of their aircraft is within design limits." The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: The pilot's intentional spin, which was unrecoverable due to exceeded aircraft weight and balance limitations as a result of improper preflight planning/preparation. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: MikeEasley(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Subject: DFC 250 Sold!
Thanks everyone. I had several responses, selected the first one to arrive in my in-box and it's sold. Mike Easley ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Garmin 396 XM Reception
From: "Nuisance" <aflyer(at)lazy8.net>
Date: Jan 21, 2007
Funny, I have the same setup in my 8 and it works fine. My extension wire is about 6 feet long. Maybe just try another extension? John -------- Life is too short to run lean of peak. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89276#89276 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for a Certain Manufacturer
Date: Jan 21, 2007
That's the outfit...I found them on the internet, and thanks for the help. I had lots of dope like that on the hard disk but a recent computer crash caused the loss of most of my 'brain' assists. thanks again John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2007
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO
>From: "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com> >if one does not have a G meter, is there any other >way to do rolls and loops? Second, George says >don't do aerobatics with a passenger. Really? How >else can I show off my new skills? G-meter: I personally would have one, but now my butt is calibrated, I can tell the load factor without looking. For aileron rolls it is only a (1 to 1.5) g maneuver so it's not a big deal. However if you mess up, split-s and let the speed build on pullout, it's nice to know how many g's the airframe felt for maintenance and inspection purpose. It's a personal opinion and suggestion, and I think its a good idea. Passengers The original article was for pilots NEW to acro. Sure after you are current and comfortable than by all means. I am all about flying (safely) with-in limitations and rules. If you have two chutes required(*) and are under Van's aerobatic gross and with in the CG, current and proficient, than by all means take a friend up. Bring a barf bag. I have flown 30 people, pilots of all kinds and non-pilots doing RV acro demos. I have had a 16 year old girl w/ no pilot time, loop unassisted with some practice and one demo and a little coaching. (Warning: Don't give your controls over to anyone unless you are darn sure they know what they are doing. I have 2000 hours time giving instruction. There have been many accidents where a RV pilot gave the controls over to the passenger and they broke the plane or flew into the ground. As a CFI, I can do it legally. The FAR's prohibit pilots from letting passengers fly. Consider the stick as the wing removal lever. RV's especially the TANDAM RV's get super light pitch forces on the stick with passengers. You take a guy who does airshows, in a T-6 and have him pull a loop in a RV, he could very well over control. RV's have light controls which are a joy but can hurt you if you pull too hard. I don't want to spread fear and ignorance. The RV is a 6 g plane, strong but not invincible. Just be careful w passengers.) Sitting as a passenger doing ACRO and actually flying ACRO are two things. Keep your acro short. One or two loops and rolls, don't do a 20 minute airshow unless you want chunks blown all over you. You do build G tolerance up. That's a known fact, and some people love roller coasters and others don't. Be sure to tell your passenger if they feel green to speak up and say something and don't forget to look at them for signs of stress, sweating, color, body language (clenched fist). You don't want to scare them. *chutes dual req, RV4/6 built heavy have a hard time being under acro gross with two adults and chutes. Chutes are not that heavy but its a factor and many RV's are built heavy. Fly within limits. Some RV's are solo acro planes with two seats. >From: Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> > ... >I have a 6 with an O-360 and fixed Sensenich and >it seems to snap just fine (Ive only done it solo). Personal preference Larry. I had a hard time with them on my RV4. The plane would not snap fully and would actually start to fly before the plane came back around and pulled some G's, becoming more of a roll than a snap. A snap roll, once you snap as you know, is a low G maneuver. Van has wrote about this a lot and talked about getting RV's ready for IAC sportsman aerobatics competition. You can snap but just not well for this reason, as I understand it and from my attempts, that's what I experienced. Stall strips are recommended by Van. I never liked snap rolls myself, so I don't worry about it, but that is the story on the RV, the wing is just so good it does not want to stay stalled. If you are getting good clean snaps than cool. I did them in the mighty Aerobat C152 and I could not get the recovery perfect either, so you are on you own. However snap away, that is cool. I am going to try them on my new RV7 and might play with stall strips. Great questions and good talk guys, Cheers George --------------------------------- Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mts.net>
Subject: Re: Basicwiring HELP
Date: Jan 21, 2007
I think the diagram is incorrect. The bottom row of lamps needs to have their lower terminals connected to +12V, not ground. Clever idea though. Curt ----- Original Message ----- From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:52 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Basicwiring HELP > Dana, > > Not sure if this will help or not, but attached is a way to dim panel > lights > with only a DPDT switch. No resistors or dimmer circuitry is necessary. > > You need to group the loads so that the total current draw of the top half > and bottom half are the same, or one group will be dimmer than the other > when > the switch is in the dim position (or LO). > > If you don't have a center off switch, you could put another switch in the > line to plus 12 volts. > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10:24 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 21, 2007
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Basicwiring HELP
Curt, the drawing is correct. On bright the center wire is +12V, the other side is ground. One side directly, and the other through the switch. Dave 29 Years Journeyman Wireman --- Curt Reimer wrote: > > > I think the diagram is incorrect. The bottom row of > lamps needs to have > their lower terminals connected to +12V, not ground. > Clever idea though. > > Curt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Hopperdhh(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 6:52 AM > Subject: Re: RV-List: Basicwiring HELP > > > > Dana, > > > > Not sure if this will help or not, but attached is > a way to dim panel > > lights > > with only a DPDT switch. No resistors or dimmer > circuitry is necessary. > > > > You need to group the loads so that the total > current draw of the top half > > and bottom half are the same, or one group will be > dimmer than the other > > when > > the switch is in the dim position (or LO). > > > > If you don't have a center off switch, you could > put another switch in the > > line to plus 12 volts. > > > > Dan Hopper > > RV-7A > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 10:24 AM > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Web Forums! > > > > > Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Tank Vent problem
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com>
Lister, I'd like to share with you a tank vent problem I had last weekend (1/20/07). I flew a 30 minute IFR ride, in light/moderate snow, from 44N to 7B6, landed, taxied to the hanger and parked the plane. As I was leaving the hanger, I happened to note that the left main tank area of the wing was deformed with notable inward scalloping.... Opening the tip tank cap, and allowing in some air, allowed the deformation to be reduced. I capped the tank prior to all the air being replaced, and then inserted some safety wire into the tip tank vent. This resulted in a "whoosh" of air into the tank. The vent was noticeable blocked with ice/snow... The OAT at altitude was 11*F... Fortunately, the main tank deformation was not serious, and removing the vacuum allowed the tank to return to its original shape. The plane specifics are: RV-6A Tip-up with Jon Johansson tip tanks. The tip tank vent (located at the wing tip) is the ONLY vent for BOTH tanks on each wing. I have 3/8" tubing between the main and tip tank. The original Van's vent on the main tank has been capped. This situation could have resulted in an in-flight engine failure. Fortunately, the right tank vent was clear (but it could just as easily have been blocked since it saw the same flying conditions). And, fortunately, it was a short trip..... THIS IS A SINGLE POINT FAILURE ISSUE WAITING FOR AN ACCIDENT! Van's tank venting design is somewhat tolerant of in-flight blockage due to the fact they are located near the cowl warm air exits. But, even without the tips tank issue (with vents on the wing-tips) the same vent blockage problem could happen to a standard tank configuration. In researching other certified IFR aircraft, I found that the tanks are usually vented in multiple ways. In addition to the main tank vents, Pipers and Cessna's have gas caps that will allow the air to go in, but will not allow gas to exit. A multiple point failure would have to happen to get a starved engine due to lack of tank venting. I am going to try modifying my tank caps to have the same feature. I figure a #70 drill hole through the cap (both pieces) with a plastic "flapper" over the hole on the inside surface (glued in place with ProSeal) should do the trick (maybe even a larger hole)..... Any comments? Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 Hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: The tax man Cometh!
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com>
Listers, Another bit of bad news. I just got a Sales tax bill for my RV-6A engine that was purchased from AeroSport Power in 2003. Seems like the state of CT found out about the purchase by cross referencing the US customs paperwork. We have a 6% sales tax here in Ct. With the interest and penalty, the bill was almost $1900.00..... Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Becki" <becki@fly-gbi.com>
Subject: Orndorffs moving
Date: Jan 22, 2007
Great news! We have sold our house and hangar in Texas and will be moving to North Carolina over the weekend. We'll be mostly out of contact for the next 2 weeks. Please bear with us. And check our website (www.fly-gbi.com) to watch the progress of building our new house and hangar at Gold Hill Airpark, Gold Hill, NC. Thanks for all your support! George and Becki Orndorff ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: The tax man Cometh!
Date: Jan 22, 2007
Pity those who also live in a state with sales/use tax and an annual property tax. At least Connecticut has done away with that onerous property tax. Bruce www.glasair.org Also in CT. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 10:56 AM Subject: RV-List: The tax man Cometh! Listers, Another bit of bad news. I just got a Sales tax bill for my RV-6A engine that was purchased from AeroSport Power in 2003. Seems like the state of CT found out about the purchase by cross referencing the US customs paperwork. We have a 6% sales tax here in Ct. With the interest and penalty, the bill was almost $1900.00... Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Tank Vent problem
>One nit. I would call the possible result "fuel starvation" rather than >engine failure. Why did you cap the original tank vents? Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO PART
III George Thanks for the reply. I am not worried about an accidental inverted spin. But, I am trying to practice for the future when I have to fly one in and IAC contest. I know, I probably will not be flying an RV at the level that requires an inverted spin, but the best way to get good at something is to practice. Your point is well taken, maybe due to the design the RV will not even do an inverted spin. I'll let you know. Bob >Number one, acro in a RV is not F-16, Pitts or F-14 >acro. I think some folks have watched top gun too >much (the inverted spin scene where "Goose" dies). > >RV's are stable and WANT to fly right side up. >I am not going to explain basic aerodynamics, >but due to wing dihedral, design (NACA 23013.5) and >pitch, yaw, roll controls and stability with proper CG, >RV's are stable in any attitude. RV's also resist spinning >unless intentionally spun. > >Spins: RV's don't like to even spin right side up, >much less inverted. You have to hold controls >aggressively and keep and keep them there to the >control stops. Once you release or neutralize the >controls it will stop spinning in most cases. Some RV's >(power on, to the left, fully developed +3 turn stall) >might need a touch of anti-spin rudder. By all means be >familiar will basic stall / spin recovery. > >INVERTED SPIN: I have not tried it in a RV >and doubt you can even do it intentionally, due to lack >of elevator authority and the basic design of the plane. >Again dihedral, airfoil design and CG (which is still the >same inverter or right side up) makes the plane want to >recover naturally in a nose down attitude right side up. >The dihedral will naturally make the plane roll upright. >Also to spin you need a yaw input or forces, ie rudder. >Leave the rudder alone (as I said before) for beginners >in rolls and loops. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: Phil Birkelbach <phil(at)petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: Tank Vent problem
Okay, I'll bite. The little plastic flapper with Pro-seal idea makes me nervous. I can see a small piece of plastic winding up somewhere in the fuel system. If proper precautions are taken it might work okay, but be sure that the solution is not worse than the problem. The holes in the caps are going to let water in too. You need to deal with that somehow. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB http://www.myrv7.com Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR wrote: > > Lister, > > I'd like to share with you a tank vent problem I had last weekend > (1/20/07). I flew a 30 minute IFR ride, in light/moderate snow, from > 44N to 7B6, landed, taxied to the hanger and parked the plane. As I > was leaving the hanger, I happened to note that the left main tank > area of the wing was deformed with notable inward scalloping. Opening > the tip tank cap, and allowing in some air, allowed the deformation to > be reduced. I capped the tank prior to all the air being replaced, and > then inserted some safety wire into the tip tank vent. This resulted > in a "whoosh" of air into the tank. The vent was noticeable blocked > with ice/snow The OAT at altitude was 11*F... > > Fortunately, the main tank deformation was not serious, and removing > the vacuum allowed the tank to return to its original shape. > > The plane specifics are: RV-6A Tip-up with Jon Johansson tip tanks. > The tip tank vent (located at the wing tip) is the ONLY vent for BOTH > tanks on each wing. I have 3/8" tubing between the main and tip tank. > The original Van's vent on the main tank has been capped. > > This situation could have resulted in an in-flight engine failure. > Fortunately, the right tank vent was clear (but it could just as > easily have been blocked since it saw the same flying conditions). > And, fortunately, it was a short trip.. > > THIS IS A SINGLE POINT FAILURE ISSUE WAITING FOR AN ACCIDENT! Van's > tank venting design is somewhat tolerant of in-flight blockage due to > the fact they are located near the cowl warm air exits. But, even > without the tips tank issue (with vents on the wing-tips) the same > vent blockage problem could happen to a standard tank configuration. > > In researching other certified IFR aircraft, I found that the tanks > are usually vented in multiple ways. In addition to the main tank > vents, Pipers and Cessna's have gas caps that will allow the air to go > in, but will not allow gas to exit. A multiple point failure would > have to happen to get a starved engine due to lack of tank venting. > > I am going to try modifying my tank caps to have the same feature. I > figure a #70 drill hole through the cap (both pieces) with a plastic > "flapper" over the hole on the inside surface (glued in place with > ProSeal) should do the trick (maybe even a larger hole).. > > Any comments? > > *Fred Stucklen* > *RV-6A N926RV 703 Hrs* > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing
As the President of a local EAA Chapter that has also hosted fly-ins, I am interested in knowing why the EAA was sued. On what grounds? Why do I want to know this? Because when Mr Don Corbitt comes to my fly-in, I am going to have figure out how to keep him from intentionally killing himself, so that my chapter and I do not get personally sued for his incompetence. What did the airshow do wrong? How could they have done it better? What are they being punished for? If our legal system can not answer that to the Great American Public, then all this lawsuit was about, was the legal transfer of funds from the EAA to the pilots family. The lawsuit is over, it has been in the papers etc. So I ask again, why is the critical information concerning this law suit still be held "TOP SECRET". Now I am being told to be patient. I have been waiting for almost 7 years!!! Do I have a fly-in this year or will I wait a few more years? For those who seem to be so impressed with our legal system and are feeling bad because the EAA actions killed Don Corbitt, then why don't you host an EAA fly-in, put yourself, your family and friends and your EAA chapter at great financial risk while not even knowing how to control or mitigate the risks (because the legal system won't tell you until you are sued). This lawsuit did not just punish the Arlington Fly-in, but it also punishes all other fly-ins, when they are canceled due to a lack of critical information on how to avoid a lawsuit when Mr Don Corbitt commits suicide at the fly-in. I am not taking sides on this lawsuit one way or the other. But, I am wise enough to try and learn from the mistakes of others. We will never know what mistake Mr Don Corbitt made, but we sure should be able to find out what mistakes the EAA made, and why the jury held the EAA liable for his death!! Now you know why this is such a bad thing! Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO
Date: Jan 22, 2007
I'm an old fighter pilot and former spin instructor in the T-37. Consequently, I have little fear of aerobatics and/or spins, erect or inverted. I do realize the RV is not a hard acro bird, and don't plan anything other than gentlemen's aerobatics. However, all my experience is (was) in jets and I've done very limited acro in a conventional powered airplane. My questions pertain to power management doing acro in an RV (or any conventionally powered airplane for that matter.) What does one do with engine power in a loop or split S? Any difference between fixed and constant speed props? Should I be concerned about shock cooling while doing acro? I'm really talking about planned power changes and not emergency power reduction because the nose is buried and the speed is approaching Vne. Can anyone recommend a book regarding conventional aerobatics? Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB San Antonio ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Bob, This seems like a fair set of questions to pose to the EAA, NWEAA, as appropriate. They should be attuned to 1) what deficiency on their part was alleged, 2) what they can do differently (besides never holding a fly-in again) and, 3) sage advice from their legal counsel. They should be willing to share this information and their thoughts, given that they are a service organization whose mission is to improve, expand and protect aviation in general, and experimental aviation specifically. Chuck Jensen -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 2:08 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing As the President of a local EAA Chapter that has also hosted fly-ins, I am interested in knowing why the EAA was sued. On what grounds? Why do I want to know this? Because when Mr Don Corbitt comes to my fly-in, I am going to have figure out how to keep him from intentionally killing himself, so that my chapter and I do not get personally sued for his incompetence. What did the airshow do wrong? How could they have done it better? What are they being punished for? If our legal system can not answer that to the Great American Public, then all this lawsuit was about, was the legal transfer of funds from the EAA to the pilots family. The lawsuit is over, it has been in the papers etc. So I ask again, why is the critical information concerning this law suit still be held "TOP SECRET". Now I am being told to be patient. I have been waiting for almost 7 years!!! Do I have a fly-in this year or will I wait a few more years? For those who seem to be so impressed with our legal system and are feeling bad because the EAA actions killed Don Corbitt, then why don't you host an EAA fly-in, put yourself, your family and friends and your EAA chapter at great financial risk while not even knowing how to control or mitigate the risks (because the legal system won't tell you until you are sued). This lawsuit did not just punish the Arlington Fly-in, but it also punishes all other fly-ins, when they are canceled due to a lack of critical information on how to avoid a lawsuit when Mr Don Corbitt commits suicide at the fly-in. I am not taking sides on this lawsuit one way or the other. But, I am wise enough to try and learn from the mistakes of others. We will never know what mistake Mr Don Corbitt made, but we sure should be able to find out what mistakes the EAA made, and why the jury held the EAA liable for his death!! Now you know why this is such a bad thing! Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 22, 2007
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote: > > This seems like a fair set of questions to pose to the EAA, NWEAA, as > appropriate. They should be attuned to 1) what deficiency on their part > was alleged, 2) what they can do differently (besides never holding a > fly-in again) and, 3) sage advice from their legal counsel. All of these are answered in the court documents. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=89563#89563 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, just say NO to inverted Spins! HOW TO
Date: Jan 22, 2007
mike goulian and geza szurovy have two books out that are what you are probably looking for. basic and advance aerobatics are the book names. t-37 spin training was cool! I can close my eyes now and still to the BOLD FACE. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> > > I'm an old fighter pilot and former spin instructor in the T-37. > Consequently, I have little fear of aerobatics and/or spins, erect or > inverted. I do realize the RV is not a hard acro bird, and don't plan > anything other than gentlemen's aerobatics. However, all my > experience is (was) in jets and I've done very limited acro in a > conventional powered airplane. > > My questions pertain to power management doing acro in an RV (or any > conventionally powered airplane for that matter.) What does one do > with engine power in a loop or split S? Any difference between fixed > and constant speed props? Should I be concerned about shock cooling > while doing acro? I'm really talking about planned power changes and > not emergency power reduction because the nose is buried and the > speed is approaching Vne. > > Can anyone recommend a book regarding conventional aerobatics? > > Charlie Brame > RV-6A N11CB > San Antonio > > > >
mike goulian and geza szurovy have two books out that are what you are probably looking for.

basic and advance aerobatics are the book names.

t-37 spin training was cool! I can close my eyes now and still to the BOLD FACE.

> --> RV-List message posted by: Charles Brame
>
> I'm an old fighter pilot and former spin instructor in the T-37.
> Consequently, I have little fear of aerobatics and/or spins, erect or
> inverted. I do realize the RV is not a hard acro bird, and don't plan
> anything other than gentlemen's aerobatics. However, all my
> experience is (was) in jets and I've done very limited acro in a
> conventional powered airplane.
>
> My questions pertain to power management doing acro in an RV (or any
> conventionally powered airplane for that matter.) What does one do
> with engine power in a loop or split S? Any difference between fixed
> and constant speed props? Should I be concerned abo ut sho http:

________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Phil Sisson" <sisson(at)consolidated.net>
Subject: Tank Vent problem
Date: Jan 22, 2007
Just keep in mind that tank vents should not inhibit the ex-hale requirements of the air volume in the tank. My vents are close to static (perpendicular to longitudinal axis), No real need to point them forward as they very often are because they need to breath out when climbing. (Pitt's point them backwards to keep bugs and debris from entering the vent system). If tanks are, let's say half full of fuel and you are climbing, there is a lot of air expansion taking place and the vents are exhaling a lot of air. Just things to keep in mind. The tanks need to breathe in when coming down and they need to breathe out when climbing. The fuller the tank will mean less air has to escape but as fuel is used up the air volume Increases and so the greater need for a good vent. My situation is like most RV's. Low wing, pumped fuel. Gravity flow systems will need its own study. Just my own ideas. Phil in Illinois _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:47 AM Subject: RV-List: Tank Vent problem Lister, I'd like to share with you a tank vent problem I had last weekend (1/20/07). I flew a 30 minute IFR ride, in light/moderate snow, from 44N to 7B6, landed, taxied to the hanger and parked the plane. As I was leaving the hanger, I happened to note that the left main tank area of the wing was deformed with notable inward scalloping.. Opening the tip tank cap, and allowing in some air, allowed the deformation to be reduced. I capped the tank prior to all the air being replaced, and then inserted some safety wire into the tip tank vent. This resulted in a "whoosh" of air into the tank. The vent was noticeable blocked with ice/snow. The OAT at altitude was 11*F... Fortunately, the main tank deformation was not serious, and removing the vacuum allowed the tank to return to its original shape. The plane specifics are: RV-6A Tip-up with Jon Johansson tip tanks. The tip tank vent (located at the wing tip) is the ONLY vent for BOTH tanks on each wing. I have 3/8" tubing between the main and tip tank. The original Van's vent on the main tank has been capped. This situation could have resulted in an in-flight engine failure. Fortunately, the right tank vent was clear (but it could just as easily have been blocked since it saw the same flying conditions). And, fortunately, it was a short trip... THIS IS A SINGLE POINT FAILURE ISSUE WAITING FOR AN ACCIDENT! Van's tank venting design is somewhat tolerant of in-flight blockage due to the fact they are located near the cowl warm air exits. But, even without the tips tank issue (with vents on the wing-tips) the same vent blockage problem could happen to a standard tank configuration. In researching other certified IFR aircraft, I found that the tanks are usually vented in multiple ways. In addition to the main tank vents, Pipers and Cessna's have gas caps that will allow the air to go in, but will not allow gas to exit. A multiple point failure would have to happen to get a starved engine due to lack of tank venting. I am going to try modifying my tank caps to have the same feature. I figure a #70 drill hole through the cap (both pieces) with a plastic "flapper" over the hole on the inside surface (glued in place with ProSeal) should do the trick (maybe even a larger hole)... Any comments? Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 Hrs ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
Subject: Tank Vent problem
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Fred, I built an Europa several years back and we also had a vent that could be blocked with a bug (or mud dobber or-)or--- So the company had the vent line drilled in the rear of the fitting with a .070 drill. this way if the main vent got plugged, the rear facing drilled hole would allow the tank to work with out stopping fuel. We had a single tank inside the fuselage and it was important to keep it functioning. I am going to back drill the fittings on my "9-A" so that should not happen to me. Jim Nelson RV9-A FWF ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 22, 2007
From: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing
As a long time member & officer of a local EAA Chapter I think you have raised a very question. I don't have the answer but would be interested in the results. We, the EAA Chapter, hosted the start of the Copperstate Race for several years. Aircraft Spruce not longer sponsors it and we understand that it was the insurance companies & lawyers that convinced Jim that his "exposure" was too great. The bean counters & bottom feeders have struck once again. Makes me wonder about the Young Eagles flight in the same area of Washington that killed the pilot & two Y.E.'s is also headed for court. KABONG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob" <panamared5(at)brier.net> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:08 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Now you know why this is such a bad thing >> As the President of a local EAA Chapter that has also hosted fly-ins, I >> am > interested in knowing why the EAA was sued. On what grounds? Why do I > want to know this? Because when Mr Don Corbitt comes to my fly-in, I am > going to have figure out how to keep him from intentionally killing > himself, so that my chapter and I do not get personally sued for his > incompetence. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel shut off. Fuel is collecting in the bottom of the FAB (AFP fuel injection, vertical induction on an Aerosport IO-320). Talking to Don at AFP its normal to h ave a little fuel dribble back down the intake pipes as the injector line s get heated up after shutdown - only place for the fuel to go is the cyl inder head and down the intake tubes. Any of you guys out there running the AFP setup on an IO-320 ? Have you h ad similar experiences ? Did you fit a drain tube to the bottom of the FA B to dump the excess overboard ? I see some (Dan C) fitting a "sniffle va lve" on the bottom of the IO-360, doesn't seem to be an option on the IO- 320. g ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
Date: Jan 22, 2007
Do you have a purge valve? If so, you should be shutting down with the purge valve, NOT the mixture. AFP systems don't cut off fuel flow completely when you pull the mixture (by design). Shut down with the purge valve and there is no way any significant amount of fuel can continue to flow through to the cyls if it's working properly. If you're shutting down with the purge valve and you're still seeing flow, then question/test the purge valve. New airplane, new tanks...crud could have gotten up in there. Unlikely but possible. Sniffle valve...only used on horizontal induction sumps afaik. On your vertical setup you shouldn't really need it. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (1182 hours) www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: [SoCAL-RVlist] Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB >I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to smell >fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a 180 and get >straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel shut off. > > Fuel is collecting in the bottom of the FAB (AFP fuel injection, vertical > induction on an Aerosport IO-320). Talking to Don at AFP its normal to > have a little fuel dribble back down the intake pipes as the injector > lines get heated up after shutdown - only place for the fuel to go is the > cylinder head and down the intake tubes. > > Any of you guys out there running the AFP setup on an IO-320 ? Have you > had similar experiences ? Did you fit a drain tube to the bottom of the > FAB to dump the excess overboard ? I see some (Dan C) fitting a "sniffle > valve" on the bottom of the IO-360, doesn't seem to be an option on the > IO-320. > > g > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/ > > <*> Your email settings: > Individual Email | Traditional > > <*> To change settings online go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/join > (Yahoo! ID required) > > <*> To change settings via email: > mailto:SoCAL-RVlist-digest(at)yahoogroups.com > mailto:SoCAL-RVlist-fullfeatured(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > SoCAL-RVlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com > > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neil-Fly" <neil459(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Prop Bolts
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Listers I=92m having great difficulty in locating a source for a set of prop bolts. I=92m fitting a replacement second hand Colin Walker wooden prop which has a boss that=92s thinner than the original and used the standard bolts supplied by Vans. Can anyone direst me to a source/supplier. I=92ve tried Spruce and Wicks without luck. I=92ve also tried Colin Walker but can=92t locate him, would anyone have his contact details. I need bolts with an overall length of 7 =BE=94 may be someone has a set to sell. Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Bolts
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Neil Not quite sure what you mean. Vans states that the thickness of a wooden prop should be 4 3/8" and to use spacers to make up the difference if your prop is thinner (DWG C4). This ensures that the distance between the spinner support plates is correct for the spinner profile. They sell 1/8" spacers ready cut and drilled. I'm using a Chris Lodge wooden prop which is only 4" thick so am using 3 spacers between the prop and the front spinner plate. Doing this the prop bolts are the correct length and the spinner fits. Hope this helps best regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Neil-Fly To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:12 AM Subject: RV-List: Prop Bolts Listers I'm having great difficulty in locating a source for a set of prop bolts. I'm fitting a replacement second hand Colin Walker wooden prop which has a boss that's thinner than the original and used the standard bolts supplied by Vans. Can anyone direst me to a source/supplier. I've tried Spruce and Wicks without luck. I've also tried Colin Walker but can't locate him, would anyone have his contact details. I need bolts with an overall length of 7 =BE" may be someone has a set to sell. Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Brian Alley <n320wt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Bolts
Neil, Check with Saber Manufacturing, same people that make prop extensions. http://www.geocities.com/sabermfg/index.html BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT) CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES 101 Caroline Circle Hurricane, WV 25526 www.carbonfibercomposites.net 304-562-6800 home 304-395-4932 cell How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tank Vent problem
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com>
Done properly, there is little chance that the plastic flapper idea on the gas can would result in something else ending up in the fuel system. Even if it did fall off, there is little chance that it would make it past the strainers in both the tip tank pickup or the main tank pickup. And the hole would be to small (and restricted by the flapper) to allow water in. An examination of the Piper gas caps, and their lack of problems might make you feel better about this idea.... Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 Hrs Okay, I'll bite. The little plastic flapper with Pro-seal idea makes me nervous. I can see a small piece of plastic winding up somewhere in the fuel system. If proper precautions are taken it might work okay, but be sure that the solution is not worse than the problem. The holes in the caps are going to let water in too. You need to deal with that somehow. Godspeed, Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas RV-7 N727WB http://www.myrv7.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re:Tank Vent problem
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com>
Good points. Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 703 hrs Just keep in mind that tank vents should not inhibit the ex-hale requirements of the air volume in the tank. My vents are close to static (perpendicular to longitudinal axis), No real need to point them forward as they very often are because they need to breath out when climbing. (Pitt's point them backwards to keep bugs and debris from entering the vent system). If tanks are, let's say half full of fuel and you are climbing, there is a lot of air expansion taking place and the vents are exhaling a lot of air. Just things to keep in mind. The tanks need to breathe in when coming down and they need to breathe out when climbing. The fuller the tank will mean less air has to escape but as fuel is used up the air volume Increases and so the greater need for a good vent. My situation is like most RV's. Low wing, pumped fuel. Gravity flow systems will need its own study. Just my own ideas. Phil in Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Porter" <december29(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Prop Bolts
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Neil, When it comes to prop bolts and extensions, Saber IS the place! He designed an extension for my -8 (aerobatic prop with counterweights so van's spinner doesn't fit) that is an absolute work of art. Don't have names in front of me, but great operation. He will give you information on how to do it the right way. John #80002 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Aerobatics, Power Management
Alan Cassidy wrote a good book called "Better Aerobatics". He discusses power management in great detail. Basically he states maintain max power at all times (I think he is talking mainly about competition aerobatics where energy management is much more critical than in fun aerobatics where if you run out of energy, take a break and get it back, not suppose to do that in competition). In an purpose designed aerobatic machine this makes sense. But I find in the RV during a downline, if I use full power it is a very short downline, hard to get one vertical roll, let alone more on the vertical downline. That RV can really accelerate going downhill. To make the RV a better aerobatic machine, it needs more drag built in. If you have a constant speed prop it is not too much of a problem as the prop will act somewhat as a brake, but with a fixed pitch prop, I reduce power whenever in a vertical downline. As for loops, on the backside I sometimes reduce power, or will maintain max power if the next maneuver requires a lot of energy, i.e. a hammerhead. For a Split S enter at or below entry speed (I use 100 KTS), if you use full power, then use more G to keep the speed below Vne, if you retard the power, then use less G to complete the maneuver. Alan Cassidy discusses this strategy in his book. As far as shock cooling and all that stuff. My TBO is 2000 hours non aerobatic, or 1200 hours aerobatic. Aerobatics are hard on the engine. Dick Rihn (father of: Dan Rihn, designer of the Aerobatic One Design) told me once that snap rolls and tailslides are real hard on the crankshaft. I believe him, and I do not routinely do either. I don't mean to start a controversy about this, but he is a much more experience aerobatic pilot that I and I would be foolish not to heed his comments. People sometimes tell me that there is no such thing as light IFR. I do not do IFR, but I sometimes think there is no such thing as light aerobatics (gentleman aerobatics). They tell me they will never do a 6G maneuver and I answer, would you do a 6G pullout to avoid going Vne, or impacting the earth? A well planned and executed aerobatic maneuver is so easy to do if done right, if done wrong it is the most gut wrenching difficult thing you can imagine. An example, for a slow roll (used in many aerobatic maneuvers, cuban, immelman etc.) you use top rudder when in a 90 degree roll attitude. But, if you get confused on what will be the top rudder (like in a cuban 8) and you use bottom rudder by mistake, then this gentleman maneuver becomes aishow exciting. Of course Charlie in your case, I am preaching to the choir. BTW, my sister was a former T-37 instructor pilot. Bob >I'm an old fighter pilot and former spin instructor in the T-37. >Consequently, I have little fear of aerobatics and/or spins, erect or >inverted. I do realize the RV is not a hard acro bird, and don't plan >anything other than gentlemen's aerobatics. However, all my >experience is (was) in jets and I've done very limited acro in a >conventional powered airplane. > >My questions pertain to power management doing acro in an RV (or any >conventionally powered airplane for that matter.) What does one do >with engine power in a loop or split S? Any difference between fixed >and constant speed props? Should I be concerned about shock cooling >while doing acro? I'm really talking about planned power changes and >not emergency power reduction because the nose is buried and the >speed is approaching Vne. > >Can anyone recommend a book regarding conventional aerobatics? > >Charlie Brame >RV-6A N11CB >San Antonio ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Dave B <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
So why did you smell fuel on climb out? I can't see why shutdown would have anything to do with fumes in the cockpit when flying. Dave Gerry Filby wrote: > I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to > smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a > 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel > shut off. > > Fuel is collecting in the bottom of the FAB (AFP fuel injection, > vertical induction on an Aerosport IO-320). Talking to Don at AFP its > normal to have a little fuel dribble back down the intake pipes as the > injector lines get heated up after shutdown - only place for the fuel > to go is the cylinder head and down the intake tubes. > > Any of you guys out there running the AFP setup on an IO-320 ? Have > you had similar experiences ? Did you fit a drain tube to the bottom > of the FAB to dump the excess overboard ? I see some (Dan C) fitting > a "sniffle valve" on the bottom of the IO-360, doesn't seem to be an > option on the IO-320. > > g > > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
This is still an open question - my original supposition was that the fue l that was collecting after shutdown was leaking out of the drain hole in the bottom of the FAB and soaking into the bottom of the cowling. During climbout the exhausts would warm up the cowling and the fuel evaporates. Others have commented that this is not likely the source of the odor and have relayed experiences when the tanks are overfull and the sun warms t hem up - fuel gets into the vent line which can lead to odor in the cabin . So my course of action is going to be: - run tube to dump the gas collecting in the FAB overboard so it doesn't stay inside the cowling - don't overfill the tanks so there's some expansion space. I'll report back on how things develop. g >-----Original Message----- >From: Dave B [mailto:dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net] >Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 08:14 AM >To: rv-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB > > >So why did you smell fuel on climb out? I can't see why shutdown would >have anything to do with fumes in the cockpit when flying. > >Dave > >Gerry Filby wrote: >> I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to >> smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a >> 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel >> shut off. >> >> Fuel is collecting in the bottom of the FAB (AFP fuel injection, >> vertical induction on an Aerosport IO-320). Talking to Don at AFP its >> normal to have a little fuel dribble back down the intake pipes as the >> injector lines get heated up after shutdown - only place for the fuel >> to go is the cylinder head and down the intake tubes. >> >> Any of you guys out there running the AFP setup on an IO-320 ? Have >> you had similar experiences ? Did you fit a drain tube to the bottom >> of the FAB to dump the excess overboard ? I see some (Dan C) fitting >> a "sniffle valve" on the bottom of the IO-360, doesn't seem to be an >> option on the IO-320. >> >> g >> >> >> * >> >> >> * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
Date: Jan 23, 2007
I have seen minor weeps around the fuel selector valve. This causes a noticeable smell in the cockpit. The quantity of fuel is very small, not even a drop or two, but it does catch your attention. Is there any chance that your cockpit fuel smell is caused by a leak inside the cockpit, rather than something in front of the firewall? KB > >Gerry Filby wrote: >> I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to >> smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a >> 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel >> shut off. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
=EF=BB Absolutely possible (although I have already searched around th e fuel selector and high pressure pump). Since I've reached the 10 hour m ark on the engine and airframe I'm going to take the opportunity this wee kend to repeat my condition inspection and make sure that nothing has rat tled loose. g -----Original Message----- From: Kyle Boatright [mailto:kboatright1(at)comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 09:01 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB I have seen minor weeps around the fuel selector valve. This causes a not iceable smell in the cockpit. The quantity of fuel is very small, not eve n a drop or two, but it does catch your attention. Is there any chance that your cockpit fuel smell is caused by a leak insi de the cockpit, rather than something in front of the firewall? KB > >Gerry Filby wrote: >> I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to >> smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a >> 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel >> shut off. ========================_ ===== ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
Date: Jan 23, 2007
Guys, what do we use to seal all the fittings in the RV from the pitot tube, fuel lines, brake line, etc? Thanks. Jim Fogarty ----- Original Message ----- From: Kyle Boatright To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:01 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB I have seen minor weeps around the fuel selector valve. This causes a noticeable smell in the cockpit. The quantity of fuel is very small, not even a drop or two, but it does catch your attention. Is there any chance that your cockpit fuel smell is caused by a leak inside the cockpit, rather than something in front of the firewall? KB > >Gerry Filby wrote: >> I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I began to >> smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me to do a >> 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously fingering the fuel >> shut off. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- 1/23/2007 11:04 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: new improved full swiveling tailwheel
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
I apologize to those who consider this type of email to be spam. However, many of you with heavier RVs or Rockets will benefit immensely from this new improved full swiveling tailwheel. I won't bore you with details, but if you're not happy with the sloppy response from your stock Van's type tailwheel, if you've ever snagged it on uneven pavement (crunch!), or if you just want a tailwheel that can actually accommodate a tailwheel pant.... this is for you. http://www.vincesrocket.com/products.htm Vince Frazier http://vincesrocket.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 23, 2007
From: Dave B <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
Also check the tanks themselves for seepage as that smell will get into the cockpit too. Take a close look at the bottom of the wings towards the root for blue stains. Dave Gerry Filby wrote: > > Absolutely possible (although I have already searched around the fuel > selector and high pressure pump). Since I've reached the 10 hour mark > on the engine and airframe I'm going to take the opportunity this > weekend to repeat my condition inspection and make sure that nothing > has rattled loose. > > g > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Kyle Boatright [mailto:kboatright1(at)comcast.net] > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2007 09:01 AM > *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: RV-List: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB > > I have seen minor weeps around the fuel selector valve. This > causes a noticeable smell in the cockpit. The quantity of fuel is > very small, not even a drop or two, but it does catch your attention. > > Is there any chance that your cockpit fuel smell is caused by a > leak inside the cockpit, rather than something in front of the > firewall? > > KB > > > > > >Gerry Filby wrote: > >> I was busy climbing out of the pattern this morning when I > began to > >> smell fuel inside the cabin. First glitch that's caused me > to do a > >> 180 and get straight back on the ground, nervously > fingering the fuel > >> shut off. > > > > * > > get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List > http://forums.matronics.com > > * > > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Subject: Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB - FOUND
IT ! Well I think I've found the source of the odor. There's an obvious fuel stain running aft from the right tank drain fitting on the underside of t he cabin. It runs all the way back to the tooling hole that the tri-gear folks use to locate their brake lines. I don't have anything on the floor in the cabin yet, so I'll bet that's where the gas/odor was coming in. Someone mentioned that this is a possibility if you fill the tanks to the top. I guess I'll have to be a little more careful when I go to the pump next time. Well that's a load off .... a million thanks to everyone who contributed to my nervous debugging :-) g -----Original Message----- From: mark936(at)webtv.net [mailto:mark936(at)webtv.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 09:10 PM Subject: Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB On the horizontals Some people drill a small hole in the bottom of the FAB so that fuel or water can run out the bottom and NOT liquid lock the engine. i.e. John Harmon was up at a Northern CA or Oregon fly in and after a hard rain overnight his plane wouldn't start or crank. He drilled a small hole and tons of water ran out. IIRC i.e. Or, if the mixture shut off isn't 100 percent tight, fuel can run if there during boost and liquid lock an engine unless there is a drain hole. Also, maybe a gasolator leak on the firewall? FWIW __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (13) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch form at to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity 4 New Members 3 New Photos Visit Your Group Parks and recreation softwareSouthern californiaAviation lawyerAviation a ttorney New business? Get new customers. List your web site in Yahoo! Search. Y! GeoCities Be Interactive Create a conver- sation with blogs. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neil-Fly" <neil459(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Bolts
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Peter Thanks for your input. As it happens I was using a Chris Lodge prop with the spacers exactly as you describe. Unfortunately I busted the prop landing; you might remember the incidence when the P2 stick came out of its socket at flare. Chris is no longer manufacturing props so I can=92t obtain a direct replacement. The Colin Walker prop I have is a beauty specifically for a 150HP Lycoming 320 but its boss is just over 3 =BE=94 thick. This means I=92d need 5 spacers plus the crush plate. I=92ve spoken to Vans and my inspector and neither are happy with this setup. A crush plate 1 1/8=94 thick would probably do the trick but prop bolts of the correct length seemed the answer. What do other folk think? Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT From: "Peter Mather" Subject: Re: Prop Bolts Neil Not quite sure what you mean. Vans states that the thickness of a wooden prop should be 4 3/8" and to use spacers to make up the difference if your prop is thinner (DWG C4). This ensures that the distance between the spinner support plates is correct for the spinner profile. They sell 1/8" spacers ready cut and drilled. I'm using a Chris Lodge wooden prop which is only 4" thick so am using 3 spacers between the prop and the front spinner plate. Doing this the prop bolts are the correct length and the spinner fits. Hope this helps best regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Neil-Fly To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:12 AM Subject: RV-List: Prop Bolts Listers I'm having great difficulty in locating a source for a set of prop bolts. I'm fitting a replacement second hand Colin Walker wooden prop which has a boss that's thinner than the original and used the standard bolts supplied by Vans. Can anyone direst me to a source/supplier. I've tried Spruce and Wicks without luck. I've also tried Colin Walker but can't locate him, would anyone have his contact details. I need bolts with an overall length of 7 =BE" may be someone has a set to sell. Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 24, 2007
From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
I sometimes have this problem of smelling fuel in the cockpit, but I concluded it was from expansion of the fuel in the tanks and fuel being forced out of the fuel vents. My theory is that at high AOA the fuel vapor flows toward the cockpit air vents and there you have it. I know during acro maneuvers I lose some fuel through the vents. I use Lemon Pledge to clean my airframe and aviation fuel removes it. This gives an interesting pattern on wing and fuselage. Anyway just my theroy. Bob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Linebaugh" <jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: new improved full swiveling tailwheel
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Vince, this is not spam builders and flyers should be aware of new products available to them. I have been very pleased with your new tailwheel. We operate out of an ex-navy base that has deep tie-down stanchions every 25 feet or so. We used to bottom out the tailwheel going over them (crunch..scrape..ouch!)it was very difficult not to hit them. Vinces tailwheel fixed the problem by increasing clearance. Coupled with Wayne Haddaths steering link, steering is very positive and responsive without being twitchy. I highly recommend both! Jeff Linebaugh jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net F1 Rocket #33 N240KT Memphis, TN. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com>
Subject: Re: Prop Bolts
Date: Jan 24, 2007
Neil What about two crush plates one either side of the spinner front plate. The most you would then need is one extra spacer. Its a pity Chris isn't producing any more. I think I got his last prop before he ran out of wood Best Regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Neil-Fly To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:13 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Bolts Peter Thanks for your input. As it happens I was using a Chris Lodge prop with the spacers exactly as you describe. Unfortunately I busted the prop landing; you might remember the incidence when the P2 stick came out of its socket at flare. Chris is no longer manufacturing props so I can't obtain a direct replacement. The Colin Walker prop I have is a beauty specifically for a 150HP Lycoming 320 but its boss is just over 3 =BE" thick. This means I'd need 5 spacers plus the crush plate. I've spoken to Vans and my inspector and neither are happy with this setup. A crush plate 1 1/8" thick would probably do the trick but prop bolts of the correct length seemed the answer. What do other folk think? Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT From: "Peter Mather" Subject: Re: Prop Bolts Neil Not quite sure what you mean. Vans states that the thickness of a wooden prop should be 4 3/8" and to use spacers to make up the difference if your prop is thinner (DWG C4). This ensures that the distance between the spinner support plates is correct for the spinner profile. They sell 1/8" spacers ready cut and drilled. I'm using a Chris Lodge wooden prop which is only 4" thick so am using 3 spacers between the prop and the front spinner plate. Doing this the prop bolts are the correct length and the spinner fits. Hope this helps best regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Neil-Fly To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 7:12 AM Subject: RV-List: Prop Bolts Listers I'm having great difficulty in locating a source for a set of prop bolts. I'm fitting a replacement second hand Colin Walker wooden prop which has a boss that's thinner than the original and used the standard bolts supplied by Vans. Can anyone direst me to a source/supplier. I've tried Spruce and Wicks without luck. I've also tried Colin Walker but can't locate him, would anyone have his contact details. I need bolts with an overall length of 7 =BE" may be someone has a set to sell. Neil Henderson RV9A G-CCZT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Unison Lasar Connectors
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Does anyone have the manufacturer part number for the Low Voltage Connectors used with the Lasar Ignition system? Looking for connectors, contacts, and removal tools. I know the connector is made by AMP but cannot find the SERIES of connectors that it belongs to to order parts. Gary A. Sobek "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,976 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA _________________________________________________________________ Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB
Date: Jan 24, 2007
I smelled fuel in the cockpit when first getting into the plane. It turned out to be a very slow leak at the wing root. It was too slow of a leak at first to be seen on the hangar floor. I kept looking inside the fuselage for the source but could not find it. I tightened the fitting in the wing root which was wet to the touch and no more smells. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel collecting in bottom of FAB > I sometimes have this problem of smelling fuel in the cockpit, but I > concluded it was from expansion of the fuel in the tanks and fuel being > forced out of the fuel vents. My theory is that at high AOA the fuel > vapor flows toward the cockpit air vents and there you have it. > > I know during acro maneuvers I lose some fuel through the vents. I use > Lemon Pledge to clean my airframe and aviation fuel removes it. This > gives an interesting pattern on wing and fuselage. > > Anyway just my theroy. > > Bob > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Dan <dan(at)rdan.com>
Subject: Re: new improved full swiveling tailwheel
How about a link to Wayne Haddaths steering link Thanks, Dan -8 Jeff Linebaugh wrote: Vince, this is not spam builders and flyers should be aware of new products available to them. I have been very pleased with your new tailwheel. We operate out of an ex-navy base that has deep tie-down stanchions every 25 feet or so. We used to bottom out the tailwheel going over them (crunch..scrape..ouch!)it was very difficult not to hit them. Vinces tailwheel fixed the problem by increasing clearance. Coupled with Wayne Haddaths steering link, steering is very positive and responsive without being twitchy. I highly recommend both! Jeff Linebaugh jefflinebaugh(at)earthlink.net F1 Rocket #33 N240KT Memphis, TN. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or solutions. Daniel Snow RV-9A, Cowl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl
Daniel - I think the issue you are running into is the same as outlined here. http://gikoncnsdr.blogspot.com/2006/06/rv-4-cowls.html The -9A cowl assumes a carbd O-320. I built a -9A and there was very little room below the airbox. It sounds as though you have an o-360 carb. which I think (not sure) is bigger. Perhaps Superior would swap it. Alternatively, there must be a 7A cowl varient that would fit since they permit the bigger engines. Not what you want to hear perhaps, so I would chase down the carb details. Goodluck, Steve. On 25/01/07, Snow, Daniel A. wrote: > > > After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back > plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the > Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between > the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even > take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between > the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally > supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers > to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". > > Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas > to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a > shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more > than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending > it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions or solutions. > > Daniel Snow > RV-9A, Cowl > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Subject: Re: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower
Cowl Had this same issue with my IO-320 with AFP fuel injection controller - t he 320 cowl isn't big enough. I had to use the 360 cowl. I guess you don' t have the option of swapping it out with Vans now that you've trimmed it (try it on with them ?). You could always break out the fiberglass suppl ies and re-fabricate the lower portion ... g -----Original Message----- From: Steve Sampson [mailto:ssamps(at)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 09:02 AM Subject: Re: RV-List: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With L ower Cowl Daniel - I think the issue you are running into is the same as outlined h ere. http://gikoncnsdr.blogspot.com/2006/06/rv-4-cowls.html The -9A cowl assumes a carbd O-320. I built a -9A and there was very litt le room below the airbox. It sounds as though you have an o-360 carb. whi ch I think (not sure) is bigger. Perhaps Superior would swap it. Alternat ively, there must be a 7A cowl varient that would fit since they permit t he bigger engines. Not what you want to hear perhaps, so I would chase do wn the carb details. Goodluck, Steve. On 25/01/07, Snow, Daniel A. wrote:--> RV-List m essage posted by: "Snow, Daniel A." After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. ========================_ ===== ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower
Cowl
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
I was able to get Superior on the phone this morning and confirm that there is indeed an interference problem between the MA-4-5 carburetor and Van's cowls. They're accepting full responsibility and will be shipping me a new Precision carb that is 1-1/2" shorter than the MA-4-5. That should make the first engine run a little more interesting. Daniel Snow -----Original Message----- From: Snow, Daniel A. Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. Thanks in advance for any suggestions or solutions. Daniel Snow RV-9A, Cowl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com>
Subject: Audio Panel Deals
Date: Jan 25, 2007
I just got off the phone with John Stark: 706-321-1008. He has a few (4?) GMA340 audio panels, "overhauled" from Garmin, for $975. He explained that "overhauled" is actually new with a one year warranty instead of two year. No prewire required. I got one, no commission here, just passing on a good price. Dave Saylor AirCrafters LLC 140 Aviation Way Watsonville, CA 831-722-9141 831-750-0284 CL www.AirCraftersLLC.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com>
Subject: Re: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Daniel I've just been through this with my IO-320 in an RV9A. As Steve says the default lower cowl for a RV9A is for a carburetted O-320. For anything bigger, like my IO-320 you need a O-360 lower cowl. This is identical except that the scoop is bigger. In my case I had told Vans I had the injected engine so they had shipped the wrong cowl. The solution was to cut out the O-320 scoop and glass in an O-360 one. The part number for this is FAB-6-SCOOP-360-1 ($160). This gives the clearance for the fuel injector. The remainder of the lower cowl is the same for all models of 320 and 360 across the complete RV6, 7 and 9 range. The process of removing the 320 scoop and fitting the 360 one was not too difficult. Let me know if you want a blow by blow description Hope this helps Best Regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Sampson To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:02 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl Daniel - I think the issue you are running into is the same as outlined here. http://gikoncnsdr.blogspot.com/2006/06/rv-4-cowls.html The -9A cowl assumes a carbd O-320. I built a -9A and there was very little room below the airbox. It sounds as though you have an o-360 carb. which I think (not sure) is bigger. Perhaps Superior would swap it. Alternatively, there must be a 7A cowl varient that would fit since they permit the bigger engines. Not what you want to hear perhaps, so I would chase down the carb details. Goodluck, Steve. On 25/01/07, Snow, Daniel A. wrote: Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com> After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Brian Alley <n320wt(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower
Cowl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Superior Investment Cast Cylinders Discontiued...?
I just spoke to a Superior Dealer and was told Superior dropped the wax mold Investment Cast Series Cylinders. Anyone that can confirm this info out there? Darrell Reiley RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved N469RV Reserved CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Superior Investment Cast Cylinders Discontiued...?
Yes, that is what I was told when I asked about it. I had them on my XP-0360 and they were part of the Recall, they replaced them with standard cast cylinders and said they would credit me back the differance. Still waiting to see if that happens. Sure hope so. Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm Darrell Reiley wrote: > >I just spoke to a Superior Dealer and was told >Superior dropped the wax mold Investment Cast Series >Cylinders. Anyone that can confirm this info out >there? > > > Darrell Reiley > RV7A QB Slider "Reiley Rocket" > N622DR Reserved > N469RV Reserved > > CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com > > > > > >Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. >Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 25, 2007
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net>
Subject: Phase I flight area
How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. -- Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 25, 2007
Usually, that's a negotiated topic between you and your DAR. It depends on the cruising speed of your airplane. With our Glasairs we normally want at least 50 miles or we'll be making turns every 5 minutes. 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 Bobby Hester Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. -- Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With
Lower Cowl Daniel - now I am confused! From what you say you are building an RV9A with an O-320 and the Marvel is the standard unit as VANS would ship only you got it from Superior. So why does that not work since it does work for VANS? I thought I had understood this! Thanks, Steve. On 25/01/07, Snow, Daniel A. wrote: > > > I was able to get Superior on the phone this morning and confirm that > there is indeed an interference problem between the MA-4-5 carburetor > and Van's cowls. They're accepting full responsibility and will be > shipping me a new Precision carb that is 1-1/2" shorter than the MA-4-5. > That should make the first engine run a little more interesting. > > Daniel Snow > > -----Original Message----- > From: Snow, Daniel A. > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:11 AM > To: 'rv-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl > > After trimming and fitting the lower cowl of my 9A to the spinner back > plate and fuselage, I've found that I have insufficient room for the > Vans air filter. The filter is about 2-3/8" high, and the space between > the cowl and carburetor is only 1-3/4". These dimensions don't even > take into consideration the thickness of the FAB or space needed between > the FAB and cowl. The carburetor appears to be Superior's normally > supplied Precision MA-4-5, but the Authorized Release Certificate refers > to the LYC 0-360 under "Eligibility". > > Has anyone experienced this problem, or does anyone have any good ideas > to work around this apparent problem? I don't think I want to go with a > shorter filter, as this would reduce the cross sectional area by more > than 50%. I also don't like the idea of removing the engine and sending > it back to Superior for refit of a different carburetor. > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions or solutions. > > Daniel Snow > RV-9A, Cowl > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
We were able to get a 100nm test area. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? > Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Calvert" <rv6(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Luckily, in Oklahoma we have a senator who is an RV8 pilot and he negotiated the whole state as the test area excluding specific controlled airspace. I used the same DAR and got the same thing. Jerry Calvert Ednond Ok N296JC RV6 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? > Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
I drew out an area on an old sectional and asked the DAR to set it as my phase 1 test area. I explained to him my reasoning for the area: 1) A 25 mile circle would put me over Atlanta/Hartsfield, and neither of us wanted that. 2) The area was familiar to me - I knew lots of alternate landing sites. 3) The area had a wide selection of nice paved runways. 4) The area was fairly lightly populated. He had no problem with my request. KB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? > Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower
Cowl
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
I think I saw yesterday that Precision Airmotive used to be Marvel. It looks like Superior originally supplied me with a Precision MA-4-5 and are going to replace it with a Precision MA-4-SPA which is 1-1/2" shorter. I don't know the model carb that you would normally get from Vans. Daniel From: "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl Daniel - now I am confused! From what you say you are building an RV9A with an O-320 and the Marvel is the standard unit as VANS would ship only you got it from Superior. So why does that not work since it does work for VANS? I thought I had understood this! Thanks, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
My DAR was new and wanted to go by the book which included the very small ~25 mile radius flight test area minus any Class B space. 25 miles East of me would include a lot of Class B airspace. I took out a sectional and picked up some key strategic airports NE, N, NW, W, SW and S from my airport to avoid the class B airspace East of me. The distance from the NE one to the SW one was probably over 100 NM apart. I then circled within my area where I wanted to do Acro & spins and another area where I wanted to set up a large triangle for my airspeed calibration runs. I also pointed out which airports had cheap fuel and the one that had the prop balancing shop & avionics shops. I also made sure he knew the farthest away one was chosen because it had a large grass strip which I was very familiar with. In the end, he consented. There's no way I would have been happy flying off those hours in any smaller area so I would recommend you try to get what you want. Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> > > I drew out an area on an old sectional and asked the DAR to set it as my > phase 1 test area. > > I explained to him my reasoning for the area: > > 1) A 25 mile circle would put me over Atlanta/Hartsfield, and neither of us > wanted that. > 2) The area was familiar to me - I knew lots of alternate landing sites. > 3) The area had a wide selection of nice paved runways. > 4) The area was fairly lightly populated. > > He had no problem with my request. > > KB > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bobby Hester" > To: "RV-List" > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 11:04 PM > Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > > > > > How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? > > Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. > > > > -- > > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > > Visit my RV7A website: > > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
My DAR was new and wanted to go by the book which included the very small ~25 mile radius flight test area minus any Class B space. 25 miles East of me would include a lot of Class B airspace. I took out a sectional and picked up some key strategic airports NE, N, NW, W, SW and S from my airport to avoid the class B airspace East of me. The distance from the NE one to the SW one was probably over 100 NM apart. I then circled within my area where I wanted to do Acro & spins and another area where I wanted to set up a large triangle for my airspeed calibration runs. I also pointed out which airports had cheap fuel and the one that had the prop balancing shop & avionics shops. I also made sure he knew the farthest away one was chosen because it had a large grass strip which I was very familiar with. In the end, he consented. There's no way I would have been happy flying off thos e hour s in any smaller area so I would recommend you try to get what you want.

Lucky

> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
>
> I drew out an area on an old sectional and asked the DAR to set it as my
> phase 1 test area.
>
> I explained to him my reasoning for the area:
>
> 1) A 25 mile circle would put me over Atlanta/Hartsfield, and neither of us
> wanted that.
> 2) The area was familiar to me - I knew lots of alternate landing sites.
> 3) The area had a wide selection of nice paved runways.
> 4) The area was fairly lightly populated.
>
> He had no problem with my request.
>
> KB
> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Bobby Hester"
> To: "RV -List" Search

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With
Lower Cowl Marvel Schebler was acquired by Bendix, who later sold the product line to Precision Airmotive. They handle both the carburetors and the Bendix fuel injection systems, with factory at/near Paine Field in Everett, WA. Snow, Daniel A. wrote: > > I think I saw yesterday that Precision Airmotive used to be Marvel. It > looks like Superior originally supplied me with a Precision MA-4-5 and > are going to replace it with a Precision MA-4-SPA which is 1-1/2" > shorter. I don't know the model carb that you would normally get from > Vans. > > Daniel > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Depends on the authority area of your DAR or the FSDO you are working with. In my case it was not a true circle of a certain size but more defined by the area the DAR had authority to deal within. I think I was more or less about 50nm but could not cross into Indiana from Henderson, KY but I could cross into some parts of southern Illinois. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:04 PM Subject: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > How big of an area have you guys gotten for your phase I flight area? > Advisory Circular says 25 statute mile radius from base airport. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: Engine Identification ?
Date: Jan 26, 2007
A friend is considering purchase of an RV which the builder says has a low-time Lycoming O-320-TC installed. I can't seem to find just exactly what an O-320-TC is. Can someone decipher the "TC" part and say what it describes about this model of the O-320? thanks for any help John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Burton" <d-burton(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Engine Identification ?
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Sounds like he is going to have to ask the owner what this means. It's not a standard designation that I'm aware of. General Format: C-D-M Where: C Letters indicating the engine's configuration: I Fuel injected O Opposed type (pancake-style) X X-type engine R Radial type engine G Engine is geared T Engine is turbocharged S Engine is supercharged L Engine is left-turning A Engine is designed for aerobatics (DRY SUMP) AE Engine is designed for aerobatics (WET SUMP) M Engine is designed for unmanned drone (UNCERTIFIED) H Engine is designed for helicopter installation V Engine is designed to have the crankshaft in the vertical, not horizontal, plane. Usually implies "H" D The engine's displacement in cubic inches. M Configuration. Includes power rating, nose section, accessory section, counterweight application, and magneto application. Dave Burton Flying 172/182 Building RV6 _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Fasching Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 8:56 AM Subject: RV-List: Engine Identification ? A friend is considering purchase of an RV which the builder says has a low-time Lycoming O-320-TC installed. I can't seem to find just exactly what an O-320-TC is. Can someone decipher the "TC" part and say what it describes about this model of the O-320? thanks for any help John ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
At 10:10 AM 1/26/2007, you wrote: >I had an 11-mile square. It was PLENTY of space. Anybody who doesn't >like turning shouldn't be building an RV... ;-) Got to disagree with that viewpoint Dan. 11 miles where I live doesn't get you to but one other airport. Save the 11 mile area for an ultralight but an RV needs more room. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
Subject: Phase I flight area
From: James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Lucky, I think that equates to a little over three minutes in one direction before turning. 3 miles / min rate of travel would make me a bit dizzy with all the turns. I hope to get about a 60 or so miles in an oval (long axis) where I live. At least that will allow me to do the testing that will be necessary for my "9-A". Got a BIG water to my west and Orlando and its garbage to the East. So I want to go North and South and stay clear of the busy areas. Jim Nelson RV9-A FWF ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2007
From: Ron Lee <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
At 01:30 PM 1/26/2007, you wrote: >To repeat a similar thread from another list ... > >Here's something to consider as you barrel away from your home base deep >into your flight testing box that's the size of California - how far away >from your home base do you want to be if things start going pear-shaped ? > That is why you do enough flying close to home to iron out issues. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <dwhite17(at)columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 26, 2007
True, you should go on a cross-country hike the first several trips, but it doesn't take 25 hours to know that everything is or isn't working as it should. Just like any flight, one must exercise appropriate judgment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Phase I flight area > > At 01:30 PM 1/26/2007, you wrote: >>To repeat a similar thread from another list ... >> >>Here's something to consider as you barrel away from your home base deep >>into your flight testing box that's the size of California - how far away >>from your home base do you want to be if things start going pear-shaped ? >> > > That is why you do enough flying close to home to iron out issues. > > Ron Lee > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 27, 2007
I got a 100 mile circle from my Cleveland FSDO and was glad I did! My RV6-A was doing 155 Knots at 75% squared...no wheel pants or gear leg fairings. With 11 miles I would be doing turns around a point!! Tom in Ohio ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Lee To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 2:52 PM Subject: Re: RV-List: Phase I flight area At 10:10 AM 1/26/2007, you wrote: I had an 11-mile square. It was PLENTY of space. Anybody who doesn't like turning shouldn't be building an RV... ;-) Got to disagree with that viewpoint Dan. 11 miles where I live doesn't get you to but one other airport. Save the 11 mile area for an ultralight but an RV needs more room. Ron Lee ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Phase I flight area
Date: Jan 27, 2007
FAA Order 8130.2 is the Order by which the FAA (DAR) are required to use for Airworthiness Certification. As of July 2006, 8130.2F Change 2 is current. http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgOrders.nsf/0/18b1d64bc8f90136862571d40072d8e1/$FILE/Order%208130F%20with%20chg%202%20incorporated.pdf (may need to copy paste the link to one line.) Section 152 on page 160 has the REQUIREMENTS for "FLIGHT TEST AREAS" of Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft. FROM THE ABOVE REVERENCED DOCUMENT: "a. General. Section 91.319(b) requires that an unproven aircraft be assigned to a flight test area. The assigned test area is prescribed in accordance with 91.305. The FAA, when requested, should assist applicants in selecting areas that comply with 91.305. The FAA is required to evaluate each application to determine that the flight test area does not exceed that which is reasonably required to accomplish the program. Actions pertaining to flight test areas must be coordinated with the nearest office of the Air Traffic Service." Since FAR 91.305 is referenced above, here is what it says: "Sec. 91.305 Flight test areas. No person may flight test an aircraft except over open water, or sparsely populated areas, having light air traffic." http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/45980FAAA23BA129852566CF0067BB5C?OpenDocument IMHO, if you have a WRITTEN "Flight Test Plan", include the detailed "Flight Test Plan" with your application for airworthiness, and it documents the need for a test flight area larger than you receive, you need to bring this info to the FAA's (or DAR's) attention. Gary A. Sobek RVdar.com "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell, 1,976 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA _________________________________________________________________ Valentines Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "REHughes" <hawk(at)digisys.net>
Subject: Mattituck Buying Experience
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Last fall I pulled the jugs off my Skyote's C-90-8F (stuck ring, and guides needed reamed) and I found one of the cam followers had a wedding-ring fracture at the socket end. I decided to have the engine overhauled by a good shop, but found that for virtually the same price, I could get a brand-new Mattituck TMX O-200 (although it is an Experimental engine, it is built up from the latest Continental certified parts). It came with all the recent factory production improvements (removable pushrod housings, new upper cylinder design) and beautiful new certified accessories including a light-weight starter, 60 Amp Alternator, Vacuum Pump drive assembly, new Precision Carb (complete with new airbox and filter) and new Slicks. The shipping crate had an all-plywood cover, and is better looking than most of my furniture. The price was 17K, with NO core required. I will slowly rebuild the C-90 as a learning process. The Mixture Arm configuration was set up for side-to-side actuation, and my particular installation made the fore-and-aft arm the preferred type. I emailed Mahlon to find out where I could buy the alternate arm, and a couple days later the desired hardware just showed up in my mail. I would recommend Mattituck for anyone considering a new engine. My experience with them could not have been better. Mahlon Russell should be considered a national treasure. Hawkeye Hughes Skyote, RV-3 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Rice" <rice737(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Mattituck Buying Experience
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Ditto ----- Original Message ----- From: REHughes<mailto:hawk(at)digisys.net> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:56 AM Subject: RV-List: Mattituck Buying Experience Skyote, RV-3 http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List ator?RV-List> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dave & Brenda Emond" <d_emond(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: Re: Mattituck Buying Experience
Date: Jan 27, 2007
I support your view. My purchase of a TMX IO-540 went without a hitch. Mahlon has given terriffic support, beyond expectation. Thanks Mahlon. Dave Emond RV-10 40159 ----- Original Message ----- From: REHughes To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:56 PM Subject: RV-List: Mattituck Buying Experience Last fall I pulled the jugs off my Skyote's C-90-8F (stuck ring, and guides needed reamed) and I found one of the cam followers had a wedding-ring fracture at the socket end. I decided to have the engine overhauled by a good shop, but found that for virtually the same price, I could get a brand-new Mattituck TMX O-200 (although it is an Experimental engine, it is built up from the latest Continental certified parts). It came with all the recent factory production improvements (removable pushrod housings, new upper cylinder design) and beautiful new certified accessories including a light-weight starter, 60 Amp Alternator, Vacuum Pump drive assembly, new Precision Carb (complete with new airbox and filter) and new Slicks. The shipping crate had an all-plywood cover, and is better looking than most of my furniture. The price was 17K, with NO core required. I will slowly rebuild the C-90 as a learning process. The Mixture Arm configuration was set up for side-to-side actuation, and my particular installation made the fore-and-aft arm the preferred type. I emailed Mahlon to find out where I could buy the alternate arm, and a couple days later the desired hardware just showed up in my mail. I would recommend Mattituck for anyone considering a new engine. My experience with them could not have been better. Mahlon Russell should be considered a national treasure. Hawkeye Hughes Skyote, RV-3 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 27, 2007
From: Henry <aeroncadoc(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Indemnifying a seller
Good afternoon: A friend and I were looking at buying a homebuilt from the original builder. We had no problem with signing a waiver of non responsibility for ourselves, but the owner insisted on an indemnity clause in perpetuity asking us to be responsible for any liability from the day of the sale until the end of the plane's life. EAA insurance said such a clause would negate our coverage. I believe Falcon said the same thing. While I can understand the seller's need and desire to protect himself, this is an impossible responsibility financial or otherwise for the buyer. Needless to say it was a deal killer. How are all of you out there dealing with situation like this, or more likely, how do you think you will deal with it if you ever sell your pride and joy in the future. Henry H. Mooney 252TSE N252MK KPAE Everett, WA > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Indemnifying a seller
Date: Jan 27, 2007
The question is: "How could a plane be sold to limit the liability and litigation trail back to the original seller?" One possible solution is to dismantle the plane into tail assemblies, wing and tank assemblies, and one or more fuselage assemblies. Sell it that way and the buyer is responsible for the subassembly parts and not it becoming anything else. You should have its air worthiness certificate revoked/voided. The new buyer of the assemblies would go through the process of re-registering it should some or all the of the parts later become a plane or parts on several planes. A sales agreement would state the parts are just that -- parts, not a completed assembly of anything that serves a purpose such as an airplane and if it is made into one, the parts buyer is fully responsible for whatever is made of them. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry" <aeroncadoc(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: RV-List: Indemnifying a seller > > > Good afternoon: > > A friend and I were looking at buying a homebuilt from the original > builder. We had no problem with signing a waiver of non responsibility for > ourselves, but the owner insisted on an indemnity clause in perpetuity > asking us to be responsible for any liability from the day of the sale > until the end of the plane's life. EAA insurance said such a clause would > negate our coverage. I believe Falcon said the same thing. > While I can understand the seller's need and desire to protect himself, > this is an impossible responsibility financial or otherwise for the buyer. > Needless to say it was a deal killer. > How are all of you out there dealing with situation like this, or more > likely, how do you think you will deal with it if you ever sell your pride > and joy in the future. > > Henry H. > Mooney 252TSE > N252MK > KPAE Everett, WA >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "George P. Tyler" <gptyler(at)metrocast.net>
Subject: Re: Indemnifying a seller
Date: Jan 27, 2007
Don't worry about it ,you can not sign away someone else's right to sue. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry" <aeroncadoc(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:57 PM Subject: RV-List: Indemnifying a seller > > > Good afternoon: > > A friend and I were looking at buying a homebuilt from the original > builder. We had no problem with signing a waiver of non responsibility > for ourselves, but the owner insisted on an indemnity clause in > perpetuity asking us to be responsible for any liability from the day of > the sale until the end of the plane's life. EAA insurance said such a > clause would negate our coverage. I believe Falcon said the same thing. > While I can understand the seller's need and desire to protect himself, > this is an impossible responsibility financial or otherwise for the > buyer. Needless to say it was a deal killer. > How are all of you out there dealing with situation like this, or more > likely, how do you think you will deal with it if you ever sell your > pride and joy in the future. > > Henry H. > Mooney 252TSE > N252MK > KPAE Everett, WA > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com>
Subject: Indemnifying a seller
Date: Jan 27, 2007
I wonder if the Statute of Repose would apply...recall that a few years ago Congress passed a law that manufacturers were not liable for aircraft make over 18-years ago? Perhaps there are not many Rvs in that age bracket, but I suspect (without actually having read that statute) that this might be the ultimate solution. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 28, 2007
From: Dale Ellis <rv8builder(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Using a GNC 300XL to drive a EFIS-D100?
Has anyone out there in the real world attempted to get a Garmin GNC-300XL to drive the CDI portion of the Dynon EFIS-100 HSI/CDI? I am assuming that it will work would just like to hear from someone who has been down that road. Thanks in advance, Dale Building a RV-8 QB slowly. 18 working days until retirement. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com>
Subject: Re: Using a GNC 300XL to drive a EFIS-D100?
Date: Jan 28, 2007
Dale I'm using a GNC300XL to drive a D10A CDI/HSI and a Trio autopilot in parallel - works great Best regards Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Ellis" <rv8builder(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:35 AM Subject: RV-List: Using a GNC 300XL to drive a EFIS-D100? > > Has anyone out there in the real world attempted to get a Garmin GNC-300XL > to drive the CDI portion of the Dynon EFIS-100 HSI/CDI? > > I am assuming that it will work would just like to hear from someone who > has been down that road. > > Thanks in advance, > Dale > Building a RV-8 QB slowly. > 18 working days until retirement. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lamar Lawson" <lamar(at)takeflighttexas.com>
Subject: Re: Indemnifying a seller
Date: Jan 28, 2007
It is funny you ask this question. Last year at Oshkosh, there was a seminar about limiting your liability when you sell your airplane. There was 5 or 6 lawyers that got up and presented their ideas. They all had different opinions, go figure!!! One was to sell the airplane in parts in a "non-airworthy" condition. One just said that due to the fact that it was an experimental aircraft and that it was stated in the contract as an experimental would keep you from paying any settlement. There were other opinions and I don't remember the specifics. What I do remember is that if you pay EAA dues, you have access to their legal team, I believe complimentary... When it is time for me to sell my baby, I am not sure what I am going to do. I will definitely seek the EAA advise, but I think there really is not a way to prevent someone from suing you. once you are in court is where you hope to have something to protect you. I hope I have a good legal disclosure and the fact that it is an experimental will protect me. I think there may even be insurance. In the end, I hope there is no reason to sue me. I would not feel very good if someone killed themselves in the airplane I built. Just my .02 good luck Lamar N969LS - RV7A ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry" <aeroncadoc(at)comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:57 PM Subject: RV-List: Indemnifying a seller > > > Good afternoon: > > A friend and I were looking at buying a homebuilt from the original > builder. We had no problem with signing a waiver of non responsibility for > ourselves, but the owner insisted on an indemnity clause in perpetuity > asking us to be responsible for any liability from the day of the sale > until the end of the plane's life. EAA insurance said such a clause would > negate our coverage. I believe Falcon said the same thing. > While I can understand the seller's need and desire to protect himself, > this is an impossible responsibility financial or otherwise for the buyer. > Needless to say it was a deal killer. > How are all of you out there dealing with situation like this, or more > likely, how do you think you will deal with it if you ever sell your pride > and joy in the future. > > Henry H. > Mooney 252TSE > N252MK > KPAE Everett, WA >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: RE: RV-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 01/28/07
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
Thanks Steve. A couple of people have pointed out that the longer carb probably is used on the O-360, and have suggested possibly using the O-360 cowling. I doubt Vans sells an O-360 cowling for the 9, although one could purchase just the scoop and mold it to the cowl. Thanks everyone for your input. I'm looking forward to receiving the new carburetor and working with an extra 1-1/2" of space. Daniel Snow 9A - Cowl From: "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fix For Superior XP O-320 Engine - Carb Interference With Lower Cowl Daniel - I have a new Aerosport power XP O-320 and looged at the carb. Yes, it is the MA4SPA that you mentioned. I think that is the normal one yo uwill be pleased to know. Cheers, Steve. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 01/28/07
Yep... the 7 and 9 cowls interchange. If you have a 9 with an 320 engine using AFP fuel injection they will tell you to order the 360 cowl. Darrell --- "Snow, Daniel A." wrote: > > > Thanks Steve. A couple of people have pointed out > that the longer carb > probably is used on the O-360, and have suggested > possibly using the > O-360 cowling. I doubt Vans sells an O-360 cowling > for the 9, although > one could purchase just the scoop and mold it to the > cowl. > > Thanks everyone for your input. I'm looking forward > to receiving the > new carburetor and working with an extra 1-1/2" of > space. > > Daniel Snow > 9A - Cowl > > From: "Steve Sampson" <ssamps(at)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Fix For Superior XP O-320 > Engine - Carb > Interference With > Lower Cowl > > Daniel - I have a new Aerosport power XP O-320 and > looged at the carb. > Yes, > it is the MA4SPA that you mentioned. I think that is > the normal one yo > uwill > be pleased to know. Cheers, Steve. > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > Web Forums! > > > > > The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf(at)cableone.net>
Subject: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation
Date: Jan 29, 2007
I had a guy who is 6'-2" and 220 lbs ask me "would he fit in an RV-3 slider cockpit". I have no idea. Do any of you know of someone who is close to this size that flies okay in this airplane. Thanks, Rick Fogerson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com>
Subject: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation
Date: Jan 29, 2007
Well, Van is pretty tall. Probably not 220 lbs though. Tim _____ From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Fogerson Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:30 PM Subject: RV-List: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation I had a guy who is 6'-2" and 220 lbs ask me "would he fit in an RV-3 slider cockpit". I have no idea. Do any of you know of someone who is close to this size that flies okay in this airplane. Thanks, Rick Fogerson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: "Bob J." <rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation
A friend of mine used to have a -3 before he built a HR2, and he's 6'-2" or better, around 220. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying F1 under const. On 1/29/07, Rick Fogerson wrote: > > I had a guy who is 6'-2" and 220 lbs ask me "would he fit in an RV-3 > slider cockpit". I have no idea. Do any of you know of someone who is close > to this size that flies okay in this airplane. > > Thanks, Rick Fogerson > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William F. Saindon" <wfsaindon@suscom-maine.net>
Subject: Re: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation
Date: Jan 29, 2007
I fly an RV-3, I am 6ft. tall, and weigh 218lbs.I haven't had any problems getting in or out. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Fogerson To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:29 PM Subject: RV-List: RV-3 height and/or weight limitation I had a guy who is 6'-2" and 220 lbs ask me "would he fit in an RV-3 slider cockpit". I have no idea. Do any of you know of someone who is close to this size that flies okay in this airplane. Thanks, Rick Fogerson ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2007
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net>
Subject: Blast tubes or not?
I'm close to being done, do I need to install blast tube to the mag and to the alternator? What have you guys done. -- Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Blast tubes or not?
Date: Jan 29, 2007
I did one for each. None on the Jeff Rose EI. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:59 PM Subject: RV-List: Blast tubes or not? > > I'm close to being done, do I need to install blast tube to the mag and to > the alternator? What have you guys done. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Neil McLeod" <neilmcleod(at)wildblue.net>
Subject: Blast tubes or not?
Date: Jan 29, 2007
I put 'em on mine, no problems with mags or alternator but only 75 hours so far... Neil -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Hester Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:00 PM Subject: RV-List: Blast tubes or not? I'm close to being done, do I need to install blast tube to the mag and to the alternator? What have you guys done. -- Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 30, 2007
Subject: Re: Blast tubes or not?
In a message dated 01/29/2007 8:04:24 PM Central Standard Time, bobbyhester(at)charter.net writes: do I need to install blast tube to the mag and to the alternator? If it makes you warmer & fuzzier... What have you guys done. No blast tubes, no problems with Slick mags or B&C alternator, but then again, I have a wimpy little O-320, as you well know! Mark - 387 hours and the only blast I do is OFF! 8-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: HCRV6(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Blast tubes or not?
Date: Jan 30, 2007
One to the B&C alternator, one to each of the mags and one to the vacuum pump on my -6. Only needed if you care about doing whatever you can to ensure long service life from those components. -- Harry Crosby RV-6 N16CX, 310 hours -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> > > I'm close to being done, do I need to install blast tube to the mag and > to the alternator? What have you guys done. > > -- > Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY > Visit my RV7A website: > http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/FinishingUpPg3.htm > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2(at)starband.net>
Subject: ATP age limits
Date: Jan 30, 2007
Here's an article you may find interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/30/faa.pilots.ap/index.html brian http://brian76.mystarband.net/RV-7Ahome.htm -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ATP age limits
From: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>
Date: Jan 30, 2007
Marion Blakey is spoke at the National Press Club. You can hear it here -- and I'll have an archive of it in about an hour. -------- Bob Collins St. Paul, Minn. RV Builder's Hotline (free!) http://rvhotline.expercraft.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=91638#91638 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Yuma, AZ RVers
Date: Jan 30, 2007
From: eddyfernan(at)aol.com
Hi Eddy, Would you send this to rv list for me, this laptop is not configured right and is getting rejected when I send to rv list. I can receive fine. Dale RE: RV-List:YUMA, AZ Hi Yuma, and nearby Arizona RVers, We are departing Abilene TX this morning and will stop in Yuma. Trying to reach the nice builder there who said he would join visitors for lunch. We will check email on landing today and see if you are available. We had a beautiful ride from Ft Lauderdale, FL to Abilene yesterday. San Diego or bust! Dale & Barbi Cell 954-651-3000 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CBRxxDRV(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 30, 2007
Subject: RV Grin Report
01/30/07 Today @ 8:45 AM N-898SC RV-8 QB took to the air and flew just like an RV with a 0-360 and a hartzell prop. Left wing is a touch heavy but just a sweet flying plane. This kit was # 80533. The tail kit changed hands 3 times before I ended up with it. It took 3 hurricanes and one divorce to build. which is about 2.5 years Paint should happen before Sun-N-Fun by "Florida Aircraft Painting" in Bartow FL. Thanks to Duke Raven of Lakeland for bucking rivets. Thanks to Brian Parrish of Lakeland for his help. Thankyou Vans for a great aircraft. Sal Capra N-898SC Lakeland, FL. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
Subject: Re: RV Grin Report
Date: Jan 30, 2007
Congratulations to you and your team! Lucky -------------- Original message -------------- From: CBRxxDRV(at)aol.com 01/30/07 Today @ 8:45 AM N-898SC RV-8 QB took to the air and flew just like an RV with a 0-360 and a hartzell prop. Left wing is a touch heavy but just a sweet flying plane. This kit was # 80533. The tail kit changed hands 3 times before I ended up with it. It took 3 hurricanes and one divorce to build. which is about 2.5 years Paint should happen before Sun-N-Fun by "Florida Aircraft Painting" in Bartow FL. Thanks to Duke Raven of Lakeland for bucking rivets. Thanks to Brian Parrish of Lakeland for his help. Thankyou Vans for a great aircraft. Sal Capra N-898SC Lakeland, FL.
Congratulations to you and your team!

Lucky

01/30/07

Today @ 8:45 AM N-898SC RV-8 QB took to the air and flew just like
an RV with a 0-360 and a hartzell prop. Left wing is a touch heavy but
just a sweet flying plane.

This kit was # 80533. The tail kit changed hands 3 times before I ended up with it.
It took 3 hurricanes and one divorce to build. which is about 2.5 years

Paint should happen before Sun-N-Fun by "Florida Aircraft Painting" in Bartow FL.

Thanks to Duke Raven of Lakeland for bucking rivets.
Thanks to Brian Parrish of Lakeland for his help.

Thankyou Vans for a great aircraft.

Sal Capra
N-898SC
Lakeland, FL.

________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2007
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV Grin Report
Congratulations, Sal!!!!! Richard Dudley CBRxxDRV(at)aol.com wrote: > 01/30/07 >

RV-Archive.digest.vol-sn

RV-Archive.digest.vol-sn