RV-Archive.digest.vol-ss
April 16, 2007 - April 24, 2007
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
Any thoughts on its impact
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
> sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> that's
> what America wants.
>
> I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> middle of nowhere.
>
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --
> and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
>
> Frustrating, ain't it?
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
> It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that
> is
> not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are not
> exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable
> and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God help
> us all if this all comes to pass.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronlee(at)pcisys.net |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear.
Fuel taxes go from around 19 cents a gallon to around 70 cents a gallon.
Best recollection from AOPA article.
Ron
Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
I think this is your opportunity to provide good input. If you don't respond
the survey may be less beneficial to you and our community. On the other
hand if you don't feel your participation will be relevant perhaps you have
good reason not to. It is good you brought this up, I also would like to
hear other thoughts on this.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
Any thoughts on its impact
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
> sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> that's
> what America wants.
>
> I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> middle of nowhere.
>
> I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does --
> and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
>
> Frustrating, ain't it?
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
> It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system that
> is
> not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> taxes
> or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are not
> exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be reasonable
> and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God help
> us all if this all comes to pass.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue |
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
jamie(at)jpainter.org wrote:
>
> There is definitely the wealth-envy portion of the equation. But from my observations
most pilots aren't ultra-wealthy. Granted, you're not going to do a
lot of flying on a minimum wage salary (some do), however the overwhelming number
of pilots are solidly in the middle-class.
It would actually be illuminating to see a survey like that. Of course, most people
consider themselves to be in the "middle class," so it has a wide ranging
definition. It's kind of like, one man's ceiling is another man's floor.
I consider myself middle class, but if you've got two Cheltons in your panel and
live on an airpark, you be rich in my book (g).
People -- non flyers -- have asked me how I afford to fly (which, I actually can't),
so I tell them "I don't drink and I don't chase women, so I use the money
that you spend on those things for flying instead."
BTW, was I dreaming or did I read somewhere in the last few days that the user
fees effort was pretty much dead. I could swear I read it but I don't know if
it was a flying source or a political newsletter.
--------
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=107428#107428
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey |
On 04/16 5:00, Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
> faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why plus
> everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
> purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
> are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
> it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
I stored it in the round file folder under my desk.
I can see some positive reasons for providing some of this information, but
not to the FAA, perhaps to EAA or AOPA.
My airplane is listed as an RV-7 when it's actually an RV-7A. I listed
it as an A model from the get-go. I've twice now tried to get this
information corrected with no results. I don't exactly trust the FAA
to use this information for my benefit, only theirs.
I don't see what benefit to pilots it would be for the FAA to know my
average fuel consumption for instance. I think as a whole the questions
can easily be used to calculate "their" profit from user fees, which
I oppose. I may be wrong here and maybe some of you can "enlighten" me.
It's not too late, the trashman doesn't come for a couple of days...
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com - Flying!
http://www.evorocket.com - Building
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marty Helller" <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting article --Survey |
FYI: The FAA has done this survey for years. It helps them benchmark the
statistics of GA and Air Taxi flying. This past year, the survey expended
to include GPS equippage.
The survey results are available on the FAA website at:
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/
Marty Heller
RV-7 (still riveting)
at S-N-F FAA Satellite Navigation Booth
>From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
>Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 18:42:15 -0400
>
>
>I think this is your opportunity to provide good input. If you don't
>respond
>the survey may be less beneficial to you and our community. On the other
>hand if you don't feel your participation will be relevant perhaps you have
>good reason not to. It is good you brought this up, I also would like to
>hear other thoughts on this.
>Dale
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
>Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:01 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue - Survey
>
>
>Speaking of all this, I received a GA survey form in the mail today. The
>faa wants to compile via a consulting group all my flying hours and why
>plus
>everything about my plane for the year 2006. It is purported to be for the
>purpose of determining their needs for those very services. I suppose they
>are trying to figure out how to base the charges. I also suspect although
>it does not say this survey is optional. I am inclined not to provide it.
>
>Any thoughts on its impact
>Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of gordon or marge
> > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 4:49 PM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Interesting article on user fee issue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
> > they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes
>the
> > sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think
> > that's
> > what America wants.
> >
> > I cringed when I read the AP article yesterday. OTOH, we do have to
> > recognize that there's a fair amount of pork out there. I know in Jim
> > Oberstar's district, there's some really beautiful airports out in the
> > middle of nowhere.
> >
> > I don't have a solution for the dilemma, other than the system is really
> > screwed up as to how stuff gets funded, or fixed -- or whether it does
>--
> > and it's hard to use a logical argument -- a rational argument -- in a
> > process (politics) that is entirely irrational and illogical.
> >
> > Frustrating, ain't it?
> >
> > --------
> > Bob Collins
> > St. Paul, Minn.
> > RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> > http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
> >
> >
> >
> > It's more alarming than frustrating. I suspect that the FAA's goal, in
> > addition to things already mentioned, is to develop a funding system
>that
> > is
> > not under the thumb of congress. Once in place the rates could be
> > manipulated by the bureaucracy to suit itself. Ever try to lobby a
> > bureaucracy? They also want to free up the trust fund to use for
> > operations. It is not clear to me if user fees would replace the fuel
> > taxes
> > or be piled on top to them but knowing how the government works it is
> > doubtful the fuel tax would disappear. The U.S. House and Senate are
>not
> > exactly loveable organizations but they do respond somewhat to the
> > electorate. I have utterly no confidence that the FAA would be
>reasonable
> > and if they were free of congressional oversight their incompetence with
> > respect to obtaining value for money spent would know no bounds. God
>help
> > us all if this all comes to pass.
> >
> > Gordon Comfort
> > N363GC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Clocking the prop. Real world data |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
After weeks of trial and error, I have finally reached a point where I
can safely say that clocking the prop doesn't just make a difference, it
makes ALL the difference.
Several weeks ago I set out on a mission to run to ground a vibration in
my RV-8. An IO-540 C4B5 with a Hartzell 2 blade prop. There has been a
vibration that I would characterize as objectionable. Common on big
engine Rockets and RV's. The lower the RPM, the more objectionable it
was.
I was able to instrument the plane and do some real tests and get real
results with real data. The net of it is that by changing the prop
clocking, I was able to improve my vibration by 83%. And no Im not
kidding. You can read all the details here.
http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/index.htm
I captured a lot of data. I sure hope others find it useful. I have a
new plane as a result.
Best,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Clocking the prop. Real world data |
Wow Mike, great info!!! I've long been curious about prop clocking but
there are some obstacles to just trying it as you ran into with the
crank flange bosses. Of course you're working on a 6-cylinder where most
of us are flying 4-cylinders. Anyone out there want to do some prop
clocking experimentation with an O-360?
If anyone in the Northwest wants to try some clocking experimentation I
can assist with the measurement. Our EAA chapter has a DSS Micro
MicroVibe II balancer....
http://www.eaa105.org/Programs/programs.htm#PropBalancing
Best,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com ; rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RV-List: Clocking the prop. Real world data
After weeks of trial and error, I have finally reached a point where I
can safely say that clocking the prop doesn't just make a difference, it
makes ALL the difference.
Several weeks ago I set out on a mission to run to ground a vibration
in my RV-8. An IO-540 C4B5 with a Hartzell 2 blade prop. There has been
a vibration that I would characterize as objectionable. Common on big
engine Rockets and RV's. The lower the RPM, the more objectionable it
was.
I was able to instrument the plane and do some real tests and get real
results with real data. The net of it is that by changing the prop
clocking, I was able to improve my vibration by 83%. And no Im not
kidding. You can read all the details here.
http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/index.htm
I captured a lot of data. I sure hope others find it useful. I have a
new plane as a result.
Best,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Contact Info for John Parks |
I see I gave the wrong phone number for John Stark, or at least the area
code is wrong. This is cut & pasted from the website: 706-321-1008
The area code I posted would put him in Seattle.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Clocking the prop. Real world data |
Randy, you might find this interesting:
http://www.rvproject.com/m20j/pdfs/service_bulletins/sbm20-206.pdf
On my last Mooney, I flew behind an IO-360-A3B6D. What made it an
-A3... vs an -A1... were the reindexed prop flange bushings, and thus
the clocking of the prop (per the SB listed above). That was one very
smooth engine, but I can't say I had the opportunity to fly it before
the conversion was done.
The -A1B6 I have in my RV-7 had notable vibration early on, but after I
broke it in, I had it dynamically balanced by Jim Fackler to 0.01 IPS
(http://www.rvproject.com/20040427.html). While I did originally
consider converting my -A1B6 to an -A3B6, it didn't end up being
necessary in the end. The dynamic balance took care of it.
Kahuna, I assume you dynamically balanced the prop before diving into
the reclocking project? I didn't see any notes about that on your site.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
www.rvproject.com / www.weathermeister.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Lervold
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ; rocket-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Clocking the prop. Real world data
Wow Mike, great info!!! I've long been curious about prop clocking
but there are some obstacles to just trying it as you ran into with the
crank flange bosses. Of course you're working on a 6-cylinder where most
of us are flying 4-cylinders. Anyone out there want to do some prop
clocking experimentation with an O-360?
If anyone in the Northwest wants to try some clocking experimentation
I can assist with the measurement. Our EAA chapter has a DSS Micro
MicroVibe II balancer....
http://www.eaa105.org/Programs/programs.htm#PropBalancing
Best,
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com ; rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:51 AM
Subject: RV-List: Clocking the prop. Real world data
After weeks of trial and error, I have finally reached a point where
I can safely say that clocking the prop doesn't just make a difference,
it makes ALL the difference.
Several weeks ago I set out on a mission to run to ground a
vibration in my RV-8. An IO-540 C4B5 with a Hartzell 2 blade prop. There
has been a vibration that I would characterize as objectionable. Common
on big engine Rockets and RV's. The lower the RPM, the more
objectionable it was.
I was able to instrument the plane and do some real tests and get
real results with real data. The net of it is that by changing the prop
clocking, I was able to improve my vibration by 83%. And no Im not
kidding. You can read all the details here.
http://www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/index.htm
I captured a lot of data. I sure hope others find it useful. I have
a new plane as a result.
Best,
Mike
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: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
>Sadly, if it means some Americans can have a few more cents (or think
>they'll have a few more cents) in their pockets and someone else makes the
>sacrifice, either with their lives or their money, then,yes, I think that's
>what America wants
The above quote could be used to describe the War in Iraq, War in
Afghanistan and the War on Terror. These wars are fought by the
Volunteer Military with little or no sacrifice from the rest of
us. The Iraq war was to cost $30 Billion, it is now over $300 Billion.
My point is that the US Government needs the money. If you call it a
tax or a user fee, a turnpike toll, entrance into a National Park or
a landing fee, all are euphemism for the Government needing more money.
In my mind the decision to implement user fees were made long before
the 2006 elections. The Administration is just waiting for the right
time to announce them. The Airlines seem to think that user fees
will spread the costs over to General Aviation. But, when user fees
are implemented, the airlines cost will not be reduced (how many
taxes are ever phased out or reduced). The airlines will continue to
pay as much or more and General Aviation will pay more, and if by
some miracle the FAA starts to make a profit then that money will go
into the general fund to help pay for the many wars we are involved in.
Every extra dollar collected by the FAA for user fees will increase
the amount of taxpayer dollars from the general fund that then can be
used to pay for the wars. To put this in "Administration Talk," user
fees "Support the Troops" and opposing them means we are unpatriotic.
No matter what your political views may be, "Somebody has got to
Pay"! We are just debating who and how much.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Clocking the prop. Real world data |
On 17 Apr 2007, at 09:51, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> I was able to instrument the plane and do some real tests and get
> real results with real data. The net of it is that by changing the
> prop clocking, I was able to improve my vibration by 83%. And no Im
> not kidding. You can read all the details here. http://
> www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/index.htm
Mike,
Thanks for sharing this very interesting, and useful info. Comments/
questions:
1. Did Les make any mention of whether prop clocking could have any
effect on engine/prop harmonic vibration compatibility? I'm no
expert in this area, but it seems logical that there could be an
effect in this area.
2. Something is screwy with that web page, at least with some
browsers. The two snapshots of the both overwrite some of the text
from the following paragraphs. I see this on Safari, Camino on OS X,
and Firefox with X11.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronschreck(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Will Trade Pitot Tubes |
I am flying with a Dynon unheated pitot tube with AOA probe. I would like to trade
for a heated pitot tube. I am not useing the AOA feature, so a standard
pitot should work fine as long as it is for 12 volts and fits in the same extension
as the Dynon tube. Will trade even. Contact me off list at ronschreck(at)windstream.net
Ron Schreck
RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
Gold Hill Airpark, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronlee(at)pcisys.net |
| Subject: | Re: Clocking the prop. Real world data |
Ok Mike or anyone else. Help educate me. I was under the impression
that the prop needed to be set in a specific orientation relative to
something. Perhaps it is almost horizontal right before the impulse mag
fires. I don't know.
Am I wrong about this or can the prop be moved anywhere it will fit and
in Mikes case, modifed to fit in any orientation.
Ron
Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Clocking the prop. Real world data |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
Yes I asked this question Kevin. Here is Les' response.
"Regarding the torsional vibration concerns, I don't think that is an
issue.
We're not concerned from a propeller standpoint. We've done testing to
confirm propeller stresses are not significantly impacted with different
clockings. We also have hubs that have different clocking positions
(HC-,PHC-, EHC-, DHC-, etc) and Lycoming doesn't care which one we use.
The
DHC-configuration is the one we are trying to duplicate."
Also I fixed the page load. You will have to refresh/reload to get the
changes.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Clocking the prop. Real world data
On 17 Apr 2007, at 09:51, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
> I was able to instrument the plane and do some real tests and get
> real results with real data. The net of it is that by changing the
> prop clocking, I was able to improve my vibration by 83%. And no Im
> not kidding. You can read all the details here. http://
> www2.mstewart.net:8080/super8/index.htm
Mike,
Thanks for sharing this very interesting, and useful info. Comments/
questions:
1. Did Les make any mention of whether prop clocking could have any
effect on engine/prop harmonic vibration compatibility? I'm no
expert in this area, but it seems logical that there could be an
effect in this area.
2. Something is screwy with that web page, at least with some
browsers. The two snapshots of the both overwrite some of the text
from the following paragraphs. I see this on Safari, Camino on OS X,
and Firefox with X11.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gordon or marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Clocking the prop. Real world data |
Subject: Re: RV-List: Clocking the prop. Real world data
Ok Mike or anyone else. Help educate me. I was under the impression
that the prop needed to be set in a specific orientation relative to
something. Perhaps it is almost horizontal right before the impulse mag
fires. I don't know.
Am I wrong about this or can the prop be moved anywhere it will fit and
in Mikes case, modifed to fit in any orientation.
Ron
Lee
Ron: I believe the customary clocking arose from the desire to enable hand
propping. Mooney requested the clocking that created the A3B6 but I don't
remember why. LoPresti clocked a Lyc 200 prop to time the blade passage at
the induction air inlet to coincide with some intake valve event in an
effort to increase manifold pressure. Don't know if it worked.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
In a message dated 4/17/2007 1:58:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jpl(at)showpage.org writes:
I think everyone concerned about this issue should take it into
consideration in upcoming elections over the next couple of years.
========================================
And how is that supposed to help? We were told by the Republicans that the
bad Democrats wanted the user fees, but that they would preserve our god
given right to fly, so many voted for Republicans in the last few elections.
That sure worked well.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 842hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Sun N'Fun "Must haves"? |
I spent a full day walking around the vendor booths at Sun N'Fun
yesterday, and found some interesting sales pitches. A few of the items
actually caught my interest............Air Wolf air/oil separator, GAMI
fuel injectors, and 4 into 1 Exhaust systems. I'd appreciate any
feedback from the group as to the value of these items, if indeed I
should even consider them, and what real world experience folks might
have with using them.
Garry Stout
RV-7A IO-360
Tampa, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
4 into one is a good idea - make sure you can still get heat if you live/fly where
it gets cold - be careful of your intake and landing gear configurations too.
I wanted one of these - but heater boxes won out for my 6A in the northeast.
The Air-Oil seperator is a real good one - that I'll probably eventually get too!
Don't know that I'd spend money on the GAMIjectors - I have AFP and it has replacable
ports - maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about on this one......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Garry <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com>
>Sent: Apr 18, 2007 7:37 AM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Sun N'Fun "Must haves"?
>
>I spent a full day walking around the vendor booths at Sun N'Fun yesterday, and
found some interesting sales pitches. A few of the items actually caught my
interest............Air Wolf air/oil separator, GAMI fuel injectors, and 4
into 1 Exhaust systems. I'd appreciate any feedback from the group as to the
value of these items, if indeed I should even consider them, and what real world
experience folks might have with using them.
>
>Garry Stout
>RV-7A IO-360
>Tampa, Florida
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill shook <billshook2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun N'Fun "Must haves"? |
> Before plunking down a chunk of change for the 4-into-1 exhaust I would
> double-check that it's doable with the nosegear leg/engine mount on your
> -7A.
>From what I've heard, it would be better to just move that wheel to the rear.
I'm told
that this change also helps level the human body such that it naturally produces
more
testosterone. Also, just the name "nosegear" just sounds backwards. Gear...hanging
from your nose? I don't get it, makes me want to reach for a hanky.
Yeah, get your 4 into 1. Move the nose gear to the rear.
Bill
-4 stalled
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Of course, there are those that will say that those thousands of people
flying to OSH are simply wasting tens of thousands of gallons of
gasoline and jet fuel that just makes us more dependent on foreign
suppliers. And that this great migration does little except burn
organic carbon fuel, further compounding the global warming problem for
no purpose other than a self-indulgent personal interest, past time and
hobby.
I'm sure OSH businesses think OSH is a great idea, but beyond those
local self interests, I doubt much emotion can be stirred. I may not
agree this perspective, but then, I'm a pilot. As always, it is in the
eye of the beholder.
Chuck Jensen
Jim Fogarty wrote..........
I believe the hard part for people to understand is how much commerce
comes
to each local airport and cities across the USA as we fly around. This
is
something each of us should be conveying at local airport events. We
can do
this by telling people and or through our local publications. Just
think of
the money that is spent this week for all the people traveling to Sun
and
Fun. That's not just $100 hamburger. If someone fly's into Kentucky
he or
she may like it there and someday come back or for that one landing buy
goods and services. It's all about the money, and we need to tell that
to
our legislator's and our local business community.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
"Bob Collins" wrote:
> Although I really can't wait for my Flying magazine subscription to expire
> (you know, I'm just not interested in VLJs or the Citation Mustang or even
> the Cirrus, or Dick Whatsisnames spiffy new GPS that costs more than sending
> kids to four years of private school), I do think Mac (From the right Seat)
> had a good approach to this issue. It's entirely likely that the best way
> to approach this is to stress that we'll be handing over our nation's skies
> to a corporation. That's an interesting concept since the sky -- even for
> people who don't fly -- is a symbol of freedom and openness... and maybe
> there should be something in this country that isn't owned by a corporation.
>
> I think that argument might resonate with people who couldn't give a hoot
> about how much people who can afford to fly in the first place have to pay.
Sure. That'll work. Just like people would never stand for having roads or bridges
being owned by a corporation, and having to pay a toll to use them. The
automobile owning public would never stand for that, so I'm sure they will understand
why aircraft owners should be able to fly for "free".
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
On 12:24 2007-04-18 "Chuck Jensen" wrote:
> And that this great migration does little except burn
> organic carbon fuel, further compounding the global warming problem
> for no purpose other than a self-indulgent personal interest, past
> time and hobby.
And, truth be told, they wouldn't be wrong, either. But the same could be
said for the people who drive their RV's south to Florida for the winter,
or take their snowmobiles, dirtbikes, or ATV's into the wilderness, head
out on their boat, etc.
Unfortunately for us, engine technology hasn't changed a lot in the last 50
years. We're still flying behind Lycomings that remain largely unchanged
year over year. Compare/contrast that to the developments in engine
technology in motorcycles, boats, cars, etc. We're still running the
gas-guzzlers.
But it's not a reason to stop flying.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
The late great Nobel winning economist Milton Friedman was known to say that
the government spends three dollars to do a one-dollar job. I would add that
they do that when they contract out the work; when they do it themselves
they spend more like five dollars to do a one dollar job, or more often a
job that doesn't need to be done in the first place. And when it does need
doing it would be done better by leaving it to those with a direct interest
in doing it.
Jeppesen started keeping notes so he could fly the mail (contracted from the
government) to distant towns when the weather was less than ideal. This
turned out to be a very valuable service -- so the government decided to do
it themselves. After all these years, Jeppesen still does a better job for a
competitive price. I wonder what those nearly "free" government approach
plates and charts really cost us.
Someone has to pay for an air traffic control system that keeps airplanes
from running into each other in areas of heavy traffic. I'm in favor of the
costs being paid by the beneficiaries, as I think most of us are. But most
of us also want that to be someone else. The airlines want it to be general
aviation; general aviation maintains that we need the system far less than
the airlines so they should pay. The political system makes this a contest
of political power rather than reason.
Maybe the problem is that we have allowed the government to amass way too
much control over our lives, which the "in" crowd trades among themselves as
if it were stocks or bonds. You don't need an advanced degree and thousands
of pages of regulations and tens of thousands of regulators to fly a small
airplane safely. Maybe fighting over who pays for all that is fighting the
wrong battle.
As for all those evil corporations, a corporation is just a legal entity
made up of individuals for some specific purpose. If you want to blame all
the ills of the world on corporations, you must also to be fair recognize
that virtually all the products we use, from clothing to entertainment to
food and drugs and airplane kits would not be possible without the legal
entity of corporations. Try to buy your next gallon of gas from a vertically
integrated small unincorporated fuel supplier. Try to send your next email
without using the services of a corporation. It's fine and fair to dislike
wrongdoing by any individual or organization. It's bigotry to identify them
only by their legal structure or skin color, religion, or whatever
convenient but irrelevant attribute.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | LASAR CHT with VM1000 |
Fellow listers,
I'm back to the last few electrical connections foreward of the firewall.
Here's one without any instructions (so far that I have):
My LASAR unit came with a double-wired CHT transducer - the correct type for my
VM1000.
The SL1-96 upgrade bulletin that came with it doesn't specify the wiring in enough
detail - so I'm asking those of you that have this setup running for help.
Here's what I was planning to do so far:
The transducer gets installed in the #3 cylinder head as it has been documented
as the hottest. I'm leaving the wiring long enough that I can relocate the transducer
later if necessary though.
The CHT has two sets of wires, one with a brown sheath (same color - different
material as the VM1000 CHT wiring), which I was planning to connect to my VM1000
wiring harness - red to red and white to white. The other set has a white
with red striped sheath and I was planning to connect that set to the LASAR harness
- white to white and red to purple.
I sent Unison a request for tech support to their piston mailbox - haven't gotten
a response yet.
I didn't find anything in the archives - which may mean that I didn't look for
the correct string.
Anyone out there got this configuration working? How did you do it?
Thanks,
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB Slider N822AR @ N06 Moving towards getting the big three bladed fan running!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
khorton01(at)rogers.com wrote:
> Sure. That'll work. Just like people would never stand for having roads or
bridges being owned by a corporation, and having to pay a toll to use them. The
automobile owning public would never stand for that, so I'm sure they will
understand why aircraft owners should be able to fly for "free".
>
> Kevin Horton
Let me take another stab at it then. The strategy is that we equate open skies
with..well... America. You know, flag and bald eagles and all of that . Sure,
it's a marketing ploy, but if we can get a bunch of folks over to "our" side on
the strength of a concept as opposed to trying to win some battle of the spreadsheets,
well, isn't that the idea?
--------
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=107792#107792
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LASAR CHT with VM1000 |
Fellow listers,
I'm back to the last few electrical connections foreward of the firewall.
Here's one without any instructions (so far that I have):
My LASAR unit came with a double-wired CHT transducer - the correct type for my
VM1000.
The SL1-96 upgrade bulletin that came with it doesn't specify the wiring in enough
detail - so I'm asking those of you that have this setup running for help.
Here's what I was planning to do so far:
The transducer gets installed in the #3 cylinder head as it has been documented
as the hottest. I'm leaving the wiring long enough that I can relocate the transducer
later if necessary though.
The CHT has two sets of wires, one with a brown sheath (same color - different
material as the VM1000 CHT wiring), which I was planning to connect to my VM1000
wiring harness - red to red and white to white. The other set has a white
with red striped sheath and I was planning to connect that set to the LASAR harness
- white to white and red to purple.
I sent Unison a request for tech support to their piston mailbox - haven't gotten
a response yet.
I didn't find anything in the archives - which may mean that I didn't look for
the correct string.
Anyone out there got this configuration working? How did you do it?
Thanks,
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB Slider N822AR @ N06 Moving towards getting the big three bladed fan running!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | LASAR CHT with VM1000 |
Fellow listers,
I'm back to the last few electrical connections foreward of the firewall.
Here's one without any instructions (so far that I have):
My LASAR unit came with a double-wired CHT transducer - the correct type for my
VM1000.
The SL1-96 upgrade bulletin that came with it doesn't specify the wiring in enough
detail - so I'm asking those of you that have this setup running for help.
Here's what I was planning to do so far:
The transducer gets installed in the #3 cylinder head as it has been documented
as the hottest. I'm leaving the wiring long enough that I can relocate the transducer
later if necessary though.
The CHT has two sets of wires, one with a brown sheath (same color - different
material as the VM1000 CHT wiring), which I was planning to connect to my VM1000
wiring harness - red to red and white to white. The other set has a white
with red striped sheath and I was planning to connect that set to the LASAR harness
- white to white and red to purple.
I sent Unison a request for tech support to their piston mailbox - haven't gotten
a response yet.
I didn't find anything in the archives - which may mean that I didn't look for
the correct string.
Anyone out there got this configuration working? How did you do it?
Thanks,
Ralph E. Capen
RV6AQB Slider N822AR @ N06 Moving towards getting the big three bladed fan running!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joseph Larson <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
Terry,
I agree with the second paragraph below. I've gotten tired of
"corporate profits" being a dirty word. WIthout profits, the
corporation wouldn't exist, the jobs wouldn't exist, and the products/
services wouldn't exist.
But I think I disagree with the last sentence I retained from the
first paragraph. I'm more than happy to pay my fair share. And I
don't know if I'm currently doing that through fuel taxes and the
other aviation-related fees I already pay. I think most pilots would
agree with me.
My experience with other pilots is that we're accustomed to taking
responsibility for ourselves. While we're more than happy to fly on
someone else's dollar, it's not something we expect, and we pay our
own way through life. I've never met a pilot I thought was just
hoping for a free ride through life.
I think instead that private pilots pretty much universally agree
with these statements:
-Those who benefit from the ATC system should pay for it
-No one should have to pay for more than their fair share
-But we don't want the payment system to discourage safe flying
practices
The last two points tend to work against each other.
-J
On Apr 18, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
> Someone has to pay for an air traffic control system that keeps
> airplanes
> from running into each other in areas of heavy traffic. I'm in
> favor of the
> costs being paid by the beneficiaries, as I think most of us are.
> But most
> of us also want that to be someone else.
>
> As for all those evil corporations, a corporation is just a legal
> entity
> made up of individuals for some specific purpose. If you want to
> blame all
> the ills of the world on corporations, you must also to be fair
> recognize
> that virtually all the products we use, from clothing to
> entertainment to
> food and drugs and airplane kits would not be possible without the
> legal
> entity of corporations.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
>
> Unfortunately for us, engine technology hasn't changed a lot in the
> last 50
> years. We're still flying behind Lycomings that remain largely
> unchanged
> year over year. Compare/contrast that to the developments in engine
> technology in motorcycles, boats, cars, etc. We're still running the
> gas-guzzlers.
Which in-production gasoline-powered cars have a brake specific fuel
consumption lower than a fuel-injected Lycoming running lean of
peak? With references please.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
jpl(at)showpage.org wrote:
>
> -Those who benefit from the ATC system should pay for it
> -No one should have to pay for more than their fair share
> -But we don't want the payment system to discourage safe flying
> practices
And let's remember that the largest user of ATC is the airlines. The reason that
Class Bs exist, is the airlines.
I'm not about to jump on the "I love corporations" bandwagon, but I don't recommend
stoning their offices either.
However, after 9/11, American taxpayers gave a huge bailout to airlines, many of
whom still gave their execs huge bonuses, and many of which were bleeding red
ink BEFORE 9/11. In Minnesota, we gave a HUGE public subsidy to keep NOrthwest
Airlines flying in the early 90s. We the taxpayers, subsidized an Airbus maintenance
base for them that now sits empty in Duluth, all the mechanics jobs
have disappeared when they refused to accept even more concessions, and Northwest
outsourced their jobs, including overseas.
So when I hear and read all the nonsense from THESE corporations about how private
pilots aren't paying their fair share, well, they should at least have the
common sense to shut their pieholes, because there are few industries better
at asking American taxpayers for something for nothing than this nation's airlines.
We just need to remind them that the skies of America belong to Americans. Not
to I'mBillingYouOnBehalfOfOurAirlinesForUsingYourSkies.com.
--------
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=107812#107812
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | vans' upper main gear intersection fairings |
I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's
catalog. I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to
making these. But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them
only as RV-7A fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried
them on a 6A. I would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A
(however well that is).
Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
Thanks for any info.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | What I Miss at SnF |
One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers taped
on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off they
went.
A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple of
folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes later,
and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other not-particularly fast
airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp will push a big winged,
strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
"only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little while
later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in his
Kitfox.
And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these beautiful,
fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one coast to
another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
On 16:02 2007-04-18 Kevin Horton wrote:
> > year over year. Compare/contrast that to the developments in
> > engine technology in motorcycles, boats, cars, etc. We're still
> > running the gas-guzzlers.
>
> Which in-production gasoline-powered cars have a brake specific fuel
> consumption lower than a fuel-injected Lycoming running lean of
> peak? With references please.
I probably should have said "We're still running the gas-guzzlers, as far
as the general public is concerned." There are Hybrid SUV's now that get
gas mileage as good as a large, non-hybrid sedan, but people still lump all
SUV's into one category, hybrid or not.
But are you saying that Lycomings don't need improvement? Can't be
improved? Shouldn't be improved? Just because they're already pretty
good, that's no reason to just sit by and tell everyone else to pull up
their socks. "The problem isn't aircraft engines, it's everyone else!"
Imagine how far that would go in a public debate.
Public perception of private aircraft owners is that we're a bunch of rich
playboys, doing whatever we want. Much like the SUV market. Sticking our
head in the sand won't make the outcry about frivolous pollution go away.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LASAR CHT with VM1000 |
Ralph
I have the dual 'J' probe assembly (M5340-03) Your plan for mating the
wires is correct. The candy stripe set goes to the LASAR- purple to the red
of the CHT probe and white to white of the CH"T probe. The brown set goes to
the engine monitor - white to white; red to red.
Dale Ensing
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
"RV10-list"
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:56 PM
Subject: RV-List: LASAR CHT with VM1000
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> I'm back to the last few electrical connections foreward of the firewall.
>
> Here's one without any instructions (so far that I have):
>
> My LASAR unit came with a double-wired CHT transducer - the correct type
> for my VM1000.
>
> The SL1-96 upgrade bulletin that came with it doesn't specify the wiring
> in enough detail - so I'm asking those of you that have this setup running
> for help.
>
> Here's what I was planning to do so far:
>
> The transducer gets installed in the #3 cylinder head as it has been
> documented as the hottest. I'm leaving the wiring long enough that I can
> relocate the transducer later if necessary though.
>
> The CHT has two sets of wires, one with a brown sheath (same color -
> different material as the VM1000 CHT wiring), which I was planning to
> connect to my VM1000 wiring harness - red to red and white to white. The
> other set has a white with red striped sheath and I was planning to
> connect that set to the LASAR harness - white to white and red to purple.
>
> I sent Unison a request for tech support to their piston mailbox - haven't
> gotten a response yet.
> I didn't find anything in the archives - which may mean that I didn't look
> for the correct string.
>
> Anyone out there got this configuration working? How did you do it?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph E. Capen
> RV6AQB Slider N822AR @ N06 Moving towards getting the big three bladed fan
> running!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LASAR CHT with VM1000 |
Thanks - good to know that my Jarhead common sense strikes again!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: LASAR CHT with VM1000
>
> Ralph
> I have the dual 'J' probe assembly (M5340-03) Your plan for mating the
> wires is correct. The candy stripe set goes to the LASAR- purple to the
> red of the CHT probe and white to white of the CH"T probe. The brown set
> goes to the engine monitor - white to white; red to red.
> Dale Ensing
> RV-6A
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "RV6 list" ; "rv-list"
> ; "RV10-list"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:56 PM
> Subject: RV-List: LASAR CHT with VM1000
>
>
>>
>> Fellow listers,
>>
>> I'm back to the last few electrical connections foreward of the firewall.
>>
>> Here's one without any instructions (so far that I have):
>>
>> My LASAR unit came with a double-wired CHT transducer - the correct type
>> for my VM1000.
>>
>> The SL1-96 upgrade bulletin that came with it doesn't specify the wiring
>> in enough detail - so I'm asking those of you that have this setup
>> running for help.
>>
>> Here's what I was planning to do so far:
>>
>> The transducer gets installed in the #3 cylinder head as it has been
>> documented as the hottest. I'm leaving the wiring long enough that I can
>> relocate the transducer later if necessary though.
>>
>> The CHT has two sets of wires, one with a brown sheath (same color -
>> different material as the VM1000 CHT wiring), which I was planning to
>> connect to my VM1000 wiring harness - red to red and white to white. The
>> other set has a white with red striped sheath and I was planning to
>> connect that set to the LASAR harness - white to white and red to purple.
>>
>> I sent Unison a request for tech support to their piston mailbox -
>> haven't gotten a response yet.
>> I didn't find anything in the archives - which may mean that I didn't
>> look for the correct string.
>>
>> Anyone out there got this configuration working? How did you do it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ralph E. Capen
>> RV6AQB Slider N822AR @ N06 Moving towards getting the big three bladed
>> fan running!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings |
Hi Tom,
I can not speak from experience either for or against the Van's intersection
fairings. I have had a couple of friends express that they put a lot of
effort into making them work.
I can speak to the fit and finish of the 6A fairings made by Bob at Fairings
Etc..
His product came very close to final fit right out of the box. In general I
found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because I tend to
be a wee bit anal about such things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
something to do with the 10 year build time {[B-).
Bob's Fairings may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
attribute much of the compliments I get to his product.
Starting and finishing are all part of getting there,
Jim in Kelowna - The new governor works great, serious test flying now under
way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>
> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's catalog.
> I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only as RV-7A
> fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried them on a 6A. I
> would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A (however well that
> is).
>
> Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
> intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
>
> I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
>
> Thanks for any info.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
In a message dated 4/18/2007 11:56:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jfogarty(at)tds.net writes:
I believe the hard part for people to understand is how much commerce comes
to each local airport and cities across the USA as we fly around. This is
something each of us should be conveying at local airport events. We can do
this by telling people and or through our local publications. Just think of
the money that is spent this week for all the people traveling to Sun and
Fun. That's not just $100 hamburger. If someone fly's into Kentucky he or
she may like it there and someday come back or for that one landing buy
goods and services. It's all about the money, and we need to tell that to
our legislator's and our local business community.
==================================================
Maybe this is how the AOPA should spin their AOPA Credit Card service, the
"I AM A PILOT WHO JUST FLEW IN AND LEFT THESE DOLLARS IN YOUR COMMUNITY" card.
Seriously, this is the best way to ear-mark pilot dollars. Don't use
cash, always charge it on the PILOT CARD.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 842hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
On 18 Apr 2007, at 21:44, Rob Prior wrote:
>
> On 16:02 2007-04-18 Kevin Horton wrote:
>>> year over year. Compare/contrast that to the developments in
>>> engine technology in motorcycles, boats, cars, etc. We're still
>>> running the gas-guzzlers.
>>
>> Which in-production gasoline-powered cars have a brake specific fuel
>> consumption lower than a fuel-injected Lycoming running lean of
>> peak? With references please.
>
> I probably should have said "We're still running the gas-guzzlers,
> as far
> as the general public is concerned." There are Hybrid SUV's now
> that get
> gas mileage as good as a large, non-hybrid sedan, but people still
> lump all
> SUV's into one category, hybrid or not.
>
> But are you saying that Lycomings don't need improvement? Can't be
> improved? Shouldn't be improved? Just because they're already pretty
> good, that's no reason to just sit by and tell everyone else to
> pull up
> their socks. "The problem isn't aircraft engines, it's everyone
> else!"
> Imagine how far that would go in a public debate.
>
> Public perception of private aircraft owners is that we're a bunch
> of rich
> playboys, doing whatever we want. Much like the SU
I doubt that it is possible to make much improvement in brake
specific fuel consumption (i.e. how much fuel flow is required to
produce a given amount of power) unless we move away from the Otto
cycle. All gasoline-powered engines that I am aware of that had
better fuel consumption numbers than a fuel-injected Lycoming were
very complicated and heavy. Very complicated generally means
expensive and unreliable. And heavier aircraft have higher induced
drag, which means you need more power to fly the same speed, which
increases fuel consumption.
It is certainly possible to make aircraft that burn less fuel than
our RVs. You do that by reducing aircraft weight, minimizing drag,
and accepting lower cruise speeds. Then you can get the desired
performance with a much lower power engine, and less power required
for cruise means lower fuel consumption. But, anyone who was really
interested in this wouldn't be building a classic RV. They might
build an RV-12, or some of the high speed, non-LSA (too fast),
European designs that use small engines. The high fuel costs in
Europe has already pushed them in this direction. We in North
America are 15 or 20 years behind.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8tor(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What I Miss at SnF |
Great post Kyle!
As one of the racers, I guess that was the ultimate reward for the hours
of building. I sure miss it too, and I miss Sun n Fun too, because I
won't go if there isn't a race.
Maybe if a few more people felt as you do, and let their feelings be
known, it could be held again.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
Kyle Boatright wrote:
> One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
> early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
> their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
> like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers
> taped on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off
> they went.
>
> A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
> down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple
> of folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes
> later, and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other
> not-particularly fast airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp
> will push a big winged, strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
>
> Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
> Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
> 350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
> another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
> fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
> "only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little
> while later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in
> his Kitfox.
>
> And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these
> beautiful, fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one
> coast to another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
>
> KB
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | What I Miss at SnF |
We should get all the interested parties together and hold our own race(s).
I bet we would have plenty of racers and spectators. I will be one. Let's
get organized! If we have it Sun n Fun week we just have it at a nearby area
that does not conflict with space.
Dale
RV6a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Huft
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
Great post Kyle!
As one of the racers, I guess that was the ultimate reward for the hours
of building. I sure miss it too, and I miss Sun n Fun too, because I
won't go if there isn't a race.
Maybe if a few more people felt as you do, and let their feelings be
known, it could be held again.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
Kyle Boatright wrote:
> One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
> early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
> their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
> like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers
> taped on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off
> they went.
>
> A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
> down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple
> of folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes
> later, and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other
> not-particularly fast airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp
> will push a big winged, strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
>
> Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
> Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
> 350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
> another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
> fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
> "only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little
> while later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in
> his Kitfox.
>
> And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these
> beautiful, fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one
> coast to another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
>
> KB
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SCOTT SPENCER <aerokinetic(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
Somebody else may have said this by now... I confess I've only skimmed the postings
lately. But I *must* say:
Anybody who has written to this list about user fees and has not yet written
all their elected representatives should be ashamed!
Scott
N4ZW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ray D. Congdon" <n7hqk(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Small Airport economic impact |
Thought I'd relate this story;
A local FBO at a small airport that is favored by gliders (BTW, Van has been spotted
there several times!) attended a city council meeting where the fate of
the airport was discussed and it was decided not to "Waste" any more money on
airport maintence let alone finace upgrades out of city coffers. The FBO, being
a very savy businessman, came up with an idea. He went to the local bank and
ordered $4000 in $2 bills. When they arrived he, for the next month, used the
$2 bills to make change for every transaction that he conducted at the field.
At the next city council meeting, he stood and asked how many businessmen (and
women, I'm sure, to be PC) had gotten a large flux of $2 bills? Since this is
a small town, most of the business owners were in attendence at the meeting and
many heads bobbed up and down and a general grumbling was heard as $2 bills
are a pain for small, cash oriented businesses because they have to be handled
seperately from all other cash. The cash drawers don't have a place for them,
etc... "Well", he said, "each one of those $2 bills came from the airport...."
the topic changed as the businesses realized how much money their local aiport
put into the local economy...
Oh, yeah, visit 1L9, Parowan UT sometime. They have a nice new taxiway, numerous
new hangers, new paint on the runway, and a rather nice little campground
on the strip, all built and maintained with local public $$$.... and don't forget
to pick up a couple of $2 bills in your change when you fuel up!
ISA-USA Inc.
Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure
Ray D. Congdon
5515 N 4400 W
Cedar City, UT 84720 USA
www.isa-usa-inc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronlee(at)pcisys.net |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
> > But are you saying that Lycomings don't need improvement? Can't be
> > improved? Shouldn't be improved?
I once calculated that I get better MPG with my O-360 RV-6A than I do
with my 2001 Jeep Cherokee. Oh my. A SUV driver AND pilot. Waaaa waaa
for the global warming chicken littles. See what covered much of North
America around 15000 years ago then come complain about global warming.
Ron
Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Huft <rv8tor(at)lazy8.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What I Miss at SnF |
Hi Dale
It is being done, see...
http://www.sportairrace.org/
It will take a while to build the national recognition that the Sun 100
had, but I am supporting it and hoping for the best.
John
Dale Walter wrote:
>
> We should get all the interested parties together and hold our own race(s).
> I bet we would have plenty of racers and spectators. I will be one. Let's
> get organized! If we have it Sun n Fun week we just have it at a nearby area
> that does not conflict with space.
> Dale
> RV6a
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Huft
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:34 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
>
>
> Great post Kyle!
>
> As one of the racers, I guess that was the ultimate reward for the hours
> of building. I sure miss it too, and I miss Sun n Fun too, because I
> won't go if there isn't a race.
>
> Maybe if a few more people felt as you do, and let their feelings be
> known, it could be held again.
>
> John Huft
> RV8 "Nuisance"
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
>> early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
>> their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
>> like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers
>> taped on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off
>> they went.
>>
>> A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
>> down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple
>> of folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes
>> later, and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other
>> not-particularly fast airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp
>> will push a big winged, strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
>>
>> Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
>> Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
>> 350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
>> another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
>> fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
>> "only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little
>> while later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in
>> his Kitfox.
>>
>> And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these
>> beautiful, fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one
>> coast to another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
>>
>> KB
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | What I Miss at SnF |
Sun N Fun ended it because of the insurance the year that I first took my
Midget Mustang there. I was really looking forward to racing since I have
never done it before and it was always one of my dreams weather I was going
to be competitive or not. Hopefully they will get it back at SNF next year.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Huft
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
Hi Dale
It is being done, see...
http://www.sportairrace.org/
It will take a while to build the national recognition that the Sun 100
had, but I am supporting it and hoping for the best.
John
Dale Walter wrote:
>
> We should get all the interested parties together and hold our own
race(s).
> I bet we would have plenty of racers and spectators. I will be one. Let's
> get organized! If we have it Sun n Fun week we just have it at a nearby
area
> that does not conflict with space.
> Dale
> RV6a
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Huft
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:34 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
>
>
> Great post Kyle!
>
> As one of the racers, I guess that was the ultimate reward for the hours
> of building. I sure miss it too, and I miss Sun n Fun too, because I
> won't go if there isn't a race.
>
> Maybe if a few more people felt as you do, and let their feelings be
> known, it could be held again.
>
> John Huft
> RV8 "Nuisance"
>
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
>> early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
>> their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
>> like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers
>> taped on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off
>> they went.
>>
>> A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
>> down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple
>> of folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes
>> later, and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other
>> not-particularly fast airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp
>> will push a big winged, strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
>>
>> Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
>> Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
>> 350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
>> another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
>> fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
>> "only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little
>> while later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in
>> his Kitfox.
>>
>> And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these
>> beautiful, fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one
>> coast to another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
>>
>> KB
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
Al Gore said Global Warming is man made but a few years back a team of
wonderful people made a recovery of a P-38, Glacier Girl, from a shaft depth
of 268' of ice. Mr Gore, I hope it warms up! Then we could go get the rest
of the planes.
Jim
RV9a Builder
----- Original Message -----
From: <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: User Fees and Patriotism
>
>
>> > But are you saying that Lycomings don't need improvement? Can't be
>> > improved? Shouldn't be improved?
>
> I once calculated that I get better MPG with my O-360 RV-6A than I do
> with my 2001 Jeep Cherokee. Oh my. A SUV driver AND pilot. Waaaa waaa
> for the global warming chicken littles. See what covered much of North
> America around 15000 years ago then come complain about global warming.
>
> Ron
> Lee
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>
>
> --
> 5:32 AM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Small Airport economic impact |
That's a great idea. Commerce at work and economic impact on the up
swing.
Also, I like the cedit card idea that Terry McHenry has. I wonder if
part of the transaction fee that the retailer pays for letting you use
your credit card could be returned to the local business through a
discount on his monthly statement, stating: "Thank your local Airport
Commission - Commerce at work - AOPA and/or EAA" What does this group
of rivet bangers think?
Jim Fogarty
RV9a Builder
----- Original Message -----
From: Ray D. Congdon
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RV-List: Small Airport economic impact
Thought I'd relate this story;
A local FBO at a small airport that is favored by gliders (BTW, Van
has been spotted there several times!) attended a city council meeting
where the fate of the airport was discussed and it was decided not to
"Waste" any more money on airport maintence let alone finace upgrades
out of city coffers. The FBO, being a very savy businessman, came up
with an idea. He went to the local bank and ordered $4000 in $2 bills.
When they arrived he, for the next month, used the $2 bills to make
change for every transaction that he conducted at the field.
At the next city council meeting, he stood and asked how many
businessmen (and women, I'm sure, to be PC) had gotten a large flux of
$2 bills? Since this is a small town, most of the business owners were
in attendence at the meeting and many heads bobbed up and down and a
general grumbling was heard as $2 bills are a pain for small, cash
oriented businesses because they have to be handled seperately from all
other cash. The cash drawers don't have a place for them, etc...
"Well", he said, "each one of those $2 bills came from the airport...."
the topic changed as the businesses realized how much money their local
aiport put into the local economy...
Oh, yeah, visit 1L9, Parowan UT sometime. They have a nice new
taxiway, numerous new hangers, new paint on the runway, and a rather
nice little campground on the strip, all built and maintained with local
public $$$.... and don't forget to pick up a couple of $2 bills in your
change when you fuel up!
ISA-USA Inc.
Industrial Strength Answers For Telecommunications Infrastructure
Ray D. Congdon
5515 N 4400 W
Cedar City, UT 84720 USA
www.isa-usa-inc.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
4/19/2007 5:32 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
On 7:07 2007-04-19 ronlee(at)pcisys.net wrote:
> I once calculated that I get better MPG with my O-360 RV-6A than I do
> with my 2001 Jeep Cherokee. Oh my. A SUV driver AND pilot. Waaaa
> waaa for the global warming chicken littles. See what covered much
> of North America around 15000 years ago then come complain about
> global warming.
Like I said in my first email:
"Public perception of private aircraft owners is that we're a bunch of rich
playboys, doing whatever we want. Much like the SUV market. Sticking our
head in the sand won't make the outcry about frivolous pollution go away."
Thanks for proving my point. Please, continue to stick your head in the
sand and erect a "somebody else's problem" field around your life.
Climate change is not a myth.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Carey" <tiger10(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | What I Miss at SnF |
For what it is worth, the 99's run a lot of races other than the Air Race
Classic. A lot of the local chapters run short 1 to 400 mile races on
weekends. You may want to get some of the lady pilots/wifes to look into
this. They were a lot of fun and I met some great people.
Jim C RV8-A 1/2 done
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale Walter
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
We should get all the interested parties together and hold our own race(s).
I bet we would have plenty of racers and spectators. I will be one. Let's
get organized! If we have it Sun n Fun week we just have it at a nearby area
that does not conflict with space.
Dale
RV6a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Huft
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: What I Miss at SnF
Great post Kyle!
As one of the racers, I guess that was the ultimate reward for the hours of
building. I sure miss it too, and I miss Sun n Fun too, because I won't go
if there isn't a race.
Maybe if a few more people felt as you do, and let their feelings be known,
it could be held again.
John Huft
RV8 "Nuisance"
Kyle Boatright wrote:
> One thing that was always inspiring to me was the Sun 100. You got up
> early on the Friday (?) of the show and watched the pilots roll out
> their aircraft, all polished, with seams taped, a few "luxury" items
> like VOR antennae and tailwheel springs deleted, and race numbers
> taped on the side. They lined up from fastest to slowest, and then off
> they went.
>
> A 350 horse Venture leaving prop contrails, an RV-4 flying all the way
> down the runway in ground effect before beginning his climb, a couple
> of folks in KR-2's and Sonerais screaming after them a few minutes
> later, and last, but not least, a Kitfox or some other
> not-particularly fast airplane going out just to see how fast 80 hp
> will push a big winged, strutted Sunday flyer around a 100 mile course.
>
> Twenty minutes later, the fast airplanes are back. The Ventures, the
> Swearingens, and the Glasair III's buzzing overhead at 500' and maybe
> 350 mph, having traded a few feet of altitude for more speed. In
> another minute, the 4 cylinder Glasairs and Lancairs arrive, with the
> fast RV's and Rockets mixed in, followed by the slower RV's, which are
> "only" doing 200 mph or so as the cross the finish line. A little
> while later, the KR's and Sonerais buzz by too, followed by pokey in
> his Kitfox.
>
> And the amazing thing is that these people built all of these
> beautiful, fast airplanes in workshops and garages spread from one
> coast to another. It gave me chill bumps every time.
>
> KB
> *
>
>
> *
__________ NOD32 2205 (20070419) Information __________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronlee(at)pcisys.net |
| Subject: | Small Airport economic impact, $2 bills |
The FBO, being a very savy businessman, came up with an idea. He went to
the local bank and ordered $4000 in $2 bills. When they arrived he,
for the next month, used the $2 bills to make change for every
transaction that he conducted at the field.
>
> At the next city council meeting, he stood and asked how many
businessmen (and women, I'm sure, to be PC) had gotten a large flux of $2
bills? Since this is a small town, most of the business owners were in
attendence at the meeting and many heads bobbed up and down
and a general grumbling was heard as $2 bills are a pain for small, cash
oriented businesses because they have to be handled seperately from all
other cash. The cash drawers don't have a place for them,
tc... "Well", he said, "each one of those $2 bills
came from the airport...." the topic changed as the businesses realized
how much money their local aiport put into the local economy...
This should be relayed to AOPA and have them organize the same event
nationwide. But include it to have pilots who fly places pay with $2
bills.
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jim & terri truitt <jimteri1(at)earthlink.net> |
OK. I normally just read quietly and keep to myself, but I have to weigh in on
this. I'm as patriotic as anyone - I support the troops (more than just lip
service), I like Toby Keith's music, I fly our county's flag at my home, I generally
support the Republican point of view, but vote the person, not the party,
I'm glad we kicked Saddam's ass, and I am a foe to anyone who wants to destroy
this country (and I have taken several oaths to that effect). I really don't
see a connection between paying these fees and my patriotism. Am I missing
something here?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
OK. I normally just read quietly and keep to myself, but I have to
weigh in on this. I'm as patriotic as anyone - I support the troops
(more than just lip service), I like Toby Keith's music, I fly our
county's flag at my home, I generally support the Republican point of
view, but vote the person, not the party, I'm glad we kicked Saddam's
ass, and I am a foe to anyone who wants to destroy this country (and I
have taken several oaths to that effect). I really don't see a
connection between paying these fees and my patriotism. Am I missing
something here?
>>>Are you missing something? Not really. Patriotism and paying fees
have the same link as supporting the troops and supporting the war.
It's the usual linking of disconnected concepts. Just remember, if you
don't like the Presdent, you must hate America. See how it works!!!
Chuck Jensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
We have been "running out of oil" for my entire lifetime which extends back
to world war 2. I would have thought that by now intelligent people would
realize that we don't "run out" of natural resources; as they become more
scarce their price goes up. When that happens market forces find more or
find substitutes and adjust the price accordingly. We ran out of
$0.30/gallon gas way back in the sixties but we still have $3.50/gallon gas,
if you buy right away. Too bad about that nickel cup of coffee I used to
hear about when I was little.
My biggest concern about climate change is not the effect it will have on
the physical environment but its affect on the political environment. It is
the best excuse those who don't believe in our freedom have had to further
limit our options since the dire warnings about the coming ice age in the
early 1970's.
I will agree that the climate is changing. Everything changes. Which way, by
how much, and by what cause and over what period of time is far too steeped
in political agenda for the loudest answers to be taken seriously. We are in
danger of running ourselves off a cliff like a bunch of Lemmings by adopting
a politically correct but wrong solution to a problem that may turn out to
be just part of the long term climate fluctuations caused by factors totally
beyond our control.
Scientific reports are now "negotiated" with political interests to arrive
at so-called truth. I can hear the waves crashing on the rocks below.
But, I guess we can "feel good about ourselves" as we run off the cliff.
Terry
Besides, we're running out of oil. Wouldn't you rather see solutions
now rather than later? I know I would.
As for the chicken little comment -- I'd rather take care of the
problem than bury my head in the sand.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly Patterson" <kbob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
I have seen both fairings and went straight to Bob's. The Van's fairings I
saw use a male mold, which means the exterior is very rough - and that is
the part you have to finish! Bob's uses a female mold which leaves an
almost ready to paint finish. Your labor expended on Van's will exceed the
Dollars spent on Bob's.
Kelly Patterson
RV-6A N716K 139 hrs
PHX, AZ
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
Hi Tom,
I can not speak from experience either for or against the Van's intersection
fairings. I have had a couple of friends express that they put a lot of
effort into making them work.
I can speak to the fit and finish of the 6A fairings made by Bob at Fairings
Etc..
His product came very close to final fit right out of the box. In general I
found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because I tend to
be a wee bit anal about such things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
something to do with the 10 year build time {[B-).
Bob's Fairings may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
attribute much of the compliments I get to his product.
Starting and finishing are all part of getting there,
Jim in Kelowna - The new governor works great, serious test flying now under
way.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>
> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's catalog.
> I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only as RV-7A
> fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried them on a 6A. I
> would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A (however well that
> is).
>
> Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
> intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
>
> I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
>
> Thanks for any info.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
The vertical / horizontal stab fairing that came with my RV-7 finishing
kit, a few months ago, was beautiful. Will only require priming and
painting...no glass work at all. Van has apparently made a new mold,
for this part anyway.
Steve Eberhart
Hanging the engine April 28th
Kelly Patterson wrote:
>
> I have seen both fairings and went straight to Bob's. The Van's
> fairings I saw use a male mold, which means the exterior is very rough
> - and that is the part you have to finish! Bob's uses a female mold
> which leaves an almost ready to paint finish. Your labor expended on
> Van's will exceed the Dollars spent on Bob's.
>
> Kelly Patterson
> RV-6A N716K 139 hrs
> PHX, AZ
>
>
> From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I can not speak from experience either for or against the Van's
> intersection
> fairings. I have had a couple of friends express that they put a lot of
> effort into making them work.
>
> I can speak to the fit and finish of the 6A fairings made by Bob at
> Fairings
> Etc..
>
> His product came very close to final fit right out of the box. In
> general I
> found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
> and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because I
> tend to
> be a wee bit anal about such things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
> something to do with the 10 year build time {[B-).
>
> Bob's Fairings may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
> attribute much of the compliments I get to his product.
>
> Starting and finishing are all part of getting there,
>
> Jim in Kelowna - The new governor works great, serious test flying now
> under
> way.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
> Subject: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>
>
>>
>> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's
>> catalog.
>> I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
>> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only as RV-7A
>> fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried them on a
>> 6A. I
>> would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A (however well
>> that
>> is).
>>
>> Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
>> intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
>>
>> I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
>>
>> Thanks for any info.
>> --
>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
The gear leg to fuselage intersection fairings I got from Vans, are unusable
junk. I'll have to throw them away and order a decent set from
Fairings-Etc. Van does well with metal, but his (actually a sub contractor)
fiberglass parts are not up to par for a company of this caliber.
On a related subject, I've enjoyed looking at close to 100 or more beautiful
RV's at Sun N'Fun this week. What surprised me somewhat was that I only saw
one RV with Sam James cowlings/plenums. Although I'm not flying yet, it
seemed like a "no brainer" to delete the Vans cowls from my firewall forward
kit, and order the Sam James cowls. Sam claims better cooling and 10-12 MPH
faster with his cowls. Is there something I'm missing here?
Garry Stout
RV-7A "almost" finished
Zephyrhills Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Eberhart" <steve(at)newtech.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings
>
> The vertical / horizontal stab fairing that came with my RV-7 finishing
> kit, a few months ago, was beautiful. Will only require priming and
> painting...no glass work at all. Van has apparently made a new mold, for
> this part anyway.
>
> Steve Eberhart
> Hanging the engine April 28th
>
> Kelly Patterson wrote:
>>
>> I have seen both fairings and went straight to Bob's. The Van's fairings
>> I saw use a male mold, which means the exterior is very rough - and that
>> is the part you have to finish! Bob's uses a female mold which leaves an
>> almost ready to paint finish. Your labor expended on Van's will exceed
>> the Dollars spent on Bob's.
>>
>> Kelly Patterson
>> RV-6A N716K 139 hrs
>> PHX, AZ
>>
>>
>> From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>>
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I can not speak from experience either for or against the Van's
>> intersection
>> fairings. I have had a couple of friends express that they put a lot of
>> effort into making them work.
>>
>> I can speak to the fit and finish of the 6A fairings made by Bob at
>> Fairings
>> Etc..
>>
>> His product came very close to final fit right out of the box. In general
>> I
>> found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
>> and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because I tend
>> to
>> be a wee bit anal about such things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
>> something to do with the 10 year build time {[B-).
>>
>> Bob's Fairings may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
>> attribute much of the compliments I get to his product.
>>
>> Starting and finishing are all part of getting there,
>>
>> Jim in Kelowna - The new governor works great, serious test flying now
>> under
>> way.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
>> Subject: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's
>>> catalog.
>>> I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
>>> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only as RV-7A
>>> fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried them on a 6A.
>>> I
>>> would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A (however well
>>> that
>>> is).
>>>
>>> Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
>>> intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
>>>
>>> I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any info.
>>> --
>>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
maybe the claim is not much more than a claim but the actual extra work required
to make them work is an undeniable fact and just not worth it?
I really don't know but I've never heard any other RV pilot in person mention that
upon further review they wish they had gone that route. They do look cool,
I'll admit, but if it they were really that much better performance wise then
I'd think Van himself would have been tempted to try the style on at least just
one plane just for the heck of it after all these years.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com>
>
> The gear leg to fuselage intersection fairings I got from Vans, are unusable
> junk. I'll have to throw them away and order a decent set from
> Fairings-Etc. Van does well with metal, but his (actually a sub contractor)
> fiberglass parts are not up to par for a company of this caliber.
>
> On a related subject, I've enjoyed looking at close to 100 or more beautiful
> RV's at Sun N'Fun this week. What surprised me somewhat was that I only saw
> one RV with Sam James cowlings/plenums. Although I'm not flying yet, it
> seemed like a "no brainer" to delete the Vans cowls from my firewall forward
> kit, and order the Sam James cowls. Sam claims better cooling and 10-12 MPH
> faster with his cowls. Is there something I'm missing here?
>
> Garry Stout
> RV-7A "almost" finished
> Zephyrhills Florida
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Eberhart"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:52 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings
>
>
> >
> > The vertical / horizontal stab fairing that came with my RV-7 finishing
> > kit, a few months ago, was beautiful. Will only require priming and
> > painting...no glass work at all. Van has apparently made a new mold, for
> > this part anyway.
> >
> > Steve Eberhart
> > Hanging the engine April 28th
> >
> > Kelly Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >> I have seen both fairings and went straight to Bob's. The Van's fairings
> >> I saw use a male mold, which means the exterior is very rough - and that
> >> is the part you have to finish! Bob's uses a female mold which leaves an
> >> almost ready to paint finish. Your labor expended on Van's will exceed
> >> the Dollars spent on Bob's.
> >>
> >> Kelly Patterson
> >> RV-6A N716K 139 hrs
> >> PHX, AZ
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Jim Jewell"
> >> Subject: Re: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> I can not speak from experience either for or against the Van's
> >> intersection
> >> fairings. I have had a couple of friends express that they put a lot of
> >> effort into making them work.
> >>
> >> I can speak to the fit and finish of the 6A fairings made by Bob at
> >> Fairings
> >> Etc..
> >>
> >> His product came very close to final fit right out of the box. In general
> >> I
> >> found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
> >> and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because I tend
> >> to
> >> be a wee bit anal about such things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
> >> something to do with the 10 year build time {[B-).
> >>
> >> Bob's Fairings may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
> >> attribute much of the compliments I get to his product.
> >>
> >> Starting and finishing are all part of getting there,
> >>
> >> Jim in Kelowna - The new governor works great, serious test flying now
> >> under
> >> way.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarg314"
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
> >> Subject: RV-List: vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection fairings in van's
> >>> catalog.
> >>> I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
> >>> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only as RV-7A
> >>> fairings. I called van's and they said they hand't tried them on a 6A.
> >>> I
> >>> would guess that they fit a 6A as well as they fit a 7A (however well
> >>> that
> >>> is).
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone out there with a 6A tried the Van's Upper Main gear
> >>> intersection fairings for the 7A? Do they fit?
> >>>
> >>> I'm told Fairings etc. sells good ones, but they're twice as expensive.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any info.
> >>> --
> >>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
maybe the claim is not much more than a claim but the actual extra work required
to make them work is an undeniable fact and just not worth it?
I really don't know but I've never heard any other RV pilot in person mention
that upon further review they wish they had gone that route. They do
look cool, I'll admit, but if it they were really that much better performance
wise then I'd think Van himself would have been tempted to try the style
on at least just one plane just for the heck of it after all these years.
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Garry"
>
> The gear leg to fuselage intersection
fairings I got from Vans, are unusable
> junk. I'll have to throw
them away and order a decent set from
> Fairings-Etc. Van does well with
metal, but his (actually a sub contractor)
> fiberglass parts are not
up to par for a company of this caliber.
>
> On a related subject,
I've enjoyed looking at close to 100 or more beautiful
> RV's at Sun
N'Fun this week. What surprised me somewhat was that I only saw
> one
RV with Sam James cowlings/plenums. Although I'm not flying yet, it
>
seemed like a "no brainer" to delete the Vans cowls from my firewall forward
> kit, and order the Sam James cowls. Sam clai
ms bet
ter cooling and 10-12 MPH
> faster with his cowls. Is there something I'm
missing here?
>
> Garry Stout
> RV-7A "almost" finished
> Zephyrhills Florida
>
>
>
> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>> From: "Steve Eberhart" <STEVE(at)NEWTECH.COM><BR>> To:
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:52 PM
>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings
>
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart
>
>
> > The vertical / horizontal stab fairing that came with
my RV-7 finishing
> > kit, a few months ago, was beautiful. Will only
require priming and
> > painting...no glass work at all. Van has
apparently made a new mold, for
> > this part anyway.
> >
> > Steve Eberhart
> > Hanging the engine April 28th
>
>
> > Kelly Patterson wrote:
&g
t; >
;> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kelly Patterson"
>
>>
> >> I have seen both fairings and went straight to Bob's.
The Van's fairings
> >> I saw use a male mold, which means the
exterior is very rough - and that
> >> is the part you have to
finish! Bob's uses a female mold which leaves an
> >> almost ready
to paint finish. Your labor expended on Van's will exceed
> >>
the Dollars spent on Bob's.
> >>
> >> Kelly Patterson
> >> RV-6A N716K 139 hrs
> >> PHX, AZ
> >>
From: "Jim Jewell" <JJEWELL(at)TELUS.NET><BR>> >> Subject: Re: RV-List:
vans' upper main gear intersection fairings
> >>
>
>>
> >> Hi Tom,
> >>
> >> I can
not speak from experience either for or against the V
an's <
BR>> >> intersection
> >> fairings. I have had a couple of
friends express that they put a lot of
> >> effort into making
them work.
> >>
> >> I can speak to the fit and finish
of the 6A fairings made by Bob at
> >> Fairings
> >>
Etc..
> >>
> >> His product came very close to final
fit right out of the box. In general
> >> I
> >>
found his instruction sheets simple, clear and concise. I spent some time
>
>> and effort making slight modifications. I did so primarily because
I tend
> >> to
> >> be a wee bit anal about such
things. Hmmm, do yah think maybe that had
> >> something to do
with the 10 year build time {[B-).
> >>
> >> Bob's Fairings
may be a bit pricey ?.. but the value was there for me. I
> >>
attribute much of the compliments I get to his
produc
t.
> >>
> >> Starting and finishing are all part of getting
there,
> >>
> >> Jim in Kelowna - The new governor
works great, serious test flying now
> >> under
> >>
way.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original
Message ----- From: "sarg314" <SARG314(at)COMCAST.NET><BR>> >> Sent:
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 6:06 PM
> >> Subject: RV-List: vans' upper
main gear intersection fairings
> >>
> >>
>
>>>
> >>> I just noticed the upper main gear intersection
fairings in van's
> >>> catalog.
> >>>
I have all my other fairings and wasn't looking forward to making these.
>
>>> But I'm building an RV-6A and the catalog identifies them only
as RV-7A
> >>> fairings. I called van's and they said they
hand't tried them on a 6A.
> >>> I >
toshar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Phoenix April 23-26 |
I am flying to Phoenix, AZ on April 23 through 26 to
do some electrical work for a friend on his new house.
Yes, he is flying me from MI to AZ. Anyways, I might
be available eves or Wednesday and Thursday all day,
don't know exactly for sure to visit some RV'ers or
maybe go flying. I will have some cash for fuel. If
you would like some company from a po' boy from MI,
let me know. I would like to meet some RV'ers out
west. BTW, he lives 20 minutes NW of Sky Harbor Intl.
Dave Nellis
7A Slider
N410DN (Res.)
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com> |
Anyone have any experience with pedal plane plans? I have seen the ones in EAA.
I have not seen plans for a Bonanza or a RV. Anyone build them near Atlanta?
I am thinking about building one for my Grandson for Christmas.
Painting Bonanza magnesium this weekend.
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jim & terri truitt <jimteri1(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | User fees and patriotism |
Man, I'm getting too old for this stuff. You guys are killing me. This idea of
user fees sucks. Period. I don't know what global warming has to do with the
user fee idea, and neither do you, I think. If you like the idea of user fees,
wait and see. I figure I pay a few bucks in taxes for each of the hundred
or so hours I fly each year. The airlines fly millions of hours a year and
pay millions of dollars. Sounds fair to me. They pass the costs on to the passengers
- as it should be. And they use and wear and tear on the system a WHOLE
lot more than I do. This user fee thing is just the politicos bowing to big
business. It's a scam and a sham. Those of you who think it's a good idea
- remember I (and countless others) told you so. And by the way, I feel I pay
my fair share and I don't mind that. The airlines just need to pay their "fair"
share. Under the present system, they do. Remember,these are the corporations
who got 13 billion dollars after 9/11 to help them stay afloat. And some
went bankrupt anyway. I say, let em go bankrupt. Someone like Ted Turner
or Ross Perot will buy those airplanes and start a more efficient way of doing
business. A huge detriment to the economy - I doubt it. It would even out in
the long run. Capitalism - it's a great concept. Politicians tend to screw
it up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for advice |
I think AB DER stands for Amateur Built Designated
Engineering Representative... but then again I could
be wrong ;)
Darrell
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Painting fiberglass |
| From: | george.mueller(at)aurora.org |
I am finishing up my "practice airplane" a Zenith 701 before starting
either a RV7A or RV8A. I am not going to paint the airplane for a while
but I want to paint the fiberglass cowl silver to blend in with the rest
of the airplane. You guys work with a lot of fiberglass. What relatively
non-toxic (i.e., not polyurethane) primer/paint is good for fiberglass?
Also, I am 6' 3" 230 pounds. Should I go with a 7A or 8A?
George in Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "john schmidt" <jeschmidt(at)hotmail.com> |
I built a Christen Eagle pedal plane for my nephew way back when (he's
currently 6'3" and a soph at Univ. of Minn. -Duluth). Kid loved it, loved
building it. We included some 'tweaks' from the plans, cosmetic only (Paint,
panel). Marv Hoppenworth's plans are good, thorough, well thought-out, IMHO.
We bought the metal kit with it, pre-bent, pre-drilled, threaded holes
pre-tapped and ready to go. Well worth getting the metal kit, if time is a
factor (kids aren't growing any slower).
I think you could easily modify one of the planes (someone said the P-51) to
be an RV-lookalike. II don't know about the Bonanza; stretch a fuselage? I
guess it depends on your eyeball-engineering skills. There is little
structurally-critical to worry about; Bonanza looks would come in the
proportions, fuselage shaping, and painting (I imagine grey painted windows
on the fuse behind the pilot).
Had a chance to chat with Marv one Oshkosh; he told a story: he said he used
to buy the landing gear wheels for stocking the projects by bulk, such that
he had a 4-foot, by 5-foot high, by 10-foot long crate hanging off the end
of his full-size truck tailgate, from the wheel (distributor? manufacturer?)
guy, on the trip back to his home in Iowa. He said he made trips like that
about 2 times a year. If that's the case, I'd be interested as to how many
pedal planes are out there.
I think EAA has (at least some of) the rights to the plans now, because I
think he may have sold or donated the rights to EAA; that's my WAG, because
I haven't seen Marv's pedal plane ads lately. Marv is ANOTHER one of those
quiet, yet great, EAA guys. I find guys like that on the RV list, too. Makes
me happy just to hang around guys like that.
Once my RV is in the air, I've thought often of building pedal planes and
donating them to local charities for silent auctions. We, the
shrinking-numbers converted, need to infiltrate that non-aviating public at
every turn and opportunity; I think it's a way of planting that aviation
seed in the heads of kids (kind of a twisted Young Eagles program in a
sense, get 'em building and flying WAY early........ ;-)
Let us know how your RV pedal plane project turns out.
John Schmidt
St. Paul, MN
rv6 project n218pj res.
>
>________________________________ Message 43
>____________________________________
>
>
>From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Pedal planes
>
>Anyone have any experience with pedal plane plans? I have seen the ones in
>EAA.
>I have not seen plans for a Bonanza or a RV. Anyone build them near
>Atlanta?
>I am thinking about building one for my Grandson for Christmas.
>Sherman Butler
>RV-7a Wings
>Idaho Falls
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Painting fiberglass |
George
Check out Aircraft Finishing Systrems products.
http://www.aircraftfinishing.com/
I am building a 7A...but those 8,s sure look like prime time!!!!!
Frank @ SGU RV7A "NDY"
>From: george.mueller(at)aurora.org
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Painting fiberglass
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:34:24 -0500
>
>I am finishing up my "practice airplane" a Zenith 701 before starting
>either a RV7A or RV8A. I am not going to paint the airplane for a while
>but I want to paint the fiberglass cowl silver to blend in with the rest
>of the airplane. You guys work with a lot of fiberglass. What relatively
>non-toxic (i.e., not polyurethane) primer/paint is good for fiberglass?
>
>Also, I am 6' 3" 230 pounds. Should I go with a 7A or 8A?
>
>
>George in Milwaukee
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Painting fiberglass |
> You guys work with a lot of fiberglass. What relatively non-toxic
> (i.e., not polyurethane) primer/paint is good for fiberglass?
>
>Also, I am 6' 3" 230 pounds. Should I go with a 7A or 8A?
Ah Ha, a building question? Good deal.
Use Smooth Prime as the primer for fiberglass, get it from Aircraft
Spruce. I used PPG two part paint. Works well on fiberglass and metal.
7A or 8A? Do you want the passenger beside you or behind you. If you
like your passengers, then it is easier to talk and show things side
by side. Sizewise, two 230 pounders might be a little tight in an
7A. If you want to sit on the centerline then the RV8A is one way to go.
You could also go with an RV7 or RV8. Personally I don't think
tricycle gear looks good on a tailwheel airplane! But that is just me!
Latest peer reviewed scientific study that my big business paid for
and was fully supported by all my environmental whacky politicians,
indicated that tricycle gear RVs cause global warming and the next
ice age. If you do go with a tricycle gear, it will probably doom us
all, and life as we know it will be no more.
Bob
RV6
"Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brad Oliver <brad(at)rv7factory.com> |
In case anyone points you to the plans available from Aircraft Spruce.
With the recent birth of our first child, I excitedly purchased plans
for a "RV Sport" (or Sky Racer) from Spruce. When I received the
plans I was surprised to see how complicated the construction was for a
pedal car. There are lots of complex dado cuts requiring a table saw
which I don't have, a covered spar and rib wing, and a custom tailwheel
assembly among other things. I tend not to shy away from projects such
as this, but even the instructions caution the user of the time and
tooling needed to build and recommend purchasing a kit. I called the
company that manufactures the plans www.c3gm.com to inquire about a kit
and they had told me that they were out of the pedal plane business and
sold off all the tooling a few years ago. They are also pretty much
out of the plastic parts they had left over (cowl, spinner,
windscreen), unless I wanted rejects or seconds.
Anyway, I've pretty much given up on the RV idea, and now I may purchase
the P-51 plans from EAA which are made by a different company.
Good luck!
Brad Oliver
RV-7 | Livermore, CA
www.RV7Factory.com
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RV-List: Pedal planes
From: Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, April 19, 2007 7:35 pm
Anyone have any experience with pedal plane plans? I have seen the
ones in EAA. I have not seen plans for a Bonanza or a RV. Anyone
build them near Atlanta? I am thinking about building one for my
Grandson for Christmas. Painting Bonanza magnesium this weekend.
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
I live in an airpark...one of my neighbors built a Christen Eagle for his
daughter for Christmas. He did such a beautiful job but then wouldn't let
her ride it outside. It still has its own place in their family room and she
is now a teenager.
This has nothing to do with an RV but I am throwing it in to counter the
ongoing drone on user fees/global warming/patriotism.
Dale Ensing
do not achieve
>
> I built a Christen Eagle pedal plane for my nephew way back when (he's
> currently 6'3" and a soph at Univ. of Minn. -Duluth). Kid loved it, loved
> building it. We included some 'tweaks' from the plans, cosmetic only
> (Paint, panel).
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Porter" <december29(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RV-8 rudder pedals |
Hi,
Doing engine runs on my -8. I have the ground adjustable pedals with the
standard Van's brakes. Question is, I'm 6'3" and have the pedals towards
the end of the adjustment. With full rudder I get NO brake at all on that
pedal. My brakes are bled with no bubbles visible and solid hard feel.
Also, to lock the brakes, I end up looking like a ballet dancer with my toes
pointed way more than I'd like.
This is the first time I've had all the components working together so
haven't had this until now. Talked to one -8 guy and he said that's how his
was as well, no brake on the side with the rudder.
What have others experienced?
Thanks,
John
80002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSamuelson(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Govenor oil leak |
I have a new O-360 and the Jihostroj prop governor. I have a persistent oil
leak that appears to be coming from the gasket between the governor and the
engine. I changed the gasket once and my mechanic changed it a second time. The
leak seems to be at the top of the joint and oil dribbles on down various
hoses and wires and exits at the lower cowl.
Anyone else have the problem?
Roy Samuelson
RV7A at Oakland CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 rudder pedals |
I have the fixed pedals and am also 6'3". What I did was to add another hole to
the 4 pieces of metal (2 per side) that hold the cable, about 1/2 inch closer
to the pedals. This does movel the tops of the pedals closer to you but, I like
my brakes to work at full rudder deflection! If I had to do it over again I
think I would have made it .75.......This is all from memory from a few years
ago so check the numbers!
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
----- Original Message ----
From: John Porter <december29(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 3:27:02 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 rudder pedals
Hi,
Doing engine runs on my -8. I have the ground adjustable pedals with the
standard Van's brakes. Question is, I'm 6'3" and have the pedals towards
the end of the adjustment. With full rudder I get NO brake at all on that
pedal. My brakes are bled with no bubbles visible and solid hard feel.
Also, to lock the brakes, I end up looking like a ballet dancer with my toes
pointed way more than I'd like.
This is the first time I've had all the components working together so
haven't had this until now. Talked to one -8 guy and he said that's how his
was as well, no brake on the side with the rudder.
What have others experienced?
Thanks,
John
80002
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Govenor oil leak |
I have the same equip, installed 14 months ago. I believe there was a
special note with governor saying I may need a thicker gasket to avoid
internal contact of metal parts that would prevent proper seal and improper
friction. Can you assemble gently without the gasket to get an idea of how
much gasket space you have before anything bottoms out inside? In my case
this gave the appearance that the gasket they shipped was adequate. It has
worked ok for 14 months and 200 hours.
Good luck as always,
Dale
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RSamuelson(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 8:27 PM
Subject: RV-List: Govenor oil leak
I have a new O-360 and the Jihostroj prop governor. I have a persistent oil
leak that appears to be coming from the gasket between the governor and the
engine. I changed the gasket once and my mechanic changed it a second time.
The leak seems to be at the top of the joint and oil dribbles on down
various hoses and wires and exits at the lower cowl.
Anyone else have the problem?
Roy Samuelson
RV7A at Oakland CA
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Things like this gives GA a bad reputation, but it does serve to improve
the gene pool.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=d5b17368-baec-4ff1-9b
5
9-19b135992b6f
<http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=d5b17368-baec-4ff1-9
b
59-19b135992b6f>
Chuck Jensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
| From: | "gbrasch" <gbrasch(at)earthlink.net> |
When I saw the fit of Bob's on a friends -9, I ordered, they are great!
--------
Glenn Brasch
RV-9A Finishing #90623, O-360
Tucson, Arizona
Van's Aircraft Belt Buckles
http://home.earthlink.net/~gbrasch/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=108286#108286
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Govenor oil leak |
I had the same problem with MT governor. First, tightened nuts at upper end
of torque limits. No joy. Removed governor, gasket looked fine, cleaned
everything, put thin film of Red RTV on surfaces, torqued using "armstrong
method". No more leaks.
HTH.
Jerry Cochran
RV-6a N18XP 11 hrs.
From: RSamuelson(at)aol.com
Subject: RV-List: Govenor oil leak
I have a new O-360 and the Jihostroj prop governor. I have a persistent oil
leak that appears to be coming from the gasket between the governor and the
engine. I changed the gasket once and my mechanic changed it a second time.
The
leak seems to be at the top of the joint and oil dribbles on down various
hoses and wires and exits at the lower cowl.
Anyone else have the problem?
Roy Samuelson
RV7A at Oakland CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
| From: | "smittysrv" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com> |
Does anybody know a website address or email to contact these guys about there
cowls? I'd like to find out more about them.
Thanks!
--------
Smittys RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=108298#108298
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronlee(at)pcisys.net |
| Subject: | Re: User Fees and Patriotism |
> If your glass is full of ice and water and you drop in another handfull
of ice it will overflow; right? So on a global scale, as the ocean is
now full (at least in relation to beach front communities from Miami to
Venice to Beijing). The extra handfull of ice is that which is now above
water making up the Antarctic and Greenland caps and numerous glaciers
all over.
If you folks really believe that mankind is doing anything substantial to
negatively impact climate, then please quit driving cars, flying
airplanes and revert back to an agrarian/hunter lifestyle living in caves
or huts. Please note that Earth's climate has changed substantially over
the millenia even when man was not a factor.
If you want to believe this non-science that is fine but keep your lack
of knowledge of anything but your own lifetime from impacting my life.
Ron Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for advice (DAR IS OUT TO LUNCH, 100% WRONG) |
HE IS 100% WRONG!
It does not matter if its a Hartzell and Lycoming or a Two by Four you
whittled out and attached to a lawn mower engine. Also the Sensenich
is AN EXPERIMENTAL PROP. This guy is OUT TO LUNCH.
First you are not getting "airworthiness" you are getting a special
airworthiness certificate for an experimental aircraft. Experimental don't
have type certificates and therefore are not subject to
Part 39 - Airworthiness directives or.......
Second the following Parts do not apply to experimentals:
Part 21 - Certification procedures for products and parts
Part 23 - Airworthiness standards: Normal, utility, acrobatic, and
commuter category airplanes
Part 33 - Airworthiness standards: Aircraft engines
Part 35 - Airworthiness standards: Propellers
Part 39 - Airworthiness directives
Part 43 - Maintenance, preventive maintenance, rebuilding, alteration
THIS IS A FACT, LEGAL FAR, FACT. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT
HIS OPINION IS OR WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
YOU NEED SOME ONE TO POINT THE ABOVE OUT, THAN IT
TAKES ALL HIS ARGUMENT AWAY.
Here is the problem people have, experimental aircraft have very
few FAR's compared to a certified, type cert plane with an
airworthiness certificate. SOME FAA or DAR's with a control or
Authoritarian Complex want to impose there Opinion and control
on experimentals that DO NOT APPLY. We need to get these
GUYS out of the DAR business or educate them.
For heavens sakes DON'T GO ALONG WITH THIS! He does it once
he will want to make it LAW.
GOOGLE: Airworthiness Directives and Amateur built aircraft
or
Amateur-Built Aircraft Certification Inspection Guide
Here is a link (with lots of reference):
http://www.sportair.org/articles/Rules%20&%20Regulations%20of%20Airplane%20Building.html
Look down where is says: Maintaining Your Airplane. You will see
many refs but if this guy is going on HOW HE THINKS IT SHOULD
be and LAW (FAR's) you are SOL. You will have to go to his
supervisor or District Maintenance Chief. HOW THEY SEND THESE
GUYS OUT WITH NO TRAINING AMAZES ME
If he does not believe you, have him call FAA legal department. My
Friend get into his face and say NO. Have him prove it. He is making
it up.
There is confusion from some old advisory circulars (AC) that where
published in the 1970's, but they are wrong. This is where the FAA
is not consistent.
HE IS WRONG WRONG WRONG. You don't need an A&P to work on
an amateur build experimental. Part 43 does not apply to experimentals.
Even more controversial is you don't need to comply to AD's on certified
parts, however its common wisdom and sense that its a very good idea.
As the builder you can make the choice to comply or not. Most agree
compiling is good. However when a Prop or Engine is mounted on an
experimental ITS NO LONGER A CERTIFIED PART. Its only certified
when its in that aircraft it was certified in. There are no REAL certified
prop/engines in experimentals for the purpose of maintenance, mod or
AD compliance. This approved combo is only for the 25 to 40 Phase I
period. Its totally different. Besides look at Van's catalog or call
Sensenich, its an experimental PROP they happens to be designed for
RV's with Lycs. However every installation is different and experimental.
Also the Sensenich prop and Lyc IS NOT A Certified Type Approved
combination. The Sensenich is an Experimental prop. Here is the deal
even if it was approved say in a piper or cessna, when its put into an
experimental the installation is not longer a TYPE Certificated
installation.
Here is the thing this guy needs to wrap is brain around, Experimentals
have almost a BLANK CHECK on what you do to it and who works on it.
The only real limit is the annual condition inspection, must be done by a
repairman for the plane or an A&P. However if you bought a second hand
Experimental the new owner can DO WHAT EVER HE WANTS,
maintenance and modification. Again however than he or she would need
to get a condition Inspection signed off. If the A&P does not want to sign
it off that is their choice.
Here is something I wrote about PROP AD's on a Hartzell.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=118022&postcount=12
If you are a member go to on the EAA web site or call the legal dept on
Monday. If you are a member it has lots of info and "controversial" debates
that the EAA legal department has worked out and the FAA is an
agreement.
Many DAR's sometimes work on their own personal preference or opinion
and not the law.
This GUY is WRONG WRONG WRONG. You do not have to maintain it to
TYPE CERT standards. I WOULD GET A DAR THAT KNOWS WHAT HE
IS DOING.
Good Luck but this GUY is OFF base. He is there just to sign off the paper
work not verify airworthiness. Now if he thinks something is not safe than
he can refuse. However the part about A&P's, STC and all that is 100%
wrong.
HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO:
-Get a EAA Technical Counselor
-He is going to need to be educated. HE IS NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO
YOU. You will have to get a knowledgeable FAA person to intercede.
-You can go over his head or call FAA in OK and talk to the FAA.
-I WOULD CALL EAA and IF NOT A MEMBER JOIN. They do more for
us, experimental builders/pilots than AOPA or any other group.
email me if you want more info. gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
It does not matter if you get into a pissing match, HE IS 100% WRONG!
Stand up to the government, don't be afraid. You will get it signed off and
YOU DON'T NEED AN A&P signature ANYWHERE.
George ATP,CFI-II-ME
>From: "Dan Ross" <dcr(at)fdltownhomes.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Looking for advice
>
>Guys:
>
> I'm going through the airworthiness inspection by the local FSDO. The
>guy is coming next Monday at 0900 to complete the inspection and
>paperwork. He happened by yesterday because he was in the area and
>had some time. He did most of the inspection and said to put if back together
>and be ready to run the engine on Monday. He has since called and said I
>needed an A&P sign off for installing the Sensenich propeller on the
>Lycoming (certified) engine.
>
>He called again and said that because the engine is certified, it would
>have to be maintained as a certified engine by an A&P and only certified
>parts or STC ed parts could be installed. I suspect this guy is more airline
>knowledgeable than experimental. BTW, he is a nice guy. My question
>is:
>
>does anyone know any FAA regs or materials I can gently suggest this
>guy to reference? Please, ranting and ravings about the FAA won't help me,
>just references/suggestions to help educate this guy. I have more to lose
>if weget into a pissing contest. Thanks in advance. Dan
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | User Fees and Patriotism |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Looking for advice / registering the plane |
Hi All-
Let me chip in 2 cents here. I just went through a minor hassle that could
have been a big one. I sent in my registration package a little while
back. About 2 weeks later I received 2 letters from the feds. They had
consecutive dates, and were "you goofed your registration" form letters.
The letter has boxes to check to show what was missing from the
registration package. If you were to combine the everything that each
letter said was missing, you'd have a complete package. Hmm... looks like
somehow my registration package got split in two, and then two different
'crats rejected the individual halves. After much time on hold, and as
much time explaining and re-explaining the light bulb finally came on. The
'crat of the moment said she'd look for the docs and give me a call back.
2 days later, no call. So I called them. Turns out all was well, and the
2 halves of the package had been located and put back together. Great! So
where do we stand in the process? "Oh, the documents are being sent back
to you." What!?!?! "Yes, you made an error. The serial numbers on the
forms don't match." Long story short, they felt that MY airplane serial
number had to be VAN's kit serial number. I got hold of Charlie Becker up
at OSH who called the head of the fed office. Within a few minutes he
called back to tell me that my registration would be in the mail in a day
or two. Poof. That simple. Also, during the course of our conversation,
engine data plates came up. They absolutely DO NOT have to be removed from
the engine. You can be directed to the source material for these policies
by our friends in OSH, and certainly in my case they were able call the
right fed and make the problem go away in minutes. YMMV, but those folks
carry a lot of clout. I would advise anyone having these kinds of issues
to seek out the EAA tech folks and learn the truth, as well as how to get
the feds on track.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vans vs. Bobs Fairings |
Bob don't do cowls- DOES do some mighty nice emp fairings (I've done 3 so
far) and many report good results with legs & intersection fairings. For
non-Vans cowls, you'll probably need to contact Sam James
863.675.4493
Mark RV-6A N51PW
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Hello all,
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
Thanks Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
Office: 803.648.3407
Mobile: 803.640.2760
<http://www.newventureconsulting.com> www.newventureconsulting.com
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Carl, there was just an article on this in Kitplanes a month or so ago, and
the plane profiled -- along with two pilots -- was an RV. I think I've got a
copy of it around here somewhere and will try to send it to you off ist.
bob
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 9:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Hello all,
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
Thanks Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
Office: 803.648.3407
Mobile: 803.640.2760
<http://www.newventureconsulting.com> www.newventureconsulting.com
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
There is an article in EAA's sport aviation of a double amputee who
built and flies an RV8, so I am sure it can be done with some
modifications. I am traveling right now for transition training, and
will find the article for you as soon as I get home. You can probably go
to the EAA site and search for it if you need it faster. It was a great
read, and maybe he can help you do the mods required.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Hello all,
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could
use some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I
need to work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a
left leg above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an
instructor to figure out the plane for me to build and modify as
appropriate. I can fly standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my
good leg for either the left or right rudder pedal as required and the
hand brake if I need to hit both brakes at once. Of course the Piper
line has nose wheel steering and I find this very easy for me to
accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I should pursue for the
RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try and figure it
out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes simultaneously,
and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control on an RV by
going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me
in, it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this
full time. I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to
revert to private. Thanks Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
Office: 803.648.3407
Mobile: 803.640.2760
www.newventureconsulting.com <http://www.newventureconsulting.com>
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Carl,
There used to be a paraplegic on this list building a super-6 but I have
forgotten his name and not heard from him lately. As I recall, he had
enough strength on the right side to stomp on that right rudder for
take-off.
For you, I would definitely recommend a tricycle gear. I'm sure you could
fly a TD if you had your mind set on it, but it would probably require a
special prosthesis so you could manipulate both pedals at once, and probably
both brakes too. The prob with a TD is that you really have to dance on the
pedals. You sometimes have to go very quickly from one rudder to the other
in order to overt a ground loop, then quickly back again, and back again
etc... In a big cross wind, a touch of break is sometimes needed to stay
on the runway as the tail transitions - but you still have to dance on the
pedals.
So unless you have some pent-up childhood need to fly a taildragger, get the
tri-gear. I have never flown a tri-gear RV, but they shouldn't be any more
difficult than the other planes you fly. Fairly easy to install hand brake
systems. Side-by-side models are your best bet for transition training.
Good luck,
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
www.RotaryRoster.net
On 4/22/07, Carl Bell wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
> some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
> work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
> above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
> figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
> standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
> or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
> brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
> this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
> should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
> and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
> simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
> on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
> differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
> appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
> it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
> I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
> Thanks Carl
>
>
> *Carl W Bell*
>
> *New Venture Consulting*
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | ELT Misfire.. Main solenoid |
Two years ago....
There I was JMMOB (an official medical abbreviation at some hospitals for
Just Minding My Own Business), home with my parents watching TV when my cell
rings.... Turns out the manhunt had finally located my 'downed' aircraft
parked safely on the transient ramp with the ELT humming away... Talk about
embarrassing. I drove to the airport and found a team of 14 year-old (dare
I say) nerds pointing electo-gadgets at my plane. Their leader insisted
that I pull the ELT to get the S.N. I had 'wisely' installed my ELT under
the baggage floor, so at 10pm the elctro team had to spend another hour
watching me unload all the stuff in the cargo area, remove the seats, remove
the floor, just to get the S/N off the ELT (it is now recorded in the owner
documentation). Sorry about that.
Anyway, I had assumed that some un-noticed bump had triggered the ELT. A
few times over the curse of the next year I had occasionally caught the ELT
light flashing while putting the plane away.. This disturbed me as I could
never come up with a good reason... I even blamed my passenger once for
accidentally pressing the activation button (which is near the pax headset
jack).
But last night I finally found the problem. While playing with the
electrical system, I was able to get the ELT to activate several times when
shutting off the main solenoid. Isn't there some sort of current spike
generated on shut off? Could that be triggering my ELT (ACK)? Has anyone
had a similar problem? Know of a fix? I have not installed a diode on my
solenoid like electric Bob recommends.. Will that fix the problem?
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
www.RotaryRoster.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
In a message dated 4/22/2007 7:43:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com writes:
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above
the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to figure
out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly standar
d
Cherokee=99s, Arrow=99s, etc by using my good leg for either the
left or right
rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both brakes at
once.
=================
Carl-
You need to get in touch with Bruce Cruikshank at Livermore, CA.
Bruce is a double amputee who flies the RV-4 "Cover Girl" that was featured
in Sport Aviation a few years back and is building an RV-9A currently. I
believe you can contact him thru KS AVIONICS 510-785-9407
_http://www.ksavionics.com_ (http://www.ksavionics.com)
If you can't get ahold of him, e-mail me direct and I will arrange to put
you in touch with him. He designed his own system to interconnect his
prosthesis to the rudder pedals and he seems to do very well. We just flew
to lunch
with him yesterday.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 844hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Thanks a bunch, I will call him at KS on Monday and see if I can talk with
him. I read the article and was very impressed with what he has
accomplished. I hoping to get away with hand brakes and the dancing foot
method since I'm used to it, but most feel a nose dragger is the way to go,
which is fine with me. I want to find a CFI with a 6A, 7A or 9A and give it
a go. Thanks again. Carl
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
In a message dated 4/22/2007 7:43:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com writes:
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
brakes at once.
==========================================
Carl-
You need to get in touch with Bruce Cruikshank at Livermore, CA.
Bruce is a double amputee who flies the RV-4 "Cover Girl" that was featured
in Sport Aviation a few years back and is building an RV-9A currently. I
believe you can contact him thru KS AVIONICS 510-785-9407
http://www.ksavionics.com
If you can't get ahold of him, e-mail me direct and I will arrange to put
you in touch with him. He designed his own system to interconnect his
prosthesis to the rudder pedals and he seems to do very well. We just flew
to lunch with him yesterday.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 844hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
_____
See what's free at AOL.com <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000503> .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Thanks Dan,
I saw the article and he is really fantastic, I am trying to do it with less
special stuff and use the good foot more. I will continue to try and find a
CFI with a 7A, 6A or 9A and try it out. Thx C
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
There is an article in EAA's sport aviation of a double amputee who built
and flies an RV8, so I am sure it can be done with some modifications. I am
traveling right now for transition training, and will find the article for
you as soon as I get home. You can probably go to the EAA site and search
for it if you need it faster. It was a great read, and maybe he can help you
do the mods required.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 10:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Hello all,
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
Thanks Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
Office: 803.648.3407
Mobile: 803.640.2760
<http://www.newventureconsulting.com> www.newventureconsulting.com
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
David,
I think you are right about a nose dragger and will continue to look for a
CFI with one to figure it out. I did get an email from Alex from RV flight
training and he has an RV 10 which may do the trick, but he is busy until
June and in Texas, I'm in Aiken SC. I may just buy the tail and wings and
make the final decision on the fuselage last so I can get building. I want
to limit the mods to a set of handbrakes if possible, that way it will be a
pretty standard plane. If it was a steer able nose wheel this would be a no
brainier, I just don't know about the castoring nose unit. I'm thinking I
could also just put a welded hoop over the top of my foot for a push pull
set up which would give me more speed then the dancing foot, but I think
that may require a few pulleys and cable behind the pedals to make it a
closed loop system. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for the advice. Carl
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Leonard
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
There used to be a paraplegic on this list building a super-6 but I have
forgotten his name and not heard from him lately. As I recall, he had
enough strength on the right side to stomp on that right rudder for
take-off.
For you, I would definitely recommend a tricycle gear. I'm sure you could
fly a TD if you had your mind set on it, but it would probably require a
special prosthesis so you could manipulate both pedals at once, and probably
both brakes too. The prob with a TD is that you really have to dance on the
pedals. You sometimes have to go very quickly from one rudder to the other
in order to overt a ground loop, then quickly back again, and back again
etc... In a big cross wind, a touch of break is sometimes needed to stay
on the runway as the tail transitions - but you still have to dance on the
pedals.
So unless you have some pent-up childhood need to fly a taildragger, get the
tri-gear. I have never flown a tri-gear RV, but they shouldn't be any more
difficult than the other planes you fly. Fairly easy to install hand brake
systems. Side-by-side models are your best bet for transition training.
Good luck,
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
www.RotaryRoster.net
On 4/22/07, Carl Bell wrote:
Hello all,
I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
Thanks Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rvmail(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Not sure what it would take to rig it, but check out a Liberty if you get a
chance. It has finger brakes on the center console between the seats, one
for each brake. That may solve your ground maneuvering a little easier. I
suspect you could probably give them a call and explain your situation.
They may be able to give you some pointers, or at least their supplier.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stephanie Marshall <steph_mar1(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 Wings officially started! |
Well the wings are in Kansas, and this weekend we were finally able to get them
started!!!
www.rv-8.org has all the details and pictures!!
Steph Marshall
www.rv-8.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Torque Values for Sensors and other not nuts and bolts stuff |
?
In a message dated 4/22/2007 3:09:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
Where or how would you find what to torque something like a Oil Temp Sensor?
Big brass fitting, 7/8 socket size into the case just above the oil filter.
Easy enough to get to with a crows foot and extension but how much do you
tighten it? I'm thinking something like 100-125 inch pounds which feels like
enough to flatten the copper gasket?
==============================================
I believe that the more common torque specs out in the industrial world are
based on 75% of the yield strength of the weaker material, but that doesn't
really help you does it?
I have an old Ford Aerospace (now Loral Space Systems still owned by Bernard
Schwartz, the slime ball who sold/gave much of our space science to China)
torque standard that I could dig out and maybe they have some guidance on
this, but I would try to err on the side of caution with anything threading into
cast aluminum. If you fail to get anything useful from the builders here
over the next few days, e-mail me offline and I'll go thru my records to see if
I can find the document.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 844hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)charter.net> |
I saw a artical somewhere a few weeks ago about someone that made wing
jacks using 2x6 lumber and small car jacks. Can someone direct me to
where I saw this?
--
Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 engine/prop options |
I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or negative)?
and,
Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed for
some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm
not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
Feel free to reply either on or off-list.
Thanks,
Charlie
ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Carl,
The cable and pulleys to connect the pedals might work especially with a
tri-gear, but consider this: The pull portion is going to be strenuous
sometimes - even usually. You will need to be very securely buckled down or
you will be pulling yourself forward. That will be too tight for cruise
flight, so tightening yourself down before landing is another thing you have
to remember. If you forget, your knee will hit the panel and all hell will
break loose while you try to keep it on the runway. Also the pulley system
will probably require that your foot be connected to the rudder for the
entire flight (unless you come up with and easy in/out system). That will
get very uncomfortable on long flights.
Plenty of 2 footed people do ground loops every year. You will be at an
even higher risk.
So I still recommend the tri-gear unless you really want to live on the
edge. Besides, its not like anyone is going old rule "only real men fly
tail draggers" to you. Anyone who flies any plane with only one leg is man
enough.
Either way, good luck.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>
www.RotaryRoster.net <http://www.rotaryroster.net/>
On 4/22/07, Carl Bell wrote:
>
> David,
>
>
> .... If it was a steer able nose wheel this would be a no brainier, I just
> don't know about the castoring nose unit. I'm thinking I could also just put
> a welded hoop over the top of my foot for a push pull set up which would
> give me more speed then the dancing foot, but I think that may require a few
> pulleys and cable behind the pedals to make it a closed loop system. Any
> thoughts on this? Thanks for the advice. Carl
>
**
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Arthur Zuranski" <azuransk(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
RV-8A "Quick Build" project. Most work completed on wings, fuselage &
empennage. You select & add engine, prop, instruments & avionics of
choice. $31,000. azuransk(at)tampabay.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Hi Carl-
Since you asked....
Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a 4,
or probably a 9.
I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
control whereas a nose dragger will not.
If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a way
of life for you.
WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world and
figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro world,
this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In your
case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake lever
mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would operate
both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as opposed
to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
foot' operate both brakes.
In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel available,
but they are starting points.
For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with a
selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and one
separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake you
apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find this
an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick such
that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg. Hard
against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
configuration has also been used in the past.
Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake. The
latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-looking
lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such that
returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would pay
off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
>
>
> For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
> with a
> selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
> and one
> separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
> brake you
> apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
> the
> moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
> you
> like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
>
British aircraft used this sort of system for many years in the
middle part of last century. But, most aircraft that I am aware of
that used this system had air operated power brakes, which solved the
mechanical advantage problem. If the rudder pedals were centred,
each brake would receive the same pressure. If the rudder pedals
were deflected a bit, one brake would get more pressure than the
other. If full rudder was applied, only that wheel would get brake
pressure. I did one flight in a Hawker Hunter with such a system.
It took some getting used to, but it did provide quite effective
control.
The DHC Chipmunk has a somewhat similar system. It has a long hand
brake lever which was operated by the pilot's left hand. The brake
pressure is distributed by a valve that is controlled by rudder
pressure, similar to the system described in the previous paragraph.
I've also got one flight in a Chipmunk, and it too appeared to be an
effective system, but it was a bit strange to taxi with, as it
doesn't have tail wheel steering - the tail wheel is free castoring.
To taxi, you pull on the hand brake to apply one or two clicks (it
works somewhat like the typical parking brake in European or Japanese
cars). You taxi with the brake partially applied - i.e. you taxi
while slightly dragging the brakes. This allows you to steer by
moving the rudder pedals, which controls where the brake pressure went.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RVs and Greenhouse Gasses |
| From: | george.mueller(at)aurora.org |
My thanks to the three guys who responded to my newbie RV questions (7A vs
8A, which should I build, and priming fiberglass).
I think the secret for the future is to couch my questions in the context
of greenhouse gasses, ecosystems and global warming. E.g., is the 7A more
like a Prius, Jetta Diesel, or Crown Victoria?
I did the demo flight at Oshkosh last year in the 7A, and sat in the 8A.
In my mind the advantage of the 7A is more panel space for IFR flying,
although it was pretty clear that being an instrument platform was not a
primary design objective--kind of like my old Grumman cheetah as an
instrument flyer. Plus it is an all matched hole kit, which I think would
be nice. However by the time I get done you won't need much panel space
for instruments with the advances in EFIS and all. The advantage of the
8A was more room for me, and I suspect it might be a bit more fun to fly.
I don't care that much about being able to interact with my passengers.
I did hear that liberals like the 7A better....
Would anyone who has flown both the 7 and 8 compare the overall flying
experience?
George in Milwaukee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Hi Glen;
Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very simple
modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or 9 rudder
pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and makes it a
closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there isn't room
going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar. Then
I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube at
midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot for
pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping by using
them together or independently for differential braking. Do you think this
could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger and
preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and occasional
roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my kids
scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building things (RC).
I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to make
sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with flutter or
something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks again for
your advice. Regards Carl
Carl W Bell
New Venture Consulting
Office: 803.648.3407
Mobile: 803.640.2760
www.newventureconsulting.com
carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Hi Carl-
Since you asked....
Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a 4,
or probably a 9.
I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
control whereas a nose dragger will not.
If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a way
of life for you.
WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world and
figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro world,
this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In your
case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake lever
mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would operate
both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as opposed
to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
foot' operate both brakes.
In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel available,
but they are starting points.
For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with a
selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and one
separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake you
apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find this
an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick such
that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg. Hard
against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
configuration has also been used in the past.
Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake. The
latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-looking
lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such that
returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would pay
off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated. These
are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and push
to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need to
interfere with the standard foot brakes.
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=JAMCB
1
paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
They make these with two handles as well.
Good luck to you
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Hi Glen;
>
> Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very simple
> modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or 9
> rudder
> pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and makes it a
> closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there isn't
> room
> going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar. Then
> I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube at
> midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot for
> pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping by
> using
> them together or independently for differential braking. Do you think
> this
> could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger and
> preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> occasional
> roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my kids
> scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building things
> (RC).
> I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to make
> sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with flutter or
> something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks again
> for
> your advice. Regards Carl
>
> Carl W Bell
> New Venture Consulting
> Office: 803.648.3407
> Mobile: 803.640.2760
> www.newventureconsulting.com
> carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: RV-List Digest Server
> Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Hi Carl-
>
> Since you asked....
>
> Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a 4,
> or probably a 9.
>
> I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> control whereas a nose dragger will not.
>
> If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a
> way
> of life for you.
>
> WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world and
> figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
> properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
> that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro world,
> this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In your
> case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
> This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
> Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
> plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
>
> There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake lever
> mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would operate
> both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> opposed
> to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
>
> Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
> foot' operate both brakes.
>
> In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
> mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel available,
> but they are starting points.
>
> For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with a
> selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and
> one
> separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake
> you
> apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
> moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
> like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
>
> Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find this
> an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick such
> that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
> Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg.
> Hard
> against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> configuration has also been used in the past.
>
> Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
> side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
> operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake.
> The
> latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
> start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
> the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
> either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
>
> As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
> that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
> throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
> likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> looking
> lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
> locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
> would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
>
> A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such that
> returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would pay
> off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
>
> Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
> and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Tim,
Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard locking
parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the bottom of
the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated. These
are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and push
to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need to
interfere with the standard foot brakes.
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=JAMCB
1
paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
They make these with two handles as well.
Good luck to you
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Hi Glen;
>
> Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very simple
> modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or 9
> rudder
> pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and makes it a
> closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there isn't
> room
> going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar. Then
> I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube at
> midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot for
> pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping by
> using
> them together or independently for differential braking. Do you think
> this
> could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger and
> preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> occasional
> roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my kids
> scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building things
> (RC).
> I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to make
> sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with flutter or
> something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks again
> for
> your advice. Regards Carl
>
> Carl W Bell
> New Venture Consulting
> Office: 803.648.3407
> Mobile: 803.640.2760
> www.newventureconsulting.com
> carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> To: RV-List Digest Server
> Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Hi Carl-
>
> Since you asked....
>
> Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a 4,
> or probably a 9.
>
> I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> control whereas a nose dragger will not.
>
> If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a
> way
> of life for you.
>
> WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world and
> figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
> properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
> that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro world,
> this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In your
> case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
> This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
> Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
> plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
>
> There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake lever
> mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would operate
> both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> opposed
> to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
>
> Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
> foot' operate both brakes.
>
> In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
> mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel available,
> but they are starting points.
>
> For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with a
> selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and
> one
> separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake
> you
> apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
> moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
> like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
>
> Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find this
> an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick such
> that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
> Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg.
> Hard
> against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> configuration has also been used in the past.
>
> Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
> side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
> operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake.
> The
> latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
> start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
> the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
> either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
>
> As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
> that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
> throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
> likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> looking
> lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
> locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
> would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
>
> A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such that
> returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would pay
> off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
>
> Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
> and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better. They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking. Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
> http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=JAM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or 9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Tim,
I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie downs
and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in place
now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better. They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking. Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
> http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=JAM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or 9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the 'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you, but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Hi Carl,
I bought a RV8 project from a fellow in Galesburg, IL who has an
prosthetic leg . . . don't know if above or below the knee. He had
built an flew two other RV8s before this one with no modification that
I'm aware of.
I'll forward your email to him and hopefully he can help?
Regards,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 - Finishing - N83RC
On 4/22/07, Carl Bell wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
> some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
> work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
> above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
> figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
> standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
> or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
> brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I find
> this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
> should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to try
> and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
> simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
> on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying the
> differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
> appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me in,
> it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full time.
> I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
> Thanks Carl
>
>
> Carl W Bell
>
> New Venture Consulting
>
> Office: 803.648.3407
>
> Mobile: 803.640.2760
>
> www.newventureconsulting.com
>
> carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
>
>
> - The RV-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
and fiddling in the long run. There are TRUE BELEIVER and they
will tell you that there Mazda or Subaru is the greatest thing but
when you really crunch the numbers it does not add up. However
if you want to be DIFFERENT, for the sake of being unique than
by all means. What is the resale on auto engine RV's? What is
the resale on a Lyc powered RV? Huge difference. Nuff Said.
Sam James makes short cowls now.
Yes you can do mild aerobatics with the extended hub. Going
back to your alternative engine question, forget hydraulic constant
speed pops and frankly aerobatics if you went that route.
I could write a book on your questions but make it simple for
your self, FOLLOW THE PLANS: LYC+HARTZELL or SENSENICH.
Yes you must fly within limits. The extended hartzell is 3.8 g's
If you know what you are doing 3 gs is enough to do acro. My
part looping and rolling with no issues.
Charlie there is piles of info on the topic do some research, good luck
George
>From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
>Subject: RV-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
>I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
>
>If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
>experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
>negative)?
>
>and,
>
>Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed
for
>some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
>'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
>with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm
>not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
>
>Thanks, Charlie ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Tim,
I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
downs
and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
place
now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
>
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
AM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Easy enough with the two lever hand controls.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:53 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
> commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
> applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
> stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
> Dan
> N289DT
> RV10E
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
> previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
> downs
> and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
> place
> now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
> flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
> brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Carl,
>
> Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
> They
> are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
> depending
> on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
> handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
> Still
> easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
>
> http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
>
> two thirds of the way down the page.
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
> locking
> > parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
> bottom of
> > the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> > These
> > are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> > push
> > to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
> to
> > interfere with the standard foot brakes.
> >
> http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
> AM
> > CB
> > 1
> >
> > paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
> >
> > They make these with two handles as well.
> >
> > Good luck to you
> > Tim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Hi Glen;
> > >
> > > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
> simple
> > > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
> 9
> > > rudder
> > > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
> makes it
> > a
> > > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
> isn't
> > > room
> > > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> > Then
> > > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
> at
> > > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
> for
> > > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
> by
> > > using
> > > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
> think
> > > this
> > > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
> and
> > > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > > occasional
> > > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
> kids
> > > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
> things
> > > (RC).
> > > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> > make
> > > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
> flutter
> > or
> > > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
> again
> > > for
> > > your advice. Regards Carl
> > >
> > > Carl W Bell
> > > New Venture Consulting
> > > Office: 803.648.3407
> > > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
> matejcek
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Hi Carl-
> > >
> > > Since you asked....
> > >
> > > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
> a
> > 4,
> > > or probably a 9.
> > >
> > > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> > >
> > > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
> are a
> > > way
> > > of life for you.
> > >
> > > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
> world
> > and
> > > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
> are
> > > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
> shoes
> > > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> > world,
> > > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> > your
> > > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
> prosthesis.
> > > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
> else.
> > > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
> the
> > > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> > >
> > > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> > lever
> > > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> > operate
> > > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > > opposed
> > > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> > >
> > > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
> 'good
> > > foot' operate both brakes.
> > >
> > > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
> enough
> > > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> > available,
> > > but they are starting points.
> > >
> > > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
> with
> > a
> > > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
> and
> > > one
> > > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
> brake
> > > you
> > > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
> the
> > > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
> you
> > > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> > >
> > > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> > this
> > > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> > such
> > > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
> unlocked.
> > > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
> Ldg.
> > > Hard
> > > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > > configuration has also been used in the past.
> > >
> > > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
> throttle
> > > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
> could
> > > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
> brake.
> > > The
> > > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
> things
> > > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
> use of
> > > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
> mean
> > > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> > >
> > > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
> fashioned
> > > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
> the
> > > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
> would
> > > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > > looking
> > > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
> the
> > > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
> but
> > > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> > >
> > > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> > that
> > > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
> would
> > pay
> > > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> > >
> > > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
> aircraft
> > > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> > >
> > > glen matejcek
> > > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I agree, just that you could not use the Matco valve to accomplish it,
because it is an open/close valve to hold the pressure that already has
been applied through the pedals.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Easy enough with the two lever hand controls.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:53 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
> commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
> applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
> stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
> Dan
> N289DT
> RV10E
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
> previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
> downs
> and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
> place
> now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier
that
> flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel
parking
> brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Carl,
>
> Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
> They
> are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
> depending
> on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with
two
> handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
> Still
> easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
>
> http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
>
> two thirds of the way down the page.
>
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
> locking
> > parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
> bottom of
> > the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic
operated.
> > These
> > are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left
and
> > push
> > to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not
need
> to
> > interfere with the standard foot brakes.
> >
>
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
> AM
> > CB
> > 1
> >
> > paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
> >
> > They make these with two handles as well.
> >
> > Good luck to you
> > Tim
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Hi Glen;
> > >
> > > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
> simple
> > > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7
or
> 9
> > > rudder
> > > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
> makes it
> > a
> > > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
> isn't
> > > room
> > > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the
spar.
> > Then
> > > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
> at
> > > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my
foot
> for
> > > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
> by
> > > using
> > > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
> think
> > > this
> > > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose
dragger
> and
> > > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > > occasional
> > > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit
my
> kids
> > > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
> things
> > > (RC).
> > > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just
to
> > make
> > > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
> flutter
> > or
> > > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
> again
> > > for
> > > your advice. Regards Carl
> > >
> > > Carl W Bell
> > > New Venture Consulting
> > > Office: 803.648.3407
> > > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
> matejcek
> > > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Hi Carl-
> > >
> > > Since you asked....
> > >
> > > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods
than
> a
> > 4,
> > > or probably a 9.
> > >
> > > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive
steering
> > > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> > >
> > > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose
an
> > > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
> are a
> > > way
> > > of life for you.
> > >
> > > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
> world
> > and
> > > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever
they
> are
> > > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
> shoes
> > > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> > world,
> > > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro.
In
> > your
> > > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
> prosthesis.
> > > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
> else.
> > > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to
fly
> the
> > > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> > >
> > > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand
brake
> > lever
> > > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> > operate
> > > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing,
as
> > > opposed
> > > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type
arrangement.
> > >
> > > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
> 'good
> > > foot' operate both brakes.
> > >
> > > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
> enough
> > > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> > available,
> > > but they are starting points.
> > >
> > > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
> with
> > a
> > > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control
system
> and
> > > one
> > > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
> brake
> > > you
> > > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry,
at
> the
> > > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but
if
> you
> > > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> > >
> > > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would
find
> > this
> > > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control
stick
> > such
> > > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
> unlocked.
> > > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
> Ldg.
> > > Hard
> > > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering.
This
> > > configuration has also been used in the past.
> > >
> > > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
> throttle
> > > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
> could
> > > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
> brake.
> > > The
> > > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
> things
> > > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
> use of
> > > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
> mean
> > > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> > >
> > > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
> fashioned
> > > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip
on
> the
> > > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
> would
> > > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a
throttle-
> > > looking
> > > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
> the
> > > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
> but
> > > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that
seat.
> > >
> > > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it
such
> > that
> > > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
> would
> > pay
> > > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> > >
> > > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
> aircraft
> > > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> > >
> > > glen matejcek
> > > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
I am going to do a flight review this week for a local pilot that has
hand controls in his RV-6, Some of you may have met Carl Hays
or read the articles about him and how he designed the control system
for his RV-6. He is unable to use his legs at all.It has two control bars
that control rudder and brakes pushing both sticks forward controls
brakes, pushing left stick forward is left rudders etc. This operation
is all
done with his right hand.Technically this qualifies for a dual control
system as he does have a joystick installed on the right side and the
rudder brake bars are in the center of the airplane so if need I can
control the airplane.
Jerry
Tim Bryan wrote:
>
>Easy enough with the two lever hand controls.
>Tim
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
>>server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 6:53 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>
>>
>>One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
>>commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
>>applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
>>stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
>>Dan
>>N289DT
>>RV10E
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>
>>
>>Tim,
>>
>>I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
>>previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
>>downs
>>and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
>>place
>>now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
>>flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
>>brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>
>>
>>Carl,
>>
>>Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
>>They
>>are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
>>depending
>>on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
>>handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
>>Still
>>easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
>>
>>http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
>>
>>two thirds of the way down the page.
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
>>>server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
>>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
>>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>>
>>>
>>>Tim,
>>>
>>>Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
>>>
>>>
>>locking
>>
>>
>>>parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
>>>
>>>
>>bottom of
>>
>>
>>>the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
>>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
>>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>>
>>>
>>>You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
>>>These
>>>are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
>>>push
>>>to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
>>>
>>>
>>to
>>
>>
>>>interfere with the standard foot brakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
>>AM
>>
>>
>>>CB
>>>1
>>>
>>>paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>>>
>>>They make these with two handles as well.
>>>
>>>Good luck to you
>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
>>>>server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
>>>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
>>>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Hi Glen;
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
>>>>especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
>>>>
>>>>
>>simple
>>
>>
>>>>modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
>>>>
>>>>
>>9
>>
>>
>>>>rudder
>>>>pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
>>>>
>>>>
>>makes it
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
>>>>
>>>>
>>isn't
>>
>>
>>>>room
>>>>going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Then
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
>>>>
>>>>
>>at
>>
>>
>>>>midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
>>>>
>>>>
>>for
>>
>>
>>>>pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
>>>>
>>>>
>>by
>>
>>
>>>>using
>>>>them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
>>>>
>>>>
>>think
>>
>>
>>>>this
>>>>could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
>>>>occasional
>>>>roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
>>>>
>>>>
>>kids
>>
>>
>>>>scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
>>>>
>>>>
>>things
>>
>>
>>>>(RC).
>>>>I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
>>>>
>>>>
>>>make
>>>
>>>
>>>>sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
>>>>
>>>>
>>flutter
>>
>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>
>>>>something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>again
>>
>>
>>>>for
>>>>your advice. Regards Carl
>>>>
>>>>Carl W Bell
>>>>New Venture Consulting
>>>>Office: 803.648.3407
>>>>Mobile: 803.640.2760
>>>>www.newventureconsulting.com
>>>>carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
>>>>
>>>>
>>matejcek
>>
>>
>>>>Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
>>>>To: RV-List Digest Server
>>>>Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Hi Carl-
>>>>
>>>>Since you asked....
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
>>>>
>>>>
>>a
>>
>>
>>>4,
>>>
>>>
>>>>or probably a 9.
>>>>
>>>>I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
>>>>control whereas a nose dragger will not.
>>>>
>>>>If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
>>>>additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
>>>>
>>>>
>>are a
>>
>>
>>>>way
>>>>of life for you.
>>>>
>>>>WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
>>>>
>>>>
>>world
>>
>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>
>>>>figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
>>>>
>>>>
>>are
>>
>>
>>>>properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
>>>>
>>>>
>>shoes
>>
>>
>>>>that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>world,
>>>
>>>
>>>>this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
>>>>
>>>>
>>>your
>>>
>>>
>>>>case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
>>>>
>>>>
>>prosthesis.
>>
>>
>>>>This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
>>>>
>>>>
>>else.
>>
>>
>>>>Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
>>>>
>>>>There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
>>>>
>>>>
>>>lever
>>>
>>>
>>>>mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
>>>>
>>>>
>>>operate
>>>
>>>
>>>>both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
>>>>opposed
>>>>to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
>>>>
>>>>Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
>>>>
>>>>
>>'good
>>
>>
>>>>foot' operate both brakes.
>>>>
>>>>In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
>>>>
>>>>
>>enough
>>
>>
>>>>mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>available,
>>>
>>>
>>>>but they are starting points.
>>>>
>>>>For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
>>>>
>>>>
>>with
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>
>>>>selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>>one
>>>>separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
>>>>
>>>>
>>brake
>>
>>
>>>>you
>>>>apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
>>>>
>>>>
>>you
>>
>>
>>>>like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
>>>>
>>>>Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
>>>>
>>>>
>>>this
>>>
>>>
>>>>an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>such
>>>
>>>
>>>>that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
>>>>
>>>>
>>unlocked.
>>
>>
>>>>Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
>>>>
>>>>
>>Ldg.
>>
>>
>>>>Hard
>>>>against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
>>>>configuration has also been used in the past.
>>>>
>>>>Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
>>>>
>>>>
>>throttle
>>
>>
>>>>side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
>>>>
>>>>
>>could
>>
>>
>>>>operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
>>>>
>>>>
>>brake.
>>
>>
>>>>The
>>>>latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
>>>>
>>>>
>>things
>>
>>
>>>>start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
>>>>
>>>>
>>use of
>>
>>
>>>>the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
>>>>
>>>>
>>mean
>>
>>
>>>>either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
>>>>
>>>>As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
>>>>
>>>>
>>fashioned
>>
>>
>>>>that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
>>>>
>>>>
>>would
>>
>>
>>>>likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
>>>>looking
>>>>lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>>locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
>>>>
>>>>
>>but
>>
>>
>>>>would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
>>>>
>>>>A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
>>>>
>>>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>
>>>>returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
>>>>
>>>>
>>would
>>
>>
>>>pay
>>>
>>>
>>>>off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
>>>>
>>>>Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
>>>>
>>>>
>>aircraft
>>
>>
>>>>and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
>>>>
>>>>glen matejcek
>>>>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Thanks Bob,
Below the knee you can do toe brakes, above the knee just isn't consistent
or powerful enough. I have been given some really good ideas and advice and
I think I have solved most of the issues for a few minor modifications to
make it work safely with a push-pull rudder control and a neat hand brake
set up from the dune buggy world, but I would still love to find a guy with
an AK and a nose or tail dragger RV and see what they are flying. Regards
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob C.
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Hi Carl,
I bought a RV8 project from a fellow in Galesburg, IL who has an
prosthetic leg . . . don't know if above or below the knee. He had
built an flew two other RV8s before this one with no modification that
I'm aware of.
I'll forward your email to him and hopefully he can help?
Regards,
Bob Christensen
RV-8 - Finishing - N83RC
On 4/22/07, Carl Bell wrote:
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> I am new to the list and starting the journey to build an RV but could use
> some advice before I get going. I have a bit of a dilemma which I need to
> work out before I order more than the RV empennage kit. I am a left leg
> above the knee amputee and I believe I need to work with an instructor to
> figure out the plane for me to build and modify as appropriate. I can fly
> standard Cherokee's, Arrow's, etc by using my good leg for either the left
> or right rudder pedal as required and the hand brake if I need to hit both
> brakes at once. Of course the Piper line has nose wheel steering and I
find
> this very easy for me to accomplish. I am just not sure what direction I
> should pursue for the RV and feel I could use some flight instruction to
try
> and figure it out. I know I will need a hand brake to hit both brakes
> simultaneously, and I'm thinking I will get more positive steering control
> on an RV by going with a tail dragger vs a nose wheel version and trying
the
> differential toe braking. Any help you all can offer would be sincerely
> appreciated. If there are any AK's amputees flying RV's that can clue me
in,
> it would terrific. I'm retiring next month and can work on this full
time.
> I was commercial-instrument rated, but now have had to revert to private.
> Thanks Carl
>
>
> Carl W Bell
>
> New Venture Consulting
>
> Office: 803.648.3407
>
> Mobile: 803.640.2760
>
> www.newventureconsulting.com
>
> carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
>
>
> - The RV-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
> much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Dan,
I don't know what they use in the Cherokees, but you can pull on it and it
loads both mains, then if you push the button it locks the brake in the
pulled position and acts as a parking brake. If need be I'll get one of
them from Piper. I am not familiar with the Matco, but I will check it out
and see what is available. Thanks for the heads up. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Tim,
I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
downs
and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
place
now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
>
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
AM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "T.C. Chang" <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel dripping down carbureator at idle cutoff |
Two weeks ago I reported that I had fuel dripping down the carburetor at
idle cutoff. Today I did more testing and the situation got worse. It
happens only at idle when I began to pull the mixture control out. Called
Aero Sport Power and talked to Bart. He immediately said that was a heavy
float problem and promised to Fed Exp a replacement carburetor to me. I am
still puzzled as why a heavy (leaking?) float will cause the fuel to spill
out at idle cutoff. After engine stops, turning on electric fuel pump does
not cause any fuel leak. Before this problem began, I was not able to adjust
the idle mixture to get rpm rise at idle cutoff. Today I was almost not able
to shut down the engine. As I pull the mixture control out, the engine went
up more than 400 rpm! This is after I turned the idle mixture screw all the
way in.
Ted
------------------------------------------
T.C. Chang
http://tc1234c.googlepages.com/
RV-9A, Lycoming (ECI) O320-D2A, 160 hp, Carb, Dual Mag, Sensenich FP
GRT dual DU H1, TT DigiFlight II VSGV, 138 Hobbs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I previously owned a Cherokee 140, and it had the brake you are talking
about. The one from Matco is what most Rv'ers use, and it only holds the
pressure after you apply it from the pedals. If you could modify the
Cherokee, or use the sand rail differential braking I think that would
be the best.
My 10 should be up and flying in the next month or so, and shortly there
after I will gladly come down and give you a demo ride, so you can see
the 10 with an Eggenfellner in action.
I am only a short hope away up in PA.
Dan Lloyd
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Dan,
I don't know what they use in the Cherokees, but you can pull on it and
it
loads both mains, then if you push the button it locks the brake in the
pulled position and acts as a parking brake. If need be I'll get one of
them from Piper. I am not familiar with the Matco, but I will check it
out
and see what is available. Thanks for the heads up. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Tim,
I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
downs
and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
place
now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
>
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
AM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel dripping down carbureator at idle cutoff |
T.C. Chang wrote:
>
> Two weeks ago I reported that I had fuel dripping down the carburetor at
> idle cutoff. Today I did more testing and the situation got worse. It
> happens only at idle when I began to pull the mixture control out. Called
> Aero Sport Power and talked to Bart. He immediately said that was a heavy
> float problem and promised to Fed Exp a replacement carburetor to me. I am
> still puzzled as why a heavy (leaking?) float will cause the fuel to spill
> out at idle cutoff. After engine stops, turning on electric fuel pump does
> not cause any fuel leak. Before this problem began, I was not able to adjust
> the idle mixture to get rpm rise at idle cutoff. Today I was almost not able
> to shut down the engine. As I pull the mixture control out, the engine went
> up more than 400 rpm! This is after I turned the idle mixture screw all the
> way in.
>
> Ted
>
If the float sinks, the bowl will try to over-fill with fuel because the
float isn't closing the inlet valve when the bowl is full. It could run
ok (but rich) if the float hasn't sunk much, but at idle it would run
very rich. Pulling the mixture would lean back to ideal mixture & rpm
would rise significantly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
I think he means a Lycoming "clone" like from ECI.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:36 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
and fiddling in the long run. There are TRUE BELEIVER and they
will tell you that there Mazda or Subaru is the greatest thing but
when you really crunch the numbers it does not add up. However
if you want to be DIFFERENT, for the sake of being unique than
by all means. What is the resale on auto engine RV's? What is
the resale on a Lyc powered RV? Huge difference. Nuff Said.
Sam James makes short cowls now.
Yes you can do mild aerobatics with the extended hub. Going
back to your alternative engine question, forget hydraulic constant
speed pops and frankly aerobatics if you went that route.
I could write a book on your questions but make it simple for
your self, FOLLOW THE PLANS: LYC+HARTZELL or SENSENICH.
Yes you must fly within limits. The extended hartzell is 3.8 g's
If you know what you are doing 3 gs is enough to do acro. My
part looping and rolling with no issues.
Charlie there is piles of info on the topic do some research, good
luck
George
>From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
>Subject: RV-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
>I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
>
>If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
>experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
>negative)?
>
>and,
>
>Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed
for
>some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
>'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
>with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm
>not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
>
>Thanks, Charlie ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Right. To be more specific, I'm interested in engines from builders who
normally build converted a/c engines for non-aviation applications,
rather than converted auto engines for a/c use. If you're flying one of
these engines, you know who you are. ;-) I have one data point from a
very satisfied user; I'd like to hear more opinions from those who've
gone that route.
I've also gotten one off-list email from someone who's having a bad
experience with one of the premier a/c engine builders in the USA.
This is motivation to look at a builder who's trustworthy, builds *lots*
of engines (& sees how they react to extreme abuse), & can build a
non-certified engine to new limits from yellow tagged parts.
So, who's out there? Off list is fine, if you don't want to go public
with your 'sin'.
Thanks,
Charlie
Ron Lee wrote:
> I think he means a Lycoming "clone" like from ECI.
>
> Ron Lee
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2007 4:36 PM
> *Subject:* RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
> Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
> lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
> and fiddling in the long run. There are TRUE BELEIVER and they
> will tell you that there Mazda or Subaru is the greatest thing but
> when you really crunch the numbers it does not add up. However
> if you want to be DIFFERENT, for the sake of being unique than
> by all means. What is the resale on auto engine RV's? What is
> the resale on a Lyc powered RV? Huge difference. Nuff Said.
>
> Sam James makes short cowls now.
>
> Yes you can do mild aerobatics with the extended hub. Going
> back to your alternative engine question, forget hydraulic constant
> speed pops and frankly aerobatics if you went that route.
>
> I could write a book on your questions but make it simple for
> your self, FOLLOW THE PLANS: LYC+HARTZELL or SENSENICH.
>
> Yes you must fly within limits. The extended hartzell is 3.8 g's
> If you know what you are doing 3 gs is enough to do acro. My
> part looping and rolling with no issues.
>
> Charlie there is piles of info on the topic do some research, good luck
>
> George
>
>
>
>
> >From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
> >Subject: RV-List: RV-7 engine/prop options
> >
> >I have a couple of questions about engine choices.
> >
> >If you have used an 'alternative' engine builder to build your
> >experimental Lyc engine, what was your experience (positive or
> >negative)?
> >
> >and,
> >
> >Has anyone on the list used an extended hub Hartzell prop (as needed
> for
> >some of the James cowls)? If so, do you feel comfortable doing mild
> >'RV-acro' with the prop? The model I have available is an HC-F2YR hub
> >with F7666-4 blades. I'm willing to deal with the cowl issues but I'm
> >not willing to give up the occasional loop & roll.
> >
> >Thanks, Charlie ceengland(at)bellsouth.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer |
Dan,
Well I would love to see and fly in the 10 and flying it is a good way to
wring out the little bugs. We have a guest room and hopefully I'll have a
good start on the 7A. Regards Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
I previously owned a Cherokee 140, and it had the brake you are talking
about. The one from Matco is what most Rv'ers use, and it only holds the
pressure after you apply it from the pedals. If you could modify the
Cherokee, or use the sand rail differential braking I think that would
be the best.
My 10 should be up and flying in the next month or so, and shortly there
after I will gladly come down and give you a demo ride, so you can see
the 10 with an Eggenfellner in action.
I am only a short hope away up in PA.
Dan Lloyd
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:14 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Dan,
I don't know what they use in the Cherokees, but you can pull on it and
it
loads both mains, then if you push the button it locks the brake in the
pulled position and acts as a parking brake. If need be I'll get one of
them from Piper. I am not familiar with the Matco, but I will check it
out
and see what is available. Thanks for the heads up. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel
R.
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
One thing to keep in mind is that the parking brake by Matco that is
commonly used on RV's is for holding pressure that already has been
applied, IE it is an open and close valve not a pressure piston for
stopping, so you would have to use something to apply the pressure.
Dan
N289DT
RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Tim,
I think you are right, I found those on the site from what you had
previously sent. Are many RV'ers using a parking brakes or just tie
downs
and chocks? I feel pretty comfortable I can put a safe conversion in
place
now, I may have to play with it a little, but this should be easier that
flying the Cherokee dancing between pedals and pulling the panel parking
brake. Thanks a lot. Which RV are you fling BTW. Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
Carl,
Now that I think about this, a dual handle control would be better.
They
are two handles side by side that both pull either back or forward
depending
on how you install it. I was originally thinking of space, but with two
handles you could pull them both back at once for regular braking.
Still
easy to install, etc but about they are about an inch wider.
http://www.dansperformanceparts.com/buggy/tcbh/buggytcbh2.htm
two thirds of the way down the page.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Wow that's perfect, that will work well. I'll just use a standard
locking
> parking brake cylinder for both and of course for parking on the
bottom of
> the panel, aka Cherokee. Thanks, Carl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
>
>
> You might consider a push-pull hand lever that is hydraulic operated.
> These
> are quite common in sand rails for brake turning. Pull to go left and
> push
> to go right. Simple to operate, simple to install, and does not need
to
> interfere with the standard foot brakes.
>
http://www.mooreparts.com/JAMCB1.html?zmam=2626912&zmas=5&zmac &zmap=J
AM
> CB
> 1
>
> paste the link back together if it is on two lines.
>
> They make these with two handles as well.
>
> Good luck to you
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl Bell
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:40 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Glen;
> >
> > Thank you for all of your input; you have some really great ideas,
> > especially the bicycle shoe lock. I think I can make this a very
simple
> > modification by using a cable and pulley in the middle of a RV 7 or
9
> > rudder
> > pedal setup that basically ties the rudder pedals together, and
makes it
> a
> > closed loop system, and keeping things pretty standard. If there
isn't
> > room
> > going toward the firewall, I'll just put the pulley toward the spar.
> Then
> > I'm thinking I will omit the toe brakes on my side and weld a tube
at
> > midpoint on the pedal for pushing and a hoop over the top of my foot
for
> > pulling (or maybe the bicycle clip) and 2 hand brakes for stopping
by
> > using
> > them together or independently for differential braking. Do you
think
> > this
> > could do the trick? Most are saying I should go with a nose dragger
and
> > preferably a 9A which almost lands itself. I hate to give up and
> > occasional
> > roll or loop, but I really need the plane for X country to visit my
kids
> > scattered about the US and of course I love flying and building
things
> > (RC).
> > I will draw this up and send it to Van with all the Caveats' just to
> make
> > sure that tying the pedals together won't create a problem with
flutter
> or
> > something. Any thoughts on nose wheel versus tail wheel? Thanks
again
> > for
> > your advice. Regards Carl
> >
> > Carl W Bell
> > New Venture Consulting
> > Office: 803.648.3407
> > Mobile: 803.640.2760
> > www.newventureconsulting.com
> > carlbell(at)gforcecable.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
> > Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:27 AM
> > To: RV-List Digest Server
> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV Advice, one leg flyer
> >
> >
> > Hi Carl-
> >
> > Since you asked....
> >
> > Obviously, a 7 or 8 will give you more room to make system mods than
a
> 4,
> > or probably a 9.
> >
> > I believe that you are correct, a TD will give you positive steering
> > control whereas a nose dragger will not.
> >
> > If you are not already a conventional gear aviator, this may pose an
> > additional challenge, although I'm guessing additional challenges
are a
> > way
> > of life for you.
> >
> > WRT rudder operation, I would take a hint from the serious acro
world
> and
> > figure out a way to use bicycle racer's shoe locks, or whatever they
are
> > properly called. These are fittings on the bottoms of the racer's
shoes
> > that lock into mating fittings on the bicycle pedals. In the acro
> world,
> > this keeps the pilots feet on the rudders while doing hard acro. In
> your
> > case, it should allow you to push a rudder pedal with your
prosthesis.
> > This should afford you the same rudder control ability as anyone
else.
> > Assuming you have a full prosthetic foot, it would allow you to fly
the
> > plane without modifications to the prosthesis.
> >
> > There are aircraft in the world that use a bicycle-style hand brake
> lever
> > mounted on the control stick. With such an arrangement, you would
> operate
> > both brakes without having to do a major grip switch on landing, as
> > opposed
> > to what would happen if you employed a Johnson bar type arrangement.
> >
> > Another option would be to have a 'normal' master cylinder for the
'good
> > foot' operate both brakes.
> >
> > In each of the above, there are potential issues with a lack of
enough
> > mechanical advantage to afford adequate braking with the travel
> available,
> > but they are starting points.
> >
> > For differential braking, there have been aircraft that were built
with
> a
> > selector valve of sorts incorporated into the rudder control system
and
> > one
> > separate brake master cylinder. With such a system, to get right
brake
> > you
> > apply right rudder and then operate the brake lever. I'm sorry, at
the
> > moment I can't think of which aircraft had that arrangement, but if
you
> > like I could pester some geezers I know to see if they recall.
> >
> > Yet another option is a locking tailwheel. I suspect you would find
> this
> > an inferior set up, but you could rig a TW lock to the control stick
> such
> > that when the stick is full aft against the stop, the TW is
unlocked.
> > Moving the stick say, an inch fwd, would lock the TW for T/O and
Ldg.
> > Hard
> > against the stop would unlock it for tight ground maneuvering. This
> > configuration has also been used in the past.
> >
> > Another option for brake power would be a separate lever on the
throttle
> > side. This lever could operate both brakes as outlined above, or
could
> > operate the left brake while your right foot operated the right
brake.
> > The
> > latter configuration could be cause for confusion and error when
things
> > start happening quickly. Either arrangement would allow for full
use of
> > the aerodynamic controls at the same time as the brake, but would
mean
> > either brake or throttle, which is of course sub-optimal.
> >
> > As I type this, it occurs to me that perhaps a system could be
fashioned
> > that would incorporate a motorcycle or helicopter type twist grip on
the
> > throttle lever for brake operation. Again, mechanical advantage
would
> > likely be an issue. The corollary idea would be to have a throttle-
> > looking
> > lever where pulling the lever aft powered the brakes and twisting
the
> > locking grip operated the throttle. This could work well for you,
but
> > would be a human factors trap for anyone else who flew in that seat.
> >
> > A separate design goal might be that whatever you do, you do it such
> that
> > returning to a 'normal' configuration is relatively easy. This
would
> pay
> > off should you decide to sell the aircraft.
> >
> > Lastly, you might do a little research and find an aerobatic
aircraft
> > and/or school equipped with the foot latches and give them a try.
> >
> > glen matejcek
> > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Ross" <dcr(at)fdltownhomes.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for advice--final update |
Guys: Re the looking for advice on the FSDO dude inspecting my -9A.
Pre-inspection on last Wednesday caused heartburn as the inspector had
serious doubts about certified engine with Van's experimental prop by
Sensenich, non-TSO equipment bolted to engine, wanting A&P to sign off prop
install, do complete AD review on engine and sign off as completed,
experimental sign embroidered on upholstery on baggage compartment bulkhead
and not immediately by each entrance, and finally a 25 mile radius Phase 1
test area. Oh, and to make the situation more simple I could make the
certified engine experimental by removing and destroying the ID plate in
front of the inspector. After reading the emails giving good advice and
talking to EAA AB DAR instructor, my local technical representative and my
A&P buddy, I was ready for the final inspection this Monday morning at 0900.
I had FAA manuals, documentation, and EAA training materials all ready to
refute each and every item I thought the inspector was incorrect on. Damn,
he walked in this morning and said in one breath, "the engine is ok, the
embroidered experimental is ok, and you can have the 100NM radius you
requested, lets finish the paperwork and get you flying". I still don't
know what happened. I just want to say thanks to you guys and the EAA for
the support. I learned more stuff than I wanted to know about amateur built
airworthiness that I ever wanted to know. For instance, did you know you
don't need and ELT while in Phase 1 testing? Lots of neat info in them
there manuals. Thanks, Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Why not do it yourself? It's not difficult or hard, nor requires many
special tools. Buy the overhaul manual, buy the parts and "get 'er done"!
One thing I would stay away from is several of the airboat builders - don't
know specifically names, but I've seen plenty of their "handiwork" and have
not yet been overly impressed. One such engine just cost one of my
employees BIG TIME in $$'s and pain in the rear. Engine was "new" by an
airboat builder. I have the remains on the floor of my shop. Not just
substandard, but downright scary (mismatched rods, butchered crank,
mismatched cyliners, mismatched pistons, the list goes on and on).
That being said, there are a ton of shops around the country that overhaul
lyc's and do a great job, as well as a ton of A&P's / builders who've done a
lot of engines. Depending on where you are in the country you'll find
plenty!
Anyway, in the end I'd just stick with a known quantity (read
AVIATION/AIRPLANE guys/shop). It's going to cost you "X" $$'s to get one
done no matter who does it, so saving a few pennies is one of those things
that can be "Pennywise and .....". It's not like you can do it for half
price, so my advice is to just bite the bullet and buy from a known aviation
person/shop/mfgr. Be it used, new, overhauled, reman or whatever. You're
going to spend 90% to get anything, so spend the extra 10% and get it right.
No worries and night wondering....
Or, like I said do it yourself. It's fun, easy and will save you just as
much as having some stranger do it for you.
Cheers,
Stein
RV6, Minneapolis
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
Right. To be more specific, I'm interested in engines from builders who
normally build converted a/c engines for non-aviation applications,
rather than converted auto engines for a/c use. If you're flying one of
these engines, you know who you are. ;-) I have one data point from a
very satisfied user; I'd like to hear more opinions from those who've
gone that route.
I've also gotten one off-list email from someone who's having a bad
experience with one of the premier a/c engine builders in the USA.
This is motivation to look at a builder who's trustworthy, builds *lots*
of engines (& sees how they react to extreme abuse), & can build a
non-certified engine to new limits from yellow tagged parts.
So, who's out there? Off list is fine, if you don't want to go public
with your 'sin'.
Thanks,
Charlie
Ron Lee wrote:
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "T.C. Chang" <tc1234c(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel dripping down carbureator at idle cutoff |
Thanks.
------------------------------------------
T.C. Chang
http://tc1234c.googlepages.com/
RV-9A, Lycoming (ECI) O320-D2A, 160 hp, Carb, Dual Mag, Sensenich FP
GRT dual DU H1, TT DigiFlight II VSGV, 138 Hobbs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel dripping down carbureator at idle cutoff
T.C. Chang wrote:
>
> Two weeks ago I reported that I had fuel dripping down the carburetor
> at idle cutoff. Today I did more testing and the situation got worse.
> It happens only at idle when I began to pull the mixture control out.
> Called Aero Sport Power and talked to Bart. He immediately said that
> was a heavy float problem and promised to Fed Exp a replacement
> carburetor to me. I am still puzzled as why a heavy (leaking?) float
> will cause the fuel to spill out at idle cutoff. After engine stops,
> turning on electric fuel pump does not cause any fuel leak. Before
> this problem began, I was not able to adjust the idle mixture to get
> rpm rise at idle cutoff. Today I was almost not able to shut down the
> engine. As I pull the mixture control out, the engine went up more
> than 400 rpm! This is after I turned the idle mixture screw all the
> way in.
>
> Ted
>
If the float sinks, the bowl will try to over-fill with fuel because the
float isn't closing the inlet valve when the bowl is full. It could run
ok (but rich) if the float hasn't sunk much, but at idle it would run
very rich. Pulling the mixture would lean back to ideal mixture & rpm
would rise significantly.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis Malczynski" <ebbfmm(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Oil Temperature High |
My friend is test flying an RV6 fuel injected 0320. At 75% power runs ie:
engine break-in, he is seeing oil temperatures in the 210 220- range. This
is with an OAT of 34 degrees. He has a firewall mounted oil cooler and used
the vans kit for installation, which utilizes a 3 scat duct. His feeling
is that this is not enough airflow through the cooler and because the cooler
plenum (shroud) is so squat that not enough air is being distributed across
the entire face off the oil cooler. Any thoughts on thisThanks
Fran Malczynski
RV6 - N594EF
Olcott, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Temperature High |
Hi,
Those temps are fine for an engine that is being run in. Red line is
about 245F. Once he has a few hours on the engine and it loosens up a
bit the temps will come down a bit.
It's not something that would worry me.
Marcel
----- Original Message -----
From: Francis Malczynski
To: RV-List
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:13 PM
Subject: RV-List: Oil Temperature High
My friend is test flying an RV6 fuel injected 0320. At 75% power runs
ie: engine break-in, he is seeing oil temperatures in the 210 ' 220-
range. This is with an OAT of 34 degrees. He has a firewall mounted oil
cooler and used the van=92s kit for installation, which utilizes a 3=94
scat duct. His feeling is that this is not enough airflow through the
cooler and because the cooler plenum (shroud) is so squat that not
enough air is being distributed across the entire face off the oil
cooler. Any thoughts on this=85Thanks
Fran Malczynski
RV6 - N594EF
Olcott, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for advice--final update |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Dan,
One may not need an ELT during Phase 1 testing, but for the life of me,
I can imagine why I wouldn't want one....especially during testing and
the known high risks associated the first few flights and specifically,
the first two. That's how regs work---they tell us what we have to
have, but not what we should have.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ross
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: RV-List: Looking for advice--final update
Guys: Re the looking for advice on the FSDO dude inspecting my -9A.
Pre-inspection on last Wednesday caused heartburn as the inspector had
serious doubts about certified engine with Van's experimental prop by
Sensenich, non-TSO equipment bolted to engine, wanting A&P to sign off
prop install, do complete AD review on engine and sign off as completed,
experimental sign embroidered on upholstery on baggage compartment
bulkhead and not immediately by each entrance, and finally a 25 mile
radius Phase 1 test area. Oh, and to make the situation more simple I
could make the certified engine experimental by removing and destroying
the ID plate in front of the inspector. After reading the emails
giving good advice and talking to EAA AB DAR instructor, my local
technical representative and my A&P buddy, I was ready for the final
inspection this Monday morning at 0900. I had FAA manuals,
documentation, and EAA training materials all ready to refute each and
every item I thought the inspector was incorrect on. Damn, he walked in
this morning and said in one breath, "the engine is ok, the embroidered
experimental is ok, and you can have the 100NM radius you requested,
lets finish the paperwork and get you flying". I still don't know what
happened. I just want to say thanks to you guys and the EAA for the
support. I learned more stuff than I wanted to know about amateur built
airworthiness that I ever wanted to know. For instance, did you know
you don't need and ELT while in Phase 1 testing? Lots of neat info in
them there manuals. Thanks, Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com said:
Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
and fiddling in the long run.
Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?
One person may satisfy himself the above statement is true, while another
may find just the opposite.
Blanket declarations like this are almost always found to be lacking when a
few intelligent questions are asked...
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun N'Fun "Must haves"? |
I don't know if it is what Linn was talking about, but I know that
Airflow Performance (in Spartanburg, SC) will work with folks to
juggle the flow restrictors in the injector nozzles to flow balance
the system.
This is done by taking data during test flights, making adjustments
to the appropriate nozzles, then test flying again to check the results.
Iterate a few times to zero in on getting the balance as close as
possible .... and you are good to go.
Don Rivera at API can work with you remotely (i.e. you test fly, take
your data, talk with them about making adjustments, and they send you
new flow restrictors) or you can fly to API and they'll work with you
there to get it nailed down. The downside of doing it remotely is, if
I am not mistaken, you end up buying a few restrictors you don't end
up using as you iterate through the test process. The actual swapping
of the flow restrictors is a trivial operation.
If Linn had something else in mind, I'll be interested in hearing about
it too.
-- Dwight
On Tue Apr 24 02:08:14 2007, Reuven Silberman wrote :
>Linn,
>
>What experimental GAMI Clones???? How bout a name and web site please.
>
>Reuven Silberman
>7A IO360 CS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Just got back from sun n fun and sat in the mattituck engine
teardown/rebuild classes for 3 days in a row. The guy giving the class on
the O-360 was excellent. He put the entire engine together including
torqueing all the bolts in about 5 hours. He explained everything he was
doing, what lubricants to use, and what tolerances to look for. Excellent
class. They even give you a t shirt just for staying and listening. Thats
a good hook for pilots, free.
Anyway, if you can wait until Oshkosh, I recommend going to one of there
classes. You'll learn a ton. They share a tent with Continental/Teledyne.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
300+ hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
> Why not do it yourself? It's not difficult or hard, nor requires many
> special tools. Buy the overhaul manual, buy the parts and "get 'er done"!
> One thing I would stay away from is several of the airboat builders -
> don't
> know specifically names, but I've seen plenty of their "handiwork" and
> have
> not yet been overly impressed. One such engine just cost one of my
> employees BIG TIME in $$'s and pain in the rear. Engine was "new" by an
> airboat builder. I have the remains on the floor of my shop. Not just
> substandard, but downright scary (mismatched rods, butchered crank,
> mismatched cyliners, mismatched pistons, the list goes on and on).
>
> That being said, there are a ton of shops around the country that overhaul
> lyc's and do a great job, as well as a ton of A&P's / builders who've done
> a
> lot of engines. Depending on where you are in the country you'll find
> plenty!
>
> Anyway, in the end I'd just stick with a known quantity (read
> AVIATION/AIRPLANE guys/shop). It's going to cost you "X" $$'s to get one
> done no matter who does it, so saving a few pennies is one of those things
> that can be "Pennywise and .....". It's not like you can do it for half
> price, so my advice is to just bite the bullet and buy from a known
> aviation
> person/shop/mfgr. Be it used, new, overhauled, reman or whatever. You're
> going to spend 90% to get anything, so spend the extra 10% and get it
> right.
> No worries and night wondering....
>
> Or, like I said do it yourself. It's fun, easy and will save you just as
> much as having some stranger do it for you.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein
>
> RV6, Minneapolis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:00 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
>
> Right. To be more specific, I'm interested in engines from builders who
> normally build converted a/c engines for non-aviation applications,
> rather than converted auto engines for a/c use. If you're flying one of
> these engines, you know who you are. ;-) I have one data point from a
> very satisfied user; I'd like to hear more opinions from those who've
> gone that route.
>
> I've also gotten one off-list email from someone who's having a bad
> experience with one of the premier a/c engine builders in the USA.
>
> This is motivation to look at a builder who's trustworthy, builds *lots*
> of engines (& sees how they react to extreme abuse), & can build a
> non-certified engine to new limits from yellow tagged parts.
>
> So, who's out there? Off list is fine, if you don't want to go public
> with your 'sin'.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
> Ron Lee wrote:
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for advice--final update |
Someone must have got to him. Good thing, and good luck Dan
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ross
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Looking for advice--final update
Guys: Re the looking for advice on the FSDO dude inspecting my -9A.
Pre-inspection on last Wednesday caused heartburn as the inspector had
serious doubts about certified engine with Van's experimental prop by
Sensenich, non-TSO equipment bolted to engine, wanting A&P to sign off prop
install, do complete AD review on engine and sign off as completed,
experimental sign embroidered on upholstery on baggage compartment bulkhead
and not immediately by each entrance, and finally a 25 mile radius Phase 1
test area. Oh, and to make the situation more simple I could make the
certified engine experimental by removing and destroying the ID plate in
front of the inspector. After reading the emails giving good advice and
talking to EAA AB DAR instructor, my local technical representative and my
A&P buddy, I was ready for the final inspection this Monday morning at 0900.
I had FAA manuals, documentation, and EAA training materials all ready to
refute each and every item I thought the inspector was incorrect on. Damn,
he walked in this morning and said in one breath, "the engine is ok, the
embroidered experimental is ok, and you can have the 100NM radius you
requested, lets finish the paperwork and get you flying". I still don't
know what happened. I just want to say thanks to you guys and the EAA for
the support. I learned more stuff than I wanted to know about amateur built
airworthiness that I ever wanted to know. For instance, did you know you
don't need and ELT while in Phase 1 testing? Lots of neat info in them
there manuals. Thanks, Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oil Temperature High |
I had the exact same setup with an io360. Mine didnt cool much after
break in. I ended up putting the cooler on the rear baffle. I havent
heard many 320 temp problems though. Have him really, really check his
baffling for leaks. It makes a big difference. If that doesnt work, I
would just move it to the baffle and get it over with. At least that
way you know its as good as its going to get.
Shemp/Jeff Dowling
RV-6A, N915JD
300+ hours
Chicago/Louisville
----- Original Message -----
From: Francis Malczynski
To: RV-List
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:13 AM
Subject: RV-List: Oil Temperature High
My friend is test flying an RV6 fuel injected 0320. At 75% power runs
ie: engine break-in, he is seeing oil temperatures in the 210 ' 220-
range. This is with an OAT of 34 degrees. He has a firewall mounted oil
cooler and used the van=92s kit for installation, which utilizes a 3=94
scat duct. His feeling is that this is not enough airflow through the
cooler and because the cooler plenum (shroud) is so squat that not
enough air is being distributed across the entire face off the oil
cooler. Any thoughts on this=85Thanks
Fran Malczynski
RV6 - N594EF
Olcott, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
This came directly from Van's during Sun n Fun
What engines to put in your rv
1. Lycoming
2. Lycoming clones
.......
second to last. Auto conversions
last. Rubber bands.
Shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-7 engine/prop options
>
> gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com said:
>
> Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
> lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
> and fiddling in the long run.
>
>
> Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?
>
> One person may satisfy himself the above statement is true, while another
> may find just the opposite.
>
> Blanket declarations like this are almost always found to be lacking when
> a
> few intelligent questions are asked...
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
Mark,
the designer of the RV series says the best conversion is $8000 into a used
a lycoming.
The designer has been around for the experimental scene for a few decades
and has a 'bit' of experience...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 engine/prop options |
> Stay way from Alternative Engines, a Lycoming will end up being
> lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to build, less maintenance
> and fiddling in the long run.
>
>Is that authoritative, expert advice... or just one man's opinion?
OK, I'll bite. For you alternative engine experts on the list, why
is an alternative engine lighter, faster, cheaper, quicker/easier to
build and less maintenance?
I personally fly a Lycoming, but would be interested in a 220 HP, 250
lb fully aerobatic (+10,-10 G) alternative engine with a constant
speed prop and inverted oil system (inverted cooling system?).
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for advice--final update |
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Tim Bryan" wrote:
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@ma
tronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Ross
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:03 PM
ice:smarttags" />rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Looking for advice--final update
amateur built airworthiness that I ever wanted to know. For instance, d
id you know you don=92t need and ELT while in Phase 1 testing? Lots of
neat info in them there manuals. Thanks, Dan
Yeah, the ELT deal is correct. If your plane can carry only one perso
========================
========================
========================
========================
====
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> wrote:
From:
owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dan Ross
Sent:
Monday, April 23, 2007 11:03 PM
To: rv-list@mat
ronics.com
Subj
ect: RV-List: Looking for advice--final update<
o:p>
amateur built airworthiness that I ever wan
ted to know. For instance, did you know you don=92t need and ELT w
hile in Phase 1 testing? Lots of neat info in them there manuals.&
nbsp; Thanks, Dan
<
B>
<
B>
Yeah, the ELT deal is correct. If your plane can carry
only one person a ELT is not required.
========================
===========
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
========================
===========
tronics.com
========================
===========