RV-Archive.digest.vol-tb
October 29, 2007 - November 14, 2007
http://n5lp.net
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:09 AM, Paul Besing wrote:
> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand
> prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're
> facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position
> is .... if you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass
> through 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and
> a set of plugs removed is better) you can pull the prop through to
> see what position it's in when the impulse clicks.
> Linn
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>
>>
>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't
>> for the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on
>> the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the
>> 10:00 or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Paul Besing
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
| From: | Michael W Stewart <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
Its 2.
Mike
Paul Besing
To
Sent by: rv-list(at)matronics.com
owner-rv-list-ser
cc
ver(at)matronics.com
Subj
ect
Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clock
ing
10/29/2007 12:09
PM
Please respond to
rv-list@matronics
.com
Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand pro
p
it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're facing the
prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is .... if you're
propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through 2:00 when the
impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and a set of plugs removed is
better) you can pull the prop through to see what position it's in when
the
impulse clicks.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Ok..try it again..here goes.
Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't f
or
the life of me remember which position it looks like when
stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade o
n
the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 1
0:00
or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
Thanks.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Mather" <peter(at)mather.com> |
| Subject: | Re: using wing jacks |
The best system I've seen for jacking is as follows:
Bolt two scissor jacks one either end of a strong trestle. Bolt a piece
of 2*4" wood to the tops of the scissor jacks. Pad the wood with foam or
similar. Place under the fuselage across the spar and jack the aircraft
off the ground winding each jack a bit at a time to keep things even.
This is really a variation on the motorbike jack but much cheaper anjd
more stable and allows both mains to be serviced at the same time. Move
up to the firewall to jack the nosewheel (where applicable).
Best regards
Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
Got it thanks folks...one of those things I just couldn't picture, because I've
seen both, but couldn't remember what was "normal".
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 11:06:05 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Paul Besing wrote:
> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>
> Paul Besing
Paul, the high blade will be at the 2:00 position when viewed from the
cockpit (10:00 when facing the prop during a hand-start).
Sam Buchanan
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HCRV6(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | RV-6/6A Trivia-Wing Bellcrank |
Dean,
I remember the problem well. I offset the bellcrank slightly by modifying the
spacers and using a thin washer and a thin stop nut ( I'm at home and can't recall
the PN but they are in the Spruce catalog). Then ground a couple of threads
of the bolt and wound up with about 1/8 in. clearance. So far seems to work
out O.K.
--
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 412 hours
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net>
>
> Dean,
> I think the general consensus was to offset the bell crank a bit to create a
> more comfortable clearance. If memory serves, I think I ground down one
> spacer and added thin washers to the opposite side rather than make new
> spacers from scratch.
>
>
> Steve dinieri
> Iflyrv10.com
> capsteve(at)adelphia.net
>
>
>
>
>
> All ye RV-6/6A builders:
>
> Think waaaay back when you built your wings (actually when you installed the
> aileron bellcranks and pushrods). RV-7/8/9 builders don't apply, you have a
> different bellcrank set up. Anyway, I was installing this for the last time
> tonight and ran into a problem. The bellcrank installed in the mount with
> its quarter inch bolt (and washers/spacers) ok. But when I installed the
> AN3-10A bolt in the hole in the where the pushrod (rod end) goes, (and
> installed a thick washer and nylock nut), the amount of bolt sticking out of
> the nut created interference with the bottom (angle aluminum) mounting rail
> and the bellcrank couldn't move full travel.
>
> The bellcrank mounting rails, if you recall, are 1.5 inches apart and the
> bellcrank is centered between them. Van's old plans call for an AN3-10A
> bolt, thick washer and stop nut but that's obviously wrong. I checked my
> rail spacing just to be sure and yes I built them to the plans. So...I
> switched the bolt to an AN3-7 and with the thick washer and stop nut there
> is 2-3 threads sticking out of the stop nut. The bellcrank rotates freely
> but looking at the clearance between the end of the bolt and the bottom rail
> I would guess about 1/16 of an inch is all I have.
>
> This makes me nervous, the bellcrank mounting rails are 1/8 inch thick and
> that area is pretty stout but, the rod ends mount into the outer ends of the
> bellcrank itself (two pieces of 1/16 plate spaced apart by thick AN3 bolt
> washers in 4 places plus the center bearing mount acting as a spacer). If
> there is much flexing in the outer ends of the bellcrank in flight then it
> might be possible for the bolt end to come in contact with the mounting rail
> and ruin my day (life).
>
> I looked at going to an AN3-6A bolt but it doesn't look like there will be
> ANY threads sticking out of the stop nut when it's tightend (if I'm lucky
> and use a thin washer, I might get the threads to edge of the nylon in the
> end of the stop nut). Also if I used the -6A bolt I'll be violating the
> "grip length rules" (unthreaded bolt shank will not go all the way through
> the parts I'm bolting). Anyone remember having this problem? Did you use the
> -6A bolt or.... the -7A and live with the close clearances? How critical is
> it to adhere to the "grip length" rules?
>
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> If I'd quit running into crazy crap like this I'd be done now!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Problem - Troubleshooting |
I'm going to try the mag/EI combo again. This time I'll use the P-mag it
stable, otherwise a lightspeed.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
On 10/29/07, Bill Settle wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
>
> What are you planning on using on your 7?
>
> -------------- Original message from "Larry Bowen" :
> --------------
>
> Sounds similar to my electroair troubles:
>
> http://bowenaero.com/mt3/2004/10/more_ignition_w_1.html
> http://bowenaero.com/mt3/2005/03/electronic_igni.html
> http://bowenaero.com/mt3/2005/04/electronic_igni_1.html
>
> --
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
> *From:* Kyle Boatright
> > *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > *Sent:* Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:33 PM
> > *Subject:* RV-List: Ignition Problem - Troubleshooting
> >
> > We went from Atlanta to College Station, TX this weekend to see my
> > wife's Aggies play (and lose to) Kansas..
> >
> > Today, we made the return trip.
> >
> > And about 30 miles from home the engine lost a little power (~100 rpm).
> > Some in-flight troubleshooting showed that the Electroair ignition that I
> > have on the right side had quit. I flipped the on/off switch several times,
> > reset the breaker, etc. and the ignition didn't come back to life. That
> > being the case, I left it off for the remainder of the flight and made sure
> > to stay high enough to glide to an airstrip if the other ignition system (a
> > magneto) decided to take the day off too.
> >
> > And once we landed, I flipped it back on and voila', it was working
> > fine. Which was a good thing. Sorta...
> >
> > Because troubleshooting an intermittent problem is a pain in the tuckus.
> >
> > I plan to check all of the connections between the battery, the breaker,
> > the switch, and the ignition system. I'll check the ground connections
> > too. Beyond that, I'll call the folks who are now supporting the ignition
> > and see if they have any ideas.
> >
> > Any other thoughts on how to troubleshoot this problem?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> >
> > Kyle Boatright
> > N46KB
> >
> > *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Prop Mounting-clocking |
glen matejcek wrote:
>
>Linn-
>
>
>
>>FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand prop
>>it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're facing the
>>prop.
>>
>>
>
>I though you had a Pitts, not a Moth.... ;-)
>
I do ....and for the first 13 years I hand propped it before I got smart
and put a battery and starter in it. The clue is 'rising blade' that
you didn't quote! ....at least I think I said that! When you pull the
2:00 blade CCW, the impulse will fire when that blade is at 8:00 on the
down stroke.
Linn
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do this
alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an ambulance
... if needed. ;-)
Linn
dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
> 2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
> dp
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
> >
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand
> prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're
> facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is
> .... if you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through
> 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and a set of
> plugs removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what
> position it's in when the impulse clicks.
> Linn
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
>
>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>
>>
>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't for
>> the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on
>> the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 10:00
>> or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Paul Besing
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
----- Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do this
alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an ambulance
... if needed. ;-)
Linn
dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
2 o'clock viewd
from the cockpit
dp
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Ok,
there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand
prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're facing
the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is .... if
you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through 2:00 when
the impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and a set of plugs
removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what position
it's in when the impulse clicks.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Ok..try
it again..here goes.
Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't for the
life of me remember which position it looks like when stopped..when
looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on the left or
right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 10:00 or 2:00
position when viewed from the cockpit?
Thanks.
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Email and AIM finally together. You've
gotta check out free AOL Mail!
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up yet. I
apologize if y'all get it twice! Also noted error from other post :-(
. Fixed in red .... like my face! We all may be talking the same end
result.
Nice pic!
I see where the confusion comes in. I talk about when the impulse mag
fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00 position as viewed from the
front, not where the prop stops. As you pull the '2:00' prop blade
around, the compression stroke will start and, hopefully that same blade
will be at 8:00 when the impulse fires. The prop may, indeed, stop with
the prop in the 2:00/8:00 position as viewed from the cockpit on a 4
cylinder engine, but I'm pretty sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine.
In my mind it doesn't matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's
where the mag fires and the prop 'starts' that's important. I may have
been a little premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I
apologize. No offense meant. Again, I clock the prop on where the mag
fires, not where it stops. Hope this helps!
BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some instruction on
how to properly 'hand prop an airplane. I've had some friends injured
.... none fatally ..... in their education process.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
> Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do this
> alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an
> ambulance ... if needed. ;-)
> Linn
>
> dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> 2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
>> dp
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>>
>> Paul Besing
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>> >
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to hand
>> prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're
>> facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is
>> .... if you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through
>> 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and a set of
>> plugs removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what
>> position it's in when the impulse clicks.
>> Linn
>>
>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>
>>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't for
>>> the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on
>>> the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the
>>> 10:00 or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Paul Besing
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
>> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ignition Problem - Troubleshooting |
| From: | "Barry Ward" <barry.ward(at)wanadoo.fr> |
I have an Electroair system and although I have not had exactly the same problem
I did have one with the pick up signal that I use to provide the RPM indicator.
The problem was a poor contact on the main Electroair Ignition unit. Mine which
is a 1998 model had several spade connectors that connect the wires including
the 12 volt power to the control unit. Probably over time (800 hours) the connector
had worked loose plus some oil may have been the cause of the bad contact.
I cleaned the contact and made it a tighter fit and since then there has
not been a problem.
I would imagine that if your system started working again after a landing which
may have vibrated the wires the problem is one due to a poor contact and not
a component failure.
Hopefully when you have found the cause of the problem you will post the information.
Barry RV6A F-PRVM
--------
Barry
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=142693#142693
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
At 08:25 AM 10/29/07, you wrote:
>Anyone got a great source for tires? Michelins are on there now and
>they work fine
I use Dresser Tires, they advertise in Trade a Plane, they are
somewhere in Tenn, I finally went with Goodyear Flight Custom
IIIs. I like the tire, wears well, and with Michelins tubes, no loss
of air between annuals.
On the other hand, the Goodyears are a little heavier than the tires
that Van provides.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Paulich III" <jpaulich(at)pswpa.com> |
| Subject: | "Bubba" wing jack |
Last month, my son and I found ourselves on a Saturday morning at the
far end of the taxiway for runway 1 of the Greenville Downtown Airport
with a flat left tire. We were loaded with fuel and ready to complete
the second leg of our trip to Cleveland. Air from the fuel truck didn't
help and it was obvious that the tire would need to be removed at the
spot for repair. The good fellows at SATS Air sent a golf cart down
with a mechanic and some tools to remove the wheel pants and take a
closer look. Back to the hanger for more tools, a wood block, and the
biggest guy in the shop, "Bubba" (not certain that's his real name, but
it fits). With the mechanic at the ready by the tire, my son and me on
our hands and knees (backs on the wing spar), and Bubba between us on
his back (with his hands on the spar), we arched and Bubba pressed and
the mechanic removed the tire in less than 30 seconds. After replacing
the tube in the shop it was back to the plane. Bubba jack in place,
arch and push, and wheel replaced. Now, I would like to believe that my
son and I provided a lot of lift for the operation. In reality, though,
Bubba likely could have lifted the plane by himself. Either way,
consider the Bubba jack in a pinch for emergency repairs.
John Paulich
N121PR, "Hot Flash", RV-7
Naples, Florida
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 10/30/2007 6:18:57 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
panamared5(at)brier.net writes:
I use Dresser Tires, they advertise in Trade a Plane, they are
somewhere in Tenn, I finally went with Goodyear Flight Custom
IIIs. I like the tire, wears well, and with Michelins tubes, no loss
of air between annuals
===================================
Actually the company is Desser, in California at least. I think you can buy
directly from them or many of the outlets like Chief will have Desser drop
ship the product right to you. They advertise in TAP, PF and I have them
listed in the Yeller Pages.
I have had good luck with the Condor brand tires and use the Michelin leak
stop tubes.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 870hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
| From: | dougpflyrv(at)aol.com |
I HAVE BEEN PROPPING VARIOUS AIRCRAFT SINCE 1960 AND THEY WERE ALWAYS AT 2 O'CLOCK
AS VIEWED FROM THE COCKPIT. NEVER SEEN ONE POSITIONED OTHERWISE.
DP
-----Original Message-----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it.? Do not do this
alone.? Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an ambulance
... if needed. ;-)
Linn
dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
2? o'clock viewd
from the cockpit
dp
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Ok,
there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit.? If you ever want to hand
prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're facing
the prop.? It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is .... if
you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through 2:00 when
the impulse fires at TDC.? With the mags off (and a set of plugs
removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what position
it's in when the impulse clicks.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Ok..try
it again..here goes.
Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't for the
life of me remember which position it looks like when stopped..when
looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on the left or
right?? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 10:00 or 2:00
position when viewed from the cockpit?
Thanks.
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Email and AIM finally together. You've
gotta check out free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
| From: | dougpflyrv(at)aol.com |
I THINK THIS SHOULD GET ALL OF US ON THE SAME PAGE.......NO PROBLEM LINN.
DP
-----Original Message-----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 1:19 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up yet.?
I apologize if y'all get it twice!? Also noted error from other post :-( .? Fixed
in red ....
like my face!? We all may be talking the same end result.
Nice pic!
I see where the confusion comes in.? I talk about when the impulse mag
fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00
position as viewed from
the front, not where the prop stops.? As you pull the '2:00' prop blade
around, the compression
stroke will start and, hopefully that same blade will be at 8:00 when
the impulse fires.? The prop may, indeed, stop with the prop in the
2:00/8:00 position as viewed from the cockpit on a 4 cylinder engine,
but I'm pretty sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine.?? In my mind it
doesn't matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's where the mag
fires and the prop 'starts' that's important.? I may have been a little
premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I apologize.? No
offense meant.? Again, I clock the prop on where the mag fires, not
where it stops.? Hope this helps!
BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some instruction on
how to properly 'hand prop an airplane.? I've had some friends injured
.... none fatally? ..... in their education process.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Why
does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
-----
Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it.? Do not do this
alone.? Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an ambulance
... if needed. ;-)
Linn
dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
2? o'clock viewd
from the cockpit
dp
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Ok,
there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit.? If you ever want to hand
prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're facing
the prop.? It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is .... if
you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through 2:00 when
the impulse fires at TDC.? With the mags off (and a set of plugs
removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what position
it's in when the impulse clicks.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Ok..try
it again..here goes.
Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't for the
life of me remember which position it looks like when stopped..when
looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on the left or
right?? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 10:00 or 2:00
position when viewed from the cockpit?
Thanks.
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Email and AIM finally together.
You've
gotta check out free AOL
Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave/Deb" <davwol(at)svtv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop Mounting-clocking |
The clock in my airplane shop is digital... now what? hee hee
----- Original Message -----
From: dougpflyrv(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
I THINK THIS SHOULD GET ALL OF US ON THE SAME PAGE.......NO PROBLEM
LINN.
DP
-----Original Message-----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 1:19 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up yet.
I apologize if y'all get it twice! Also noted error from other post :-(
. Fixed in red .... like my face! We all may be talking the same end
result.
Nice pic!
I see where the confusion comes in. I talk about when the impulse mag
fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00 position as viewed from the
front, not where the prop stops. As you pull the '2:00' prop blade
around, the compression stroke will start and, hopefully that same blade
will be at 8:00 when the impulse fires. The prop may, indeed, stop with
the prop in the 2:00/8:00 position as viewed from the cockpit on a 4
cylinder engine, but I'm pretty sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine.
In my mind it doesn't matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's
where the mag fires and the prop 'starts' that's important. I may have
been a little premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I
apologize. No offense meant. Again, I clock the prop on where the mag
fires, not where it stops. Hope this helps!
BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some instruction
on how to properly 'hand prop an airplane. I've had some friends
injured .... none fatally ..... in their education process.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
----- Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do this
alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call an ambulance
... if needed. ;-)
Linn
dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
dp
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to
hand prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when you're
facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping' position is ....
if you're propping it, you want the rising blade to pass through 2:00
when the impulse fires at TDC. With the mags off (and a set of plugs
removed is better) you can pull the prop through to see what position
it's in when the impulse clicks.
Linn
Paul Besing wrote:
Ok..try it again..here goes.
Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't
for the life of me remember which position it looks like when
stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade on the
left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in the 10:00 or
2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
Thanks.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
| Subject: | Prop Indexing and Jacking |
Humpf,
Prop indexing is not only a function of that which is convenient to hand
propping, which if indexed properly(there's a pun in there) will put the
right side descending blade up high and going through a compression stroke
as you pull it down, but it is also a function of crankshaft and engine
balance design.
For this reason many certified prop/engine have indexing marks to help
ensure proper(pun again) installation.
RE Jacking, I made a heavy flat plate of 3/8 aluminum that is 1.5 inches
wide and about 6 inches long with a u-bolt that straps it on to the tapered
axel just inside of the wheel. I welded some .5" edges to the bottom side to
stiffen it and provide some grip for a jack/board underneath. A couple of
bricks and a five foot 2x6 underneath this plate and I can lever the wheel
off the ground easily, and the plate fits into my tool kit easily. I figure
I can always find either a scissors jack or a board and some bricks at any
airport.
If you look at the plate end on with the u-bolt it looks like this
<[
and sideways it looks like this
1_____
with the one being the u-bolt that slips over the axel and is tightened as
close to the brake backing plate as on can get it. I do remove the brake
first, but one has to do this to get the wheel off anyways.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sam ray <sam95037(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
with coupling between the antennas or reception?
Sam Ray
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | which plugs are from the left mag? |
My engine runs rough on the left mag. Which spark plugs are fed from the
left mag in a Lycoming 0-320 E2D?
Kim Nicholas
Seattle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | which plugs are from the left mag? |
Usually the top of one side and the bottom of the other. Just follow the
wires.
Bruce
<http://www.Glasair.org> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Knicholas2(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: RV-List: which plugs are from the left mag?
My engine runs rough on the left mag. Which spark plugs are fed from the
left mag in a Lycoming 0-320 E2D?
Kim Nicholas
Seattle
_____
See what's ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Struyk" <rv8striker(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Sam,
I put two Comant, bent whip type, on the belly of my "8". I was told to put
them as far apart as possible to keep them from interfering with each other.
To accomplish this one is mounted on the center line of the fuselage just
aft of the main spar center section. The other is also on the centerline but
aft of the rear baggage area. Both are mounted on doublers on the skin to
reinforce those areas. After 100 hours all is well and my radios have worked
great. If you like I can send you some pictures off list. Let me know.
Hope this helps.
Steve Struyk
St. Charles, MO
RV-8, 100 Hrs.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sam ray" <sam95037(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:36 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
>
> Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
> with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>
> Sam Ray
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | For Sale BMA EFIS One |
Posted to the Rv list for Giff Marr, See details below and contact Giff
directly if interested
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Giffen Marr
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:25 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] For Sale BMA EFIS One
New Dual Screen BMA EFIS/One Version 3 for Sale!!!
Upgrade to an Electronic Cockpit.
Everything you could want in a single package EFIS. True A/S, True
Course, Built in GPS, Ground Speed, Solid State Internal Platform,
Moving Map Display with Terrain Elevation. Includes user programmable
full engine monitoring, fuel flow, individual CHT's, EGT's and more.
Reduce cockpit clutter. Accepts outside nav inputs, such as the Garmin
SL-30.
A $16,000+ Value for Thousands Less!
Asking $10,900.
Giff Marr
817-223-9671 (Cell)
817-306-9592
PS: What is the RV List address???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Sam, Put one on the belly between the gear and put a Rami type on top
of fuse aft of canopy. No problems with this setup and less shadowing.
Dick
At 04:36 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
>
>Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
>antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
>fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
>with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>
>Sam Ray
>
>__________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RV8 comm antenna spacing |
I wish I had done this on my RV-6. I put both comm. Antennas on the belly
and I have no problem except with ground communications when my flaps are
down. The -6 is wider however and so spacing is probably less of a problem.
Flaps do cause a shadow for me at least.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Seiders
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 10:04 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
>
>
> Sam, Put one on the belly between the gear and put a Rami type on top
> of fuse aft of canopy. No problems with this setup and less shadowing.
> Dick
>
>
> At 04:36 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
>
> >
> >Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
> >antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
> >fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
> >with coupling between the antennas or reception?
> >
> >Sam Ray
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 comm antenna spacing |
The RV-8 canopy slides over the whole aft fuselage, all the way back
to the empennage fairing, so it is not possible to mount a comm
antenna on top of the aft fuselage.
Kevin Horton
On 31 Oct 2007, at 12:04, Richard Seiders wrote:
>
> Sam, Put one on the belly between the gear and put a Rami type on
> top of fuse aft of canopy. No problems with this setup and less
> shadowing.
> Dick
>
>
> At 04:36 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
>
>>
>> Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
>> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
>> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
>> with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>>
>> Sam Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Inman 204 287 8334 <ghinman(at)mts.net> |
| Subject: | Wing root faring at bottom |
What did some of you builders do where the
wing root faring meets the skin that extends from the bottom of
fuselage to the wing?
The holes provided in the wing root faring do not seem to
provide enough attachement points.
RV-8 QB.
--
George H. Inman
ghinman(at)mts.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AD INQUIRY - 2003 Van's Aircraft (RV Series) |
Thanks for your interest in my RV8A. Attached are some photos. To give you some
background info, I am the original builder of the airplane and it was built from
a quickbuild kit. It includes most of the kit options available -
rear seat rudder pedals & throttle, deluxe throttle quadrant and aileron trim.
It has been completely flight tested by myself and a friend who is an ex airforce
T-37 instructor. It has been spin tested and put through the basic acro maneuvers
- loops, rolls, cuban eights, emmelman turns, split S's, etc.
Engine- Lycoming IO-360 180HP. TTSN 700. The engine had a prop strike back in the
early 90's but was
compeltely torn down, inspected, and reassembled by Signature Aviation. A top overhaul
was done approximately 250 hours ago, due to low compression (valve),
and the need for oil impeller AD. While the engine was down, I decided to
replace all cylinders, valves, pistons and rings. The engine has a solid crank,
which is very durable, but precludes use of a hydraulic constant speed prop.
Prop - the prop was made by Craig Catto out in CA. It is a three blade fixed pitch
66" X72" unit.
Instruments Avionics - as you can see by one of the photos, the panel is pretty
basic, being designed for day/night
VFR flight. Avionics are: radio - Icom A-200, Transponder - Garmin GTX 327, TruTrak
ADI (combination horizon/dg), Navaid wing leveler and Grand Rapids engine
monitor.
Performance - Top speed 204MPH (average of four runs at 8000' at 75% power). Typical
cruise is 170MPH block to block at a throttle setting of 2400RPM. Climb
is around 2,000/fpm, a little better on a cold day.
Paint - done professionally by Rick Harris, Nashville, TN Top color is Lexus pearl,
bottom is metallic teal and the
"flash" begnins in gold metallic and gradually turns to tangerine metallic. Flash
is outlined in apple green hand
striping.
Hope this meets your needs. I can snail mail you a CD which contains many pics,
specs, etc., if you have the interest.
Thank you,
Walt Shipley
Chuckey, TN
P.S. The price IS NEGOTIABLE!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Trade-A-Plane Web Site <webmaster@trade-a-plane.com>
>Sent: Oct 31, 2007 3:29 PM
>To: rveighta(at)earthlink.net
>Subject: AD INQUIRY - 2003 Van's Aircraft (RV Series)
>
>A Trade-A-Plane web user wishes to inquire about your ad.
>
>This message is from: jandmbaling(at)hotmail.com
>
>PLEASE SEND US INFORMATION AND PICTURES OF PLANE..THANK YOU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sale BMA EFIS One |
I have one of these Blue Mountain Efis-one units and it is amazing.
Sophisticated, updates are expensive but it sure is cool. Sure is a
let-down when I fly behind steam gauges these days.
On 10/31/07, Ed Anderson wrote:
>
>
> Posted to the Rv list for Giff Marr, See details below and contact Giff
> directly if interested
>
>
> Ed
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Giffen Marr
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
> *Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2007 10:25 PM
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] For Sale BMA EFIS One
>
> New Dual Screen BMA EFIS/One Version 3 for Sale!!!
>
> Upgrade to an Electronic Cockpit.
>
> Everything you could want in a single package EFIS. True A/S, True Course,
> Built in GPS, Ground Speed, Solid State Internal Platform, Moving Map
> Display with Terrain Elevation. Includes user programmable full engine
> monitoring, fuel flow, individual CHT's, EGT's and more. Reduce cockpit
> clutter. Accepts outside nav inputs, such as the Garmin SL-30.
>
> A $16,000+ Value for Thousands Less!
>
> Asking $10,900.
>
> Giff Marr
> 817-223-9671 (Cell)
> 817-306-9592
>
> PS: What is the RV List address???
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Dalton" <ddalton536(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: 160 HP 0-320-H2AD |
What engine is it, do you have any details on what's included with it? You
can email me directly offline if you'd like.
DD
On 10/28/07, Flamini, Dennis, Fran wrote:
>
> i bought a wrecked Acro II last weekend in central Michagan.
> The plane lost power and landed hard on an upslope.
> The prop hit the ground in a horiz. position, i looked at the engine
> unassembled
> and think it would be a great buy for someone.
> It was overhauled by Wag Aero and had 370 hrs SMOH when it crashed in Aug
> 2005.
> No carb or mag.
> The owner does not want to ship it so it would have to be picked up, i
> could help ship it
> but i am 200 miles away myself.
> i was thinking the Michigan guys might want to take a look at it.
> He wants $2,500 for it.
> i attached a photo of the plane wreck.
> Dennis in Chicago
> PS, i was all ready to go back and pick it up but my Wife noted that
> i already have 2 1/2 biplanes in the garage and an engine in the basement.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | November is Matronics Email List Fund Raiser Month! |
Dear Listers,
You've probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows or spam
from any of the List and Forum services at Matronics. These include, for example:
The Email List Postings - http://www.matronics.com/listbrowse
The Email List Forum Site - http://forums.matronics.com
The List Wiki - http://wiki.matronics.com
The List Search Engine - http://www.matronics.com/search
This is because I have always enjoyed a List experience that was completely about
the sport we enjoy - airplanes - and not about advertising!
But running a high performance, highly available service like this isn't free and
a fair amount of money in terms of computer upgrades, business-class Internet
connectivity, and electricity. Consequently, many similar sites turn to advertising
to support these costs. Advertising that you have to look at each and
every time you read an email message or browse the their web site.
Rather than subject my List community to another constant commercial bombardment,
I have chosen to hold a PBS-like fund raiser each year in November to support
the continued operation and upgrade of the List services. It's solely through
the Contributions of List members that the Lists and Forums continue to be
possible!
During the month, I will be sending out a Fund Raiser reminder message every few
days and I ask for your patience and understanding during the month throughout
these regular messages. Think of them as PBS' Pledge Breaks... :-)
To minimize the impact of the Fund Raiser on the List community, I implemented
a new feature late last year specifically related to making Contributions. If
you are an Email List subscriber, once you make a Contribution using the online
web site, you will no longer receive the email from me regarding the Fund Raiser!
There are a couple of exceptions to this, however. If someone replies
to a Contribution message I've sent, you might receive that. Additionally, the
messages will always be posted to the Forums site. To a first order, however,
once you make a Contribution, you won't get my email messages about the Fund
Raiser for the rest of the month. For Contributions by check, the squelch
will take effect once the check is received.
There is a whole new line up of really great Contribution gifts this year! When
you make a qualifying Contribution, you can select one of the many free gifts
that are available during the Fund Raiser. These gifts are provided through
the generous support of a number of our industry's leading supporters including:
Bob Nuckolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
Andy Gold - Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
Please visit these guy's respective sites, as they have some great products to
offer and are generously supporting the Matronics List Fund Raiser.
You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this
year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. From the Contribution
site, you can select any one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying
Contribution amount. The Contribution page is pretty loooonnnnng this year
in order to list great selection of great gifts available so be sure to scroll
all the way to the bottom of the web page to see everything that's available!
Please make a List Support Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous support! Your Contributions
truely keep this operation afloat!
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Forum Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Thought we were talking about a 6, my mistake.
At 04:33 PM 10/31/2007, you wrote:
>
>The RV-8 canopy slides over the whole aft fuselage, all the way back
>to the empennage fairing, so it is not possible to mount a comm
>antenna on top of the aft fuselage.
>
>Kevin Horton
>
>On 31 Oct 2007, at 12:04, Richard Seiders wrote:
>
>>
>>Sam, Put one on the belly between the gear and put a Rami type on
>>top of fuse aft of canopy. No problems with this setup and less
>>shadowing.
>>Dick
>>
>>
>>At 04:36 PM 10/30/2007, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
>>>antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
>>>fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
>>>with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>>>
>>>Sam Ray
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Dowling <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing |
For those flying the nose draggers with an intersection fairing
attacthed to the cowl, have you found you need some space between the
front of the fairing and gear leg fairing for stretch/movement of leg on
landing? I have it pretty tight right now but am thinking a hard
landing will flex the leg and crack the fairing.
Thanks
Shemp
N915JD
RV-6A, 300+
Chicago
Dave/Deb wrote:
> The clock in my airplane shop is digital... now what? hee hee
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* dougpflyrv(at)aol.com
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:02 AM
> *Subject:* Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> I THINK THIS SHOULD GET ALL OF US ON THE SAME PAGE.......NO
> PROBLEM LINN.
> DP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
> >
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 1:19 am
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>
> This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up
> yet. I apologize if y'all get it twice! Also noted error from
> other post :-( . Fixed in red .... like my face! We all may be
> talking the same end result.
>
> Nice pic!
> I see where the confusion comes in. I talk about when the impulse
> mag fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00 position as
> viewed from the front, not where the prop stops. As you pull the
> '2:00' prop blade around, the compression stroke will start and,
> hopefully that same blade will be at 8:00 when the impulse fires.
> The prop may, indeed, stop with the prop in the 2:00/8:00 position
> as viewed from the cockpit on a 4 cylinder engine, but I'm pretty
> sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine. In my mind it doesn't
> matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's where the mag fires
> and the prop 'starts' that's important. I may have been a little
> premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I
> apologize. No offense meant. Again, I clock the prop on where
> the mag fires, not where it stops. Hope this helps!
>
> BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some
> instruction on how to properly 'hand prop an airplane. I've had
> some friends injured .... none fatally ..... in their education
> process.
> Linn
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
>> Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do
>> this alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call
>> an ambulance ... if needed. ;-)
>> Linn
>>
>> dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
>>> 2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
>>> dp
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>
>>> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>>>
>>> Paul Besing
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>>> >
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>
>>> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to
>>> hand prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when
>>> you're facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping'
>>> position is .... if you're propping it, you want the rising
>>> blade to pass through 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With
>>> the mags off (and a set of plugs removed is better) you can pull
>>> the prop through to see what position it's in when the impulse
>>> clicks.
>>> Linn
>>>
>>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't
>>>> for the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>>>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade
>>>> on the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in
>>>> the 10:00 or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Besing
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>>>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
>>> Mail
>>> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
> 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: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing |
Jeff, I had a hard enough landing to require replacing the main landing gear
in my Rv-6A and the front gear did not damage the fairing at all. YMMV
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing
>
> For those flying the nose draggers with an intersection fairing attacthed
> to the cowl, have you found you need some space between the front of the
> fairing and gear leg fairing for stretch/movement of leg on landing? I
> have it pretty tight right now but am thinking a hard landing will flex
> the leg and crack the fairing.
>
> Thanks
> Shemp
> N915JD
> RV-6A, 300+
> Chicago
>
> Dave/Deb wrote:
>> The clock in my airplane shop is digital... now what? hee hee
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* dougpflyrv(at)aol.com
>> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:02 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> I THINK THIS SHOULD GET ALL OF US ON THE SAME PAGE.......NO
>> PROBLEM LINN.
>> DP
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>> >
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 1:19 am
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up
>> yet. I apologize if y'all get it twice! Also noted error from
>> other post :-( . Fixed in red .... like my face! We all may be
>> talking the same end result.
>>
>> Nice pic!
>> I see where the confusion comes in. I talk about when the impulse
>> mag fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00 position as
>> viewed from the front, not where the prop stops. As you pull the
>> '2:00' prop blade around, the compression stroke will start and,
>> hopefully that same blade will be at 8:00 when the impulse fires. The
>> prop may, indeed, stop with the prop in the 2:00/8:00 position
>> as viewed from the cockpit on a 4 cylinder engine, but I'm pretty
>> sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine. In my mind it doesn't
>> matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's where the mag fires
>> and the prop 'starts' that's important. I may have been a little
>> premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I
>> apologize. No offense meant. Again, I clock the prop on where
>> the mag fires, not where it stops. Hope this helps!
>>
>> BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some
>> instruction on how to properly 'hand prop an airplane. I've had
>> some friends injured .... none fatally ..... in their education
>> process.
>> Linn
>>
>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>> Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>
>>> If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do
>>> this alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call
>>> an ambulance ... if needed. ;-)
>>> Linn
>>>
>>> dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>> 2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
>>>> dp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
>>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>
>>>> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>>>>
>>>> Paul Besing
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>>>> >
>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to
>>>> hand prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when
>>>> you're facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping'
>>>> position is .... if you're propping it, you want the rising
>>>> blade to pass through 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With
>>>> the mags off (and a set of plugs removed is better) you can pull
>>>> the prop through to see what position it's in when the impulse
>>>> clicks.
>>>> Linn
>>>>
>>>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>>>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't
>>>>> for the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>>>>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade
>>>>> on the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in
>>>>> the 10:00 or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Besing
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>>>>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
>>>> Mail
>>>>
>>>> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> 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: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing |
Yes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing
>
> For those flying the nose draggers with an intersection fairing attacthed
> to the cowl, have you found you need some space between the front of the
> fairing and gear leg fairing for stretch/movement of leg on landing? I
> have it pretty tight right now but am thinking a hard landing will flex
> the leg and crack the fairing.
>
> Thanks
> Shemp
> N915JD
> RV-6A, 300+
> Chicago
>
> Dave/Deb wrote:
>> The clock in my airplane shop is digital... now what? hee hee
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* dougpflyrv(at)aol.com
>> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:02 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> I THINK THIS SHOULD GET ALL OF US ON THE SAME PAGE.......NO
>> PROBLEM LINN.
>> DP
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>> >
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 1:19 am
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>
>> This is what I sent in another email .... but it hasn't shown up
>> yet. I apologize if y'all get it twice! Also noted error from
>> other post :-( . Fixed in red .... like my face! We all may be
>> talking the same end result.
>>
>> Nice pic!
>> I see where the confusion comes in. I talk about when the impulse
>> mag fires ..... which should be in the 2:00/8:00 position as
>> viewed from the front, not where the prop stops. As you pull the
>> '2:00' prop blade around, the compression stroke will start and,
>> hopefully that same blade will be at 8:00 when the impulse fires. The
>> prop may, indeed, stop with the prop in the 2:00/8:00 position
>> as viewed from the cockpit on a 4 cylinder engine, but I'm pretty
>> sure it's different on a 6 cyl engine. In my mind it doesn't
>> matter where in rotation the prop stops, it's where the mag fires
>> and the prop 'starts' that's important. I may have been a little
>> premature (and harsh maybe) in my reply to DP .... and I
>> apologize. No offense meant. Again, I clock the prop on where
>> the mag fires, not where it stops. Hope this helps!
>>
>> BTW, I also caution my friends (and enemies) to get some
>> instruction on how to properly 'hand prop an airplane. I've had
>> some friends injured .... none fatally ..... in their education
>> process.
>> Linn
>>
>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>> Why does everyone have an overwhelming support for 2:00 then?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 10:22:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>
>>> If your prop is mounted that way, try and prop it. Do not do
>>> this alone. Have someone standing by with a cell phone to call
>>> an ambulance ... if needed. ;-)
>>> Linn
>>>
>>> dougpflyrv(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>> 2 o'clock viewd from the cockpit
>>>> dp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:09 am
>>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>
>>>> Ok, there is a vote for each...any one care to make a tie breaker?
>>>>
>>>> Paul Besing
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net
>>>> >
>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:20:31 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, 10:00 when viewed from the cockpit. If you ever want to
>>>> hand prop it, that's the best position .... which is 2:00 when
>>>> you're facing the prop. It doesn't matter what the 'stopping'
>>>> position is .... if you're propping it, you want the rising
>>>> blade to pass through 2:00 when the impulse fires at TDC. With
>>>> the mags off (and a set of plugs removed is better) you can pull
>>>> the prop through to see what position it's in when the impulse
>>>> clicks.
>>>> Linn
>>>>
>>>> Paul Besing wrote:
>>>>> Ok..try it again..here goes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, silly question...my prop needs to be re mounted and I can't
>>>>> for the life of me remember which position it looks like when
>>>>> stopped..when looking at it from the cockpit, is the high blade
>>>>> on the left or right? i.e. the blade you can see should be in
>>>>> the 10:00 or 2:00 position when viewed from the cockpit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Besing
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>>> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
>>>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:13:49 PM
>>>>> Subject: RV-List: Prop Mounting-clocking
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
>>>> Mail
>>>>
>>>> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000970>!
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> 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: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg Intersection Fairing |
Yes.
My upper nose gear fairing rubs against the leg fairing and though not damaged,
it does scuff the paint off. This would have been prevented had I the foresight
to place a few hundred pounds of weight in the cockpit to simulate gross
weight conditions prior to locating and installing that fairing. At the least,
prior to locating the fairing permanently, I suggest positioning it so that
some gap exists between it and the forward nose of the leg fairing when the plane
is empty and at rest.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla!"
RV-8 FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Had my first RV-8A set up this way and never ran into any problems.........
....until it went undrwater that is.
Mike Robertson
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:36:39 -0700> From: sam95037(at)yahoo.com> Subject:
RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> > --> RV-Lis
t message posted by: sam ray > > Has anyone out there b
een flying with two comm> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of
the> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems> with coupling betw
een the antennas or reception?> > Sam Ray> > ______________________________
=================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop
by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oc
tWLtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | which plugs are from the left mag? |
It depends on if you have two mags or if you are running one electronic ign
ition. If you are running two mags then normally, but not always, it is up
per left and lower right. The best way to trace the leads from the mags to
their respective plugs.
Mike Robertson
From: Knicholas2(at)aol.comDate: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:16:42 -0400Subject: RV-Li
st: which plugs are from the left mag?To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
My engine runs rough on the left mag. Which spark plugs are fed from the l
eft mag in a Lycoming 0-320 E2D?
Kim Nicholas
Seattle
See what's ne
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. -
Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062
6971033
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <chuck(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Had my RV9A set up this way. Never any problems.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
Had my first RV-8A set up this way and never ran into any
problems.............until it went undrwater that is.
Mike Robertson
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:36:39 -0700
> From: sam95037(at)yahoo.com
> Subject: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
> with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>
> Sam Ray
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Precision Airmotive - on Carbs |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
The following cannot be true!!!!
Does anyone have any other information?
Doug Gray
-------------------------------
Peter Nielson
Product Support Mgr.
Precision Airmotive LLC
14800 40th Ave NE
Marysville, WA 98271
360-651-8282
Subject: Letter to Industry
Here is the text of a letter we are sending out to the industry today.
Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float
carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This
unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain products
liability insurance for the product line. Precision Airmotive LLC and
its 43 employees currently manufacture and support the float
carburetors used in nearly all carbureted general aviation aircraft
flying today. Precision has been the manufacturer of these
carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved carburetors were designed
as early as the 1930's and continue to fly over a million flight hours
a year. After decades of service, the reliability of these
carburetors speaks for itself.
Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums rise
dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the total
sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we have
absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry as a
whole would be able to help address this issue faced by Precision
Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation companies. Our
efforts have been unsuccessful.
This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the
design approval by the FAA, Precision Airmotive has been unable to
obtain products liability insurance for the carburetor product line.
While we firmly believe that the product is safe, as does the FAA, and
well supported by dedicated people both at Precision and at our
independent product support centers, unfortunately the litigation
costs for defending the carburetor in court are unsustainable for a
small business such as Precision.
Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has been
left with no choice but to cease production and support of its float
carburetor product line.
We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the
industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation and
to provide future support for this product line. There is a
substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our
distributors which should be sufficient to support the industry for a
short time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hedrick" <khedrick(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | RV8 comm antenna spacing |
OK, I will bite, if no one else will. What happened that the plane that it
went underwater- if you would care to share. I doubt that your 8 is any
better at being a submarine than my 6 !
Illinois Keith
3LF
From: Mike <mailto:mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> Robertson
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
Had my first RV-8A set up this way and never ran into any
problems.............until it went undrwater that is.
Mike Robertson
_____
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:36:39 -0700
> From: sam95037(at)yahoo.com
> Subject: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
> Has anyone out there been flying with two comm
> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of the
> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems
> with coupling between the antennas or reception?
>
> Sam Ray
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Precision Airmotive - on Carbs |
That is unbelievable. I checked their web site and confirmed that it is
true.
The product liability issue they speak of is not a new story for them.
About a year ago I needed to overhaul one of their carbs and tried to order
an overhaul manual from Spruce. They had it in their catalog for something
like $30.00. I was told that the old overhaul manual was no longer offered
and now you need to buy the new manual with the one year subscription for
updates for something like fifteen hundred dollars. I suspected that it was
just a way for them to take overhaul work away from small shops that were
not authorized service centers since you are not legally allowed to overhaul
a carb unless you have the current maintenance manual according to the FAA.
I called and was told that the truth was that they needed to do the
overhauls in house because their liability insurance was so high that they
were not making any money. What is the world coming to?
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 Doug Gray
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:09 PM
Subject: RV-List: Precision Airmotive - on Carbs
The following cannot be true!!!!
Does anyone have any other information?
Doug Gray
-------------------------------
Peter Nielson
Product Support Mgr.
Precision Airmotive LLC
14800 40th Ave NE
Marysville, WA 98271
360-651-8282
Subject: Letter to Industry
Here is the text of a letter we are sending out to the industry today.
Precision Airmotive LLC has discontinued sales of all float
carburetors and component parts as of November 1, 2007. This
unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to obtain products
liability insurance for the product line. Precision Airmotive LLC and
its 43 employees currently manufacture and support the float
carburetors used in nearly all carbureted general aviation aircraft
flying today. Precision has been the manufacturer of these
carburetors since 1990. These FAA-approved carburetors were designed
as early as the 1930's and continue to fly over a million flight hours
a year. After decades of service, the reliability of these
carburetors speaks for itself.
Nonetheless, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums rise
dramatically, to the point that the premium now exceeds the total
sales dollars for this entire product line. In the past, we have
absorbed that cost, with the hope that the aviation industry as a
whole would be able to help address this issue faced by Precision
Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation companies. Our
efforts have been unsuccessful.
This year, despite the decades of reliable service and despite the
design approval by the FAA, Precision Airmotive has been unable to
obtain products liability insurance for the carburetor product line.
While we firmly believe that the product is safe, as does the FAA, and
well supported by dedicated people both at Precision and at our
independent product support centers, unfortunately the litigation
costs for defending the carburetor in court are unsustainable for a
small business such as Precision.
Therefore, as of November 1, 2007, Precision Airmotive LLC has been
left with no choice but to cease production and support of its float
carburetor product line.
We are working with the engine manufacturers and others in the
industry in an attempt to minimize the impact on general aviation and
to provide future support for this product line. There is a
substantial quantity of parts and carburetors stocked at our
distributors which should be sufficient to support the industry for a
short time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Charging system failure cuts short a long x-country trip |
I first flew to Memphis to enter the Memphis 100 race. I did it.
Then on to Atlanta to visit family. The next day I flew to Kitty Hawk.
That was uneventful other than flying over water and turbulence on
approach and departure from the 15 knots gusting 25. An aerial view is
here:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/KittyHawk/KittyHawkAirSmall.jpg
This is my aircraft with the memorial in the background:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/KittyHawk/KittyHawkGroundSmall.jpg
I thought they took off from the hill but no. It was flat terrain north
of the hill.
The starting point is here:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/KittyHawk/FirstStartSmall.jpg
And the end of the first flight here:
http://home.pcisys.net/~ronlee/RV6A/KittyHawk/FirstEndSmall.jpg
I refueled at an airport west of Kitty Hawk and planned on getting back
to Atlanta right around sunset. Unfortunately, around Rayleigh the
voltage
went to just over 12 and the amperage went negative. I had been hearing
a static like popping since leaving Kitty Hawk and someone suggested
that
it was arcing from the failure.
I told approach that I was getting lower than the approaching cloud deck
and decided to make a precautionary landing at Sanford NC (KTTA). No
mechanics were around so I got a rental car and went into town for the
night.
The next morning I replaced the voltage regulator with no success so I
removed the lower cowl and found that the battery ring terminal wire on
the alternator B point was fatigued and broken. It was previously bent
to
make proper contact.
I had a mechanic install a new ring terminal but that did not make the
alternator work. Using advice from a primo mechanic at home (and not
being able to find a replacement alternator), I bought a battery for my
Blazer,
wire, ring terminals and added the new battery in parallel with my
aircraft battery.
Nothing blew up so I prepared to leave. The engine started normally and
to my surprise the alternator worked. It worked all the way home with
four restarts.
On this trip I flew below an overcast with less than 6000' between me
and
the ground (perhaps 1500'). I flew over a broken cloud layer. I flew in
less
than 100 nm visibility.
As I approached Springfield MO towards sunset, I descended thinking that
I
was about to overfly a cloud layer. Nope. It was haze. Silly me. It made
more sense to stay where I could see ground to the sides anyway.
I had planned on going to Key West and the Bahamas but elected to get
home
to fix the alternator problem. TS Noel would have kept me from doing
that anyway.
In retrospect, the alternator to bus wire/ring terminal should have been
made
better long ago. That will be corrected. I am now in the process of
trying to decide
which readily available alternator I will install. The current one will
not fly again.
I also did not know what my safe flying time was when the ring terminal
broke.
Perhaps I could have flown another two hours (4-5 amp current draw and
one EI)
on a PC925 battery. But since I did not know for sure, I played it safe
and landed
at the nearest airport.
With the truck battery, it may well be 20 hours. Regardless, I did buy a
battery
charger just in case.
I did find out that the RV community is awesome. Three guys stopped by
to offer
assistance (I did the repairs on the ramp). The FBO at Sanford was great
as was
the mechanic shop.
Stopping at new airports is fun. I expanded my flight experience beyond
CAVU
but nowhere near scud running. The haze illusions were baffling but I
just reacted
with safe flight adjustments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Ignition Problem Followup |
As a follow up on this thread, last week I spoke with Electroair's
technical support folks (Jeff Rose and Mike Kobylik) regarding my
ignition problem. Both indicated that the symptoms sounded like a
sensor problem, so after doing a little troubleshooting, I ordered
another timing sensor. This is the little 3/8" probe that inserts into
the timing housing, which replaces the right mag in a single mag/single
EI system.
>From these discussions, both Jeff and Mike indicated that they have
upgraded the timing pick-up since mine was purchased 7 or 8 years ago.
They have improved both the potting material that surrounds the wires
that terminate in the probe and have improved the wire wrap they use.
Both of these changes are designed to improve the reliability by
preventing fatigue breaks in the probe wires, which was their best guess
as to what caused my problem.
Anyway, when I dug into the system this morning, it turned out that I'd
suffered a mechanical failure of sorts. The probe (which determines
crank position by counting teeth on a rotating gear) had slid into the
gear. Eventually, the gear cut a groove into the pick-up and
failed the probe. How or when did the probe slip? No
idea. As I recall, the two set screws that hold the probe in place
seemed tight before I removed them today. Of course, I wasn't looking
for loose set screws and may not have noticed if they were loose.
Based on this problem, I may add "check EI probe gap" and "retorque EI
set screws" to my conditional inspection list. My guess is that it'll
add 10 minutes to the inspection.
After fixing the problem what did I do? I went flying, of course. I am
always amazed at the difference in performance when my airplane is light
vs heavy. Last weekend, we were probably approaching my plane's gross
of 1675 lbs, and the plane flew just fine. But today, at 1300 lbs or
so, what a difference! I swear the tail was up and I was off the ground
after a roll of a couple hundred feet. Followed by an amazing climb out
of the traffic pattern. Yeeha!!!
All I can say is build 'em light...
Kyle Boatright
RV-6 N46KB
160 HP Aymar/Demuth
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle Boatright
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:33 PM
Subject: RV-List: Ignition Problem - Troubleshooting
We went from Atlanta to College Station, TX this weekend to see my
wife's Aggies play (and lose to) Kansas..
Today, we made the return trip.
And about 30 miles from home the engine lost a little power (~100
rpm). Some in-flight troubleshooting showed that the Electroair
ignition that I have on the right side had quit. I flipped the on/off
switch several times, reset the breaker, etc. and the ignition didn't
come back to life. That being the case, I left it off for the remainder
of the flight and made sure to stay high enough to glide to an airstrip
if the other ignition system (a magneto) decided to take the day off
too.
And once we landed, I flipped it back on and voila', it was working
fine. Which was a good thing. Sorta...
Because troubleshooting an intermittent problem is a pain in the
tuckus.
I plan to check all of the connections between the battery, the
breaker, the switch, and the ignition system. I'll check the ground
connections too. Beyond that, I'll call the folks who are now
supporting the ignition and see if they have any ideas.
Any other thoughts on how to troubleshoot this problem?
Thanks in advance,
Kyle Boatright
N46KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Fund Raiser |
Dear Listers,
Just a reminder that November is the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser month. I've
got a bunch of really nice incentive gifts this year. There's really something
for everyone!
Please make a Contribution today:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Precision Airmotive - on Carbs |
Unfortunately, this is very true. If you go to Precision's website this is
the very first thing you see. Let's hope that they find a buyer for the c
arb line very soon.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
> Subject: RV-List: Precision Airmotive - on Carbs> From: dgra1233@bigpond.
net.au> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:08:43 +1100> >
ollowing cannot be true!!!!> Does anyone have any other information?> > Dou
g Gray> > -------------------------------> > Peter Nielson> Product Support
Mgr.> Precision Airmotive LLC> 14800 40th Ave NE> Marysville, WA 98271> >
360-651-8282 > > Subject: Letter to Industry> > Here is the text of a lette
r we are sending out to the industry today.> > Precision Airmotive LLC has
discontinued sales of all float> carburetors and component parts as of Nove
mber 1, 2007. This> unfortunate situation is a result of our inability to o
btain products> liability insurance for the product line. Precision Airmoti
ve LLC and> its 43 employees currently manufacture and support the float> c
arburetors used in nearly all carbureted general aviation aircraft> flying
today. Precision has been the manufacturer of these> carburetors since 1990
. These FAA-approved carburetors were designed> as early as the 1930's and
continue to fly over a million flight hours> a year. After decades of servi
ce, the reliability of these> carburetors speaks for itself.> > Nonetheless
, Precision has seen its liability insurance premiums rise> dramatically, t
o the point that the premium now exceeds the total> sales dollars for this
entire product line. In the past, we have> absorbed that cost, with the hop
e that the aviation industry as a> whole would be able to help address this
issue faced by Precision> Airmotive, as well as many other small aviation
companies. Our> efforts have been unsuccessful. > > This year, despite the
decades of reliable service and despite the> design approval by the FAA, Pr
ecision Airmotive has been unable to> obtain products liability insurance f
or the carburetor product line. > While we firmly believe that the product
is safe, as does the FAA, and> well supported by dedicated people both at P
recision and at our> independent product support centers, unfortunately the
litigation> costs for defending the carburetor in court are unsustainable
for a> small business such as Precision.> > Therefore, as of November 1, 20
07, Precision Airmotive LLC has been> left with no choice but to cease prod
uction and support of its float> carburetor product line. > > We are workin
g with the engine manufacturers and others in the> industry in an attempt t
o minimize the impact on general aviation and> to provide future support fo
r this product line. There is a> substantial quantity of parts and carburet
ors stocked at our> distributors which should be sufficient to support the
=====================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
!
ilnews
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV8 comm antenna spacing |
Most of the folks that have been around the rv-list for a while know about
this already sop I did not expand on it. I built the -8A out in Hawaii in
98. It was about the 4th quick build RV-8 kit that Van's sold. Anyway, wh
en I left Hawaii on a job change the plane stayed there with my build partn
er. A couple years later he sold it to another very good friend. He went
through the entire plane and got it just the way he wanted it, to include a
full IFR panel with a Garmin 430, an SL30 Nav/Com, an EFIS D-10, and a Vis
ion Microsystem's engine monitor. About a month later he was flying betwee
n Oahu and Kauai and the engine went to idle. When he checked the throttle
control he found it had that disconnected feel. With that big Hartzell co
nstant speed prop going to flat pitch it glided about like a rock right dow
n to the point of a water landing. The plane snuffed and flipped over on i
mpact. Due to good Hooker seat belts my friend wasn't hurt and got out with
in about 20 seconds. He had been on flight following and alerted them to t
he problem. The Coast Guard was alerted and off the ground before he hit t
he water. They found him and he was rescued within 20 minutes. He stated
the the saddest part of all this was that the plane stayed afloat for about
one minute, then the trapped air in the fuselage gave way and the plane sa
nk out of sight. With the excellent water visibility in Hawaii he was able
to watch the plane sink gracefully out of sight, the radios and instrument
lights still burning brightly.
The spot that the plane went down was over a very deep trench between the t
wo islands, so recovery was totally out of the question. We will never kno
w exactly what happened. Such a sad end to a beautiful plane that only had
75 total hours.
Mike Robertson
Plane 5 and still building
From: khedrick(at)frontiernet.netTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List
: RV8 comm antenna spacingDate: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 20:39:09 -0500
OK, I will bite, if no one else will. What happened that the plane that i
t went underwater- if you would care to share. I doubt that your 8 is an
y better at being a submarine than my 6 !
Illinois Keith
3LF
From: Mike Robertson
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing
Had my first RV-8A set up this way and never ran into any problems.........
....until it went undrwater that is. Mike Robertson
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:36:39 -0700> From: sam95037(at)yahoo.com> Subject:
RV-List: RV8 comm antenna spacing> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> > --> RV-Lis
t message posted by: sam ray > > Has anyone out there b
een flying with two comm> antennas mounted on their rv8 belly, just aft of
the> fuselage spar carry through bulkhead? Any problems> with coupling betw
een the antennas or reception?> > Sam Ray>
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop
by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oc
tWLtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trailing edge skislope effect |
RV-Listers,
Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. I thought I'd post my
solution in case anyone runs into the same issue. I ended up ordering
new ribs from Vans that didn't have prepunched flanges, then match
drilled them to the skins. They actually gave me a break on the price,
so all four ribs came to only about $15!
If interested, you can see how the fit compares:
Original prepunched rib: http://www.our7a.com/images/20071024-02-tn.jpg
New non-prepunched rib: http://www.our7a.com/images/20071106-04-tn.jpg
Best regards,
Mike Cencula
RV-7A wings
Bob wrote:
>
> After looking at the pictures, I don't see the problem. If this is
> all you have to be worried about, then you are building a real fine RV.
>
> My RV has some cosmetic imperfections, dents, smiles, scratches
> whatever, now 5 years into flying, things that I thought were so
> important, I can not even find them, let alone allow it to bother me.
>
> This is sort of in the category of "who cares?" I would never have
> noticed without the straight edge in the picture. If you are building
> for flying, then move on, if you are building an Award Winner that
> will be exhibited in some technical museum, keep redoing it until it
> is perfect.
>
> If after flying the RV for a few years and it still bothers you, then
> rebuild it. But, by then you will be having way too much fun to worry
> about cosmetic accuracy.
>
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
> At 07:15 PM 10/24/07, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greetings listers,
>>
>> I'm working on my ailerons (RV-7A) and seem to be getting a skislope
>> effect at
>> the trailing edge near the ribs. Some places are worse than others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Listers Are Saying... |
November is Matronics List Fund Raiser month and a number people been sending some
really nice comments regarding the Lists. I thought I'd share a few below.
The Lists are completely supported by your Contributions. All of the bills for
new hardware, connectivity, and electricity are paid by the generous support
of the List members.
Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation of the List
and Forums:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
================= What Listers Are Saying ================
Flying and building is much safer with this List!!
Robert D.
Thanks for having and maintaining such a great resource to
all of us builders and flyers.
Wayne E.
Love the fact that you haven't caved to advertising!
Peter J.
..a great resource!!
Robert C.
Not building at the moment, but the Lists keeps me right
up to date with what's going on.
Chris D.
The web forum has been running great.
James O.
I enjoy this [List] site very much...
Paul C.
This is a great list!
Albert G.
..a valuable resource!
Roger C.
I am deployed to Pakistan right now, and being able
to go on-line and keep up with the aircraft discussions
helps keep the aircraft building dream alive in my mind!
Gregory C.
..fantastic service!
Roger M.
..clearly a work of passion!
Mike C.
It is a great service to us!
Kevin C.
The list is a wonderful resource...
Ralph O.
[The Lists] have been the single greatest resource in
building my RV-9A and now my RV-10.
Albert G.
..a valuable and always improving service.
Dick S.
STILL THE BEST BARGAIN AROUND!!
Owen B.
..such a valuable tool.
Jon M.
[The Lists] have been an invaluable resource for me
as a Zenith homebuilder.
David G.
The opportunity to meet (on line at least) many other
interesting builders and to make some new friends is
truly appreciated.
Albert G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marty Helller <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Another RV6 built tail for sale |
In addition, EAA 186 (Manassas, Virginia) has a completed (except for fiber
glass work) RV-6 tail available. Asking $1000. We also have a pair of the
aluminum angle for longerons. Asking $50.
Contact me off line at:
Marty Heller
703-732-3264
marty_away(at)hotmail.com
RV-7 (fitting roll bar)
> From: dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RV-List:
RV6 tail & wing kit for sale> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 01:27:31 -0500> > --> R
V-List message posted by: "Dale Walter" > > The EAA c
hapter in Fulton NY, near Syracuse, has had this kit for a few> years, stor
ed in a big, dry, wood box. The original builder made a good> aluminum fram
e to hold the wings, and drilled the skins and ribs in both> tail and wings
. He had not started the dimpling. Tail dates back to 1994.> All plastic wa
s removed. Frame included. Any reasonable offer will be> accepted to a good
home. Proceeds go to the chapter. Please contact me off> list.> > Thanks,>
=================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop
by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oc
tWLtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Aileron trailing edge skislope effect |
You did the right thing ... !
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D. Cencula
Sent: 07 November 2007 06:02
Subject: Re: RV-List: Aileron trailing edge skislope effect
RV-Listers,
Thanks all for the comments and suggestions. I thought I'd post my
solution in case anyone runs into the same issue. I ended up ordering
new ribs from Vans that didn't have prepunched flanges, then match
drilled them to the skins. They actually gave me a break on the price,
so all four ribs came to only about $15!
If interested, you can see how the fit compares:
Original prepunched rib: http://www.our7a.com/images/20071024-02-tn.jpg
New non-prepunched rib: http://www.our7a.com/images/20071106-04-tn.jpg
Best regards,
Mike Cencula
RV-7A wings
Bob wrote:
>
> After looking at the pictures, I don't see the problem. If this is
> all you have to be worried about, then you are building a real fine RV.
>
> My RV has some cosmetic imperfections, dents, smiles, scratches
> whatever, now 5 years into flying, things that I thought were so
> important, I can not even find them, let alone allow it to bother me.
>
> This is sort of in the category of "who cares?" I would never have
> noticed without the straight edge in the picture. If you are building
> for flying, then move on, if you are building an Award Winner that
> will be exhibited in some technical museum, keep redoing it until it
> is perfect.
>
> If after flying the RV for a few years and it still bothers you, then
> rebuild it. But, by then you will be having way too much fun to worry
> about cosmetic accuracy.
>
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
> At 07:15 PM 10/24/07, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Greetings listers,
>>
>> I'm working on my ailerons (RV-7A) and seem to be getting a skislope
>> effect at
>> the trailing edge near the ribs. Some places are worse than others.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trailing edge skislope effectAileron trailing edge |
skislope effect
Wow! what did vans say re such a noticable missmatch? Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of
completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining
it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it
warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I
allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even though
it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
| From: | dougpflyrv(at)aol.com |
NO!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bryan <n616tb(at)btsapps.com>
Sent: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 2:50 pm
Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Hi all,
=C2-
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today.=C2- I
t was due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of co
mpleting it.=C2- I would like to get the oil warmed up good before drainin
g it and also doing the compression check.=C2- It seems I didn=99t r
eally get it warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it
up.=C2- Am I allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test fli
ght even though it is not current?
=C2-
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http
://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Not if your operating limitations are like everyone else's.
But you could do a compression check as warm as you can get it, along with
the rest of the condition inspection, then sign it off and fly it assuming
the compression check was OK. Then change the oil after the inspection.
I wouldn't think the FAA would be thrilled to find out it was out of annual
if anything happened, but your insurance company would be overjoyed...
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters LLC
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA
831-722-9141
831-750-0284 CL
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of
completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining
it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it
warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I
allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even though
it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <d-burton(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Hi Tim,
I believe you need a ferry permit to fly it legally. Check with the local
FSDO to see what they have to say about this. It shouldn't be a big deal.
Dave
RV6
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dougpflyrv(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
NO!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bryan <n616tb(at)btsapps.com>
Sent: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 2:50 pm
Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of
completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining
it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it
warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I
allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even though
it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
==========
ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
or?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
==========
p://forums.matronics.com
==========
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail
<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=A
OLAOF00020000000970> !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Your biggest risk is insurance will not cover it during that time.
Dale
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of
completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining
it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it
warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I
allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even though
it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
No, for all intents and purposes your aircraft is illegal to fly, just as y
ou are when your medical expires.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Sure, you just can't fly it until you finish and sign off the condition
inspection.
Bruce
<http://www.glasair.org/> www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It
was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of
completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before
draining
it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't really get
it
warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am
I
allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even
though
it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sherman Butler <lsbrv7a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
A ferry permit is not a big deal. An A&P will make a long entry, CALL your insurance
Co to let them know. I flew from TN to TX on a ferry permit, when a grumman
expert just did not show up for over a month to do the annual and could
not set a date. A local guy signed it for $20, as he was at the airport anyway.
Tim Bryan wrote:
Hi all,
I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was due
by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of completing it.
I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining it and also doing
the compression check. It seems I didnt really get it warmed up good last
time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I allowed to do a solo flight
to warm the oil up as a test flight even though it is not current?
Thanks
Tim
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Along a similar line, what does a non-builder have to do to get a
certificate to do his own condition inspection?
On Nov 8, 2007 3:07 PM, Bruce Gray wrote:
> Sure, you just can't fly it until you finish and sign off the condition
> inspection.
>
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Tim Bryan
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was
due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of completing
it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining it and also doing
the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it warmed up good last
time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I allowed to do a solo
flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even though it is not current?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim**
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
True... this happens all the time, no big deal.
Darrell
--- Sherman Butler wrote:
> A ferry permit is not a big deal. An A&P will make a
> long entry, CALL your insurance Co to let them know.
> I flew from TN to TX on a ferry permit, when a
> grumman expert just did not show up for over a month
> to do the annual and could not set a date. A local
> guy signed it for $20, as he was at the airport
> anyway.
>
>
>
> Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I am planning to start my first condition inspection
> on my -6 today. It was due by the end of the month
> in October, but travel got in my way of completing
> it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good
> before draining it and also doing the compression
> check. It seems I didnt really get it warmed up
> good last time I tried to just take it out and run
> it up. Am I allowed to do a solo flight to warm the
> oil up as a test flight even though it is not
> current?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sherman Butler
> RV-7a Wings
> Idaho Falls
> __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For sale: Matco wheels and brakes |
I've bought a set of Grove wheels and brakes for #25 and would like to get something
out of the Matco's I have. These have been on the airplane for a number
of years but were never used in anger and are in very good shape.? I'm asking
$400 but will take just about any reasonable offer. Maybe one of you guys knows
someone building a HR2 on a budget. Included are:
2- Matco 5" wheels
2- Matco single piston calipers
2- Torque plates
2- 5" axels w/nuts
2- Air Hawk tires w/tubes
If anyone is interested please respond off list or give me a call at : 407-687-3126
Danny
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Build your own airplane and apply for the repairman's certificate.
That's about all there is to it.
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Greg Williams wrote:
> Along a similar line, what does a non-builder have to do to get a
> certificate to do his own condition inspection?
>
> On Nov 8, 2007 3:07 PM, Bruce Gray > wrote:
>
> Sure, you just can't fly it until you finish and sign off the
> condition inspection.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Tim
> Bryan
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today. It was due
by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way of completing
it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draining it and also doing
the compression check. It seems I didn't really get it warmed up good last
time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am I allowed to do a solo flight
to warm the oil up as a test flight even though it is not current?
>
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Tim
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Repairman's certificates are specific and only apply to one "N" numbered
airplane.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
Build your own airplane and apply for the repairman's certificate.
That's about all there is to it.
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Greg Williams wrote:
> Along a similar line, what does a non-builder have to do to get a
> certificate to do his own condition inspection?
>
> On Nov 8, 2007 3:07 PM, Bruce Gray > wrote:
>
> Sure, you just can't fly it until you finish and sign off the
> condition inspection.
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
> www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Tim
> Bryan
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>
>
>
>I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today.
>It was due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way
>of completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before
>draining it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn't
>really get it warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and
>run it up. Am I allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a
>test flight even though it is not current?
>
>
>
>
>Thanks
>
>Tim
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>href="
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?RV-List
> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron trailing edge skislope effectAileron trailing edge |
skislope effect
Here's Bruce's response:
---
Mike,
Several of us have looked at your aileron trailing edge, and some wish theirs
looked that good. Just finish them and move on. The trailing edge is fine.
Bruce Reynolds
brucer(at)vansaircraft.com
---
I didn't agree, so I ordered new ribs to fix the problem. I'm glad I
did. :-)
Charles Heathco wrote:
> Wow! what did vans say re such a noticable missmatch? Charlie Heathco
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
If I'm not mistaken, Tim is a builder...?
Darrell
--- Greg Williams wrote:
> Along a similar line, what does a non-builder have
> to do to get a
> certificate to do his own condition inspection?
>
> On Nov 8, 2007 3:07 PM, Bruce Gray
> wrote:
>
> > Sure, you just can't fly it until you finish and
> sign off the condition
> > inspection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > www.Glasair.org <http://www.glasair.org/>
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:
> > owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Tim Bryan
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:50 PM
> > *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > *Subject:* RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or
> anyone)
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am planning to start my first condition
> inspection on my -6 today. It was due by the end of
> the month in October, but travel got in my way of
> completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed
> up good before draining it and also doing the
> compression check. It seems I didn't really get it
> warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out
> and run it up. Am I allowed to do a solo flight to
> warm the oil up as a test flight even though it is
> not current?
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Tim**
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> >
>
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
NO! You would be violating your Operating Limitations. Sorry!!!
Mike Robertosn
Das Fed
From: n616tb(at)btsapps.comTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV-List: Question
for A&P Types (or anyone)Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 14:50:17 -0600
Hi all, I am planning to start my first condition inspection on my -6 today
. It was due by the end of the month in October, but travel got in my way
of completing it. I would like to get the oil warmed up good before draini
ng it and also doing the compression check. It seems I didn=92t really get
it warmed up good last time I tried to just take it out and run it up. Am
I allowed to do a solo flight to warm the oil up as a test flight even tho
ugh it is not current? ThanksTim
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!- Play Star Shuffle:- the word scramble
challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oc
t
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Unless you hold the specific "N" numbered repairmans certificate for that
particular airplane, it must be signed off by an A&P. In other words, if you
hold a repairmans cert for your RV-6, you can sign off your condition
inspection but not sign off your buddies RV-6.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Darrell Reiley
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Question for A&P Types (or anyone)
-->
If I'm not mistaken, Tim is a builder...?
Darrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution Yet! :-) |
Dear Listers,
If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't
yet made a Contribution to support your Lists! Implemented for the first
time last year, the Matronics system selectively sends out the Contribution
messages to those that forgot to whip out the 'ol credit card this year to support
the continued operation and upgrade of the Matronics Email Lists! Don't
you wish PBS worked that way? :-)
You heard that right. Once you make your Contribution, these support requests
messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox!
I wanted to implement something like this for a number of years, but it was
always such a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that
I just kept putting it off. Finally last year, I just decided to bite the bullet
and put the code-pounding time it to make it work. A few days later, bam!
A working system!
I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support
the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware
and software that are required to run a List Site like this. It also goes to
pay for the commercial-grade Internet connection and to pay the rather huge electric
bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered
up. I run ALL of the Matronics Email List and Forums sites here locally which
allows me to control and monitor every aspect of the system for the utmost in
reliably and performance.
Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such
as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly
ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand
the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
[Please note the following regarding the selective posting system. There are certain
circumstances where you might still see a Contribution related message.
These situations include if someone replies to one of the messages, or when
using the List Browse feature, or when accessing List message via the Forum.
Since most of these are anonymous public access methods, there is no simple way
to filter them.]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <chuck(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Needed: Artificial Horizon |
Just informed by Rudy's Aircraft Instruments that my Aeriatalia
Artifical Horizon
(part# 36100 9, Serial#03374) cannot be tilted 7 degrees for my RV10
panel. Anyone out there have a good vac artifical horz for sale or
trade preferably with the 7 degree tilt already done? I bought this one
from a friend who had it overhauled and Rudy went thru it too. I'll
take any reasonable offer...or trade.
Chuck Weyant
Santa Maria, CA
805 878-1922
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Grajek" <algrajek(at)msn.com> |
I am going to be in LAS next week on business. I would love to hook up with
a local rver, maybe for a ride, or just to look at airplanes, whatever.
Al Grajek
RV8
LEX
859-361-9460
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A |
I have digest only so probly have enuf info but wanted to add that I did
my comp check cold this year (july) and it was only one to two pts lower
than last yrs hot check, Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ferrerg(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Vacuum Pump Repair |
I was ready to replace the failed vacuum pump (210 hours) in my RV6 this week.
But my friend, Rob Kermanj (RV10 and RV6), suggested that I check the operation
of the shear coupling in the pump.
I found out that the shear coupling had sheared and replaced it for about $22 (I
was later told that Aircraft Spruce sells it for $14).
It's very easy to replace this part in the pump. The fun part is removing and installing
the pump.
The shear coupling is made from some type of plastic that deteriorates with high
temperature and time.
I plan to replace this part every couple of years or 200 hours as a preventive
measure in the future.
--
Gabe A Ferrer
RV6 N2GX
South Florida
email: ferrerg(at)comcast.net
cell: 561 758 8894
I was ready to replace the failed vacuum pump (210 hours) in my RV6 this week.
But my friend, Rob Kermanj (RV10 and RV6), suggested that I check the
operation of the shear coupling in the pump.
I found out that the shear coupling had sheared and replaced it for about
$22 (I was later told that Aircraft Spruce sells it for $14).
It's very easy to replace this part in the pump. The fun part is removing
and installing the pump.
The shear coupling is made from some type of plastic that deteriorates with
high temperature and time.
I plan to replace this part every couple of years or 200 hours as a preventive
measure in the future.
--
Gabe A Ferrer
RV6 N2GX
South Florida
email: ferrerg(at)comcast.net
cell: 561
758 8894
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <hurlbut(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Propeller for sale |
MT Prop model MTV-15B/183-50. 136.5 hours flight time since new. No
damage ever. Log books included.
Manufactured June 2006.
Removed from RV7A IO-360 for flight testing other props.
Email for pics.
$8000 OBO
Steve
RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Falcon Altimeter |
Listers,
FWIW - I have a Falcon altimeter that I installed in my RV-6A about four
years ago. The plane has been flying since February 2005 and has about
130 hours. The altimeter has been certified twice to 20,000 feet per FAR
43 App. E at an FAA repair station with no problems, the latest check in
February this year. I even posted and e-mail on the RV-list indicating
my delight in this reasonably priced, Chinese made instrument being so
precise and reliable.
A week ago in checking the cockpit in preparation for a flight, about
two weeks since my last flight, I found the altimeter reading about 4000
feet. In in the process of trouble shooting, I disconnected the static
line from the altimeter and found that it was still reading 4000 feet.
The problem was obviously internal in the altimeter. I removed it from
the instrument panel and took it home. After a week on my desk, the
indicated altitude has increased to about 9000 feet and is still slowly
climbing.
Consulting with the Wultrad folks I found that the instrument could be
overhauled for $150. Since the current price is about $250 this was not
attractive. And, since my confidence in the reliability of the
instrument had been destroyed, I "bit the bullet" and purchased a
United, TSOd altimeter at about three times the price of the Falcon. If
you, have one of these you may want to keep a close eye on the field
altitude at the correct altimeter setting. I noticed a small increase in
the indicated field altitude a few weeks before the very large increase
I mentioned.
Best regards,
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Need some help in Denver |
I am thinking about bidding on a thickness planer in the Denver area. The
only problem is that it is local pickup only. Is there anyone in the Denve
r area that would be willing to run by this pawn shop, if I win, pick this
up and take it to yellow freight to ship it. I would definitely be willing
to pay whoever something for the inconvenience.
Mike Robertson
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis(at)msm.umr.edu> |
| Subject: | New Van's service bulletin (SB 07-11-09) applicable to all two |
place, tricycle gear RVs.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/notices.htm
Requires replacement or modification of nose gear components on
two-lace, tricycle gear RVs with finish kits shipped prior to Feb 2005.
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Artificial Horizon |
Aren't 7 degree tilt instruments for taildraggers? Unless you
redesigned the 10's panel.
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Weyant
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Artificial Horizon
Just informed by Rudy's Aircraft Instruments that my Aeriatalia
Artifical Horizon
(part# 36100 9, Serial#03374) cannot be tilted 7 degrees for my RV10
panel. Anyone out there have a good vac artifical horz for sale or
trade preferably with the 7 degree tilt already done? I bought this one
from a friend who had it overhauled and Rudy went thru it too. I'll
take any reasonable offer...or trade.
Chuck Weyant
Santa Maria, CA
805 878-1922
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Vacuum Pump Repair |
In a message dated 11/10/2007 9:44:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ferrerg(at)comcast.net writes:
I was ready to replace the failed vacuum pump (210 hours) in my RV6 this
week.
But my friend, Rob Kermanj (RV10 and RV6), suggested that I check the
operation of the shear coupling in the pump.
I found out that the shear coupling had sheared and replaced it for about
$22 (I was later told that Aircraft Spruce sells it for $14).
It's very easy to replace this part in the pump. The fun part is removing
and installing the pump.
The shear coupling is made from some type of plastic that deteriorates with
high temperature and time.
I plan to replace this part every couple of years or 200 hours as a
preventive measure in the future.
================================================
Just a stupid question, but... maybe it sheared for a reason? I would
check to see if the vanes are in good condition and not partially fragged.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 870hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell(at)fmwildblue.com> |
| Subject: | Does anyone trim the trailing edge of the main gear leg fairings? |
Gentlemen,
I've been searching the archives to no avail. The instructions for the
RV-9A say the following:
1. "Trace the root end, trailing edge, and tip end trim lines onto the
fairing."
2. "Trim the root and tip ends of the fairing but do not trim the
trailing edge."
I don't see any indication that I will ever trim the trailing edge.
There is a
comment about using a long stick and sandpaper to remove excess "tail"
on the fairing and even the sides of the trailing edge.
Will any trailing edge material need to be removed before fitting the
hinges?
Will any trailing edge material need to be removed to fit the ready-made
intersection fairings?
Many thanks.
Joe Connell
RV-9A N95JJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 11/07/07 |
Functional checkout of my electrical system has gone well so far with no
smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an Odyssey 680 a
couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it would at
least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start and maybe
a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the case.
Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't produce
enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks when
shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed lead
acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got enough
oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire with
the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
the same results?
Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming.
I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
Dean
RV-6A N197DM
closer to 1st flight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Artificial Horizon |
The tilt in the attitude indicator compensates for the fact that the
instrument panel is not vertical when the aircraft is in level
flight. The amount the instrument panel is tilted is the same on
tricycle gear and taildragger aircraft.
Kevin Horton
On 10-Nov-07, at 9:39 PM, mike humphrey wrote:
> Aren't 7 degree tilt instruments for taildraggers? Unless you
> redesigned the 10's panel.
> Mike H 9A/8A
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chuck Weyant
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:03 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Needed: Artificial Horizon
>
> Just informed by Rudy's Aircraft Instruments that my Aeriatalia
> Artifical Horizon
> (part# 36100 9, Serial#03374) cannot be tilted 7 degrees for my RV10
> panel. Anyone out there have a good vac artifical horz for sale or
> trade preferably with the 7 degree tilt already done? I bought this
> one from a friend who had it overhauled and Rudy went thru it too.
> I'll take any reasonable offer...or trade.
> Chuck Weyant
> Santa Maria, CA
> 805 878-1922
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FASTPILOTRV8(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Artificial Horizon |
I have a artificial Horizon I just removed from my RV8a that works fine . I
Just up graded to OP Technologies Glass panel
contact me if interested at 847-727-0026
Dane Sheahen
N838RV RV8a
Aren't 7 degree tilt instruments for taildraggers? Unless you redesigned
the 10's panel.
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: _Chuck Weyant_ (mailto:chuck(at)chuckdirect.com)
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Artificial Horizon
Just informed by Rudy's Aircraft Instruments that my Aeriatalia Artifical
Horizon
(part# 36100 9, Serial#03374) cannot be tilted 7 degrees for my RV10 panel.
Anyone out there have a good vac artifical horz for sale or trade preferably
with the 7 degree tilt already done? I bought this one from a friend who
had it overhauled and Rudy went thru it too. I'll take any reasonable
offer...or trade.
Chuck Weyant
Santa Maria, CA
805 878-1922
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator
?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 11/07/07 |
Remember that inside the mag, there is the set of points. One side of
the points is connected to ground and the other side is connected to the
P-Lead and one side of the coil. If the points are closed, you would
read very close to a short to ground (as you did). You might have to
rotate the engine (and I would suggest turning the prop backwards to
avoid an accidental start!). At some point, the points should open and
you would read an open with the ohm meter.
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>Functional checkout of my electrical system has gone well so far with no
>smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an Odyssey 680 a
>couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it would at
>least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start and maybe
>a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the case.
>Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't produce
>enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks when
>shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour sealed lead
>acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got enough
>oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
>
>I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic on right
>side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
>position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
>short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
>ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire with
>the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
>grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
>resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the key. Not
>an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens every
>time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but not so,
>I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
>resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
>that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is not a
>problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did you get
>the same results?
>
>Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for dimming.
>I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input but I
>don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
>experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it doesn't use
>an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
>
>Dean
>RV-6A N197DM
>closer to 1st flight.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 11/07/07 |
Oops, disregard my last post. Going through my Eisemann magneto service
book, it looks like no matter if the points are open or closed, you will
be reading through the primary of the coil to ground, so what you saw is
probably correct...ie a reading of 0.2 ohms or so greater than when the
switch was grounding the P lead through the ignition switch. I'll go
back under my rock now...;(
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Scott wrote:
>
> Remember that inside the mag, there is the set of points. One side of
> the points is connected to ground and the other side is connected to
> the P-Lead and one side of the coil. If the points are closed, you
> would read very close to a short to ground (as you did). You might
> have to rotate the engine (and I would suggest turning the prop
> backwards to avoid an accidental start!). At some point, the points
> should open and you would read an open with the ohm meter.
>
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>
>
> DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Functional checkout of my electrical system has gone well so far with no
>> smoked wiring or equipment. I bought an equivalent of an Odyssey 680 a
>> couple years ago and trickle charged it occasionally hoping it would at
>> least be good enough to do electrical checkout, first engine start
>> and maybe
>> a few times around the pattern. But it appears that is not the case.
>> Voltmeter says there is 12.5 volts at the terminals but it can't produce
>> enough amps to fire the battery contactor or even make some sparks when
>> shorted, pretty pathetic. I substituted a Panasonic 4.5 amp hour
>> sealed lead
>> acid battery that I bought second hand about 6 years ago. It's got
>> enough
>> oomph for the checkout but I'll need a new 680 for 1st engine start.
>>
>> I did a test on my magneto P-lead (one mag on left side, electronic
>> on right
>> side)with an ohm meter. Thinking that when the key switch is in the off
>> position, the resistance across the p-lead should measure close to dead
>> short and, it does. By the same logic, I thought that when the mag was
>> ungrounded the resistance across the p-leads (I used a shielded wire
>> with
>> the shield grounded at the magneto through the key switch, no local
>> grounding). But when I measured across the p-leads at the magneto the
>> resistance only went from 0.2 ohms to 0.4 ohms when I turned the
>> key. Not
>> an appreciable increase in resistance but it was consistent (happens
>> every
>> time) and measurable. I thought maybe I had a faulty key switch but
>> not so,
>> I removed one p-lead from the mag and made the same measurement and the
>> resistance with the key in that mag's position read infinite. I suspect
>> that there is some thing about magnetos I don't know and that this is
>> not a
>> problem but would like to be sure. Anybody ever done this test? Did
>> you get
>> the same results?
>>
>> Also checked out the VM-1000 and it seems to work fine except for
>> dimming.
>> I used one of the B&C dimmers connected to the VM-1000 dimming input
>> but I
>> don't seem to get any dimming action (backlight works ok). Anyone else
>> experience this? Have I missed something in the VM manual and it
>> doesn't use
>> an external dimming input? Any thoughts? Thanks.
>>
>> Dean
>> RV-6A N197DM
>> closer to 1st flight.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE:Propeller for sale |
Hi Steve-
I've got a prop, but what was the outcome of the testing, aside from
selling the MT? Enquiring minds want to know!
>Removed from RV7A IO-360 for flight testing other props.
>Steve
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Post Mortem - Matronics List Pummeled By Spam... |
Dear Listers,
Over a 3-day period, Thursday 11/8 though Saturday 11/10, the Matronics Lists were
pummeled with over 450,000 spam emails causing posting delays and a few duplicate
messages. Yeah, I really said nearly half a million spams! The good
news is that I don't believe a single one of them actually made it to the Lists
thanks to the aggressive List filtering code and the Barracuda spam filter.
The bad news was that it caused quite a back log of email messages starting Friday
and continuing until late Saturday when I noticed that delivery seemed a bit
sluggish. By about 11pm on Saturday night, I had managed to get the backlog
cleared out of the spam filter by temporarily adjusting some of the filtering.
A check of the queues this morning, and everything looks like its working great
and there are no incoming filtering delays and spam levels appear to be back
to "normal".
There were a number of people asking what was going on, so I thought that I'd send
out a follow up post mortem on the event...
November is the annual List Fund Raiser. Your contribution directly enables me
to buy systems like the Barracuda spam filter that keep the List free of that
garbage. Please make a contribution to support your Lists!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
A magneto is not like a car ignition, it is the complete circuit from ground
to ground both in the primary and secondary. So points open or closed,
p-lead open or closed will still read <1 ohm circuit to ground.
That's why a test lite won't work on timing the mag. It needs to have an
oscillator to sense the coil/condenser being grounded by the points or not.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
Yup, you're right! That's why I retracted my statement and sheepishly
crawled back under my rock ;) I found my Eisemann mag service manual
and took a look at the schematic (after I first posted). Dang I hate
when that happens (got to me before my morning coffee and my brain's mag
switch was still grounded!) ;)
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Wheeler North wrote:
>
>A magneto is not like a car ignition, it is the complete circuit from ground
>to ground both in the primary and secondary. So points open or closed,
>p-lead open or closed will still read <1 ohm circuit to ground.
>
>That's why a test lite won't work on timing the mag. It needs to have an
>oscillator to sense the coil/condenser being grounded by the points or not.
>
>W
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Sensenich Prop and finished, painted Van's RV spinner for sale |
I recently replaced my Sensenich 72FM8S9-1-84 on my RV-8A with a Hartzell
prop. I'm selling the Sensenich prop, prop spacer, prop bolts, spinner and
spinner SS hardware as a package.
Here are the details:
Sensenich 72FM8S9-1-84 Prop. 350 hours total on my RV-8A (O-360 A1A). I
bought it new from Van's. It is in perfect condition, never hit, never
anything,
The package includes everything to bolt on the prop and spinner on any RV4,
6, 7, or 8. The spinner was painted when I did the plane, 'Midnight Pearl
Blue" using PPG base cost/clear coat. If you don't like the color, repaint
is easy as all the pin hole work is done. The spinner hardware consists of
#8 SS flat head screws and #6 SS tinnermans drilled out and re-dimpled to #8
screw. I found using the smaller tinnermans allow for much cleaner, flush
fit along the contour of the spinner.
Package price: $1400
Carl Froehlich
540 371-8482
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For sale: Intake system |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
I have an intake system from Massey Aero that I want to sell. This system converts
the stock "smiley" intake to a round intake for the engine induction only.
The system includes:
Machined AL intake
Machined AL filter mounts (2)
K&N filter
Molded glass inlet
molded filter nose piece
This is a really cool setup. I was going to use this on #25 but I'm working in
JGTDTD (Just Get The Dam Thing Done) mode so someone else can play with it.
The cost was $800 but the first $200 (OBO) takes it.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SOLD--------- For sale: Matco wheels and brakes |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
These parts have been sold
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: vft(at)aol.com
Sent: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 9:07 pm
Subject: For sale: Matco wheels and brakes
I've bought a set of Grove wheels and brakes for #25 and would like to get something
out of the Matco's I have. These have been on the airplane for a number
of years but were never used in anger and are in very good shape.? I'm asking
$400 but will take just about any reasonable offer. Maybe one of you guys knows
someone building a HR2 on a budget. Included are:
2- Matco 5" wheels
2- Matco single piston calipers
2- Torque plates
2- 5" axels w/nuts
2- Air Hawk tires w/tubes
If anyone is interested please respond off list or give me a call at : 407-687-3126
Danny
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Price for nose gear leg? |
BlankHas anybody been able to price the U-603-3X nose gear leg from Van's?
I spent an hour searching the list on his website and couldn't find it. I m
anaged to get a price on the fork (WD-630-1) but no luck on the gear leg.
Thanks
Charlie Ennis
RV-6A
Do nor archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Price for nose gear leg? |
Charlie,
Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a -2
to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable to find
the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
/"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
CONFUSION.
Harmon"/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
Harmon,
Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose
gear leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
Thank you
-- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SOLD For sale: Intake system |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
These parts have been sold.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny <vft(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 8:09 pm
Subject: For sale: Intake system
I have an intake system from Massey Aero that I want to sell. This system converts
the stock "smiley" intake to a round intake for the engine induction only.
The system includes:
Machined AL intake
Machined AL filter mounts (2)
K&N filter
Molded glass inlet
molded filter nose piece
This is a really cool setup. I was going to use this on #25 but I'm working in
JGTDTD (Just Get The Dam Thing Done) mode so someone else can play with it.
The cost was $800 but the first $200 (OBO) takes it.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For sale: Matco parking brake valve |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
New in box Matco parking brake valve. ACS price is $108. First $75 takes it.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SOLD For sale: Intake system |
Thanks for the picture you sent earlier, but I guess someone beat me to
it while I had dinner tonight...
----- Original Message -----
From: Danny
To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com ; rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 9:36 PM
Subject: RV-List: SOLD For sale: Intake system
These parts have been sold.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny <vft(at)aol.com>
To: rocket-list(at)matronics.com; rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 8:09 pm
Subject: For sale: Intake system
I have an intake system from Massey Aero that I want to sell. This
system converts the stock "smiley" intake to a round intake for the
engine induction only. The system includes:
Machined AL intake
Machined AL filter mounts (2)
K&N filter
Molded glass inlet
molded filter nose piece
This is a really cool setup. I was going to use this on #25 but I'm
working in JGTDTD (Just Get The Dam Thing Done) mode so someone else can
play with it.
The cost was $800 but the first $200 (OBO) takes it.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For sale: Team Rocket wing tips |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
These tips will fit the straight wing wing F1, HR2, and RV4,6,7,and8. They were
originaly sent with my kit and are approx 8 years old. They were warped a bit
and I spent a lot of time getting them fitted to my wings. In the end they needed
more work than I was willing to put into them so I bought a set of Vans tips
for #25. 20/20 hind sight says I could of had these looking pretty nice in
the amount of time it took to start over with the Vans parts. These would be
great for someone on a budget and include the clear lens for the landing/position
light but no lights.
Asking $100 OBO. Please note that these are large pieces so shipping may cost a
bit.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Artificial Horizon |
I have a like new Sigma Tec A/H still in the box if interested. email
me mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net. Need to sell it since I've gone totally
electric.
Mike H 9A/8A
PS I also have a NIB Rapco Vac Pump kit for Lycoming that has never been
out of the box since I bought it from A/C Spruce that I need to sell
also.
----- Original Message -----
From: FASTPILOTRV8(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Artificial Horizon
I have a artificial Horizon I just removed from my RV8a that works
fine . I Just up graded to OP Technologies Glass panel
contact me if interested at 847-727-0026
Dane Sheahen
N838RV RV8a
Aren't 7 degree tilt instruments for taildraggers? Unless you
redesigned the 10's panel.
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Weyant
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:03 PM
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Artificial Horizon
Just informed by Rudy's Aircraft Instruments that my Aeriatalia
Artifical Horizon
(part# 36100 9, Serial#03374) cannot be tilted 7 degrees for my
RV10 panel. Anyone out there have a good vac artifical horz for sale or
trade preferably with the 7 degree tilt already done? I bought this one
from a friend who had it overhauled and Rudy went thru it too. I'll
take any reasonable offer...or trade.
Chuck Weyant
Santa Maria, CA
805 878-1922
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <hurlbut(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | RE:Propeller for sale |
For those who inquired:.
MT PROP IS STILL FOR SALE. REDUCED TO $7500 MUST SELL.
I just finished real world testing on MTV-15B and Hartzell Blended airfoil
on Oct 31. I have a Mattituck TMX-IO-360 on RV7A.
Thought I would share my findings:
At 6000 ft, 2400 RPM Hartzell is faster by 1.8 kts.
At 6000 ft, 2500 RPM Hartzell is faster by 2.5 kts.
Rate of climb from 4000 to 6000 (@110 kts IAS) Hartzell is faster by 157 fpm
At 9000 ft, 2400 RPM Hartzell is faster by 1.4 kts.
At 9000 ft, 2500 RPM Hartzell is faster by 3.1 kts
Rate of climb from 7000 to 9000 (@110 kts) Hartzell is faster by 209 fpm
Other observations (lessons learned) people may not consider:
1. Hartzell is 11 lbs heavier (55 vs 44 lbs). Recalculate C of G
2. Because of its greater mass, engine is harder to start with Hartzell
3. Because of its greater mass, engine takes longer to shut down. This
really surprised me. My MT would stop very quickly (within 1 engine
revolution), the Hartzell averages 3-4 revolutions before stopping. This
sometime causes it to turn past the 10-4 o'clock position where the MT would
stop every time.
4. The Hartzell takes longer to change pitch. This is evident when adding
power fast. During several overshoots I pushed in the power quickly and RPM
would exceed 2750 and cause the engine warning to flash. The prop caught up
quickly (back to 2700) but this was never an issue with the MT. Same with
initial take-off. Add power slowly with Hartzell.
5. MT is smoother. At 2400 RPM Hartzell is good but at 2300 RPM it has
noticeably more vibration. I'm going to dynamically balance the Hartzell.
6. MT is a bolt on and forget. Spinner made and no grease nipples to worry
about. Hartzell you need to make the spinner, backing plates, etc. Putting
on the MT prop takes 1/2 hour. Hartzell takes ~12 hours of labour.
So both props in my opinion are good. Very close in performance. People
claiming 10 kts increase between the two may need to review the flight test
technique, speed calculations, and consider other factors.
I'm going to sell my MT prop eventually if any early takers out there. Total
flight time on it is 136.5 hours.
Steve
RV7A
Hi Steve-
I've got a prop, but what was the outcome of the testing, aside from
selling the MT? Enquiring minds want to know!
>Removed from RV7A IO-360 for flight testing other props.
>Steve
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | SOLD: Matco parking brake valve |
| From: | Danny <vft(at)aol.com> |
This part has been sold
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny <vft(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 11:54 pm
Subject: For sale: Matco parking brake valve
New in box Matco parking brake valve. ACS price is $108. First $75 takes it.
Danny Melnik
F1 #25
Rocket Factory
Melbourne, FL
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | RE:Propeller for sale |
Steve,
Thanks for sharing the results of your testing! Curious...
1) For our benefit, were the altitudes below density altitudes (versus
indicated)?
2) Also, how did you measure speed to .1 knots?
3) Did you attempt each maneuver (i.e. best rate of climb) multiple times to
understand the potential variability in technique etc?
4) Any other insights to can share from your testing approach?
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve & Denise
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:39 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE:Propeller for sale
For those who inquired:.
MT PROP IS STILL FOR SALE. REDUCED TO $7500 MUST SELL.
I just finished real world testing on MTV-15B and Hartzell Blended airfoil
on Oct 31. I have a Mattituck TMX-IO-360 on RV7A.
Thought I would share my findings:
At 6000 ft, 2400 RPM Hartzell is faster by 1.8 kts.
At 6000 ft, 2500 RPM Hartzell is faster by 2.5 kts.
Rate of climb from 4000 to 6000 (@110 kts IAS) Hartzell is faster by 157 fpm
At 9000 ft, 2400 RPM Hartzell is faster by 1.4 kts.
At 9000 ft, 2500 RPM Hartzell is faster by 3.1 kts
Rate of climb from 7000 to 9000 (@110 kts) Hartzell is faster by 209 fpm
Other observations (lessons learned) people may not consider:
1. Hartzell is 11 lbs heavier (55 vs 44 lbs). Recalculate C of G
2. Because of its greater mass, engine is harder to start with Hartzell
3. Because of its greater mass, engine takes longer to shut down. This
really surprised me. My MT would stop very quickly (within 1 engine
revolution), the Hartzell averages 3-4 revolutions before stopping. This
sometime causes it to turn past the 10-4 o'clock position where the MT would
stop every time.
4. The Hartzell takes longer to change pitch. This is evident when adding
power fast. During several overshoots I pushed in the power quickly and RPM
would exceed 2750 and cause the engine warning to flash. The prop caught up
quickly (back to 2700) but this was never an issue with the MT. Same with
initial take-off. Add power slowly with Hartzell.
5. MT is smoother. At 2400 RPM Hartzell is good but at 2300 RPM it has
noticeably more vibration. I'm going to dynamically balance the Hartzell.
6. MT is a bolt on and forget. Spinner made and no grease nipples to worry
about. Hartzell you need to make the spinner, backing plates, etc. Putting
on the MT prop takes 1/2 hour. Hartzell takes ~12 hours of labour.
So both props in my opinion are good. Very close in performance. People
claiming 10 kts increase between the two may need to review the flight test
technique, speed calculations, and consider other factors.
I'm going to sell my MT prop eventually if any early takers out there. Total
flight time on it is 136.5 hours.
Steve
RV7A
Hi Steve-
I've got a prop, but what was the outcome of the testing, aside from
selling the MT? Enquiring minds want to know!
>Removed from RV7A IO-360 for flight testing other props.
>Steve
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question for A&P Types (or anyone) |
Or go to school and get your A&P license. Takes about same or less time
than building a plane.
Kelly
A&P/IA
Scott wrote:
>
> Build your own airplane and apply for the repairman's certificate.
> That's about all there is to it.
>
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
>
>
> Greg Williams wrote:
>
>> Along a similar line, what does a non-builder have to do to get a
>> certificate to do his own condition inspection?
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2007 3:07 PM, Bruce Gray > > wrote:
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | FW: [NHREIA] Fw: NEW CREDIT SCAM (IMPORTANT) |
FYI on a new scam out there. According to snopes.com, this is a real
scam,
not one of the popular =93the sky is falling, send this to everyone you
know=94
fakes.
brian
HYPERLINK "http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/creditcard.asp"
\nhttp://www.snopes.-com/crime/-warnings/-creditcard.-asp HYPERLINK
"http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/creditcard.asp%3E"
\n<http://www.snopes.-com/crime/-warnings/-creditcard.-asp>
This one is pretty slick since they provide YOU with all the
information,
except the one piece they want.
Note, the callers do not ask for your card number; they already have it.
This information is worth reading. By understanding how the VISA &
MasterCard Telephone Credit Card Scam works, you'll be better prepared
to
protect yourself.
One of our employees was called on Wednesday from "VISA", and I was
called
on Thursday from "Master Card".
The scam works like this: Person calling says, "This is (name), and I'm
calling from the Security and Fraud Department at VISA. My Badge number
is
12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and
I'm
calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card which was issued by
(name
of bank). Did you p urchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99
from a
Marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No", the caller
continues
with, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a
company
we have been watching and the charges range from $297 to $497, just
under
the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next
statement,
the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?"
You say "yes". The caller continues - "I will be starting a Fraud
investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 1- 800
number
listed on the back of your card (1-800-VISA) and ask for Security.
You will need to refer to this Control Number. The caller then gives you
a 6
digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?"
Here's the IMPORTANT part on how the scam works.
The caller then says, "I need to verify you are in possession of your
card"
He'll ask you to "turn your card over and look for some numbers". ;
There
are 7 numbers; the first 4 are part of your card number, the next 3 are
the
security Numbers' that verify you are the possessor of the card. These
are
the numbers you sometimes use to make Internet purchases to prove you
have
the card. The caller will ask you to read the 3 numbers to him. After
you
tell the caller the 3 numbers, he'll say, "That is correct, I just
needed to
verify that the card has not been lost or stolen, and that you still
have
your card. Do you have any other questions?" After you say No, the
caller
then thanks you and states, "Don't hesitate to call back if you do", and
hangs up.
You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the
Card
number. But after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20
minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA Security
Department told us it was a scam and in the last 15 minutes a new
purchase
of $497.99 was charged to our card.
Long story - short - we made a real fraud report and closed the VISA
account. VISA is reissuing us a new number. What the scammers want is
the
3-digit PIN number on the back of the card. Don't give it to them.
Instead,
tell them you'll call VISA or Master card directly for verification of
their
conversation. The real VISA told us that they will NEVER ask for
anything on
the card as they already know the information since they issued the
card! If
you give the scammers your 3 Digit PIN Number, you think you're
receiving a
credit. However, by the time you get your statement you'll see charges
for
purchases you didn't make, and by then it's almost too late and/or more
difficult to actually file a fraud report.
What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I got a call from a
"Jason Richardson of Master Card" with a word-for-word repeat of the
VISA
scam. This time I didn't let him finish. I hung up! We filed a police
report, as instructed by VISA. The police said they are taking several
of
these reports daily! They also urged us to tell everybody we know that
this
scam is happening. __,_._,___
11/9/2007
7:29 PM
11/11/2007
9:50 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Cudney <yenduc(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: getting way to much mail |
Every day now I get about 12000 emails from RV list. how do I stop
receiving the archives? There must be some simple way to stop the
madness.
thanks
dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: getting way to much mail |
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cudney
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: getting way to much mail
Every day now I get about 12000 emails from RV list. how do I stop receiving
the archives? There must be some simple way to stop the madness.
thanks
dave
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contri
bution
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: | Richard Seiders <seiders(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Artificial Horizon |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | RV Nose Gear Leg "Box" |
Where is the web site that has the description of the 'box' they desire
you to use to send your gear leg to Lange for shortening?
thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Nose Gear Leg "Box" |
http://www.langair.com/matchdrilling.html
I used plywood for a sturdier box.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:37 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Nose Gear Leg "Box"
Where is the web site that has the description of the 'box' they
desire you to use to send your gear leg to Lange for shortening?
thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Re: getting way to much mail |
If you are getting 12,000 emails daily, less than 50 are from the RV list o
r else your ISP has something horribly misconfigured. I would suggest eith
er investing in a good SPAM filter for your desktop mail client or a real q
uick fix is to change your email address to something else and resubscribin
g.
If you want a idea of the number of emails you should be getting on any giv
en day you can go here:
http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list/
This shows that 71 messages were posted to the Matronics RV List in the las
t 7 days. Hope this helps.
Michael Sausen
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cudney
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: getting way to much mail
Every day now I get about 12000 emails from RV list. how do I stop receivin
g the archives? There must be some simple way to stop the madness.
thanks
dave
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/con
tribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Skybolt Anniversary Sale |
I just called Skybolt to order my cowl fasteners. I had attended their
Forum this past year at SnF and they agreed to offer a 20% discount
whenever I was ready to order.
When I called, they told me they have just reduced their prices on ALL
fasteners in honor of their 25th Anniversary by 25%.
Just passing along the good news... http://www.skybolt.com/
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Fuselage"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Nose Gear Leg "Box" |
http://www.langair.com/matchdrilling.html
If you are using SeaMonkey as your browser the drawing does not show up,
use Internet Explorer and it will show up.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
John Fasching wrote:
> Where is the web site that has the description of the 'box' they
> desire you to use to send your gear leg to Lange for shortening?
>
> thanks
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H.Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Airpax Circuit Breaker/Switches |
I purchased a number of Airpax circuit breaker/switches from a vendor at
Oshkosh and have used them successfully in my rv-4 for 15 years.
Recently one has failed (my strobe light can only be turned off with the
master switch now). Does anyone know of a source for these items?
Thanks,
Ivan Haecker -4 1430hrs. S. Cen. TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | airpax circuit breaker switches |
There are circuit breaker switches available from Digikey.
www.digikey.com I used one of these to add a pitot heat circuit to my
Glastar.
they are a W31 series circuit breaker switch.
PB417-nd is a 10 amp breaker.
They are availbe from 1 amp to 50 amps
Bob Newman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Cudney <yenduc(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: getting way to much mail |
yesterday I got 19568 --- all from RV list dating from May 31, 2006.
dave
On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:21 AM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> If you are getting 12,000 emails daily, less than 50 are from the
> RV list or else your ISP has something horribly misconfigured. I
> would suggest either investing in a good SPAM filter for your
> desktop mail client or a real quick fix is to change your email
> address to something else and resubscribing.
>
>
> If you want a idea of the number of emails you should be getting on
> any given day you can go here:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list/
>
>
> This shows that 71 messages were posted to the Matronics RV List in
> the last 7 days. Hope this helps.
>
>
> Michael Sausen
>
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Cudney
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 9:30 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: getting way to much mail
>
>
> Every day now I get about 12000 emails from RV list. how do I stop
> receiving the archives? There must be some simple way to stop the
> madness.
>
>
> thanks
>
> dave
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://
> www.matronics.com/contribution
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ============================================================ _-
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List_-
> ============================================================ _-
> forums.matronics.com_-
> ===========================================================
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Airpax Circuit Breaker/Switches |
Airpax was acquired by Sensata this year.
Product and source information is available at:
http://www.airpax.net/
Mike
> I purchased a number of Airpax circuit breaker/switches from a vendor at
> Oshkosh and have used them successfully in my rv-4 for 15 years. Recently
> one has failed (my strobe light can only be turned off with the master
> switch now). Does anyone know of a source for these items?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan Haecker -4 1430hrs. S. Cen. TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List of Contributors |
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of
my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by popping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory recall gear leg |
On 12-Nov-07, at 10:52 PM, Jeff Dowling wrote:
> >
>
> Why is it our responsibility to pay for a design flaw? Could you
> imagine what would happen to Ford?
Would you rather that Van increased kit costs to cover potential
future costs of recommended design changes? Fords come with
warrantees, and the design must meet standards set by the feds. The
feds require that the costs of mandatory recalls be borne by the
automobile manufacturer.
If you want an aircraft with a warranty, and that meets some specified
design standards, you need to purchase a type certificated aircraft.
Check out the cost of a new Cessna, then decide whether the cost of an
RV, plus a replacement nose gear leg is a good value or not.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | darnpilot(at)AOL.COM |
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
My gut says non TSO is a no go for IFR, but I will try going through the
regs tonight when I have more time. My thought is you'd probably want
the best and most trusted equipment for flying IFR since you only get
one chance to get it right ;)
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> Help.
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just
> found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or
> clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an experimental
> aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the test
> and certification.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Jeff
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | dougpflyrv(at)aol.com |
I ENCOUNTERED THE SAME PROBLEM WITH 3 DIFFERENT RV'S AND 2 AVIONICS SHOPS. I PUT
IN A TSO'D ALTIMETER AND ENCODER SO THERE IS NO QUESTION.
GOOD LUCK.
DOUG PRESTON
RV-10 N372RV? 78 HRS.
-----Original Message-----
From: darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 6:18 am
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve & Denise" <hurlbut(at)ns.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re:Propeller for sale |
Yes density altitudes. The tests were done 3 days apart and OAT and
altimeter setting were almost equal at altitude.
Yes I measured it to 0.1 kts using 3 way GPS heading. For each RPM (2400 &
2500) and each altitude (6000 & 9000) the test was performed 4 times (and
results averaged). 0.1 kts is difficult to measure but I actually recorded
the GPS speed every second for 3 mins (using a laptop & GNS430 & GNC300XL).
The values were then entered into Excel spreadsheet and observed if the
speed settled out. I decided before the test if the variation was greater
than 0.5 kts, I would discard the data. This only occurred once during the
test. Typically the variation near the end of the run was 0.3 kts so I
consider the error in the measurements to be +- 0.15 kts. To get the actual
TAS a excel spreadsheet was again used. The speeds are not averaged but
instead vectors determined, wind, actual mag heading, etc. This is a normal
flight test technique that is well known.
Again the best rate of climb was performed 4 times each and timed. Feet per
minute calculated.
Other insights? Not much beyond what I wrote earlier. I did perform the
test on 3 headings 000, 120, and 240 degrees but you can actually use any
reasonable headings. Not 090, 091, and 092 obviously but they don't need to
be 120 degrees apart. You just need 3 vector data. I flew the legs both
with autopilot (2 axis) on and off. The error with each was about the same.
Of course recording the data with autopilot on is easier. Also try and
record as much data was you can by voice or recording equipment. I did
write some stuff down but for example during the start of the climb I wanted
to record OAT, MP, start the clock, and ensure maintaining exactly 110 kts
IAS. Hard to write these things down sometimes. Another thing to keep in
mind is it can be beneficial to record magnetic heading as well. A vector
calculation later can provide your actual magnetic heading and therefore the
error in your compass. And easy compass swing although you'll only have data
for the 3 headings you flew on. And of course make (especially for the
climb tests) sure your airspeed ind is accurate.
Steve
RV7A
> Steve,
> Thanks for sharing the results of your testing! Curious...
> 1) For our benefit, were the altitudes below density altitudes (versus
> indicated)?
> 2) Also, how did you measure speed to .1 knots?
> 3) Did you attempt each maneuver (i.e. best rate of climb) multiple times
to
> understand the potential variability in technique etc?
> 4) Any other insights to can share from your testing approach?
> Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
One other thing...the EAA on their website says it is OK.? Seems a bit of a gray
area, but the EAA seems confident in their interpretation.? Is there any FAA
type letters confirming the EAA's position??
I called several major avionics shops, and mostly got it was OK, but a couple "no
it is not".? I'm confused, but would prefer to not spend $800+ on a TSO'd altimeter,
when I have what seems like a perfectly good altimeter.? If it passes
the test, then how is it inferior?? Would the (God forbid) insurance company
take a more strident view?
TIA
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:18 am
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
One other thing...the EAA on their website says it is OK.? Seems a bit of a gray
area, but the EAA seems confident in their interpretation.? Is there any FAA
type letters confirming the EAA's position??
I called several major avionics shops, and mostly got it was OK, but a couple "no
it is not".? I'm confused, but would prefer to not spend $800+ on a TSO'd altimeter,
when I have what seems like a perfectly good altimeter.? If it passes
the test, then how is it inferior?? Would the (God forbid) insurance company
take a more strident view?
TIA
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:18 am
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Jeff,
I just sent a post on the RV-list about my experience with a non-TSOd
altimeter (Falcon). Mine passed the altimeter/transponder/static system
two times in the last 3 years at an FAA repair station. The technician
said that he couldn't issue a yellow tag because of the non TSO nature
ot my altimeter but attached a label that it was certified to 20,000 feet.
In case you didn't read my previous post, I will add it below. It now
reads 10,000 feet.
============================
FWIW - I have a Falcon altimeter that I installed in my RV-6A about four
years ago. The plane has been flying since February 2005 and has about
130 hours. The altimeter has been certified twice to 20,000 feet per FAR
43 App. E at an FAA repair station with no problems, the latest check in
February this year. I even posted and e-mail on the RV-list indicating
my delight in this reasonably priced, Chinese made instrument being so
precise and reliable.
A week ago in checking the cockpit in preparation for a flight, about
two weeks since my last flight, I found the altimeter reading about 4000
feet. In in the process of trouble shooting, I disconnected the static
line from the altimeter and found that it was still reading 4000 feet.
The problem was obviously internal in the altimeter. I removed it from
the instrument panel and took it home. After a week on my desk, the
indicated altitude has increased to about 9000 feet and is still slowly
climbing.
Consulting with the Wultrad folks I found that the instrument could be
overhauled for $150. Since the current price is about $250 this was not
attractive. And, since my confidence in the reliability of the
instrument had been destroyed, I "bit the bullet" and purchased a
United, TSOd altimeter at about three times the price of the Falcon. If
you, have one of these you may want to keep a close eye on the field
altitude at the correct altimeter setting. I noticed a small increase in
the indicated field altitude a few weeks before the very large increase
I mentioned
===============================
Best regards and good luck,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> One other thing...the EAA on their website says it is OK. Seems a bit
> of a gray area, but the EAA seems confident in their interpretation.
> Is there any FAA type letters confirming the EAA's position?
>
> I called several major avionics shops, and mostly got it was OK, but a
> couple "no it is not". I'm confused, but would prefer to not spend
> $800+ on a TSO'd altimeter, when I have what seems like a perfectly
> good altimeter. If it passes the test, then how is it inferior?
> Would the (God forbid) insurance company take a more strident view?
>
> TIA
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: darnpilot(at)aol.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:18 am
> Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> Help.
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just
> found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or
> clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an experimental
> aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the test
> and certification.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Jeff
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marty Helller <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Trade RV7 vertical induction cowling for horizontal cowling |
Anyone out there having a horizonal induction cowling for an RV-7 for sale
or trade? I have the original vertical scooped cowling but decided to buy
a horizontal feed engine.
Contact off line
Marty Heller
RV-7 (Fitting the roll bar)
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider
making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the
static-system test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both
pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at
any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is
beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the
static system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
> Help.
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static,
> altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is
> non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is
> legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no,
> and will not do the test and certification.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Jeff
> ------------------------------
> !
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Jeff,
There is no requirement for any instrument to be TSO'd. By regulation the
ELT and the transponder must meet a TSO standard. That's all! If the inst
rument can be tested to show its accuracy then it is acceptable for use in
your Glasair III under IFR.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
eter - Good for IFR?Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:18:19 -0500From: darnpilot@ao
l.com
Help.My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/stati
c, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non
-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is l
egal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no,
and will not do the test and certification.Thank you in advance.Jeff
_________________________________________________________________
!
ilnews
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Jeff,
I believe that the regs actually state that only an A&P with correct
equipment can do your 2 yr/signed off by IA. In other words, an
Avionics shop is NOT your only source to get the work done legally.
Sounds like someone is trying to sell you an instrument. Ditto, it
doesn't have to be TSO instruments, they just have to pass. If that
were the case I think that Garmin, Chelton, Avidyne, and OP are the only
companies that offer TSO'd electric panels(MFD"S), and they cost mucho
$. And there are a bunch of MFD's that are IFR compliant, and used. As
Dave pointed out, more accurate than steam gauges.
Try contacting your local EAA counselor or the EAA wedsite for more
info. Also you FAR/AIM '08 edition will spell it all out for you.
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: David Leonard
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would
consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required
to pass the static-system test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they
both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10'
error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage.
But that is beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing
the static system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just
found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification
that says this is legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local
avionics shop says no, and will not do the test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Factory recall gear leg |
I think it is the idea of a "design flaw" in an experimental aircraft kit
that bugs me. If we take this concept to its logical conclusion, any
refinement or improvement in the design means that the previous version was
flawed. Attach liability or responsibility to correct all previous versions
and that would put a stop to any improvements and make the concept of
experimental meaningless.
Terry
-----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, November 13, 2007 3:11 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Factory recall gear leg
On 12-Nov-07, at 10:52 PM, Jeff Dowling wrote:
> >
>
> Why is it our responsibility to pay for a design flaw? Could you
> imagine what would happen to Ford?
Would you rather that Van increased kit costs to cover potential
future costs of recommended design changes? Fords come with
warrantees, and the design must meet standards set by the feds. The
feds require that the costs of mandatory recalls be borne by the
automobile manufacturer.
If you want an aircraft with a warranty, and that meets some specified
design standards, you need to purchase a type certificated aircraft.
Check out the cost of a new Cessna, then decide whether the cost of an
RV, plus a replacement nose gear leg is a good value or not.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trade RV7 vertical induction cowling for horizontal cowling |
Was wondering if there are any flight benefits to the horizontal induction
cowling vs having the snout underneath? Drag, speed, power etc? Or is it
just a personal preference "looks" sort of thing?
On 11/13/07, Marty Helller wrote:
>
> Anyone out there having a horizonal induction cowling for an RV-7 for
> sale or trade? I have the original vertical scooped cowling but decided to
> buy a horizontal feed engine.
>
> Contact off line
> Marty Heller
> RV-7 (Fitting the roll bar)
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!<http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
So does that mean that the glass cockpit stuff (Dynon, Blue Mountain etc)
won't be usable for IFR in an RV?
On 11/13/07, darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Help.
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static,
> altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is
> non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is
> legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no,
> and will not do the test and certification.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Jeff
> ------------------------------
> !
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marty Helller <marty_away(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Trade RV7 vertical induction cowling for horizontal cowling |
The horizontal induction is supposed to add about 7HP to engine performance
.... at least that's what I was told when paying for the extra sump.
Marty Heller
RV-7 (fitting roll bar)
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:39:17 -0800From: mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.comTo: rv-
list(at)matronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: Trade RV7 vertical induction cowlin
g for horizontal cowlingWas wondering if there are any flight benefits to t
he horizontal induction cowling vs having the snout underneath? Drag, spee
d, power etc? Or is it just a personal preference "looks" sort of thing?
On 11/13/07, Marty Helller wrote:
Anyone out there having a horizonal induction cowling for an RV-7 for sale
or trade? I have the original vertical scooped cowling but decided to buy
a horizontal feed engine. Contact off lineMarty HellerRV-7 (Fitting the rol
l bar)
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
_________________________________________________________________
Help yourself to FREE treats served up daily at the Messenger Caf=E9. Stop
by today.
http://www.cafemessenger.com/info/info_sweetstuff2.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Oc
tWLtagline
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Factory recall gear leg |
"Why is it our responsibility to pay for a design flaw? Could you
imagine what would happen to Ford? "
Safety! Value!
Van's prices are very reasonable, his designs are first rate and the
overall value is unquestionable. The cost of a new fork and re-machining
the gear leg is trivial compared to many other things. Look it as Gear
leg 2007 and you don't even need to buy a new airplane to install it. My
recalled Volvo tailgate latch was free but they charged me $200+ to
reattach the interior that had broken loose due to slamming the gate.
I say cheap insurance. Van could build this cost into everything he
sells plus a war chest for the likes of Alan Wolk. You do have the
option of not upgrading the gear.
It's all a matter of perspective. We should just willingly pay a fair
price for value. If all folks were fair we would not be paying the
usurious rates we now pay for so many things because of lawsuits and the
idea that if something bad happens someone else must pay.
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Time to find a new avionics shop.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: "darnpilot(at)aol.com" <darnpilot(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:18:19 AM
Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places
are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone
number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in
the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals,
and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain
uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed :-)
Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to
ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider making
the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system
test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass
every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude.
-
i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the static
system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Factory recall gear leg |
I upgraded the fork when my engine was being rebuilt this summer
and I have ZERO, ZIP, NADA interest in suggesting than Van's
pay for it.
I did not have to make the change and I do not with the service bulletin
out.
Avoid non-smooth landing/taxiing surfaces and you may well never have a
problem.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly
to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing wrote:
> Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some
> places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing
> their phone number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who
> build airplanes in the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has
> alot of experimentals, and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact,
> my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he
> tests...he was very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage
> too, which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would
> consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to
> pass the static-system test.
>
> I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both
> pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at
> any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that
> is beside the point.
>
> If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the
> static system test.
>
> Dave Leonard
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
>
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static,
> > altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is
> > non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is
> > legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no,
> > and will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------
> > !
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David Leonard
>
> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> http://RotaryRoster.net
> ------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
I agree... time to find another shop!
Darrell
--- Paul Besing wrote:
> Time to find a new avionics shop.
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "darnpilot(at)aol.com" <darnpilot(at)aol.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 5:18:19 AM
> Subject: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO
> Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
>
>
> Help.
>
>
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification,
> i.e., pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check.
> The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does
> anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says
> this is legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft?
> My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
> test and certification.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
>
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder, encoder,
and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work. You don't really certify
the "airplane", just that the pitot/static and transponder have been tested
and are within the standards of the regulations. This needs to be done every
24 months to be IFR "certified".
I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go to an avionics
shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot static check. If they
won't do it because you have a big "experimental" sticker on your plane, then
you probably won't want to do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying
IFR birds, lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you where to go.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to
Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing <
pbesing(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places
are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone
number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in
the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals,
and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain
uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed :-)
Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to
ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
Paul Besing
-----
Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider making
the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system
test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass
every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude.
-
i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the static
system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you
with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
Thanks for the replies.? My shop is actually pretty good (and the only one in town).?
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between the FAA and their
own ignorance.? The local Orlando FSDO (avionics inspector) says the shop cannot
"certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter.? They showed me the FARs that they THINK says
this, but it is clear that they are wrong.
My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be forced to
go elsewhere.? It bugs me because there is no reason that I have to go to all
the additional trouble and expense of an out of town avionics shop for this
simple requirement.
I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO and try
to educate them accordingly.? This is the kind of excrement I was trying to get
away from by going to the experimental world.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder, encoder,
and altimeter.? All can be done in about an hour of work.? You don't really certify
the "airplane", just that the pitot/static and transponder have been tested
and are within the standards of the regulations.? This needs to be done every
24 months to be IFR "certified".
I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd.? Just go to an avionics
shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot static check.? If they
won't do it because you have a big "experimental" sticker on your plane, then
you probably won't want to do business with them anyway.? Ask any of the flying
IFR birds, lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you where to go.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to
Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Good luck with that.? As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places
are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone
number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in
the garages.? I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals,
and they are easy to work with.? As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain
uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed :-)?
Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to
ATC in an IFR environment!? Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft.? I would consider making
the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system
test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass
every time.? Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude.?
- i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage.? But that is beside
the point.
If you google you can find? a copy of the instructions for performing the static
system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
you folks should read the requirments to fly in an IFR inviroment and then equip
accordingly
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder, encoder,
and altimeter.? All can be done in about an hour of work.? You don't really certify
the "airplane", just that the pitot/static and transponder have been tested
and are within the standards of the regulations.? This needs to be done every
24 months to be IFR "certified".
I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd.? Just go to an avionics
shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot static check.? If they
won't do it because you have a big "experimental" sticker on your plane, then
you probably won't want to do business with them anyway.? Ask any of the flying
IFR birds, lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you where to go.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to
Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Good luck with that.? As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places
are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone
number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in
the garages.? I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals,
and they are easy to work with.? As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain
uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed :-)?
Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to
ATC in an IFR environment!? Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft.? I would consider making
the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system
test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass
every time.? Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude.?
- i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage.? But that is beside
the point.
If you google you can find? a copy of the instructions for performing the static
system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check.? The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd.? Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft?? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop ground
clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include a
check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
Marty in Brentwood TN
From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
Charlie,
Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a
-2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable
to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
/"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
CONFUSION. Harmon"/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
Harmon,
Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose
gear leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
Thank you
-- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
Marty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
Not for sure here, but I think the prop/ground clearance stays the same.
The redesigned nose fork is where the difference is, it allows the leg
to be shorter, therefore allowing more clearance between the nut and the
ground. Just placed my order a few minutes ago :-)
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A web site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Emrath wrote:
>
> Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop ground
> clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include a
> check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
> From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
>
>
> Charlie,
> Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a
> -2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable
> to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
>
> /"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
> Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
> Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
> carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
> back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
> will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
> back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
> milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
> yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
> the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
> be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
> Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
> CONFUSION. Harmon"/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
> Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
>
> Harmon,
> Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose
> gear leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
> Thank you
>
> -- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Airplane jacking, nose gear removal |
I just finished removal and packing of my gear leg. Packing is worse
that removal. I put a short padded saw horse under the tail and loaded
it with 3 bags of sand. (I strapped the bags to the tail) The tail
feathers are off until the gear comes back and I move to the airport
which should happen soon.
For packing I used a heavy cardboard tube ~1/4" wall. I cut it at 20
degrees about 10 inches from the end and spliced it back together with
plywood angles screwed inside the tube. The gear leg is a close fit
between the splice plates. the top end is held with a plywood disc with
a hole to fit the leg screwed into the tube.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
With the new fork there is a 'rake' adjustment.
Shortening the leg does nothing but raise the threads
as the thickness of the fork yoke is narrower. How
much difference in 'rake' (angle on the fork) to my
knowledge has not been published.
Darrell
--- Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>
> Not for sure here, but I think the prop/ground
> clearance stays the same.
> The redesigned nose fork is where the difference is,
> it allows the leg
> to be shorter, therefore allowing more clearance
> between the nut and the
> ground. Just placed my order a few minutes ago :-)
>
> ----
> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my RV7A web site:
> http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
>
>
>
> Emrath wrote:
>
> >
> > Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway
> reduces the prop ground
> > clearance? I also find that the Langair web site
> now states to include a
> > check for $100 and they will refund or bill for
> any difference.
> >
> > Marty in Brentwood TN
> >
> >
> > From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
> > Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
> >
> >
> > Charlie,
> > Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon
> Lang. This is to go from a
> > -2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need
> the new leg, I was unable
> > to find the price on "the list" either. You
> probably need to call Van's.
> >
> > /"The procedure to send the nose gear for
> modifying.
> > Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair
> Machining 33094 Church
> > Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on
> the web site. A tube from a
> > carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the
> work and enough to ship it
> > back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards.
> Include a return label. We
> > will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in
> off, rethread and put it
> > back in the same container. The rethreading is
> done with a carbide thread
> > milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have
> the mill you can do this
> > yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost
> about $300.00 or so. Expect
> > the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we
> know how many there will
> > be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch
> that comes in for the week.
> > Please help by making the repackaging go as easily
> as possible. NO
> > CONFUSION. Harmon"/
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
> > Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
> >
> > Harmon,
> > Please supply a quotation for modification of
> a Vans U-603-2 nose
> > gear leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
> > Thank you
> >
> > -- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot
> net
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> Admin.
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
>
> Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
It is shortened from the bottom which increases ground clearance for the
fork but has no impact on prop clearance. Attached pix might help. Not
sure whose it is but it shows the difference well.
Also the $100 from Lang is really $75 for machining and $25 for freight
back
and he sends you a check for the diff. I think mine was about $8 back.
He
did a perfect job and I had it back in two weeks. A bargain! Building
the
box was the hard part.
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Emrath
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop
ground
clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include
a
check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
Marty in Brentwood TN
From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
Charlie,
Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go
from a
-2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was
unable
to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
/"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094
Church
Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube
from a
carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship
it
back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return
label. We
will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide
thread
milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so.
Expect
the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there
will
be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the
week.
Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
CONFUSION. Harmon"/
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
Harmon,
Please supply a quotation for modification of a Vans U-603-2 nose
gear
leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
Thank you
-- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
Marty =D2=D3=AC
List
7-Day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
The hole for the axle and the forward hole for holding the nose wheel
fairing are in the same place. The top of the fork is in the same place.
The bottom angle has changed but is not a factor.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darrell Reiley" <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
>
> With the new fork there is a 'rake' adjustment.
> Shortening the leg does nothing but raise the threads
> as the thickness of the fork yoke is narrower. How
> much difference in 'rake' (angle on the fork) to my
> knowledge has not been published.
>
> Darrell
>
>
> --- Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Not for sure here, but I think the prop/ground
>> clearance stays the same.
>> The redesigned nose fork is where the difference is,
>> it allows the leg
>> to be shorter, therefore allowing more clearance
>> between the nut and the
>> ground. Just placed my order a few minutes ago :-)
>>
>> ----
>> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
>> Visit my RV7A web site:
>> http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
>>
>>
>>
>> Emrath wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway
>> reduces the prop ground
>> > clearance? I also find that the Langair web site
>> now states to include a
>> > check for $100 and they will refund or bill for
>> any difference.
>> >
>> > Marty in Brentwood TN
>> >
>> >
>> > From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
>> > Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
>> >
>> >
>> > Charlie,
>> > Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon
>> Lang. This is to go from a
>> > -2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need
>> the new leg, I was unable
>> > to find the price on "the list" either. You
>> probably need to call Van's.
>> >
>> > /"The procedure to send the nose gear for
>> modifying.
>> > Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair
>> Machining 33094 Church
>> > Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on
>> the web site. A tube from a
>> > carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the
>> work and enough to ship it
>> > back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards.
>> Include a return label. We
>> > will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in
>> off, rethread and put it
>> > back in the same container. The rethreading is
>> done with a carbide thread
>> > milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have
>> the mill you can do this
>> > yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost
>> about $300.00 or so. Expect
>> > the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we
>> know how many there will
>> > be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch
>> that comes in for the week.
>> > Please help by making the repackaging go as easily
>> as possible. NO
>> > CONFUSION. Harmon"/
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
>> > Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
>> > Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
>> >
>> > Harmon,
>> > Please supply a quotation for modification of
>> a Vans U-603-2 nose
>> > gear leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
>> > Thank you
>> >
>> > -- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot
>> net
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> Admin.
>>
>> browse
>> Un/Subscription,
>> FAQ,
>>
>> Forums!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> Make Yahoo! your homepage.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
Ditto what Bill said. The rake diffrence is in the
fork due to the shortening of the leg at the threads.
No clearance difference at all to my knowledge.
Darrell
--- Bill Schlatterer
wrote:
> It is shortened from the bottom which increases
> ground clearance for the
> fork but has no impact on prop clearance. Attached
> pix might help. Not
> sure whose it is but it shows the difference well.
>
> Also the $100 from Lang is really $75 for machining
> and $25 for freight back
> and he sends you a check for the diff. I think mine
> was about $8 back. He
> did a perfect job and I had it back in two weeks. A
> bargain! Building the
> box was the hard part.
>
> Bill S
> 7a Ark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Emrath
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:16 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
>
>
>
> Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway
> reduces the prop ground
> clearance? I also find that the Langair web site
> now states to include a
> check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any
> difference.
>
> Marty in Brentwood TN
>
>
> From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
>
>
> Charlie,
> Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon
> Lang. This is to go from a
> -2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need
> the new leg, I was unable
> to find the price on "the list" either. You probably
> need to call Van's.
>
> /"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
> Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair
> Machining 33094 Church
> Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the
> web site. A tube from a
> carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work
> and enough to ship it
> back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards.
> Include a return label. We
> will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off,
> rethread and put it
> back in the same container. The rethreading is done
> with a carbide thread
> milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the
> mill you can do this
> yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost
> about $300.00 or so. Expect
> the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we
> know how many there will
> be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch
> that comes in for the week.
> Please help by making the repackaging go as easily
> as possible. NO
> CONFUSION. Harmon"/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Hoover [mailto:hooverra(at)verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2007 7:41 AM
> Subject: RV7A U603-2 Modification
>
> Harmon,
> Please supply a quotation for modification of a
> Vans U-603-2 nose gear
> leg to a U603-3 per SB 07-11-09.
> Thank you
>
> -- Ralph C. Hoover RV7A hooverra at verizon dot net
>
> --
> Ralph C. Hoover
> RV7A
> hooverra at verizon dot net
>
>
>
> Marty
>
>
>
>
> List
> 7-Day
>
>
>
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
No mention of TSO at all.
If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
mention of TSO.
In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> they are wrong.
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
> I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
> encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR "certified".
>
> I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> where to go.
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com
> >
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> instrument?
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com
> > wrote:
>
> Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,
> and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
>
> Paul Besing
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> for IFR?
>
> Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> is required to pass the static-system test.
>
> I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
>
> If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> performing the static system test.
>
> Dave Leonard
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > wrote:
>
> Help.
>
> My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter
> (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> will not do the test and certification.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Jeff
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> --
> David Leonard
>
> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> http://RotaryRoster.net
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> *
>
>
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
I didn't cover the other requirements, and yes, there are other equipment requirements,
but as far as an inspection for IFR cert goes, there are no other inspection/certification
requirements besides the pitot/static and transponder.
Obviously things like VOR checks (pilot check) and having all the other equipment,
etc is another discussion.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: "passpat(at)aol.com" <passpat(at)aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 6:21:52 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
you folks should read the requirments to fly in an IFR inviroment and then equip
accordingly
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder, encoder,
and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work. You don't really certify
the "airplane", just that the pitot/static and transponder have been tested
and are within the standards of the regulations. This needs to be done every
24 months to be IFR "certified".
I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go to an avionics
shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot static check. If they
won't do it because you have a big "experimental" sticker on your plane, then
you probably won't want to do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying
IFR birds, lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you where to go.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to
Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com> wrote:
Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places
are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone
number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in
the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals,
and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain
uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed :-)
Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to
ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider making
the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system
test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass
every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude.
- i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is beside
the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the static
system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, wrote:
Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter,
& transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does
anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in
an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the
test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Nose gear Mod, MSB |
Heres my take on this. I have hit nose hard twice in my 6a landing in
gusting very high cross winds, hard enuff to hear and feel the nose gear
protesting, thought it a miricle that prop didnt hit the pavement. No
damage resulted for wich Im gratefull. I rarely go in to a grass strip,
and when I do, I have checked it out on foot first.Then I am extra
vigilant and hold nose off as long as posible and taxi slowly. I know 2
6a owners back in Atl area that have taken there 6a's into grass strips
often, and under less than ideal conditions, never a problem. My
conclusion is these nose gear foldups are pilot error, in some form or
another. As for me, I am keeping the orig "problem" gear, and
maintaining healthy respect for proper landing techniques. Charlie
Heathco Fayetteville Ar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill VonDane <bill(at)vondane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
I tend to agree with you on this and am debating whether or not I will
do the upgrade...
My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have
an incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service
bulletin... I am gong to call mine this morning and see what they say...
-Bill VonDane
www.rv8a.com
> Charles Heathco wrote:
>> Heres my take on this. I have hit nose hard twice in my 6a landing
in gusting very high cross winds, hard enuff to hear and feel the nose
gear protesting, thought it a miricle that prop didnt hit the pavement.
No damage resulted for wich Im gratefull. I rarely go in to a grass
strip, and when I do, I have checked it out on foot first.Then I am
extra vigilant and hold nose off as long as posible and taxi slowly. I
know 2 6a owners back in Atl area that have taken there 6a's into grass
strips often, and under less than ideal conditions, never a problem. My
conclusion is these nose gear foldups are pilot error, in some form or
another. As for me, I am keeping the orig "problem" gear, and
maintaining healthy respect for proper landing techniques. Charlie
Heathco Fayetteville Ar
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Ce
ssna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to b
e removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown t
o meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention T
SO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do no
t apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Ope
rating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older establish
ed repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through t
he FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be T
SO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the require
ment for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standa
rd during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standar
ds that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in t
he aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym(at)aviating.com> To: rv-
list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altime
m(at)aviating.com>> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refere
nce is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost, b
uy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like Cen
tury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are i
n Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is only
required for Part 135 and 121.> > darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:> > Thanks for t
he replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in town).
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and their
own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says the sh
op cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs that
they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > My ph
ilosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > force
d to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > have to
go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avionic
s shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA and
get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them according
ly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by goin
g to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> > S
ent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is N
on-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > The only things that have to be cert
ified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be d
one in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "airplane",
just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and are wit
hin the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 mo
nths to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instru
ments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need
a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it because you h
ave a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't
want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you >
> where to go.> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > From
: Greg Williams > mr.gsun+rv-list@gmai
l.com>>> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent
: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: An
swer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want my -7 blesse
d for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Experimentals and
ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> > On Nov 13, 2
007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com > >
> wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experime
ntal"> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,>
> and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of> > those c
razy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was> > lucky, I'm at an a
irport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are easy to work with. A
s a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEncoder was more accu
rate than most he tests...he was> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built
that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR en
vironment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > Fr
om: David Leonard >> > To:
rv-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: Tuesday, Nov
ember 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-T
SO Altimeter - Good> > for IFR?> >> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for e
xperimental aircraft. I> > would consider making the shop show you where it
says that a TSO> > is required to pass the static-system test.> >> > I hav
e 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and> > they both pa
ss every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to> > less than 10' error at
any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > any TSO steam guage. But that
is beside the point.> >> > If you google you can find a copy of the instru
ctions for> > performing the static system test.> >> > Dave Leonard> >> > O
n Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > > w
rote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification
, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter> > (
I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs> > and/or clarifi
cation that says this is legal for IFR in an> > experimental aircraft? My l
ocal avionics shop says no, and> > will not do the test and certification.>
>> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff> > ---------------------------------
---------------------------------------> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail
.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!> >> > *>
>> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -- > > David Leonard> >> > Turbo Rotary
RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net >
> http://RotaryRoster.net > > -------------------
-----------------------------------------------------> > Get easy, one-clic
k access to your favorites.> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> > *> >> >> > *> > ------
------------------------------------------------------------------> > _
-========================
===========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replaced? |
Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
insurance policy until this is fixed.
This quote is from one of the earlier posts. Is this true? Will my
insurance company not honor any claims unless this repair is made?
For the record, I do plan to make the change, I just have a distrust for
insurance companies... and lawyers... and car salesmen... and cell phone
companies... and Rottweillers...
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:28:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
I tend to agree with you on this and am debating whether or not I will
do the upgrade...
My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have
an incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service
bulletin... I am gong to call mine this morning and see what they say...
====================================================
The effectivity date on the service bulletin is by next condition
inspection. I will do it by then (02/2008) and I believe that that meets the
letter
and intent of the mandatory requirement. Am I mistaken?
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 870hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
If the nose gear modification is "mandatory", why has Van's Aircraft not
notified builders instead of letting it be discovered?
It is possible that an owner could fly for years without learning of the
modifaction if he did not visit Van's web site or belong to one of the on
line groups.
Dale Ensing
>
> My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have an
> incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service bulletin
> -Bill VonDane
> www.rv8a.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Lassetter" <rblassett(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Construction/Restoration |
Hello all,
I would like to offer my aircraft construction/restoration services to the
group. I have a 40' X 60' hangar in NE Georgia and have a lifetime of
experience with various aircraft. I can construct large projects for $15.00
per hour with first-class workmanship. Please email me directly or give me
a call.
Russ Lassetter
202 Aviation Blvd.
Cleveland, GA 30528
706-348-7514
rblassett(at)alltel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wgill10(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TSO'd.
Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing requirements
at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder must meet TSO.
Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121
and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument
cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed
as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls
for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard
during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft
is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments.
And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft.
The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft
is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into
play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair
stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through the FAR's
and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be
used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the
encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing,
and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that
I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft
parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR "certified".
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com
> > >
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > for IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > > wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> > http://RotaryRoster.net
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not
TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing
requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder
must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then
the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have
to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside
of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must
be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention
TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through
29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that
covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because
the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the
old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations
don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu
gh the
FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to
be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for
the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing,
and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy
subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike
Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are
held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
<BR>> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700<BR>> From: kellym(at)aviating.com<BR>>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer;
Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> --> RV-List message
posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> The
regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No
mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled
unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments,
for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part
43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is
only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the
only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught
between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance
. The
local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify"
a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK
says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might
be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason
that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense
of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
>
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass
of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the
kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the
experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com><BR>>
> To: rv-list@matroni
cs.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List:
Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
> >
> >
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
>
> encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
>
> You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of
the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
"certified".
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments
aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them
you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't
do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane,
then you probably won't want to
> > do business with them anyway.
Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lanca
irs, g
lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you <BR>> > where to go.<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul Besing<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message ----<BR>> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com <BR>> > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com>><BR>> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv-list(at)matronics.com><BR>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM<BR>> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?<BR>> ><BR>> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop <BR>> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each <BR>> > instrument?<BR>> ><BR>> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com <BR>> > <mailto:pbesing(at)yahoo.com>> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"<BR>> > some places are s
ent sl
amming their doors, throwing away the key,<BR>> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of<BR>> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was<BR>> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they<BR>> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky<BR>> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was<BR>> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,<BR>> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul Besing<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message ----<BR>> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>><BR>> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com <mailto:rv-list(at)matronics.com><BR>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM<BR>> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good<BR>> &
gt; fo
r IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot(at)aol.com
> > <mailto:darnpilot(at)aol.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimete
r, &am
p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!>> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>
> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!>> > *
> >
>=========
>
>
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of
FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters a
nd digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively.
So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the tho
se TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43
they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or
exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TS
O standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the cha
nce to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when the
n D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: wgill10(at)comcast.netTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: Nee
ded: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not T
SO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing r
equirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder mu
st meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message -------------- From: Mike Robertson <mrober
t569(at)hotmail.com>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Ce
ssna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to b
e removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown t
o meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention T
SO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do no
t apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Ope
rating Limitations bring them into play. I know that the old school inspect
ors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this
but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what st
ates that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument fl
ight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter a
nd transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT
. Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Stand
ards that I have fought, and proven. Mike RobertsonDas Fed P.S. For 121 and
135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft part
s manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym(at)aviating.com> To: rv-
list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altime
m(at)aviating.com>> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refere
nce is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost, b
uy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like Cen
tury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are i
n Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is only
required for Part 135 and 121.> > darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:> > Thanks for t
he replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in town).
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and their
own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says the s
hop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs tha
t they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > My p
hilosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > forc
ed to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > have t
o go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avioni
cs shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA and
get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them accordin
gly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by goi
ng to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message----
-> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com >
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; I
s Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > The only things that have to be c
ertified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All can b
e done in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "airplane
", just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and are
within the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24
months to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that the ins
truments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them you ne
ed a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it because yo
u have a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably wo
n't want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR bir
ds, > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you > > where to go.> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> >
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com > > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list
(at)gmail.com>>> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > >
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Neede
d: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want my -7 b
lessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Experimentals
and ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> > On Nov
13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com > > > wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Exp
erimental"> > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away th
e key,> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of> >
those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was> > lucky, I'm
at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are easy to work
with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEncoder was mo
re accurate than most he tests...he was> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and
I built that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an
IFR environment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ---
-> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent: Tuesd
ay, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; I
s Non-TSO Altimeter - Good> & gt; fo r IFR?> >> > Without question, non-TSO
is OK for experimental aircraft. I> > would consider making the shop show
you where it says that a TSO> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and> >
they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to> > less than
10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > any TSO steam gua
ge. But that is beside the point.> >> > If you google you can find a copy o
f the instructions for> > performing the static system test.> >> > Dave Leo
nard> >> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > @aol.com>> wrote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR c
ertification, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check.
The altimeter> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an> > experimen
tal aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and> > will not do the test a
nd certification.> >> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff> > ---------------
---------------------------------------------------------> > <http://o.aolc
dn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000
0000003>!> >> > *> >> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -- > > David Leonard>
>> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net > > http://RotaryRoster.net > > -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------> >
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *
> >> >> > *> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------
------------------> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> > *> >
> >> > *> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
---------> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/te
xt.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!> > *> >>=========> >
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. -
Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062
6971033
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
| From: | "NationAir" <dmccoy(at)nationair.com> |
NO - this is not true.
--------
David McCoy
Branch Manager
Light Aircraft Division
NationAir Aviation Insurance
www.nationair.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146024#146024
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
| From: | "NationAir" <dmccoy(at)nationair.com> |
A Mandatory Service Bulletin does not have to be complied with under an "experimental
airworthiness certificate" and Part 91 operations. Insuance companies
do not have requirements in their policies that state service bullitens to be
complied with for you to have coverage.
--------
David McCoy
Branch Manager
Light Aircraft Division
NationAir Aviation Insurance
www.nationair.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146025#146025
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS
approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the
altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do
approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson wrote:
> If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements o
f
> FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters
> and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88respectivel
y. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the
> standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testin
g
> standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of
> today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world.
> Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and built
> their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at leng
th
> several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned about
> this very issue.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR
?
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
>
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not
> TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testin
g
> requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder
> must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
> Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even fo
r
> 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the
> Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have
to
> be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR
91,
> which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown
to
> meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
> installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention
> TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do
> not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers w
hat
> has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
> Operating Limitations bring them into play.
>
> I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
> established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to loo
k
> throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instrumen
ts
> must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to
the
> requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a T
SO
> standard during testing, and to the ELT.
>
> Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
> Standards that I have fought, and proven.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in
> the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> > From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> >
> >
> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> > No mention of TSO at all.
> > If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> > reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> > For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, n
o
>
> > mention of TSO.
> > In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
> >
> > darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> > > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > > they are wrong.
> > >
> > > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might b
e
>
> > > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of tow
n
>
> > > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> > >
> > > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSD
O
>
> > > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
> > > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> > >
> > > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder
,
>
> > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
> "certified".
> > >
> > > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell yo
u
>
> > > where to go.
> > >
> > > Paul Besing
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com
> > > >
> > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> > >
> > > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or eac
h
>
> > > instrument?
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> > >
> > > Paul Besing
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>
>
> > > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > & gt; fo r IFR?
> > >
> > > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > > is required to pass the static-system test.
> > >
> > > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> > >
> > > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > > performing the static system test.
> > >
> > > Dave Leonard
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Help.
> > >
> > > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > > will not do the test and certification.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <
> http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=aolcmp00050000000003
> >!
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Leonard
> > >
> > > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> > > http://RotaryRoster.net *> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <
> http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=aolcmp00050000000003
> >!
> > > *
> > >
> >========
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!<http://www.reallivemoms
.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. G
et
> it now!<http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid
=CL100626971033>
>
> *
>
===========
com/contribution
===========
nics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | RV Nose Gear SB Question |
I have the 'improved' nose gear leg on my RV6A that was provided by
Van's several years ago, so I am going to have Harmon cut/rethread mine
and purchase a new fork from Vans.
My question for those of you that have done this: What is the change
and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the fairings to the axle
bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to do? I can't get a
handle on this area of the change.
Thanks for any advise.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
All:
I had a heart-to-heart with the Orlando FSDO today.=C2- A conference call
with the [troublesome] Inspector and his boss.=C2- The Inspector was belli
gerent and arrogant, stating unequivocally that I was wrong.=C2- The only
quarter he would give was that I should send him the information I had for h
is review.=C2- I said I would and did (via email).=C2-
His boss was very quiet on the call, and at the end I pressed him for an opi
nion.=C2- He said to send the information and he would ensure its review.
=C2- Well, this afternoon I got a call from the Inspector.=C2- He was (t
o his credit) very soft-spoken and (my impression) contrite.=C2- He said i
t "looked like" it was possible to do what I wanted, and said that by tomorr
ow he would have a final answer.=C2- Yea!
I suspect that my call with him and his boss got the ball rolling, and I fur
ther suspect that the EAA (whom I contacted about this) may have made an inq
uiry or two.
I think I have may have gotten this resolved.=C2- Principle is sometimes a
good thing to stand up for.=C2- Now those coming behind me will have an e
asier time, and I will not have to hunt down a shop to get my IFR done.
I'll let you know what tomorrow brings.
Thanks for all the replies, opinions, and help.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of F
AR 43 then it may be used.=C2- What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeter
s and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectivel
y.=C2- So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of t
he those TSO's.=C2- Basically, if the=C2-encoder meets the testing stand
ards in FAR 43 they will=C2-meet the TSO's.=C2-The electronic standards
of today's world meet or exceed=C2-the TSO requirements of yesterdays worl
d.=C2- Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and b
uilt their units.=C2- I had the chance to speak with=C2-the folks from D
ynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was conc
erned about this very issue.
=C2-
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
=C2-
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
Hello Mike,
=C2-
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TS
O'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use=C2-if it meets the testin
g requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c)=C2-indicates that the enc
oder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
=C2-
Bill=C2-=C2-
=C2-
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
Not bad.=C2- You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence.=C2-
Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO.=C2- If that were tru
e then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster wou
ld have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd.=C2-
=C2-Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a=C2-TSO for the ELT and that the
Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs t
hat covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29,
and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments.=C2- And we all know
that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft.=C2- The on
ly thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR
91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
=C2-
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older establishe
d repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh th
e FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO
'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requiremen
t for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard d
uring testing, and to the ELT.
=C2-
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standard
s that I have fought, and proven.
=C2-
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
=C2-
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in th
e aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com>
> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IF
R?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR "certified"
.
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com
> > >;
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IF
R?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com
> > >; wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard(at)gmail.com>>;
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ;
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> & gt; fo r IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, > >; wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003>;!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net ;
> > http://RotaryRoster.net ;> > -----------------
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003>;!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
October 29, 2007 - November 14, 2007
RV-Archive.digest.vol-tb