RV-Archive.digest.vol-tf
December 26, 2007 - January 17, 2008
Lightspeed electronic ignition systems. I was fighting high oil temps
and not making progress. Installed larger oil cooler. No help. Put in a
cowl flap to more more air out of the cowl enclosure. No help. Improved
sealing around top of baffles where they met the top cowling. No help.
Did all sorts of other little things. No help.
In desperation I began to re-read Lightspeed instructions. My O-320 is a
160HP so I assumed it "qualified" as high compression as Klaus describes
it in his instructions, thus requiring timing set to 5-degrees BTDC. It
turns out the 8.5:1 is not "high compression" as he defines it, so I set
the timing to zero-degrees, or TDC and the high oil temps went away. I
now see CHT and oil temps in the low part of normal range, and don't
need the cowl flaps. On a hot day in climb I rarely see over 205-F in
the oil temps, and cruise is typically 190-195.
Why the 5-degree diffference in timing would make such a great
difference seems strange, but I won't argue with a good outcome.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing |
Personally, I haven't found that the stock heat source is anywhere hot
enough to overheat my legs. Fact is, I'd like to get more heat for our RV-7
up here in Washington. No warm/cold mixer box. Just pull knob full on and
leave it. Wear good socks & sweatshirt. Then we fly and have FUN!!
On 12/25/07, Paul Besing wrote:
>
> Anyone come up with a good place to run the duct for the cabin heat? Just
> about anywhere up front will burn my legs, and haven't quite figured a way
> to get the heat throughout the cabin. Was thinking of using the warm/cold
> mixer box that Van's sells, and could then run heat through the vents.
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-4 N73DD "Sunny"
> Arizona
>
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing |
That is surprising. My heater would burn my legs to a frinzy if I pulled it
full on. I use about two clicks on the heat cable to get plenty of heat on
the feet. I have to stuff rags in around the canopy sides to keep the cold
air out to be comfortable however. Your heat must come in somewhere
different than lower half of the firewall.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing
Personally, I haven't found that the stock heat source is anywhere hot
enough to overheat my legs. Fact is, I'd like to get more heat for our RV-7
up here in Washington. No warm/cold mixer box. Just pull knob full on and
leave it. Wear good socks & sweatshirt. Then we fly and have FUN!!
On 12/25/07, Paul Besing wrote:
Anyone come up with a good place to run the duct for the cabin heat? Just
about anywhere up front will burn my legs, and haven't quite figured a way
to get the heat throughout the cabin. Was thinking of using the warm/cold
mixer box that Van's sells, and could then run heat through the vents.
Thoughts?
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD "Sunny"
Arizona
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Williams" <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing |
I've got cold air coming in from the wing roots from up the control stick
boot and around the edges of the seats. Not objectionable but it is there
just the same. Keeps my hand from getting sweaty on the stick. Just don't
get much heat, temperature is warm (just) and airflow is certainly there,
but not a blast of hot air by any means. Greg
On 12/26/07, Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> That is surprising. My heater would burn my legs to a frinzy if I pulled
> it full on. I use about two clicks on the heat cable to get plenty of heat
> on the feet. I have to stuff rags in around the canopy sides to keep the
> cold air out to be comfortable however. Your heat must come in somewhere
> different than lower half of the firewall.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Williams
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:21 AM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV-List: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing
>
>
> Personally, I haven't found that the stock heat source is anywhere hot
> enough to overheat my legs. Fact is, I'd like to get more heat for our RV-7
> up here in Washington. No warm/cold mixer box. Just pull knob full on and
> leave it. Wear good socks & sweatshirt. Then we fly and have FUN!!
>
> On 12/25/07, *Paul Besing* wrote:
>
> Anyone come up with a good place to run the duct for the cabin heat? Just
> about anywhere up front will burn my legs, and haven't quite figured a way
> to get the heat throughout the cabin. Was thinking of using the warm/cold
> mixer box that Van's sells, and could then run heat through the vents.
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-4 N73DD "Sunny"
> Arizona
>
>
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing |
Hi Greg,
I failed to put the aileron boots in before I connected everything together
so I get some cold air here also. When it is cold, we fly with a towel
around the bottom portion of the sticks to block it out. I purchased the
boots from Abbey at Flight Line Interiors, and one day I will get them
installed.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing
I've got cold air coming in from the wing roots from up the control stick
boot and around the edges of the seats. Not objectionable but it is there
just the same. Keeps my hand from getting sweaty on the stick. Just don't
get much heat, temperature is warm (just) and airflow is certainly there,
but not a blast of hot air by any means. Greg
On 12/26/07, Tim Bryan wrote:
That is surprising. My heater would burn my legs to a frinzy if I pulled it
full on. I use about two clicks on the heat cable to get plenty of heat on
the feet. I have to stuff rags in around the canopy sides to keep the cold
air out to be comfortable however. Your heat must come in somewhere
different than lower half of the firewall.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing
Personally, I haven't found that the stock heat source is anywhere hot
enough to overheat my legs. Fact is, I'd like to get more heat for our RV-7
up here in Washington. No warm/cold mixer box. Just pull knob full on and
leave it. Wear good socks & sweatshirt. Then we fly and have FUN!!
On 12/25/07, Paul Besing wrote:
Anyone come up with a good place to run the duct for the cabin heat? Just
about anywhere up front will burn my legs, and haven't quite figured a way
to get the heat throughout the cabin. Was thinking of using the warm/cold
mixer box that Van's sells, and could then run heat through the vents.
Thoughts?
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD "Sunny"
Arizona
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Cabin Heat Routing |
Greg Williams wrote:
> I've got cold air coming in from the wing roots from up the control stick
> boot and around the edges of the seats. Not objectionable but it is there
> just the same. Keeps my hand from getting sweaty on the stick. Just don't
> get much heat, temperature is warm (just) and airflow is certainly there,
> but not a blast of hot air by any means. Greg
Very easy to reduce the cold air from the wing roots, either with a
commercially-made set of aileron pushrod boots or with the home-made
variety:
http://thervjournal.com/cold.html#boots
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
There are a few engines that stagger timing slightly but the presumption is
that the manufacturer has decided that it improves the flame propagation and
has demonstrated that is does nothing harmful. If I remember correctly these
are mostly low compression engines.
I would be cautious going much below 22-23 degrees without some form of
"every" cylinder cht/egt monitoring.
By firing things a tad later one moves the flame process more towards the
exhaust cycle which means more heat goes that way and less goes into the
heads. One would not think it is that much but on a heat critical engine it
can be. Many of the 0-360 RVs do not possess the CHT cooling exchange to
climb out indefinitely. There was a line of Mercedes engines years ago that
would over-heat in 15 minutes irrespective of operating conditions if the
timing was not within a 3 deg range across its entire timing curve. I once
overhauled one of those engines twice learning this. The fix was to clean up
the gummed up centrifugal timing advance weights and get the timing dead on.
One critically important thing to do is make sure the flashing from casting
in the fin holes between the spark plugs is completely cleared out. Doing
this gave me 20 degs on the two cylinders which were fairly bad and 10 on
the one that was kinda bad.
All the opening and exit tweeks I tried did nada and the one thing I've
wanted to try but am not up to downing the airplane for that long, is to
increase the pressure reservoir size of the upper chamber. I have an
internal baffle roof which I think I can greatly improve upon but, that is a
lot of work that is a 50/50 shot at doing anything useful.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Braided steel brake lines |
After hearing of others that have run these down the gear leg successfully and
hearing of some brake line tragedies, I had a set made up for my 6A.
I got them - they look great....I put them on and I'm thinking they're too short.....There's
a nice gentle radius where the lower intersection fairing would
cover (kinda ahy I think they're too short).
Anyone have pictures of theirs - and/or the lengths of the ones that you had made
up?
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
I plan on changing out to the higher temp synthetic transmission fluid
discussed here (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) and in addition will change
over to the Viton O-rings
The following website has the o-ring listed:
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html
"Standard MS replacement for the caliper o-rings is MS28775-218.
The Viton O-ring upgrade is 2-218V-75 "
I can't state which brake assembly this is for other than it may be the
typical Vans brake.
What other O-rings might be needed for the master cylinders (?) is
unknown.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
I'm using DOT 4 brake fluid - which is glycol based and therefore does not
burn. On Doug Reeve's VAF site, do a search for DOT 4 Brake Fluid. I
bought a seal kit from an RV'er named Charlie Kuss which had all the EPDM
O-rings for the brake caliper, brake cylinders, and even the Matco parking
brake if you need it. I don't know if he still has kits, but he would have
all the sizes needed.
After seeing the brake line failure fire that Ed Anderson posted recently,
I'm glad I went with the DOT 4 fluid.
Dennis Glaeser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ron Lee (ronlee(at)pcisys.net)
Date: Wed Dec 26 - 2:18 PM
I plan on changing out to the higher temp synthetic transmission fluid
discussed here (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) and in addition will change
over to the Viton O-rings
The following website has the o-ring listed:
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html
"Standard MS replacement for the caliper o-rings is MS28775-218.
The Viton O-ring upgrade is 2-218V-75 "
I can't state which brake assembly this is for other than it may be the
typical Vans brake.
What other O-rings might be needed for the master cylinders (?) is
unknown.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
Iam confused, I can't find anything in the install manual about setting the
timing to 2 degrees btdc, it said to set it to 21 btdc. wrong?
Bob Lau
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
> After seeing the brake line failure fire that Ed Anderson posted recently,
> I'm glad I went with the DOT 4 fluid.
That thread on DOT fluid just made this more confusing. It seems that
DOT Brake fluid is not good in aircraft brake systems.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
I was always under the impression that 5606 hydraulic was the way to
go. I thought DOT was corrosive to aluminum??? Might be FOS (full of
sh**) on this one, but I do seem to recall 5606 was the way to go
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> After seeing the brake line failure fire that Ed Anderson posted
>> recently,
>> I'm glad I went with the DOT 4 fluid.
>
>
> That thread on DOT fluid just made this more confusing. It seems that
> DOT Brake fluid is not good in aircraft brake systems.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Upgraded Brake Fluid and O-rings |
It's funny how various issues get interwoven even if they're only slightly
related (in this case to aircraft brakes), but just to clarify the issues here
with regard to both the MIL-PRF-83282 high temp aircraft hydraulic (brake)
fluid and the Viton O-rings.
Naturally the O-rings in any hydraulic system (in a brake system that means
all of them from the master cylinders down to the calipers) must be
"compatible" with the fluid wetting them. Let's take the MIL-H-5606 fluid. We
all
know that it is "compatible", thru testing and in use for decades with Nitrile
(Buna-n) synthetic rubber O-rings.
Nitrile to its credit (it helped win a war after all) has good low
temperature properties, but unfortunately has poor high temperature properties
(at
least when compared to newer fluorocarbon materials). Viton is such a new
material. It sacrifices a wee bit of low temperature elasticity (remember the
Columbia booster) for a substantial increase in high temperature margin. This
is good for things that get hot (brake calipers) and not really necessary for
other applications, so long as the "compatibility" thing is still there.
Viton 75 durometer is compatible with both MIL-H-5606 and MIL-PRF-83282 fluids,
as well as others (see Ace Seal website or other similar compatibility charts
for these elastomers). Harder (greater durometer) Vitons have even less
rebound at low temperatures.
Now I know that some in the Long Ez crowd and the Rocket lists say that you
can use various other fluids, from DOT4/5 to Hershey's chocolate syrup, but
please be prudent. It helps to know what you are doing here, because your
safety is a stake. Perhaps someone's favorite fluid may in fact be a
repackaging of the real stuff, but why take the chance?
The chosen fluid needs to do the job over the entire expected temperature
range and be compatible with all of your O-rings. The MIL-PRF-83282 fluid was
developed to replace MIL-H-5606 in all applications and all of the
compatibility tests have been done five decades ago (at taxpayer expense) when
the
military solved this problem for their aircraft.
The O-rings merely need to be compatible with the fluid and not take a
compression set at the temperature that they will experience in service. Heat
soaked calipers after a down wind landing on a short strip can do a number on
Nitrile. It just takes one time for them to take a compression set at
excessive temperature and they are compromised (out-of-round) forevermore.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RE: Aircraft painting, Central Florida |
If you are in Central Florida, try Florida Aircraft Painting run by Gerry
Butterworth 863-534-3626 at Bartow Airport. RV's start around $5,500 and go up
depending on how fancy you want. I paid a little more (two years ago) for a
two color on white metallic teal with painted 12 inch letters. Came out nice
and helped me win Reserve Grand Champion Sun n' Fun 2006, Outstanding
Airplane - Homebuilt Sun n' Fun 2007 and Third Place - Metal Copperstate 2007.
(a
couple of pictures at www.petesrvaviationproducts.com)
Pete in Clearwater
RV-6 all electric panel
**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally |
More info here...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html#BrakeFluid
Purchase it here...
http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Dudley
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally
I may have missed the post that mentions where to purchase Mil-H-83282
brake fluid. Could someone tell me where I can purchase it?
Thanks in advance.
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
Kyle Boatright wrote:
Which leads to the next question:
What's a good way to purge the system of 5606 and refill with ATF?
Would it suffice to cycle a pint (?) of ATF through the system by using
the brake pedals to push it through to force out the 5606?
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob J.
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally
A couple of years back I studied the spec sheets for Aeroshell
Fluid 30 and Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF and found they are virtually the same
(composition, flash point, viscosities, etc.). I would have to guess
that there are at least 20 RV's/Rockets I know of (mine included) that
have been flying for years without any leaks, drips, flames, etc. using
ATF in the brake lines.
If I were a betting man I'd bet the newer replacements for 5606
are rebranded automatic transmission fluid.
About $6.00/qt at your local Walmart.
Its been known that urine, bottled water, soft drinks will work as
a fluid in hydraulic systems in a pinch, FWIW... IMO opinion these
fluids are superior to 5606, as unfortunately original poster found out
the hard way. O-rings in the system wouldn't last long with these
fluids though.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andy Gold" <andygold(at)rkymtnhi.com> |
| Subject: | KITPLANES magazine back issues now at Builder's Bookstore |
KITPLANES Magazine back issues are now available from Builder's Bookstore at
http://www.actechbooks.com/kitplanes_MAGAZINE.htm
All 2007 issues are available individually as e-books or the entire 2007
collection on CD. The 2008 Homebuilt Aircraft Buyer's guide is also now
available as an e-Book.
2006 and prior years will be available soon, as well as compilations of
certain ongoing articles such as the 9 part composite series, machine shop
series, electrical series, and others.
Unfortunately due to a fire at KITPLANE's warehouse, paper back issues no
longer exist prior to the January 2008. Howver as the months go on
Builder's Bookstore will be the source for future paper back issues and all
e-book back issues too.
Thanks,
Andy Gold
Builder's Bookstore
www.buildersbooks.com
800 780-4115
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Agua Dulce CA |
I'd like to put in a good word for Agua Dulce Airpark in Santa Clarita, CA.
Coming back to Livermore from Tucson the other day with the Santa Anas full
force and blowing sand socking in the WJF/Lancaster area, L70 was a welcome
fuel stop and rest from the hammering I was about to get from there to home.
Nice place and sheltered from the wind being down in a little valley, at
least for the few moments I was there.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally |
Thanks Randy,
RHDudley
Do no archive
Randy Lervold wrote:
> More info here...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html#BrakeFluid
>
> Purchase it here...
> http://commerce.acilubes.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=7
>
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Dudley <mailto:rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally
>
> I may have missed the post that mentions where to purchase
> Mil-H-83282 brake fluid. Could someone tell me where I can
> purchase it?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Richard Dudley
> RV-6A flying
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>> Which leads to the next question:
>>
>> What's a good way to purge the system of 5606 and refill with
>> ATF? Would it suffice to cycle a pint (?) of ATF through the
>> system by using the brake pedals to push it through to force out
>> the 5606?
>>
>> KB
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Bob J. <mailto:rocketbob(at)gmail.com>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 10:27 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: synthetic brake fluid -- available locally
>>
>> A couple of years back I studied the spec sheets for
>> Aeroshell Fluid 30 and Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF and found they
>> are virtually the same (composition, flash point,
>> viscosities, etc.). I would have to guess that there are at
>> least 20 RV's/Rockets I know of (mine included) that have
>> been flying for years without any leaks, drips, flames, etc.
>> using ATF in the brake lines.
>>
>> If I were a betting man I'd bet the newer replacements for
>> 5606 are rebranded automatic transmission fluid.
>>
>> About $6.00/qt at your local Walmart.
>>
>> Its been known that urine, bottled water, soft drinks will
>> work as a fluid in hydraulic systems in a pinch, FWIW... IMO
>> opinion these fluids are superior to 5606, as unfortunately
>> original poster found out the hard way. O-rings in the
>> system wouldn't last long with these fluids though.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob Japundza
>> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aero Enhancements? |
Does anyone know if Steve is still in business? The website says under
construction and the telephone numbers are disconnected.
I bought a flat light strip ... like the ultravision kit but without the
raised edges so that it fits under the overlay on my RV-8A consolde lighting up
the reverse engraved writing for the switches. I need to replace it ...
seems to have broken where the wires attach ... not sure if that is just a broken
solder joint (not the naked eye) or more ???
Thanks !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
604 hrs
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Aero Enhancements? |
For lighting strips, you might also look at SteinAir ' they have some
nice
new solid state ones
HYPERLINK "http://steinair.com/lights.htm"http://steinair.com/lights.htm
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lenleg(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: RV-List: Aero Enhancements?
Does anyone know if Steve is still in business? The website says under
construction and the telephone numbers are disconnected.
I bought a flat light strip ... like the ultravision kit but without the
raised edges so that it fits under the overlay on my RV-8A consolde
lighting
up the reverse engraved writing for the switches. I need to replace it
...
seems to have broken where the wires attach ... not sure if that is just
a
broken solder joint (not the naked eye) or more ???
Thanks !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
604 hrs
top rated recipes and HYPERLINK
"http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003"
\neasy ways to stay in shape for winter.
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gat
or?RV-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
12/26/2007
5:26 PM
12/26/2007
5:26 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Flighttime Radio Show |
I will be co-hosting a new aviation radio show in Jacksonville on Saturday
mornings from 9:00 until 10:00 AM Eastern time starting January 5. It
should be a lot of fun. It will be available online. The online link is on
the web site at www.flighttimeradio.com. Feel free to pass this around to
your airplane loving friends and potential advertisers.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | -8A Engine Control Cable routing |
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
Tried this on VAF but got no response.
I hope to hang the engine this weekend, so want to punch as many
firewall holes as I can before mounting. All was going well IAW Vans
Firewall Forward instructions til I got to the engine control cables,
where I was referenced to Drawing 21. There, I observed a serious
caution about making precise measurements using coat hanger wire
forward, and "Typical" locations for the holes. Anyone have words
regarding their experience? Is this one of those "TLAR" (That Looks
About Right) measurements, or do I have to get it to a gnat's a**? If
the latter, what is that?
I have an Aerosport IO-360 horizantal induction engine and a Vans delux
RV-8 throttle quandrant.
Paul Valovich
N192NM LuJaRo
Ridgecrest, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | -8A Engine Control Cable routing |
Paul,
I cannot speak to the 8A specifically but my experience with this
issue on the 7A may be helpful.
1. I connected a number of items prior to routing the controls. Mistake!!
If I had it to do over I would have hung the engine, located the cable
penetrations and then removed the Engine along with the mount to drill
and finish the holes. (A sawhorse under the tail and some sand bags will
lift the nose so that the mount can be removed engine and all.) Try that
on a 7 or 8!!
2. Vans instructions are generic and probably do not include the
specific combination of parts you will be using. Sensors, Gascolator,
Relays, Ignition, back-up battery, parking brake valve, grounds .... All
of these items will need a home, some will need firewall mods that are
easier done while the firewall is flat on the bench. Of course that is
only possible with very precise planning!!
3. I probably would have saved some bloodshed and aggravation if I had
planned better and then removed the engine and mount to allow finishing
the firewall mods.
4. As for the precise location of penetrations I carefully located and
drilled for the throttle cable (may have been mixture) only to find that
it was too high on the interior. I ended up modifying the heater outlet
box. So measure twice (or more and cut once).
5. I did leave the top skin off until almost all of the plumbing and
wiring was complete, I was therefore able to get to both sides of the
firewall with some stretching.
We are all building production prototypes. The production model always
goes much faster. If you can find someone using the same goodies as you
are then their information may be more precise.
Good luck!
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A (working on wheel pants)
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | -8A Engine Control Cable routing |
I would have to agree with this analysis. I installed my engine (-6) before
any holes were located on the firewall. For the most part this was easy
enough. The control cables on the other hand were a real bummer. I
intended to install little eyeball fittings that clamped on the control
cable. This was terribly difficult with the engine in place and I abandoned
the idea. Most everything else is easy enough to drill or mount.
However be really cautious about where the exhaust system, and other parts
are located if they are not installed on the engine when you decide on
routing of the cables. For me the ones that were important to get in the
right spot were the prop control and the throttle. Some of the others have
more room to curve a little if not lined up just right.
Just my thoughts from my experience.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Hoover
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 2:39 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: -8A Engine Control Cable routing
>
>
> Paul,
> I cannot speak to the 8A specifically but my experience with this
> issue on the 7A may be helpful.
> 1. I connected a number of items prior to routing the controls. Mistake!!
> If I had it to do over I would have hung the engine, located the cable
> penetrations and then removed the Engine along with the mount to drill
> and finish the holes. (A sawhorse under the tail and some sand bags will
> lift the nose so that the mount can be removed engine and all.) Try that
> on a 7 or 8!!
> 2. Vans instructions are generic and probably do not include the
> specific combination of parts you will be using. Sensors, Gascolator,
> Relays, Ignition, back-up battery, parking brake valve, grounds .... All
> of these items will need a home, some will need firewall mods that are
> easier done while the firewall is flat on the bench. Of course that is
> only possible with very precise planning!!
> 3. I probably would have saved some bloodshed and aggravation if I had
> planned better and then removed the engine and mount to allow finishing
> the firewall mods.
> 4. As for the precise location of penetrations I carefully located and
> drilled for the throttle cable (may have been mixture) only to find that
> it was too high on the interior. I ended up modifying the heater outlet
> box. So measure twice (or more and cut once).
> 5. I did leave the top skin off until almost all of the plumbing and
> wiring was complete, I was therefore able to get to both sides of the
> firewall with some stretching.
>
> We are all building production prototypes. The production model always
> goes much faster. If you can find someone using the same goodies as you
> are then their information may be more precise.
>
> Good luck!
>
> --
> Ralph C. Hoover
> RV7A (working on wheel pants)
> hooverra at verizon dot net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/26/07 |
Hi All-
Re:>I plan on changing out to the higher temp synthetic transmission fluid
>discussed here (Mobil 1 Synthetic ATF) and in addition will change
>over to the Viton O-rings
>
Doing research leading to having some brake seals custom made for a different aircraft
I discovered that Viton seals are not as durable as nitrile in reciprocating
applications. This is, of course, precisely the situation with the brake
piston / cylinder seal. I can't quantify the degradation of seal longevity
with a switch to Viton, but the folks that make them will 'fess up if the right
questions are asked.
FYI-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 33 Msgs - 12/26/07 |
In a message dated 12/28/2007 4:03:01 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net writes:
Doing research leading to having some brake seals custom made for a
different aircraft I discovered that Viton seals are not as durable as nitrile
in
reciprocating applications.
===================================================
This is absolutely true, but the emphasis is on the word "reciprocating". A
reciprocating application would be on a cylinder rod seal in your master
cylinder or a motorcycle front fork tube, where there is substantial motion.
Engineering is about making valid tradeoffs.
In the case of the caliper piston it moves only slightly in normal
application and retraction, basically rolling the O-ring elastically. This is
also
the reason for using the lower 75 durometer Viton.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 12/29/2007 10:45:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wnorth(at)sdccd.edu writes:
It would be interesting to compare the relaxation characteristics of viton.
In the buna-n seals part of what retracts the piston is the seal relaxing.
It only takes a few thousandths of an inch, but that is enough to make the
pads last or not.
==============================================================
I'll rely on Wheeler to do the comprehensive analysis in this regard while I
cover the empirical side of the experiment. I look forward to his report.
Maybe I can read it in the light given off by my brakes being on fire. ;o)
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Wheeler, is correct - the incident of RV brake fires are inconsequential
- less you happen to be one of the incidents{:>). No fun being the
statistic!
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: viton seals
In a message dated 12/29/2007 10:45:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
wnorth(at)sdccd.edu writes:
It would be interesting to compare the relaxation characteristics of
viton.
In the buna-n seals part of what retracts the piston is the seal
relaxing.
It only takes a few thousandths of an inch, but that is enough to
make the
pads last or not.
============
I'll rely on Wheeler to do the comprehensive analysis in this regard
while I cover the empirical side of the experiment. I look forward to
his report. Maybe I can read it in the light given off by my brakes
being on fire. ;o)
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
top rated recipes and easy ways to stay in shape for winter.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AC references |
_http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at308/Technical_Links/Ac43-13-1B/CH9_2
.pdf_
(http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/at/courses/at308/Technical_Links/Ac43-13-1B/CH9_2.pdf)
Read 9-27 b.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Temp Brake Fluid |
_http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm_
(http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm)
_http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Study4.h
tm_
(http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Study4.htm)
_http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40_
(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40)
_http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4_ (http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4)
_http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm_
(http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm)
But, please also consider that not all O-ring breaches resulting in fluid
leaks develop into full fledged brake fires. They can be caught during routine
inspections and preflights when they can be remedied.
I caught my original problem with the original Nitrile O-rings on the tarmac
at Henderson Exec preparing to depart. It was an extremely inconvenient
time to do a proper brake repair, so I elected to fly home and restrained my use
of the brakes upon landing. There is no need for any of you to repeat this
exercise.
If you wish to not avail yourself of the opportunity to upgrade your brakes
using very simple available means then all I can't do anything further but
wish you all a happy new year and blue skies.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Schreck" <ronschreck(at)windstream.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Temp Brake Fluid |
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification
for the o-rings needed?
RS
_http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm_
(http://www.thunderbirdfield.org/author.htm)
_http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Stu
dy4.h
tm_
(http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/maintenance/aarpe/HumanPerformance/Stu
dy4.htm)
_http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40_
(http://www.vansairforce.com/community/printthread.php?t=4737&pp=40)
_http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4_
(http://flying.karmy.com/?cat=4)
_http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm_
(http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_178.htm)
But, please also consider that not all O-ring breaches resulting
in fluid
leaks develop into full fledged brake fires. They can be caught
during routine
inspections and preflights when they can be remedied.
I caught my original problem with the original Nitrile O-rings on
the tarmac
at Henderson Exec preparing to depart. It was an extremely
inconvenient
time to do a proper brake repair, so I elected to fly home and
restrained my use
of the brakes upon landing. There is no need for any of you to
repeat this
exercise.
If you wish to not avail yourself of the opportunity to upgrade
your brakes
using very simple available means then all I can't do anything
further but
wish you all a happy new year and blue skies.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: High Temp Brake Fluid |
In a message dated 12/30/2007 2:03:31 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
ronschreck(at)windstream.net writes:
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification for
the o-rings needed?
=============================================
It all in the archives and in one of the references I gave. Look for the
term V75 and you should get there.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High Temp Brake Fluid |
Info here...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Maintenance/maintenance.html#BrakeFluid
RL
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Schreck
To: RV List
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: High Temp Brake Fluid
Thanks for the info. Do you have a part number or size specification
for the o-rings needed?
RS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
of
thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall that
there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not certain.
I
have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not found it so far.
Does anyone know where and when that was published? Are there any data
comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason for the questions is
a
friend is planning to build one or the other starting after SnF and
quite
naturally, I am trying to convince him to build the
RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
aviation
is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning that way.
Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
I'm actually mounting the Precision Eagle System components the -8
airframe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
Look here for the master cylinder parts list:
http://www.parker.com/ag/wbd/Cleveland/pdf/WB03c.pdf
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <d-burton(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Hi Gordon,
January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
DaveB
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon or Marge
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues of
thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall that
there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not certain. I
have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not found it so far.
Does anyone know where and when that was published? Are there any data
comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason for the questions is a
friend is planning to build one or the other starting after SnF and quite
naturally, I am trying to convince him to build the
RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang aviation
is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning that way.
Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
I'm actually mounting the Precision Eagle System components the -8 airframe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
David Burton wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
>
>
> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>
> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>
> Its available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>
> DaveB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
>
> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
> build the
>
> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Gordon Comfort
>
> N363GC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)claver.demon.co.uk> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
"homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
Does anyone build any T18 today ????
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: 30 December 2007 23:36
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
David Burton wrote:
> Hi Gordon,
>
>
>
> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>
> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>
> It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>
> DaveB
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
>
> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
> build the
>
> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
> mistake.
>
>
>
> Gordon Comfort
>
> N363GC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Yes and yes.
There's a very active Thorplist on Yahoo, & there are actually *2* kit
suppliers for the T & the wider bodied, modified airfoil S model. (Also
a good flying plane; 90% of RV performance for ~1/2 the price in the
already flying homebuilt market.)
Charlie
jan wrote:
>
> If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
> "homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
>
> Does anyone build any T18 today ????
>
> Jan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: 30 December 2007 23:36
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>
>
> Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
> you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
> better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
> get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
> project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
> correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
> a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
> that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
> homebuilders. :-)
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> David Burton wrote:
>> Hi Gordon,
>>
>>
>>
>> January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
>>
>> Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
>>
>> It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
>>
>> DaveB
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Gordon or Marge
>> *Sent:* Sunday, December 30, 2007 2:36 PM
>> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
>>
>>
>>
>> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against a
>> Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the virtues
>> of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem to recall
>> that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that I'm not
>> certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994 and not
>> found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was published?
>> Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang II? The reason
>> for the questions is a friend is planning to build one or the other
>> starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to convince him to
>> build the
>>
>> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
>> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
>> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a dreadful
>> mistake.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gordon Comfort
>>
>> N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Try not to refer to the decision as a 'dreadful mistake'. Hopefully,
you're joking about that. I agree that for most people, the -7 is a
better choice, but the M-II is a good airplane & if he feels like he can
get 'local support' it might not be that bad a choice. I owned a M-II
project for a while & I've flown several examples. If they are built
correctly (much easier with the newer kits of pre-formed parts) they fly
a lot like an RV. And you gotta admit, there are so many RVs flying now
that building one almost looks like buying a Cessna to real he-man
homebuilders. :-)
Charlie
Charlie: That was a bit of hyperbole there at the end. I recognize that
for many people the MustangII is a good choice. I don't know what their
status is but my friend and I will visit them soon and find out. It should
help to clarify what is actually involved in building one. I made several
flights with another friend who had built a II using a Buick engine and with
his first powerplant installation I could literally fly circles around him
with my 160hp RV-4. He improved his performance with a different prop and a
new build on the engine but the installation was fairly draggy. He lost
that airplane but has since built another with a 160hp CS setup but I have
not been able to fly with him yet. It will likely be spring before that
happens. Thank you for your input.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Burton
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 6:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
Hi Gordon,
January 1988 Kitplanes published an article:
Showdown at Checkpoint Charlie, the Mustang II vs. the RV-6.
It's available for free if you are an EAA member. Just give them a call.
DaveB
Dave: Thank you for your response. Man, that has been a while ago. Time
flies.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jan
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
"homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
Does anyone build any T18 today ????
Jan
Jan: You are probably right, though I don't know what airfoil the T-18
uses. The -18 was likely the best available at the time, although the
Mustang II has been around for a while. It would be interesting to know
about new construction and whether or not they are using the Riblett
airfoil. Thanks for the reply.
Gordon
P.S. Since writing the above I looked through my file cabinet and found a
T-18 info pack that included a pretty good 3-view drawing. Scaling the
drawing (admittedly risky) it looks like the airfoil is about a 12% section.
Van's are 13.5%, quite a bit more. The span is given as 20' 10", the wing
chord as 4' 2" and the wing area as 86 square feet. If the wing is 12% thick
then max thickness is in the order of 6". The cover letter with the info was
dated 4 Mar 75 and the drawing was revised 2 Feb 66, so I must have
considered it when I was thinking about building. The RV-4 was started in
1982.
GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Ross" <dcr(at)fdltownhomes.com> |
Guys: Today I begin the ugly task of moving my 10 pound battery from the
firewall to behind the baggage compartment. I have an 0-360A4M with a Van's
fixed pitched Sensenich prop and a nose wheel empty weight of 288 pounds.
After reading Van's info indicating 315 is the maximum allowable, I decided
to bite the bullet and move the battery aft. My figuring indicates that the
battery movement will take 25 pounds off the nose wheel and move the empty
CG aft 11/2 inches. My empty CG now is 76.05 at 1146 pounds and my most aft
min fuel CG is 82.04 at max gross of 1750. Anyone see something I don't
see. Dan, N65XX with 130 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
On 14:35 2007-12-30 "Gordon or Marge" wrote:
> Help, please in trying
> to prevent him from making a dreadful mistake.
Having flown in both an RV-6 and a Mustang II, I have to say that building
a M-II would certainly not be a "dreadful mistake". I recall that it flew
a lot like an RV-6. The cockpit felt tighter on the M-II... Couldn't say
whether it was the overall width or the shape of the canopy, it was a few
years ago that I flew in it. I'm 190 lbs and the owner was somewhere near
200. We were cozy, but not uncomfortable. Performance numbers were
comparable, and the control feel was almost identical.
I considered the M-II quite seriously before starting my -7. At the end of
the day, I chose the -7 because there were a lot of people locally building
RV's, and thought it would be more important to have that pool of knowledge
to draw from on my first project. Also, my plan is to fly formation with
other RV's, so it's better to have a plane that matches.
Personally I like the tapered wing on the M-II better than the Hershey bar
on the RV's, but it wasn't a large enough factor in my decision I guess.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A CG change |
First...you are already 27 pounds under the max. Are you certain that
you have a problem
that requires moving the battery aft?
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Ross
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 7:28 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-9A CG change
Guys: Today I begin the ugly task of moving my 10 pound battery from
the firewall to behind the baggage compartment. I have an 0-360A4M with
a Van's fixed pitched Sensenich prop and a nose wheel empty weight of
288 pounds. After reading Van's info indicating 315 is the maximum
allowable, I decided to bite the bullet and move the battery aft. My
figuring indicates that the battery movement will take 25 pounds off the
nose wheel and move the empty CG aft 11/2 inches. My empty CG now is
76.05 at 1146 pounds and my most aft min fuel CG is 82.04 at max gross
of 1750. Anyone see something I don't see. Dan, N65XX with 130 hours.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
I forwarded to the Mustang group to get an opinion. The question on the
Mustang group comes up often and the general consenses is usually that the
Mustang has better performance with the same engine, but is more work to
build. One Mustangers opinion follows.
-----Original Message-----
From: mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Kirk Harrell
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: M.Aero: FW: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
First of all, the "Checkpoint Charley" article was a
comparison of a new, factory prepped, kit bird and a
more used scratch built MII. There was no evaluation
between relative aerodynamic cleanup or other
variables that would add value to the comparison.
My Mustang II is scratch built, and the leading edges
of the wing are not properly formed, and it stalls
hot, about 70 mph. The stall is not scary, it is just
a stall that feels like the stall in a Cherokee 140.
Yes, I land it faster,... so? Thousands upon
thousands of people land on runways all over the world
at much faster speeds every day, and never give it a
thought. Get over the fact that your RV can land
slower. The MII is great in a crosswind and I would
rather have that capability than be able to land 10 -
15 mph slower.
I raced the first leg of the 2002 Air Venture Cup
(engine problems resulted in a DNF for the second
leg). There were three RV-8's, one RV-6, one RV-6A
and an RV-4 in my class, Formula FX which is fixed
gear up to 360 cu. in. engines. Mine, a stock
IO360-B1E 180 hp, with Hartzell prop.
I finished the first leg fifth, behind two Glasair I's
with same engine as mine, a turbocharged Glasair II
with same engine as mine, and was just barely nipped
by a Longeze for fourth... No RV's in front of me. I
think that is more conclusive than the "Checkpoint
Charlie" article.
The RV is a fine plane, I've flown the 4, 6A, and 8.
compared to my MII I think they are somewhat lighter
on the ailerons, but they don't fly that much
different (except for going fighteningly slow in the
pattern! :-) ).
The Mustang II is a fine bird as well, and does not
deserve the reputation the RV crowd is trying to give
it. Many Mustang builders have flown their birds for
20+ years, and put thousands of hours on them. They
will tell you they love it more every time they fly
it. I've only flown mine since 1998, and I love
flying it, and love the way it flies.
I've flown a lot of mile cross country in formation
with RV's. It's a lot of fun, especially when we
compare fuel tickets when we stop for gas.
Kirk Harrell
MII N22YR
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
For a *very* thorough writeup of DOT brake fluid and it's corrosive
properties, please reference a NIST document:
http://www.brakestrips.net/docs/nistir6233_absrpt.pdf
The short answer seems to be that plain DOT fluid exceeds the corrosion
resistance spec for aluminum by a factor of 10.
Additionally, all automotive ABS modules that I'm aware of are made from
aluminum which would further indicate that there's no problem with DOT
brake fluid and aluminum compatibility.
Mike Cencula
RV-7A fuse
Scott wrote:
>
> I was always under the impression that 5606 hydraulic was the way to
> go. I thought DOT was corrosive to aluminum??? Might be FOS (full of
> sh**) on this one, but I do seem to recall 5606 was the way to go
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
Not to be a bummer but very sadly the Mustang II builder pilot Van flew against
was lost at a later date with his passenger I recall. The facts I don't recall
but something about his seat belt coming undone doing acro comes to mind. Not
trying to be a bummer first at the year but PLEASE be careful in 2008; lets
make this the safest year ever. All the best Happy New Years, George
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
I looked in Kit Planes Kits issue, they list the cocpit width at 40 inches......that
is VERY narrow! If you stagger the seat backs maybe not so bad?
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Kraut <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:08:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
I forwarded to the Mustang group to get an opinion. The question on the
Mustang group comes up often and the general consenses is usually that the
Mustang has better performance with the same engine, but is more work to
build. One Mustangers opinion follows.
-----Original Message-----
From: mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Kirk Harrell
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: M.Aero: FW: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
First of all, the "Checkpoint Charley" article was a
comparison of a new, factory prepped, kit bird and a
more used scratch built MII. There was no evaluation
between relative aerodynamic cleanup or other
variables that would add value to the comparison.
My Mustang II is scratch built, and the leading edges
of the wing are not properly formed, and it stalls
hot, about 70 mph. The stall is not scary, it is just
a stall that feels like the stall in a Cherokee 140.
Yes, I land it faster,... so? Thousands upon
thousands of people land on runways all over the world
at much faster speeds every day, and never give it a
thought. Get over the fact that your RV can land
slower. The MII is great in a crosswind and I would
rather have that capability than be able to land 10 -
15 mph slower.
I raced the first leg of the 2002 Air Venture Cup
(engine problems resulted in a DNF for the second
leg). There were three RV-8's, one RV-6, one RV-6A
and an RV-4 in my class, Formula FX which is fixed
gear up to 360 cu. in. engines. Mine, a stock
IO360-B1E 180 hp, with Hartzell prop.
I finished the first leg fifth, behind two Glasair I's
with same engine as mine, a turbocharged Glasair II
with same engine as mine, and was just barely nipped
by a Longeze for fourth... No RV's in front of me. I
think that is more conclusive than the "Checkpoint
Charlie" article.
The RV is a fine plane, I've flown the 4, 6A, and 8.
compared to my MII I think they are somewhat lighter
on the ailerons, but they don't fly that much
different (except for going fighteningly slow in the
pattern! :-) ).
The Mustang II is a fine bird as well, and does not
deserve the reputation the RV crowd is trying to give
it. Many Mustang builders have flown their birds for
20+ years, and put thousands of hours on them. They
will tell you they love it more every time they fly
it. I've only flown mine since 1998, and I love
flying it, and love the way it flies.
I've flown a lot of mile cross country in formation
with RV's. It's a lot of fun, especially when we
compare fuel tickets when we stop for gas.
Kirk Harrell
MII N22YR
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II |
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
The Mustang II web site lists it as 39", same as a Cherokee, I believe.
What is the honest width of a -7?
John Jessen
40328
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of scott bilinski
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
I looked in Kit Planes Kits issue, they list the cocpit width at 40
inches......that is VERY narrow! If you stagger the seat backs maybe not so
bad?
Scott Bilinski
RV-8a
----- Original Message ----
From: Brian Kraut <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 10:08:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
I forwarded to the Mustang group to get an opinion. The question on the
Mustang group comes up often and the general consenses is usually that the
Mustang has better performance with the same engine, but is more work to
build. One Mustangers opinion follows.
-----Original Message-----
From: mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com [mailto:mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Kirk Harrell
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: M.Aero: FW: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II
First of all, the "Checkpoint Charley" article was a comparison of a new,
factory prepped, kit bird and a more used scratch built MII. There was no
evaluation between relative aerodynamic cleanup or other variables that
would add value to the comparison.
My Mustang II is scratch built, and the leading edges of the wing are not
properly formed, and it stalls hot, about 70 mph. The stall is not scary, it
is just a stall that feels like the stall in a Cherokee 140.
Yes, I land it faster,... so? Thousands upon thousands of people land on
runways all over the world at much faster speeds every day, and never give
it a thought. Get over the fact that your RV can land slower. The MII is
great in a crosswind and I would rather have that capability than be able to
land 10 -
15 mph slower.
I raced the first leg of the 2002 Air Venture Cup (engine problems resulted
in a DNF for the second leg). There were three RV-8's, one RV-6, one RV-6A
and an RV-4 in my class, Formula FX which is fixed gear up to 360 cu. in.
engines. Mine, a stock IO360-B1E 180 hp, with Hartzell prop.
I finished the first leg fifth, behind two Glasair I's with same engine as
mine, a turbocharged Glasair II with same engine as mine, and was just
barely nipped by a Longeze for fourth... No RV's in front of me. I think
that is more conclusive than the "Checkpoint Charlie" article.
The RV is a fine plane, I've flown the 4, 6A, and 8.
compared to my MII I think they are somewhat lighter on the ailerons, but
they don't fly that much different (except for going fighteningly slow in
the pattern! :-) ).
The Mustang II is a fine bird as well, and does not deserve the reputation
the RV crowd is trying to give it. Many Mustang builders have flown their
birds for
20+ years, and put thousands of hours on them. They
will tell you they love it more every time they fly it. I've only flown mine
since 1998, and I love flying it, and love the way it flies.
I've flown a lot of mile cross country in formation with RV's. It's a lot of
fun, especially when we compare fuel tickets when we stop for gas.
Kirk Harrell
MII N22YR
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank Stringham <fstringham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV-7 vs Mustang II...7 width |
went and measured my RV7A and it was 40 inches at the shoulder position.
Frank @ SGU RV7A
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II> Date
ssage posted by: John Jessen > > The Mustang II web site
lists it as 39", same as a Cherokee, I believe.> What is the honest width o
f a -7? > > John Jessen> 40328 > > -----Original Message-----> From: owner-
rv-list-server(at)matronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] O
n Behalf Of scott bilinski> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:13 AM> To: rv
-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II> > --> RV-Lis
t message posted by: scott bilinski > > I looked in Kit
Planes Kits issue, they list the cocpit width at 40> inches......that is V
ERY narrow! If you stagger the seat backs maybe not so> bad?> > Scott Bilin
ski> RV-8a> > > > ----- Original Message ----> From: Brian Kraut <brian.kra
ut(at)engalt.com>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007
10:08:25 PM> Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II> > --> RV-List messag
e posted by: "Brian Kraut" > > I forwarded to the M
ustang group to get an opinion. The question on the> Mustang group comes up
often and the general consenses is usually that the> Mustang has better pe
rformance with the same engine, but is more work to> build. One Mustangers
opinion follows.> > -----Original Message-----> From: mustangaero@yahoogrou
ps.com [mailto:mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com]On> Behalf Of Kirk Harrell> Sent
: Sunday, December 30, 2007 11:58 PM> To: mustangaero(at)yahoogroups.com> Subj
ect: Re: M.Aero: FW: RV-List: RV-7 vs Mustang II> > First of all, the "Chec
kpoint Charley" article was a comparison of a new,> factory prepped, kit bi
rd and a more used scratch built MII. There was no> evaluation between rela
tive aerodynamic cleanup or other variables that> would add value to the co
mparison.> > My Mustang II is scratch built, and the leading edges of the w
ing are not> properly formed, and it stalls hot, about 70 mph. The stall is
not scary, it> is just a stall that feels like the stall in a Cherokee 140
.> Yes, I land it faster,... so? Thousands upon thousands of people land on
> runways all over the world at much faster speeds every day, and never giv
e> it a thought. Get over the fact that your RV can land slower. The MII is
> great in a crosswind and I would rather have that capability than be able
to> land 10 -> 15 mph slower.> > I raced the first leg of the 2002 Air Ven
ture Cup (engine problems resulted> in a DNF for the second leg). There wer
e three RV-8's, one RV-6, one RV-6A> and an RV-4 in my class, Formula FX wh
ich is fixed gear up to 360 cu. in.> engines. Mine, a stock IO360-B1E 180 h
p, with Hartzell prop.> > I finished the first leg fifth, behind two Glasai
r I's with same engine as> mine, a turbocharged Glasair II with same engine
as mine, and was just> barely nipped by a Longeze for fourth... No RV's in
front of me. I think> that is more conclusive than the "Checkpoint Charlie
" article.> > The RV is a fine plane, I've flown the 4, 6A, and 8.> compare
d to my MII I think they are somewhat lighter on the ailerons, but> they do
n't fly that much different (except for going fighteningly slow in> the pat
tern! :-) ).> > The Mustang II is a fine bird as well, and does not deserve
the reputation> the RV crowd is trying to give it. Many Mustang builders h
ave flown their> birds for> 20+ years, and put thousands of hours on them.
They> will tell you they love it more every time they fly it. I've only flo
wn mine> since 1998, and I love flying it, and love the way it flies.> > I'
ve flown a lot of mile cross country in formation with RV's. It's a lot of>
fun, especially when we compare fuel tickets when we stop for gas.> > Kirk
Harrell> MII N22YR> > > > > > Be a better friend, newshound, and> know-it-
all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i
-========================
===========> > >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 vs Mustang II |
John Jessen wrote:
>
> The Mustang II web site lists it as 39", same as a Cherokee, I believe.
> What is the honest width of a -7?
>
> John Jessen
> 40328
39", plus some small change.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shemp <shempdowling(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone know Rigaud Nathan, N808TB |
Im still looking for a paricular paint color. Does anyone know him?
Shemp
n915jd
Gordon or Marge wrote:
> Several years ago Van wrote about a flight he made in his RV-6 against
> a Mustang II flown by a gent who had shot off his mouth about the
> virtues of thin wings and the lack of virtue of thick wings. I seem
> to recall that there was a side by side speed comparison but of that
> I'm not certain. I have looked back through my RVators to mid 1994
> and not found it so far. Does anyone know where and when that was
> published? Are there any data comparing the RV-7 with the Mustang
> II? The reason for the questions is a friend is planning to build one
> or the other starting after SnF and quite naturally, I am trying to
> convince him to build the
> RV. He has fallen prey to the "thin wing" idea and since Mustang
> aviation is slightly more than a hour's drive from here he is leaning
> that way. Help, please in trying to prevent him from making a
> dreadful mistake.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
> I'm actually mounting the Precision Eagle System components the -8
> airframe.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Anyone know Rigaud Nathan, N808TB |
Shemp,
Try this.
http://www.2bumsaircraft.com/
N808TB is Assigned
Aircraft Description
*Serial Number* 72210 *Type Registration* Individual
*Manufacturer Name*
RIGAUD NATHAN
*Certificate Issue Date*
03/30/2007
*Model*
RV-7
*Status*
Valid
*Type Aircraft*
Fixed Wing Single-Engine
*Type Engine*
Reciprocating
*Pending Number Change*
None
*Dealer*
No
*Date Change Authorized*
None
*Mode S Code*
52600500
*MFR Year*
2005
*Fractional Owner*
NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Owner
*Name* MULLANEY JOHN
*Street*
PO BOX 123
*City*
SUNAPEE *State* NEW HAMPSHIRE *Zip Code* 03782-0123
*County*
SULLIVAN
*Country*
UNITED STATES
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Need some reference material help |
| From: | "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com> |
Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
internet.
I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
Thx
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some reference material help |
I don't get it either. I tried adjusting it a while back and never
could get it.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
McFarland, Randy wrote:
>
> Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
> internet.
> I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
> which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
> Thx
> Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Anyone know Rigaud Nathan, N808TB |
*
Nathan Rigaud:** nathanr(at)2bumsaircraft.com*
* *
*
**772-713-1435
**Nathan Rigaud - Co-Founder, Pilot and A&P Mechanic. Nathan currently
lives in
Sebastian, Florida where we operate 2 Bums Aircraft. Nathan is a ATP
rated pilot and has
taught aerobatics, tailwheel, primary, and much more. He has his A&P
certificate and has
restored and built many different types of planes. He also enjoys
building and flying large
scale models. *
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Need some reference material help |
Randy,
Legend says rise, not drop. More than one veteran IA told me not to worry if
I did not see that. Some sources stress testing at 650 rpm idle.
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McFarland, Randy
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:04 PM
Subject: RV-List: Need some reference material help
Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
internet.
I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
Thx
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some reference material help |
Just to clarify things...
With a carb, you should see a 25-50 rpm increase in rpm before the engine
dies as you lean it from idle.
To enrich the idle setting, turn the screw out (counterclockwise). To lean
the setting, turn it in (clockwise).
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:56 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>
> Randy,
> Legend says rise, not drop. More than one veteran IA told me not to worry
> if
> I did not see that. Some sources stress testing at 650 rpm idle.
> Dale
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McFarland, Randy
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:04 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>
>
>
> Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
> internet.
> I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
> which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
> Thx
> Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | EMAproducts(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | RV-7 VS Mustang II etc |
In a message dated 12/31/2007 12:01:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
If my memory serves me right was it not a "thin" wing T18 that was the first
"homebuilt" that flew around the world ??
Indeed you are right. I was VP of the EAA Chapt 92 during that era, now
called the Don Taylor Chapter in SNA California. I was fortunate at Copperstate
Fly In 3 years ago to sit with Don & Lois at the Awards banquet. Wonderful
fmaily, and still consider Don & Lois good friends, even though hadn't seen
them in 25 years until Copperstate. That was Don's 2nd try at the around the
world flight, got stopped by WX in Japan a couple years before. He made it
round the world in '76 The plane is in the Museum at OSH. The T-18 and the
Mustang II are two different designs, both have been around for many years.
All three are nice flying planes,
Elbie
Elbie Mendenhall
President
EM Aviation, LLC
13411 NE Prairie Rd
Brush Prairie, WA 98606
360-260-0772
_http://www.riteangle.com_ (http://www.riteangle.com/)
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-9A CG change |
| From: | "Jim Ellis" <JEllis9847(at)aol.com> |
Dan,
I just went through a similar exercise with my 9A. The best place to start is
to weigh the plane with full fuel tanks. In my case the nose wheel weight was
361 pounds with full fuel. I have an O-360 and the same prop you are using.
If I read it correctly Vans info shows that the maximum nose gear weight is 325
pounds, not 315.
I thought about moving the battery from the firewall to behind the baggage compartment
but the weight of the battery (16 pounds) and the moment arm (about 160
inches) didn't bring the nose gear weight down to 325 pounds. I had to add
20 pounds of ballast under the empennage fairing (arm 208 inches). This produced
a measured nose wheel weight of 322 pounds, again with full fuel. The final
empty C.G. with ballast ended up at 79.11 inches.
Hope this helps.
Jim Ellis
RV-9A, flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=155293#155293
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some reference material help |
I believe that the idle screw only controls the mixture at idle. As soon
as you give it any throttle, the main jet kicks in and the idle circuit
is no longer working. It doesn't matter much in practice if you have the
right mixture at idle because you should be taxiing around with the
mixture so lean that it won't take much throttle without puking so that
you don't foul plugs. The so lean it pukes setting will keep you from
mistakenly taking off with a partially lean setting. It reminds you to
go full rich.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> Just to clarify things...
>
> With a carb, you should see a 25-50 rpm increase in rpm before the
> engine dies as you lean it from idle.
>
> To enrich the idle setting, turn the screw out (counterclockwise). To
> lean the setting, turn it in (clockwise).
>
> KB
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:56 PM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>
>
>>
>> Randy,
>> Legend says rise, not drop. More than one veteran IA told me not to
>> worry if
>> I did not see that. Some sources stress testing at 650 rpm idle.
>> Dale
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McFarland,
>> Randy
>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:04 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
>> internet.
>> I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
>> which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
>> Thx
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Doble" <mark(at)stratologic.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 VS Mustang II etc |
Hey RV'ers,
Just some details on the Mustang II thought you might find interesting.I've
been on this list since 98 and have enjoyed all the help I've gotten.
I have a Mustang II flying since 2003. Took 3.5 years to build. I also
made my cockpit 40" wide.
I've flown an RV-6 a few times..once with Mike Seager in Tampa. The only
differences that come to mind is that the ailerons felt much lighter.
My stall speed is 57mph (factory rolled airfoils).
I just (finally) put wheel pants on my plane a few days ago. (used a mold
from the Cozy List). There are no standard wheel pants for the Mustang you
have make them yourself (which can be a bummer if you don't have the
time.like me).
Did some speed tests and with 0-360-A1A (carb), James cowling, and T18
canopy I get flat out at 1500MSL @ 55F I was able to get 225mph indicated
flat out (eg.everything forward!)
The Mustang probably requires a bit more work to build....but you can get
pre-punched center section and factory built wings which brings down the
build time significantly.
It was frustrating at first when building.but once you get the hang of it.it
goes together easily.
Some details at http://mustang.stratologic.net
Cheers,
Mark
N515MD
Raleigh, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some reference material help |
I'm 98% certain there are two screws - The mixture adjustment screw, which
is the one I wrote about and the idle adjustment, which you use to set idle
speed.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>
> I believe that the idle screw only controls the mixture at idle. As soon
> as you give it any throttle, the main jet kicks in and the idle circuit is
> no longer working. It doesn't matter much in practice if you have the
> right mixture at idle because you should be taxiing around with the
> mixture so lean that it won't take much throttle without puking so that
> you don't foul plugs. The so lean it pukes setting will keep you from
> mistakenly taking off with a partially lean setting. It reminds you to go
> full rich.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>>
>> Just to clarify things...
>>
>> With a carb, you should see a 25-50 rpm increase in rpm before the engine
>> dies as you lean it from idle.
>>
>> To enrich the idle setting, turn the screw out (counterclockwise). To
>> lean the setting, turn it in (clockwise).
>>
>> KB
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:56 PM
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Randy,
>>> Legend says rise, not drop. More than one veteran IA told me not to
>>> worry if
>>> I did not see that. Some sources stress testing at 650 rpm idle.
>>> Dale
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of McFarland,
>>> Randy
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:04 PM
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone have the Precision MA4-5 manual in e form? I can't find it on
>>> internet.
>>> I don't get the 50 rpm drop when going to idle-cutoff, but don't know
>>> which way to turn the screw to richen/lean it.
>>> Thx
>>> Randy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com> |
Hello:
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
MY first posting in 08.....
I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do that..
What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one antena..??
Thanks
Bert rv6a
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Need some reference material help |
Not on a standard Precision/Marvel Schebler carb for a 4 cyl Lycoming,
there isn't a main mixture screw. There are more or less 4 fuel
circuits. The idle is adjusted with the needle valve. An off-idle slot
may or may not be incorporated to handle the transistion to low power
settings, the main jet, which feeds fuel from the bowl through it into
the venturi for almost all your fuel(and is a fixed orifice), and the
accelerator pump circuit that only squirts when the throttle is pushed
forward. There are several different part numbers that match the carb to
the specific engine model by what size main jet is installed.
KM
A&P/IA
Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
> I'm 98% certain there are two screws - The mixture adjustment screw,
> which is the one I wrote about and the idle adjustment, which you use
> to set idle speed.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 3:32 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>
>
>>
>> I believe that the idle screw only controls the mixture at idle. As
>> soon as you give it any throttle, the main jet kicks in and the idle
>> circuit is no longer working. It doesn't matter much in practice if
>> you have the right mixture at idle because you should be taxiing
>> around with the mixture so lean that it won't take much throttle
>> without puking so that you don't foul plugs. The so lean it pukes
>> setting will keep you from mistakenly taking off with a partially
>> lean setting. It reminds you to go full rich.
>>
>> Pax,
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify things...
>>>
>>> With a carb, you should see a 25-50 rpm increase in rpm before the
>>> engine dies as you lean it from idle.
>>>
>>> To enrich the idle setting, turn the screw out (counterclockwise).
>>> To lean the setting, turn it in (clockwise).
>>>
>>> KB
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 8:56 PM
>>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Need some reference material help
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Randy,
>>>> Legend says rise, not drop. More than one veteran IA told me not to
>>>> worry if
>>>> I did not see that. Some sources stress testing at 650 rpm idle.
>>>> Dale
>>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
You can buy a splitter that allows 1 antenna to split to 2 radios. Aircraft Spruce
sells them.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com>
Sent: 01/01/08 1:20 PM
Subject: RV-List: Radio antenas?
Hello:
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
MY first posting in 08.....
I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do that..
What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one antena..??
Thanks
Bert rv6a
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio antenas? |
That will work for reception, but the minute you key one of the
transmitters you will destroy the other receiver. You have to have a
means to physically disconnect the unused receiver from the antenna the
transmitter is using. Audio panels are the most common way to do it, but
not the only answer.
Michael Kraus wrote:
>
> You can buy a splitter that allows 1 antenna to split to 2 radios. Aircraft
Spruce sells them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: 01/01/08 1:20 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Radio antenas?
>
>
> Hello:
>
>
> HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
>
> MY first posting in 08.....
>
>
> I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
> do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do that..
>
> What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one antena..??
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bert rv6a
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> |
For communications you either have separate antennas for each transmitter or
you have a switch to select the antenna to the radio in use. If you are
going to the trouble of having a second radio then have a dedicated antenna
for it.
Assuming you have a standard belly bent whip antenna now, you may want to
try a wingtip antenna or some copper tape in the cowl for the second radio.
I have a homemade wing tip communication antenna that, while not as good as
my belly bent whip, works fine.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (375 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bert Murillo
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: RV-List: Radio antenas?
Hello:
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
MY first posting in 08.....
I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do that..
What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one
antena..??
Thanks
Bert rv6a
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio antenas? |
Aircraft Spruce does sell splitters that allow two Nav receivers to be
connected to one antenna. But I don't think they sell a similar
solution for Com radios. The two radios with one antenna problem is a
lot more complex with transmitters, as you need a solution that
decouples the two radios when one of them transmits. Otherwise the
power transmitted by one radio would follow the coax into the receiver
of the other radio - the power level at the receiver would be much,
much greater than it was designed for, and it would likely be destroyed.
The simplest, cheapest solution will be to have two antennae. If you
are worried about drag, consider a foil antenna on the inside of the
canopy for Com 2. That is a very light, cheap, zero drag and
supposedly effective solution.
Kevin Horton
On 1-Jan-08, at 13:59 , Michael Kraus wrote:
> >
>
> You can buy a splitter that allows 1 antenna to split to 2 radios.
> Aircraft Spruce sells them.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: 01/01/08 1:20 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Radio antenas?
>
>
> Hello:
>
>
> HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
>
> MY first posting in 08.....
>
>
> I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
> do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do
> that..
>
> What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one
> antena..??
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bert rv6a
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Hi Ron,
You only need to replace the O-Rings in the calipers as that is
where the heat is generated. The rings on the inside of the aircraft are
fine as they stand.
Jim Nelson
Changing fluid and O-Rings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio antenas? |
Bert Murillo wrote:
>
> Hello:
>
>
> HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL....'''''
>
> MY first posting in 08.....
>
>
> I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
> do I have to have another antena? I hope I do not have to do that..
>
> What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one antena..??
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Bert rv6a
>
> do not archive
Hi Bert,
You can do it with what amounts to a 'smart' antenna relay, but it's
cheaper & more reliable to just add a 2nd antenna.
Sorry...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Synthetic brake fluid and Viton O-rings |
Thanks Jim, I was thinking that was the case. I have one set of O-rings
for the Cleveland master cylinders so I need to get another set for the
passenger brakes. That and the Viton O-rings plus some Mobil 1
synthetic ATF fluid and I can redo my brake system later this month.
Ron Lee
> Hi Ron,
> You only need to replace the O-Rings in the calipers as that is
> where the heat is generated. The rings on the inside of the aircraft are
> fine as they stand.
>
> Jim Nelson
> Changing fluid and O-Rings
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: =?UTF-8?Q?Re: Radio antenas=3F? |
| From: | marknlisa(at)hometel.com |
=0ABert,=0A=0A =0A=0AThis is what you're looking for. This device automatic
ally isolates the non-transmitting radio from the single antenna to prevent
feedback damage.=0A=0A =0A=0A[http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?
item=SA-010&Category=0e9a8a4d-66d7-4057-a46d-e9f3baaa4e5a] http://www.a
erocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-010&Category=0e9a8a4d-66d7-4057
-a46d-e9f3baaa4e5a=0A=0A =0A=0ARegards,=0A=0A =0A=0AMark Sletten
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio antenas? |
>From: "Bert Murillo" <bertrv6(at)gmail.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Radio antenas?
>
>I am planning to buy a second radio for my rv6a..., question now is
>do I have to have another antenna? I hope I do not have to do that..
>
>What is the next way to do this, so I can use both radios with one
>antenna..?? Thanks, Bert rv6a
The replies you got are good and agree, but let me point out a few things.
1st, your best bet (in my opinion) is just get another bent whip an put on the
belly or the back of the planes fuselage (external). It will cost you about
1/3 mph at 200mph, no big deal.
2nd, they do make a two transmitter into one antenna device but its very very
expensive and I don't think Spruce A/C sells them. The one poster was thinking
of NAV antenna splitters, receivers. However having two transceiver on one antenna
is a recipe for blowing up a radio. Yes you could manually install a switch
but that's just silly, why have two radios at all. Granted you can only transmit
at one time.
3rd, the suggestion of installing a hidden antenna is cool, wing tip, windscreen
or cowl but they SUCK. Yea they "WORK" but work means some really reduced
performance. There is NO substitute for a 1/4 wave antenna on a GOOD ground plan
with vertical polarization. There is no debate. The wing tip antennas do not
work well. If my radio can't transmit and receive at least 100-150 miles at
altitude than its not a good installation.
Last, mount the second antenna and be done with it. You can handle a lousy 0.33
mph loss in speed for a bent whip.
PS: (Note: you need about three feet between antennas ideally, give or take,
but also don't forget to connect the radio interconnect for two radios. When you
transmit the interconnect turns the other radio's receiver off when you transmit.
Most or all radios have this wire, usually a single wire interconnect when
you install two radios. Call the radio manufacture if in doubt. Even with
two antennas separated by distance, transmitting can bleed over even with the
radio off freq.)
All the best Happy New Years George
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Judge" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 in Aviation Week Page 76 |
Hey:
Somehow a picture of my RV-8 at Leadville made it in Aviation Week's
Photo Contest issue on page 76. I submitted the photo but didn't
think a homely unpainted RV-8 would have a snowball's chance in hell
of getting in. The Photo is listed under my Dad's name.
Bill Judge
N84WJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans to complete the
modification recommend by Vans.
The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to have been installed before.
I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the result of the
contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this?
Also I plan to make the modifications during my next annual and at that time
I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread and cut the leg as
required. Does any one have the correct thread size?
Thanks
Rollie & Rod
RV6A 799RQ
El Paso Int Airport
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I thought the same thing as mine looked like it had large washer marks each side
of the mounting holes. guess that is why so thanks for checking.
Ron Burnett
---- Rquinn1(at)aol.com wrote:
============
I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans to complete the
modification recommend by Vans.
The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to have been installed before.
I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the result of the
contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this?
Also I plan to make the modifications during my next annual and at that time
I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread and cut the leg as
required. Does any one have the correct thread size?
Thanks
Rollie & Rod
RV6A 799RQ
El Paso Int Airport
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I called Vans on the original fork for the same reason (It looked used).
It is discolored in the manufacturing process while it is jigged via the
axle holes.Clean it up and go forward.
Also note I ordered my new fork from VAN's and shipped the leg to
Langair ground from VA. The machined leg and fork arrived within a day
of each other. If you have proper tooling to thread the leg go for it
otherwise Harmon will do right by you.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Mitchell <dfm4290(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I got the new fork for my RV-8A and thought the same
thing.
The thread I believe is a 1.25" 16 pitch.
Dale Mitchell
--- Rquinn1(at)aol.com wrote:
> I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans
> to complete the
> modification recommend by Vans.
> The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to
> have been installed before.
> I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the
> result of the
> contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this?
>
> Also I plan to make the modifications during my next
> annual and at that time
> I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread
> and cut the leg as
> required. Does any one have the correct thread
> size?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rollie & Rod
> RV6A 799RQ
> El Paso Int Airport
>
>
>
>
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Alley <n320wt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
Those of you changing to the new fork, keep in mind that the W-10 Tri-gear Tailwind
uses the same fork you have now. From what I understand, Van's will not sell
this part to Tailwind owners/builders. If you don't need or want yours anymore,
how about helping out the scratch builders building Tailwinds.
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
101 Caroline Circle
Hurricane, WV 25526
www.carbonfibercomposites.net
304-562-6800 home
304-395-4932 cell
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
Sure, I paid $154 plus shipping, send me a money order and I'll get it
right out :-)
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
Brian Alley wrote:
> Those of you changing to the new fork, keep in mind that the W-10
> Tri-gear Tailwind uses the same fork you have now. From what I
> understand, Van's will not sell this part to Tailwind owners/builders.
> If you don't need or want yours anymore, how about helping out the
> scratch builders building Tailwinds.
>
> BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
> CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
> 101 Caroline Circle
> Hurricane, WV 25526
> www.carbonfibercomposites.net
> 304-562-6800 home
> 304-395-4932 cell
>
> How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Reuven Silberman <pilots2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
Brian,
Will be willing to sell you ours for $100.00 and I will pay shipping.
Reuven Silberman
Pilots2(at)yahoo.com
N7WT RV7A
Brian Alley wrote: Those of you changing to the new fork, keep
in mind that the W-10 Tri-gear Tailwind uses the same fork you have now. From
what I understand, Van's will not sell this part to Tailwind owners/builders.
If you don't need or want yours anymore, how about helping out the scratch
builders building Tailwinds.
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
101 Caroline Circle
Hurricane, WV 25526
www.carbonfibercomposites.net
304-562-6800 home
304-395-4932 cell
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
"No pressure, no diamonds".
~Thomas Carlyle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
Brian,
Send me $154 + shipping and I'll be more than happy to send you a brand
new unused fork from my 9A.
Do you know anyone building a Tailwind that needs a 0-SMOH 0-290D, all
accessories, new sensenich custom made metal prop, and sensenich
aluminum spinner. Look on classified adds VAF F/S 0-290D Custom for
more info.
Mike Humphrey
1221 Rams Run Rd
Shepherdsville, KY
40165
502-264-2214 Cell
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Alley
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As
Those of you changing to the new fork, keep in mind that the W-10
Tri-gear Tailwind uses the same fork you have now. From what I
understand, Van's will not sell this part to Tailwind owners/builders.
If you don't need or want yours anymore, how about helping out the
scratch builders building Tailwinds.
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
101 Caroline Circle
Hurricane, WV 25526
www.carbonfibercomposites.net
304-562-6800 home
304-395-4932 cell
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I will sell mine for $99.99 and 1 cent shipping.
Ron Lee
Brian,
Will be willing to sell you ours for $100.00 and I will pay shipping.
Reuven Silberman
Pilots2(at)yahoo.com
N7WT RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Rowbotham <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 in Aviation Week Page 76 |
Bill,
Congratulations !
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:27:30 -0500> From: bjudge(at)gmail.com> To: rv
-list(at)matronics.com; Mid-AtlRVwing(at)yahoogroups.com> Subject: RV-List: RV-8
udge(at)gmail.com>> > Hey:> Somehow a picture of my RV-8 at Leadville made it
in Aviation Week's> Photo Contest issue on page 76.
> > Bill Judge> N84WJ
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_1220
07
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kelly Patterson" <kbob(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nose Gear Fork the Hard Way |
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Rquinn1(at)aol.com
> Subject: RV-List: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As
>
> I just received my new front gear leg fork from Vans to complete the
> modification recommend by Vans.
> The fork did not look new, in fact it appears to have been installed
> before.
> I phone Vans and was told by Joe that this is the result of the
> contractor's jig. Has any else noticed this?
>
> Also I plan to make the modifications during my next annual and at that
> time
> I plan to leave the gear leg in place and rethread and cut the leg as
> required. Does any one have the correct thread size?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rollie & Rod
> RV6A 799RQ
> El Paso Int Airport
>
I completed my nose gear re-work this long weekend, though I went about it
the old fashioned way re-using all my parts. Here's how it went...
The stock fork came off, stripped it of bolts and bushings, and I hacksawed
off 1" from the bottom. This took about 1 hour of sawing by hand. I *highly*
recommend a powered saw by all means. A die grinder then sliced the bottom
wedges (moving aft) toward the axle. The rough cut is now done.
Then came a bunch of grinding & filing & polishing to get everything
parallel and airworthy. I stopped when the top and bottom bushing faces were
within 0.005". The major fork work is now done.
With the weld on the bottom removed, I needed to get some strength back. I
was not interested in re-welding and heat-treating the fork, so I chose to
add a 5/16" dia. x 5/8" long allen head "set screw" as a shear pin. This is
placed just aft of the fork pivot, and 3/8" above the cut, in the meaty hunk
of aluminum fork. Drill & tap, then set with locktite.
I also added a couple 3/4" lightening holes near the axle, just like the new
fork. This was followed by a deburr and cleanup, with a shot of paint to
finish. Pound the bushings back in, replace the bolts and grease zerk, and
it is ready to install. Note: the stock zerk location *just* clears the
bushing when re-installed, so it did not require any modification.
Now the really hard part...threading the gear leg. We did it on the plane. I
used an adjustable 1.25 x 16TPH die with 18" extension handles on both sides
of the die holder. It took 2 guys wrestling the die for about an hour to cut
the threads. The gear leg gets so hot you can almost burn yourself! Used
lots of oil and backed off 1/8 turn after every 1/2 turn cutting. It took 3
passes while necking the die down to get the nut to easily spin on. (The
next day I was a sore puppy!) This die was able to get 2 gear legs cut and
is now missing many teeth...pretty much trashed. I have the 2.5" die holder
(w/die) for $25 shipped if you want to buy it and try it. New die is about
$40.
Last step is to die grind off the bottom 1" of the gear leg, clean up with a
grinder, redrill the cotter pin holes, and put it all back in place. Same
mounting for the wheel pants...so no changes there. Went for a test hop and
my first comment is...no more nose wheel shimmy at ~18 knots...that's nice!
Hope it stays that way.
Maybe 8 hours of work (some of which is very hard). If I did it again...I
would send the leg to the shop for cutting of the threads. The $100 saved
was a pain of hard labor and I'm not 21 any more like my helper. Doing it in
a vise would be a little better, but not much! The other work was just
another day of building airplanes, which is much like fishing, only more
productive and always satisfying.
If you want an old fork - send me an email and I'll sell it for $50 shipped.
It is minus one bushing that was used for a shim.
Happy New Year and Blue Skies!
__________________
Kelly Patterson
kbob at cox dot net
190 hours
RV-6A N716K
PHX,AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Graham <fastback4(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | SPINNERS -No wobble or visible screws |
Shapes: Pointed thru standard vans ac shape.
Props: Two blade Hartzell CS.
Support: Front-Machined plastic/fiberglass, screw-less.
Rear- Aluminum-optional no visible screws.
New: Quick build your kit spinner.
Contact: Jerry Harrold
PO Box 1979
North Plains, OR 97133
(503) 860-0941
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernie & Margo" <ekells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As |
I will sell my standard "old style" nose gear fork from my RV-9A . It
is off the plane and ready to go - without having a first flight or
exposed to outside weather. For a flat $100.00 I will prepay packaging
and surface shipping to any location within the continental U.S. or
Canada.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Lee
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans New front forks for RV6 and 7As
I will sell mine for $99.99 and 1 cent shipping.
Ron Lee
Brian,
Will be willing to sell you ours for $100.00 and I will pay
shipping.
Reuven Silberman
Pilots2(at)yahoo.com
N7WT RV7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Thomas <flightlogic(at)shaw.ca> |
Unfortunately I am forced to sell my RV8A project. Empennage is complete,
wings 95% and I have a quickbuild fuselage delivered in November. $20,000
OBO
I am located in Western Canada and my number is 250-629-9927
David Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | One antena two radios how |
http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/IdeasProducts.htm#PRODUCT:%20%20King%20Antenna
%20Adapter
Not sure which one but something like:
http://www.sinctech.com/catalog/family.aspx?id=104
Very few people go this route as it is not cost effective. A 2nd antenna i
s less money.
My suggestion would be to to your LOCAL avionics shop and HIRE them for hel
p.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
2,073 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
_________________________________________________________________
Watch =93Cause Effect,=94 a show about real people making a real difference
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | One antena two radios how |
http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/w1gan-duplexer.pdf
The HAM 2 Meter band is FM just above the aviation AM band. Stuff that wor
ks with their 2 meter band should work on our aviation frequencies. Be care
ful as some ham equipment call diplexers a duplexer when splitting 2 M and
70 cm signals. Diplexers that are used with repeaters SHOULD work.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
2,073 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
_________________________________________________________________
Watch =93Cause Effect,=94 a show about real people making a real difference
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Walter" <dale1rv6(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | One antena two radios how |
I agree with Gary. Plus: Using one antenna for 2 radios negates the full
redundancy benefit. If antenna, switch or final lead fails, both radios are
useless. Why pay for a 2nd radio and not get full redundancy??? Please
answer this question.
Dale
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV6 Flyer
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: One antena two radios how
http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/IdeasProducts.htm#PRODUCT:%20%20King%20Antenna%
20Adapter
Not sure which one but something like:
http://www.sinctech.com/catalog/family.aspx?id=104
Very few people go this route as it is not cost effective. A 2nd antenna is
less money.
My suggestion would be to to your LOCAL avionics shop and HIRE them for
help.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
2,073 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
_____
Watch "Cause Effect," a show about real people making a real difference.
Learn more
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
In amateur radio the term diplexer refers to a device that allows one
antenna to be used on two different bands, not a very difficult
task. For repeater use with one antenna and one band a duplexer is
used. A duplexer is tuned to use only one transmit frequency and one
receive frequency. It has to do that because it uses filters to
eliminate almost all of the transmit frequency from the receiver and
to eliminate almost all other frequencies from the transmitter. It is
critically tuned for those two frequencies only and will not work on
any other frequencies.
Oh, and duplexers for VHF are huge, think around the size of a
kitchen trash can, and they are also very heavy, typically using
several large metal cylinders.
Larry Pardue
On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:07 AM, RV6 Flyer wrote:
> http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/w1gan-duplexer.pdf
>
> The HAM 2 Meter band is FM just above the aviation AM band. Stuff
> that works with their 2 meter band should work on our aviation
> frequencies. Be careful as some ham equipment call diplexers a
> duplexer when splitting 2 M and 70 cm signals. Diplexers that are
> used with repeaters SHOULD work.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 2,073 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
>
>
> Watch Cause Effect, a show about real people making a real
> difference.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tailgummer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
In a message dated 1/4/2008 9:00:44 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com writes:
http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/IdeasProducts.htm#PRODUCT:%20%20King%20Antenna%
20
Adapter
Not sure which one but something like:
http://www.sinctech.com/catalog/family.aspx?id=104
Very few people go this route as it is not cost effective. A 2nd antenna i
s
less money.
My suggestion would be to to your LOCAL avionics shop and HIRE them for hel
p.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
2,073 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
____________________________________
Watch =9CCause Effect,=9D a show about real people making a real
difference.
_Learn more_ (mip://01da7708/hw)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
I use the Icom equivalent for my HANDHELD (3rd radio...back-up com). This
required no special skills to install, and serves its purpose quite elegant
ly.
I found it VERY cost effective and serves me well.
John D'Onofrio (_Tailgummer(at)aol.com_ (mailto:Tailgummer(at)aol.com) )
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Mark Sletton previously posted a link to a very good solution, here it
is again.
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-010&Category=0e9a8a4d-66d7-4057-a46d-e9f3baaa4e5a
BTW isn't adding a second antenna only slightly better (less risky to
the radio) than wiring the two antenna feedlines together? Coupling
from one antenna transmitting into the second is very likely to torch
the receiver in the second.
Doug Gray
(another HAM...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)warpdriveonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
On Jan 4, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Doug Gray wrote:
>
> BTW isn't adding a second antenna only slightly better (less risky to
> the radio) than wiring the two antenna feedlines together? Coupling
> from one antenna transmitting into the second is very likely to torch
> the receiver in the second.
>
The two antenna solution has been used very successfully for many
decades. Good to get the best separation possible.
Larry Pardue
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | One antena two radios how |
Close antennas (within reason), one transmitting while the other is
receiving, will degrade the receiving system while the other is
transmitting, but there is not sufficient energy transfer to do damage.
With sufficient spacing you can have the pilot talking on one radio while
the copilot is talking to someone else on the second radio. Some audio
panels on the market support this set up (Garmin GMA 340 for example).
There is a Lancair at the airpark with both husband and wife retired airline
pilots. They frequently operate this way to split up the communication load
during IFR. This capability is not possible with the single antenna shared
between two radios system.
If you only plan on talking and receiving on one radio at a time, wide
spacing is not a critical factor.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (375 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
KV4U
-----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, January 04, 2008 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: One antena two radios how
Mark Sletton previously posted a link to a very good solution, here it
is again.
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=SA-010&Category=0e9a8a4d-66
d7-4057-a46d-e9f3baaa4e5a
BTW isn't adding a second antenna only slightly better (less risky to
the radio) than wiring the two antenna feedlines together? Coupling
from one antenna transmitting into the second is very likely to torch
the receiver in the second.
Doug Gray
(another HAM...)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Hello All,
I'm looking for a heat box for an RV-4 with air mixing capability (cool air, heated,
or mixed) that allows for dumping of unused heated air. Looking at the ads
online, I see heat boxes that will dump unused hot air, and heat boxes that
can mix warm with cool air, but I can't tell if any of these will do both. Any
tips would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Finish kit & Spending money like a drunken sailor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)erfwireless.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
I installed a Bob Archer splitter and during the first 150+ hours it
worked great on a two radio one antenna install. However apparently the
splitter went bad and to degraded the transmit on both radios to the
point that the tower could not understand my request of "ready to depart
35L"
This was after getting clearance to taxi from ground to the runway.
After doing a 180 to return to the ramp, the tower said "N710RV (I have
12 inch letters) if you are departing Centennial and NOT returning you
are cleared to depart 35L"
After returning to home base I removed the inline splitter and either
radio worked just fine on the single antenna. I now have a second
antenna.
Russ Daves
N710RV - RV-10
N65RV - RV-6A Sold
N742PZ - RV-Co-Builder
N____RV - RV-7 Waiting on Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Airtime Manufacturing |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Anyone have any contact information for AirTime Manufacturing or Randy
Simpson. He (used to) post from time to time on the RV forum about his
titanium ti-downs and bags. I believe he is, or was, in the Corvalis,
OR area, at least that's where I thought he was last July when I
PayPaled him money for a set of ti-downs and packaging bag. Money's
been long gone, but no ti-downs and emails don't get answered. Is he on
an "extended" vacation or something? Hopefully, someone can tap him on
the shoulder. So, if anyone has current contact information, I'd
appreciate getting it. Good news is the plane hasn't blown away in the
mean time!
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Russell Daves
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 6:47 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: One antena two radios how
I installed a Bob Archer splitter and during the first 150+ hours it
worked great on a two radio one antenna install. However apparently the
splitter went bad and to degraded the transmit on both radios to the
point that the tower could not understand my request of "ready to depart
35L"
This was after getting clearance to taxi from ground to the runway.
After doing a 180 to return to the ramp, the tower said "N710RV (I have
12 inch letters) if you are departing Centennial and NOT returning you
are cleared to depart 35L"
After returning to home base I removed the inline splitter and either
radio worked just fine on the single antenna. I now have a second
antenna.
Russ Daves
N710RV - RV-10
N65RV - RV-6A Sold
N742PZ - RV-Co-Builder
N____RV - RV-7 Waiting on Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Hal,
Have you checked out the mixer from Van's?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1199460045-284-29
1&browse=heatvent&product=chv-1
It has an air bleed hole. Doesn't really dump all the unused hot air but
works very well. I have one on my 6A with the hot air from two heat
muffs in tandem. Have been flying for three years with this set up and
no problems.
Dale Ensing
Aero Plantation
Weddington NC
----- Original Message -----
From: halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:14 PM
Subject: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
Hello All,
I'm looking for a heat box for an RV-4 with air mixing capability
(cool air, heated, or mixed) that allows for dumping of unused heated
air. Looking at the ads online, I see heat boxes that will dump unused
hot air, and heat boxes that can mix warm with cool air, but I can't
tell if any of these will do both. Any tips would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Finish kit & Spending money like a drunken sailor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za> |
| Subject: | Av-Map Gps Poor service |
I purchased the Av-map EKP1V at Sun 'n Fun in April 2006. Unfortunately
it did not have an African database, ( I live in South Africa) but I was
assured that I would be able to swop the card out for one of Africa. I
contacted the suppliers and asked them to have it at Oshkosh as I would
be there. Needless to say it did not arrive but after phoning them from
the convention they said they would bring a copy to the booth the next
day. That also did not happen.
To cut a long story short, I have been in contact with the factory in
Italy and after initially saying they would swop my card for the Africa
database they turned around and said it would cost 336 Euros! plus
postage of another 40 Euros ( +/- $540!) - for a 256 mb flash card!
Fortunately I did not buy the card at the time as the info was putrid to
say the least - large towns were not even shown and no topography. This
was in January 2007. They informed us that a new database was imminent
as the cartographer they used was busy updating the info ( I suggested
using Garmins or any other of hundreds of databases floating around) and
so we hopefully awaited this new updated version. It is now January
2008 and I wonder if this company is really serious about delivering!
And if so at what cost?
The only reason I have persevered with them is that I had planned and
cut my panel to accept the Av- Map.
Has anyone out there had similar experiences or can someone point us to
anyone that can tread on a few toes?
Trevor RV-7 South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shemp <shempdowling(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Van's order by Email? |
I had stuff from Van's shipped priority mail. 2 days instead of ups
ground of 10 to midwest!
Shemp
6a 300+
wgill10(at)comcast.net wrote:
> Bert,
>
> If you're in a hurry, order by phone and ask for 3-day ground shipping
> (or faster). They usually ship the same day and I often get the item
> delivered to the central US in just two days. Orders by internet are
> at least 1.5 weeks!
>
> Bill
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shemp <shempdowling(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Structural qualities of gel coat |
I removed the gel coat from my intakes on my very old cowl and replaced
with a couple layers of glass. Just wondering if anyone knows how much
the gel coat adds to structural integrity. In other words, are the 2
layers enough to keep from getting stress cracks?
Shemp
6a 300+
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JVanLaak(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Av-Map Gps Poor service |
Trevor,
I also have been extremely disappointed in their customer service. The unit
itself is very nice and I have finally become proficient in their rather odd
operating scheme, but every time I have asked for help they have been slow
and incomplete.
What really bothers me is that when I paid about $75 to update the GPS info
in October they sent me an update that does not have the correct ADIZ airspace
around Washington DC. Given that I live not far away and routinely fly by
that airspace (and all of the F-16's guarding it) this is a real problem. I
complained to their customer service and got no response.
I hope your luck improves.
Jim
RV-6 N79RL
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster(at)flion.com> |
| Subject: | Structural qualities of gel coat |
Gel coat is just a coat of colored resin painted into the mold before the
first layups. It adds nothing to the strength and often is prone to
cracking if poorly done. If you've sanded down to the weave and then laid a
couple of layers over that, you have a net gain of strength.
Pat Kelley - RV-6A - doing canopy latch
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shemp
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 7:52 AM
Subject: RV-List: Structural qualities of gel coat
I removed the gel coat from my intakes on my very old cowl and replaced
with a couple layers of glass. Just wondering if anyone knows how much
the gel coat adds to structural integrity. In other words, are the 2
layers enough to keep from getting stress cracks?
Shemp
6a 300+
--
12:05 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Hill" <hill36447(at)bellsouth.net> |
After following several discussions on poor transmission quality due to
cockpit noise, I believe I have the same problem; clear reception, but
my transmissions are somewhat unclear when at high throttle. I have a
Garmin 300XL, and have gone into the setup menu where there is a page
called dB, which I think could be gain for the mic? Lowering the value
did not seem to help, however, and I cannot find any reference to this
page in the installation manual. Anyone have a similar problem with
this radio, and have they found a fix?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
I've got this one and will be installing this in my RV-4 hopefully this weekend.
I'll post my flight test findings...what I like about it, is that I'll be able
to plumb the air right to the air vents, and get the right temperature instead
of having a heat blow on your feet.
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD
Arizona
----- Original Message ----
From: Dale Ensing <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:34:16 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
Hal,
Have you checked out the mixer from
Van's?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1199460045-284-291&browse=heatvent&product=chv-1
It has an air bleed hole. Doesn't really dump all
the unused hot air but works very well. I have one on my 6A with the hot air
from two heat muffs in tandem. Have been flying for three years with this set up
and no problems.
Dale Ensing
Aero Plantation
Weddington NC
----- Original Message -----
From:
halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:14
PM
Subject: RV-List: Heat boxes for
RV-4
Hello All,
I'm looking for a heat box for an RV-4 with air mixing capability (cool
air, heated, or mixed) that allows for dumping of unused heated air.
Looking at the ads online, I see heat boxes that will dump unused hot
air, and heat boxes that can mix warm with cool air, but I can't tell if any
of these will do both. Any tips would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Hal Benjamin - RV-4
Long Island, NY
Finish kit & Spending money like a drunken sailor
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | elevator horn to HS gap |
I am finishing up various fiberglass tasks and am working on the Horiz.
Stab. end cap. How much of a gap should I have between the end of the
elevator horn and the aft face of the horiz. Stabilizer end fairing? I
assume you want more than minimum clearance? I'm guessing that about a
1/8" gap when the elevator is at 0 deg. to the HS is good. The manual
(circa 1999) doesn't make any reference to it.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Airtime Manufacturing |
Chuck
I'm one of the regular readers of the RV-List, but an
infrequent poster. I saw your inquiry about Randy
Simpson/Airtime MFG. I live in Corvallis, Or, and I've
been aware for six or seven years of Randy Simpson's Ti-Downs.
Here is the locally-available contact info for Randy Simpson:
Randy M Simpson
(541) 791-4464
Scravel Hill Rd, Albany, Oregon
This is adjacent to Propst airport, OR19, a private airstrip.
Randy's internet services were being provided by ProAxis, which
is a Corvallis, OR business. Albany is about 10-12 miles
northeast of Corvallis.
I don't know Randy. I'm acquainted with a person who has flown
ultralights among the ultralight community in this area that
included Randy. In the past, I've commented to this acquaintance
about RV-List complaints regarding Randy's business, and I
gather that he's passed those comments to Randy. Perhaps this
has helped some others, which was our goal. My friend and
I have agreed never to have another conversation about AirTime,
and that communication path is now closed. Sorry.
A look at the RV-List archives will reveal that, during the
past few years, mention has been made occasionally of Randy
Simpson and his AirTime Mfg enterprise. This RV-List traffic
is almost entirely associated with inquiries like yours, which
paints a pretty negative reputation for this vendor. This appears
to be a pattern, rather than a single occurrence. In light of
this pattern, I would suggest that your remedies, if any,
might lie in seeking a refund via PayPal.
Best regards and good luck.
Mike Linse
RV-6A about to cut the canopy.
> from Chuck Jensen:
> Anyone have any contact information for AirTime Manufacturing or Randy
> Simpson.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator horn to HS gap |
Tom,
I assume from your question that when you say elevator "horn" you are
talking about the elevator counter weight. Not the control horn.
!/8" gap is plenty to provide for paint on both surfaces plus clearence. You
should check the clearence at all positions as the elevator travels up and
down.
Dale Ensing
EAA TC & FA
----- Original Message -----
From: "tom sargent" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:15 PM
Subject: RV-List: elevator horn to HS gap
>
> I am finishing up various fiberglass tasks and am working on the Horiz.
> Stab. end cap. How much of a gap should I have between the end of the
> elevator horn and the aft face of the horiz. Stabilizer end fairing? I
> assume you want more than minimum clearance? I'm guessing that about a
> 1/8" gap when the elevator is at 0 deg. to the HS is good. The manual
> (circa 1999) doesn't make any reference to it.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Airtime Manufacturing |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Thanks for the information Mike. A leopard never changes its spots, even when
its hiding in the grass, so I guess I should have done more due diligence.
Chuck Jensen
Chuck
I'm one of the regular readers of the RV-List, but an
infrequent poster. I saw your inquiry about Randy
Simpson/Airtime MFG. I live in Corvallis, Or, and I've
been aware for six or seven years of Randy Simpson's Ti-Downs.
Here is the locally-available contact info for Randy Simpson:
Randy M Simpson
(541) 791-4464
Scravel Hill Rd, Albany, Oregon
This is adjacent to Propst airport, OR19, a private airstrip.
Randy's internet services were being provided by ProAxis, which
is a Corvallis, OR business. Albany is about 10-12 miles
northeast of Corvallis.
I don't know Randy. I'm acquainted with a person who has flown
ultralights among the ultralight community in this area that
included Randy. In the past, I've commented to this acquaintance
about RV-List complaints regarding Randy's business, and I
gather that he's passed those comments to Randy. Perhaps this
has helped some others, which was our goal. My friend and
I have agreed never to have another conversation about AirTime,
and that communication path is now closed. Sorry.
A look at the RV-List archives will reveal that, during the
past few years, mention has been made occasionally of Randy
Simpson and his AirTime Mfg enterprise. This RV-List traffic
is almost entirely associated with inquiries like yours, which
paints a pretty negative reputation for this vendor. This appears
to be a pattern, rather than a single occurrence. In light of
this pattern, I would suggest that your remedies, if any,
might lie in seeking a refund via PayPal.
Best regards and good luck.
Mike Linse
RV-6A about to cut the canopy.
> from Chuck Jensen:
> Anyone have any contact information for AirTime Manufacturing or Randy
> Simpson.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator horn to HS gap |
Dale:
Yes, I mean the counterweight. Sorry for that neural misfire.
Dale Ensing wrote:
>
> Tom,
> I assume from your question that when you say elevator "horn" you are
> talking about the elevator counter weight. Not the control horn.
>
> !/8" gap is plenty to provide for paint on both surfaces plus clearence.
> You should check the clearence at all positions as the elevator travels
> up and down.
>
> Dale Ensing
> EAA TC & FA
>
>>
>> I am finishing up various fiberglass tasks and am working on the
>> Horiz. Stab. end cap. How much of a gap should I have between the end
>> of the elevator horn and the aft face of the horiz. Stabilizer end
>> fairing? I assume you want more than minimum clearance? I'm guessing
>> that about a 1/8" gap when the elevator is at 0 deg. to the HS is
>> good. The manual (circa 1999) doesn't make any reference to it.
>> --
>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za> |
| Subject: | Cooling air to alternator |
What is the general consenses as to where the cooling air for the
alternator be routed? to the back, front, side, casing? Also which way
does the fan operate? Does it suck air in from the front or rear?
Trevor Davis RV-7
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
>From: Tailgummer(at)aol.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: One antenna two radios how
From Tailgummer's link this ITEM is what you need,
and its $690.00
http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=CI601
There is no advantage of duplex off one antenna IMHO
except the 0.30 mph drag you save at top speed.
My situation is I have a #1 panel com. I can access the
BNC connector on the floor and connect a coax jumper to
my handheld if needed. Other wise my handheld uses its
rubber duckie antenna & the audio is routed to the
intercom. Its great for getting ATIS while #1 is on ATC. The
handheld is temp mounted off the side of the panel, just
for reciving. If I want to transmit with it I have to connect
the external antenna to get max range and than connect
the head set direct to the radio. This would be an emergency
if #1 failed.
A second antenna like a FOIL TAPE antenna in the wind
screen, to improve the handhelds reception could be done
with no drag penalty or long wing tip coax runs (cost and
weight).
I don't recommend a foil tape as a primary antenna for
transmission & reception. ANY THING SHORT of a WHIP
externally mounted 1/2 wave ground plane antenna is NOT
going to be as good, ever compared to an internal antenna.
The rubber duckie does good job, especially for ATIS 20
out. Hanging off the side of the panel, the antenna is just
above the side rail.
For two panel mounted VHF radios PUT in two antennas.
I fly Boeing aircraft and we have TWO HF radios into one
antenna. However you have to select one radio to transmit on.
Also when you switch radios you have to KEY the mic and
wait for it to switch & tune the antenna. You hear a tone
for a few seconds. When the tone stops the switch and
tuning has taken place. If you don't switch radios the
switch/tune tone does not come back. If it detects a new
radio or freq it will go through the switch tune process again.
I'm going to guess the HF radio, duplex switcher & antenna
cost more than our whole airplanes do.
Go with a second antenna and be done with it.
G
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator horn to HS gap |
On 5-Jan-08, at 13:15 , tom sargent wrote:
>
> I am finishing up various fiberglass tasks and am working on the
> Horiz. Stab. end cap. How much of a gap should I have between the
> end of the elevator horn and the aft face of the horiz. Stabilizer
> end fairing? I assume you want more than minimum clearance? I'm
> guessing that about a 1/8" gap when the elevator is at 0 deg. to the
> HS is good. The manual (circa 1999) doesn't make any reference to it.
1/8" is probably lots for VFR flight. If you plan to fly IFR, you
might consider the possibility of running into unplanned icing
conditions. An ice build up on the elevator horn could lead to a
control jam in pitch. For IFR flight in cloud, or at night,
additional clearance might be wise.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (final assemby)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Paul, Dale, Chuck,
Thanks for the help! I had seen Van's mixer, but never noticed the hole....Looks
like that setup should work.
Hal Benjamin
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Date: Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
> I've got this one and will be installing this in my RV-4
> hopefully this weekend. I'll post my flight test
> findings...what I like about it, is that I'll be able to plumb
> the air right to the air vents, and get the right temperature
> instead of having a heat blow on your feet.
>
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-4 N73DD
> Arizona
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dale Ensing
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:34:16 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hal,
>
> Have you checked out the mixer from
> Van's?
>
>
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1199460045-
> 284-291&browse=heatvent&product=chv-1
>
>
>
> It has an air bleed hole. Doesn't really dump all
> the unused hot air but works very well. I have one on my 6A with
> the hot air
> from two heat muffs in tandem. Have been flying for three years
> with this set up
> and no problems.
>
>
>
> Dale Ensing
>
> Aero Plantation
>
> Weddington NC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:
> halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:14
> PM
>
> Subject: RV-List: Heat boxes for
> RV-4
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I'm looking for a heat box for an RV-4 with air mixing
> capability (cool
> air, heated, or mixed) that allows for dumping of unused
> heated air.
> Looking at the ads online, I see heat boxes that will dump
> unused hot
> air, and heat boxes that can mix warm with cool air, but I
> can't tell if any
> of these will do both. Any tips would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Hal Benjamin - RV-4
>
> Long Island, NY
>
> Finish kit & Spending money like a drunken sailor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tailgummer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: One antena two radios how |
In a message dated 1/5/2008 3:07:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
>From: _Tailgummer(at)aol.com_ (mailto:Tailgummer(at)aol.com)
>Subject: Re: RV-List: One antenna two radios how
>From Tailgummer's link this ITEM is what you need,
and its $690.00
_http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=CI601_
(http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=CI601)
There is no advantage of duplex off one antenna IMHO
except the 0.30 mph drag you save at top speed.
My situation is I have a #1 panel com. I can access the
BNC connector on the floor and connect a coax jumper to
my handheld if needed. Other wise my handheld uses its
rubber duckie antenna & the audio is routed to the
intercom. Its great for getting ATIS while #1 is on ATC. The
handheld is temp mounted off the side of the panel, just
for reciving. If I want to transmit with it I have to connect
the external antenna to get max range and than connect
the head set direct to the radio. This would be an emergency
if #1 failed.
A second antenna like a FOIL TAPE antenna in the wind
screen, to improve the handhelds reception could be done
with no drag penalty or long wing tip coax runs (cost and
weight).
I don't recommend a foil tape as a primary antenna for
transmission & reception. ANY THING SHORT of a WHIP
externally mounted 1/2 wave ground plane antenna is NOT
going to be as good, ever compared to an internal antenna.
The rubber duckie does good job, especially for ATIS 20
out. Hanging off the side of the panel, the antenna is just
above the side rail.
For two panel mounted VHF radios PUT in two antennas.
I fly Boeing aircraft and we have TWO HF radios into one
antenna. However you have to select one radio to transmit on.
Also when you switch radios you have to KEY the mic and
wait for it to switch & tune the antenna. You hear a tone
for a few seconds. When the tone stops the switch and
tuning has taken place. If you don't switch radios the
switch/tune tone does not come back. If it detects a new
radio or freq it will go through the switch tune process again.
I'm going to guess the HF radio, duplex switcher & antenna
cost more than our whole airplanes do.
Go with a second antenna and be done with it.
G
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
Please allow me to clarify, Mr gmcjetpilot, but
_http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=CI601_
(http://www.aerocraftparts.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=CI601)
was not my link. My post was with regard to using a HANDHELD as a 3rd
(read: emergency backup) transceiver. An example is the ICOM "ANTSB" which sells
for $69.95 from Chief aircraft (among other sources):.
_http://www.chiefaircraft.com/cgi-bin/air/hazel.cgi/hzpi/u/HzSt02068SnM1JBhoe/hazel.cgi?action=serve
&item=/Aircraft/Radios/Icom2.html_
(http://www.chiefaircraft.com/cgi-bin/air/hazel.cgi/hzpi/u/HzSt02068SnM1JBhoe/hazel.cgi?action=serve&item=/Aircraft/Radio
s/Icom2.html) not the $690.00 as you quoted.
This particular external antenna adapter was reviewed by Avionics West
and recommended by them as an alternate method to extend the range of the ICOM
handheld: _http://www.avionicswest.com/portablevhfadapter.html#1115_
(http://www.avionicswest.com/portablevhfadapter.html#1115) .
MY particular radio setup includes a belly mounted bent whip (COM 1) and a
Bob Archer experimental antenna (COM 2)... which, by the way, works just
fine. MY setup utilizes the external antenna adapter for my HANDHELD, rather
than installing yet one more bent whip (or other type) antenna. I can't
imagine that for the kind of flying RV's do that any more redundancy is really
needed.
My post was not to infer that using this type of external antenna adapter
was meant to be used instead of a dedicated second antenna.
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
There was some discussion last month about hangar lights so I thought
there might still be some interest in this.
One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal halide low-bay lights
for his business & hangar for a pretty good price & they appear to be
high quality. The only downside is this seller sells them in lots of 10
(4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this seller's store to pick
the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage. He's got some that
are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Av-Map Gps Poor service |
Trevor,
I also have an AvMap IV and have had nothing but great service from them
in the US. My card needed to be updated to the 256MB also. They
advised me to join the AvMap membership $79 USD and they would send me a
new updated 256MB card free. Even sent a prepaid envelope for the old
card to be mailed back to them.
The membership is supposedly worldwide-have you tried it? www.avmap.us
also info(at)avmap.us
If you can get no joy email me back direct and I'll see about getting
you one here and mailing it to you in SA.
My old partner in London was from CT - he helped out a struggling yank
new to the UK so I would like to return the favor.
How's high summer? Freezing/wet here in the US.
Cheers, RVers Stick Together
Mike H 9A/8A
PS-used the Airgizmos panel dock for my IV in the 9A. It will run the
TruTrak ADI Pilot II also. Sweet.
----- Original Message -----
From: Trevor
To: RV-List
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 9:37 AM
Subject: RV-List: Av-Map Gps Poor service
I purchased the Av-map EKP1V at Sun 'n Fun in April 2006.
Unfortunately it did not have an African database, ( I live in South
Africa) but I was assured that I would be able to swop the card out for
one of Africa. I contacted the suppliers and asked them to have it at
Oshkosh as I would be there. Needless to say it did not arrive but
after phoning them from the convention they said they would bring a copy
to the booth the next day. That also did not happen.
To cut a long story short, I have been in contact with the factory in
Italy and after initially saying they would swop my card for the Africa
database they turned around and said it would cost 336 Euros! plus
postage of another 40 Euros ( +/- $540!) - for a 256 mb flash card!
Fortunately I did not buy the card at the time as the info was putrid
to say the least - large towns were not even shown and no topography.
This was in January 2007. They informed us that a new database was
imminent as the cartographer they used was busy updating the info ( I
suggested using Garmins or any other of hundreds of databases floating
around) and so we hopefully awaited this new updated version. It is now
January 2008 and I wonder if this company is really serious about
delivering! And if so at what cost?
The only reason I have persevered with them is that I had planned and
cut my panel to accept the Av- Map.
Has anyone out there had similar experiences or can someone point us
to anyone that can tread on a few toes?
Trevor RV-7 South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Go with the highest voltage available to the hangar. In general the cost to run
them is inversely proportional to the voltage. A 240v light will cost twice
as much to run as a 480v unit....and a 120v unit, putting out the same light,
will break the bank. We shouldn't try wiring 220v/440v ourselves unless we really
know what we're doing. 220v can burn and kill, 440v can burn, make body
parts explode and then kill you. High voltage wiring is way more dangerous than
flying (which ain't).
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: RV-List: hangar lighting
There was some discussion last month about hangar lights so I thought
there might still be some interest in this.
One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal halide low-bay lights
for his business & hangar for a pretty good price & they appear to be
high quality. The only downside is this seller sells them in lots of 10
(4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this seller's store to pick
the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage. He's got some that
are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomasz Korwel <tomasz(at)korwel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: hangar lighting |
That's probably because you can't see neither air nor electricity. Keep
in mind that in Europe we have 200V in every outlet and 400V (3 phases)
is nothing unusual in bigger houses. So read some manual, do some risk
evaluation and go ahead :-)
--
Tomasz
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Go with the highest voltage available to the hangar. In general the cost to
run them is inversely proportional to the voltage. A 240v light will cost twice
as much to run as a 480v unit....and a 120v unit, putting out the same light,
will break the bank. We shouldn't try wiring 220v/440v ourselves unless we
really know what we're doing. 220v can burn and kill, 440v can burn, make body
parts explode and then kill you. High voltage wiring is way more dangerous
than flying (which ain't).
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:59 AM
> To: RV list
> Subject: RV-List: hangar lighting
>
>
>
> There was some discussion last month about hangar lights so I thought
> there might still be some interest in this.
>
> One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal halide low-bay lights
> for his business & hangar for a pretty good price & they appear to be
> high quality. The only downside is this seller sells them in lots of 10
> (4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
>
> Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this seller's store to pick
> the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage. He's got some that
> are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: hangar lighting |
Don't you think that assessment is a little overstated? 240V will be
slightly more efficient due to less resistive loss in the wire, but for
lighting, watts is watts and that's how you get billed for electricity.
It also raises issues if you will be using existing wiring, if you worry
about safety (switching issues) and electrical codes (number of conductors).
Since 120V will kill you dead, is 240V really more dangerous? And in
order to get hit by 240V, you've got to get across both hot legs in the
circuit. It's much more likely that you'll get between one of the legs
(120V) & neutral or ground, instead of between the legs. 440V *can* burn
(if you get between both hot legs), but very few of us is likely to have
available 277V or 440V in a typical hangar. That's why I mentioned being
sure to order the right voltage.
Bottom line is that any voltage likely to be used for power in a house
or building can be dangerous & you should either know what you're doing
or get assistance.
Thoughts?
Charlie
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Go with the highest voltage available to the hangar. In general the
> cost to run them is inversely proportional to the voltage. A 240v
> light will cost twice as much to run as a 480v unit....and a 120v
> unit, putting out the same light, will break the bank. We shouldn't
> try wiring 220v/440v ourselves unless we really know what we're
> doing. 220v can burn and kill, 440v can burn, make body parts
> explode and then kill you. High voltage wiring is way more dangerous
> than flying (which ain't).
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie
> England Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:59 AM To: RV list Subject:
> RV-List: hangar lighting
>
>
>
>
> There was some discussion last month about hangar lights so I thought
> there might still be some interest in this.
>
> One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal halide low-bay
> lights for his business & hangar for a pretty good price & they
> appear to be high quality. The only downside is this seller sells
> them in lots of 10 (4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
>
> Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this seller's store to
> pick the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage. He's got
> some that are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
>
> Charlie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
Hi Chuck,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:56 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: hangar lighting
>
>
> Go with the highest voltage available to the hangar. In general the cost
> to run them is inversely proportional to the voltage. A 240v light will
> cost twice as much to run as a 480v unit....and a 120v unit, putting out
> the same light, will break the bank. We shouldn't try wiring 220v/440v
> ourselves unless we really know what we're doing. 220v can burn and kill,
> 440v can burn, make body parts explode and then kill you. High voltage
> wiring is way more dangerous than flying (which ain't).
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
This isn't quite as intuitive as it seems. For instance an item that runs
on 120 vs 220 will show half the amperage but that is because there is more
voltage available to it. The mathematical calculation for amperage is based
on voltage thus the theory is the consumption is really the same regardless
of the voltage you use.
The point here is don't be fooled into thinking because the amperage is less
that the consumption would be less. It isn't. Now for motor loads there is
some small validity to this because of the motor start load and efficiency
with a higher voltage.
Also wiring for 220 is no different than wiring for 120 in this situation
except the breaker you are going to use. Plus more people are killed on 120
volts than anything higher. If you are going to get hooked on a hot wire,
120 will keep you on easier than a higher voltage. Just don't work with the
wires hot and it won't be an issue. If you have to work something hot,
always hook the ground up first, the neutral up next (if there is one) and
the hot wires up last. When hooking the hot wire don't get between it and
the load. It only takes One amp to kill you. That is one 100 watt light
bulb on 120 volts will kill you if you get between the hot and the load with
each hand as the current will run through your heart.
Anyway, just thought I would add this so someone doesn't get the wrong
impression.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 10:31 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: hangar lighting
>
>
> Tomasz, electricity does not scare me because I can't see it. I'm only
> afraid of the shocking results when one does not exercise due caution.
>
> To a degree, I should amend the statement about voltage killing--its
> really amps that does the job. Low voltage at high amps is still a
> problem. In general, when we see 480v service installation, there's
> usually a couple hundred amps behind it--therein lies the danger. You are
> correct that Europe does have higher voltages as a routine matter, but the
> amps are lower at the same time. In short the threat does not escalate
> directly proportional to the voltage increase alone. Ex. 120v 10 amps is
> roughly equivalent to 240v 5 amps.
>
> Yes, 120v can kill, but its highly unusual unless you like taking a bath
> with while blow drying your hair! We used to have an electrician that
> would check light sockets by wetting his finger and sticking it in the
> socket...smiling all the while. No thanks. But I noticed he didn't check
> 220v circuits that way.... :-)
[Tim] Chuck, I did this all the time as well, but when I touched the two
wires I always made contact with the neutral first then the hot. This way
the current had a definite path to travel that I controlled and the current
only runs a short distance around your hand and definitely not to your feet
or other hand (though the body). You don't do this with 220 because you
would have to touch a hot wire first as they are both hot. It has nothing
to do with 220 being more dangerous. Again, 120 volts will kill you just as
easy and more people are killed with 120 volts.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomasz Korwel <tomasz(at)korwel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: hangar lighting |
> Yes, 120v can kill, but its highly unusual unless you like taking a
> bath with while blow drying your hair! We used to have an
> electrician that would check light sockets by wetting his finger and
> sticking it in the socket...smiling all the while. No thanks. But I
> noticed he didn't check 220v circuits that way.... :-)
Explaining this needs far more text that I'm able to clearly produce in
English, but two things matter:
a) your conductivity
b) path of current through your body.
If you wet your finger and use it to connect two wires the water on your
finger creates conductive layer _on_the_surface_ of your skin so neither
the path is long (1/2 inch maybe) nor the current going through your
body is big - nothing can happen to you. Different story if you touch
only hot wire and the current goes through your entire body to the ground.
I remember touching 500V in the laboratory, it was a standard routine
our professor used to demonstrate how it works. No effects. _BUT_ we had
highly isolating mats on the floor, so there was no current going
through us.
Long story short:
a) never work on live circuit
b) if you have to work on live circuit use rated tools and wear your
boots! (rubber layer on bottom isolates you from the ground)
c) never touch two wires at once
and you'll be safe.
Higher voltage has one good effect - lower amperage requires thinner,
lighter and cheaper wires and it greatly reduces risk of overheating
circuit and fire.
--
Tomasz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
I just realized that I never did anything to close up the small gap
between underside of the horiz. stab. and the fuselage. I just looked
thru the drawings (my plans are old - 1999) and empenage fairing section
of my manual and couldn't find any indication of a gap-filler for this
spot. Am I missing it , or is the builder left to his own resources in
this area? I have seen at least one plane that had no gap filler.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
In a message dated 1/6/2008 12:20:28 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
I just realized that I never did anything to close up the small gap
between underside of the horiz. stab. and the fuselage. I just looked
thru the drawings (my plans are old - 1999) and empenage fairing section
of my manual and couldn't find any indication of a gap-filler for this
spot. Am I missing it , or is the builder left to his own resources in
this area? I have seen at least one plane that had no gap filler.
================================================
IIRC there is in fact a drawing that shows this feature. But unless the
opening is large enough to ensnare a small dog, I can't imagine it being a
problem, other than the small amount of drag it will add.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
A little electrical theory here.
E = I x R
I = E / R
R = E / I
E=voltage
I=amperage
R=resistance
P = I x E
P=watts or power consumed
If you double the voltage, you halve the amperage for
the same power consumed.
The Edison meter on your house or hangar measures P or
watts. The only gain by going to a higher voltage is
that you can use a smaller guage wire or put more
lights on a circuit. There is an efficiency factor
involved with alternating current (AC) called power
factor but with most HID lighting, 86% is the usual
number so using the above formuli works for comparison
purposes.
Dave Nellis
30 years + electrician
7A wings in mid Febb.
--- Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
>
> Go with the highest voltage available to the hangar.
> In general the cost to run them is inversely
> proportional to the voltage. A 240v light will cost
> twice as much to run as a 480v unit....and a 120v
> unit, putting out the same light, will break the
> bank. We shouldn't try wiring 220v/440v ourselves
> unless we really know what we're doing. 220v can
> burn and kill, 440v can burn, make body parts
> explode and then kill you. High voltage wiring is
> way more dangerous than flying (which ain't).
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf
> Of Charlie England
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:59 AM
> To: RV list
> Subject: RV-List: hangar lighting
>
>
>
>
> There was some discussion last month about hangar
> lights so I thought
> there might still be some interest in this.
>
> One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal
> halide low-bay lights
> for his business & hangar for a pretty good price &
> they appear to be
> high quality. The only downside is this seller sells
> them in lots of 10
> (4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
>
> Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this
> seller's store to pick
> the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage.
> He's got some that
> are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
My plans state use rubber strip supplied if you wish
or optional trim to 1/32 or so gap and go with no
strip.
Darrell
--- Vanremog(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2008 12:20:28 P.M. Pacific
> Standard Time,
> sarg314(at)comcast.net writes:
>
> I just realized that I never did anything to close
> up the small gap
> between underside of the horiz. stab. and the
> fuselage. I just looked
> thru the drawings (my plans are old - 1999) and
> empenage fairing section
> of my manual and couldn't find any indication of a
> gap-filler for this
> spot. Am I missing it , or is the builder left to
> his own resources in
> this area? I have seen at least one plane that had
> no gap filler.
>
>
>
> ================================================
>
> IIRC there is in fact a drawing that shows this
> feature. But unless the
> opening is large enough to ensnare a small dog, I
> can't imagine it being a
> problem, other than the small amount of drag it
> will add.
>
> N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon
> Valley)
>
>
>
>
> **************Start the year off right. Easy ways
> to stay in shape.
>
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster(at)flion.com> |
| Subject: | Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
I managed to fit mine very close and used some rubber 'U' channel from ACS
to fill the gap and prevent rubbing.
PatK - RV-6A - Back to wiring; got the intercom and music input going
PS - Your plans aren't old ... mine are from 1994. I bet there are older
out there.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 1:10 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer
I just realized that I never did anything to close up the small gap
between underside of the horiz. stab. and the fuselage. I just looked
thru the drawings (my plans are old - 1999) and empenage fairing section
of my manual and couldn't find any indication of a gap-filler for this
spot. Am I missing it , or is the builder left to his own resources in
this area? I have seen at least one plane that had no gap filler.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
I did not like the plans callout to drill and tap the longeron for screws to attach
the .025 fairing so after trimming it to fit I simply bonded the fairing
into place using good ol proseal. I did not install the rubber channel either.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4825/airframedetails00340xp6.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
Nice. You just taped it in place while the proseal dried?
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
On Jan 6, 2008 7:19 PM, Rick Galati wrote:
> I did not like the plans callout to drill and tap the longeron for screws
> to attach the .025 fairing so after trimming it to fit I simply bonded the
> fairing into place using good ol proseal. I did not install the rubber
> channel either.
>
> [URL
> http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4825/airframedetails00340xp6.jpg[/IMG][/URL
> ]
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
who's ever successfully mounted the rubber channel anyway. I had to
hack so much of mine away at the HS that it would not stay on the
fairing due to the upward curve of the fairing to transition to the
fuse. Gave up on it, and threw it in the "well that didn't work bin".
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Galati
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 7:19 PM
Subject: RV-List: RE: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer
I did not like the plans callout to drill and tap the longeron for
screws to attach the .025 fairing so after trimming it to fit I simply
bonded the fairing into place using good ol proseal. I did not install
the rubber channel either.
[URL=http://imageshack.us][IMG]http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/4825/
airframedetails00340xp6.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
Larry,
Yea, the fairing was temporarily held into into place using bits of tape. After
about 24 hours of (partial) cure time, the excess proseal squeeze out was removed
using a plastic scraper and MEK....ditto for the NACA vents, rudder cable
fairings, footsteps, etc.
Rick
Larry Bowen wrote:
> Nice. You just taped it in place while the proseal dried?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156508#156508
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Installation was pretty easy. I had a scat tube running from the baffles to the
firewall, into a box that splits to two scat tubes going to the air vents, just
below the panel on either side of the fuselage. I simply plugged that box
into the firewall box, connected a cable and the heater tube. Haven't used it
yet, so I'm not sure how it's gonna work, but should be flying in a few days.
My biggest concern is there is no place to vent the heat overboard. It's going
to pre heat the mixer tube I imagine, which might effect the temperature of cool
air going in.. We'll see.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: "halbenjamin(at)optonline.net" <halbenjamin(at)optonline.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:56:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
Paul, Dale, Chuck,
Thanks for the help! I had seen Van's mixer, but never noticed the hole....Looks
like that setup should work.
Hal Benjamin
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Date: Saturday, January 5, 2008 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
> I've got this one and will be installing this in my RV-4
> hopefully this weekend. I'll post my flight test
> findings...what I like about it, is that I'll be able to plumb
> the air right to the air vents, and get the right temperature
> instead of having a heat blow on your feet.
>
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-4 N73DD
> Arizona
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dale Ensing
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2008 6:34:16 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hal,
>
> Have you checked out the mixer from
> Van's?
>
>
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?ident=1199460045-
> 284-291&browse=heatvent&product=chv-1
>
>
>
> It has an air bleed hole. Doesn't really dump all
> the unused hot air but works very well. I have one on my 6A with
> the hot air
> from two heat muffs in tandem. Have been flying for three years
> with this set up
> and no problems.
>
>
>
> Dale Ensing
>
> Aero Plantation
>
> Weddington NC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From:
> halbenjamin(at)optonline.net
>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:14
> PM
>
> Subject: RV-List: Heat boxes for
> RV-4
>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
>
> I'm looking for a heat box for an RV-4 with air mixing
> capability (cool
> air, heated, or mixed) that allows for dumping of unused
> heated air.
> Looking at the ads online, I see heat boxes that will dump
> unused hot
> air, and heat boxes that can mix warm with cool air, but I
> can't tell if any
> of these will do both. Any tips would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Hal Benjamin - RV-4
>
> Long Island, NY
>
> Finish kit & Spending money like a drunken sailor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
The reason the US uses 120 is it is far less likely to kill you outright.
Higher voltage is what precipitates unusual path choices in semi conductors
and insulators which is technically what homo-sapiens are to an electron.
Most 120V fatalities are from the sudden impact upon the
floor/stove/ladder/couch/cat after falling.
If the house is wired correctly the toaster in the bath tub will do nothing
to the participants, the current will go down the drain literally.
Hollywierd, and in particular, CSI is very bad about this fact.
Hi V efficiency really only gets useful on long runs like from the nuke to
your city/town/commode/etc.
As one who has tasted 120, 220, and 480 as well as a few 80K ignition coils
and one mega K electric torpedo ray(as in fish, yes they really do exist),
the 120 tastes much better.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Be careful when mounting this fairing. It is (I believe) .025 material.
when placing it in position and drilling for the mounting screws, you
will notice that it calls for flat head #6 screws to mount. In
countersinking to make it flush, either with a dimple in the fairing, you
have to countersink the skin and it also countersinks into the longeron
that is behind it. sounds good except when you "tap" for the threads,
you only have about two threads left. (tap before you countersink). Had
I known this, I would have used pan head screws in place of the flat head
screws. That would have left me with nominal threads to hold the screws.
:-(((
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Proseal is magic stuff but I had yet to consider it for retrofitting
foot steps - I'll keep it in mind!
Doug G.
> Yea, the fairing was temporarily held into into place using bits of
> tape. After about 24 hours of (partial) cure time, the excess proseal
> squeeze out was removed using a plastic scraper and MEK....ditto for
> the NACA vents, rudder cable fairings, footsteps, etc.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomasz Korwel <tomasz(at)korwel.net> |
It's not a place to discuss this matter but the true reason why US uses
110V is much more simpler - we/you do that because Edison designed his
systems to produce and use 110V (going to higher voltage was very costly
back then). Later on as the network grew up it became more and more
harder to switch and finally people just dropped this idea because of
the cost.
--
Tomasz
Wheeler North wrote:
>
> The reason the US uses 120 is it is far less likely to kill you outright.
>
> Higher voltage is what precipitates unusual path choices in semi conductors
> and insulators which is technically what homo-sapiens are to an electron.
>
> Most 120V fatalities are from the sudden impact upon the
> floor/stove/ladder/couch/cat after falling.
>
> If the house is wired correctly the toaster in the bath tub will do nothing
> to the participants, the current will go down the drain literally.
> Hollywierd, and in particular, CSI is very bad about this fact.
>
> Hi V efficiency really only gets useful on long runs like from the nuke to
> your city/town/commode/etc.
>
> As one who has tasted 120, 220, and 480 as well as a few 80K ignition coils
> and one mega K electric torpedo ray(as in fish, yes they really do exist),
> the 120 tastes much better.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
I used 3/32 flush pop rivets on mine. I figured the rivets are pretty easy
to drill out and replace should the need arise.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "James H Nelson" <rv9jim(at)juno.com>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer
>
>
> Be careful when mounting this fairing. It is (I believe) .025 material.
> when placing it in position and drilling for the mounting screws, you
> will notice that it calls for flat head #6 screws to mount. In
> countersinking to make it flush, either with a dimple in the fairing, you
> have to countersink the skin and it also countersinks into the longeron
> that is behind it. sounds good except when you "tap" for the threads,
> you only have about two threads left. (tap before you countersink). Had
> I known this, I would have used pan head screws in place of the flat head
> screws. That would have left me with nominal threads to hold the screws.
> :-(((
>
>
> Jim Nelson
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
Edison also used DC (he thought AC was too dangerous), Tesla won that
fight!! Our present grid would not work with DC current, and until about
15 to 20 years ago the clocks would not have kept time (at least at an
affordable price).
It's not a place to discuss this matter but the true reason why US uses
110V is much more simpler - we/you do that because Edison designed his
systems to produce and use 110V (going to higher voltage was very costly
back then). Later on as the network grew up it became more and more
harder to switch and finally people just dropped this idea because of
the cost.
--
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer |
I put nutplates on the inside of the longeron instead of tapping threads. I
did this on my 8A as well. My thought was threads in soft aluminum would
not last long.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (400 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 3:27 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fairing for underside of Horiz. Stabilizer
Be careful when mounting this fairing. It is (I believe) .025 material.
when placing it in position and drilling for the mounting screws, you
will notice that it calls for flat head #6 screws to mount. In
countersinking to make it flush, either with a dimple in the fairing, you
have to countersink the skin and it also countersinks into the longeron
that is behind it. sounds good except when you "tap" for the threads,
you only have about two threads left. (tap before you countersink). Had
I known this, I would have used pan head screws in place of the flat head
screws. That would have left me with nominal threads to hold the screws.
:-(((
Jim Nelson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
Well, it looks like I win the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my
finish kit ships this week. I asked her who she had it scheduled with for
shipping and the cost and she told me ABF for $787.00!
I asked her to get a quote from several others and about a half-hour later
she called me back. The best price to ship from Aurora, OR to Mineral Bluff,
GA is $710 using FedEx Freight.
Unbelievable!
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | halbenjamin(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Hi Paul,
I'm working figuring out where to install all this stuff on the firewall, do you
have any pictures of your installation?
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Date: Monday, January 7, 2008 10:51 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
> Installation was pretty easy. I had a scat tube running from
> the baffles to the firewall, into a box that splits to two scat
> tubes going to the air vents, just below the panel on either
> side of the fuselage. I simply plugged that box into the
> firewall box, connected a cable and the heater tube. Haven't
> used it yet, so I'm not sure how it's gonna work, but should be
> flying in a few days.
>
> My biggest concern is there is no place to vent the heat
> overboard. It's going to pre heat the mixer tube I imagine,
> which might effect the temperature of cool air going in.. We'll see.
>
> Paul Besing
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
It's getting to the point where it'd be cheaper to drive out and rent a
UHaul trailer.
Of just move to Oregon (g)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret Smith
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: RV-List: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
Well, it looks like I win the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my
finish kit ships this week. I asked her who she had it scheduled with for
shipping and the cost and she told me ABF for $787.00!
I asked her to get a quote from several others and about a half-hour later
she called me back. The best price to ship from Aurora, OR to Mineral Bluff,
GA is $710 using FedEx Freight.
Unbelievable!
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
Bob Collins wrote:
>
> It's getting to the point where it'd be cheaper to drive out and rent a
> UHaul trailer.
>
> Of just move to Oregon (g)
>
Or, Van could move his operation somewhere a little more centrally
located. Like, say, Evansville, Indiana :-)
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, tying up all of the loose ends, finish line is in sight.
Skylane Airport (3EV), Evansville, Indiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
Is it being delivered to your home or the terminal? Retrieving the kit
shipments from the local (or nearest) trucking terminal can save you a
bundle.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret Smith
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 7:41 PM
Subject: RV-List: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
Well, it looks like I win the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my
finish kit ships this week. I asked her who she had it scheduled with
for
shipping and the cost and she told me ABF for $787.00!
I asked her to get a quote from several others and about a half-hour
later
she called me back. The best price to ship from Aurora, OR to Mineral
Bluff,
GA is $710 using FedEx Freight.
Unbelievable!
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heat boxes for RV-4 |
Not yet...but it's dead center behind the engine, about 4-6 inches from the top
of the firewall. That goes into a box on the cabin side of the firewall with
two outlets going to the air vents.
I will try to get some pics soon.
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: "halbenjamin(at)optonline.net" <halbenjamin(at)optonline.net>
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2008 7:42:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
Hi Paul,
I'm working figuring out where to install all this stuff on the firewall, do you
have any pictures of your installation?
Hal
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
Date: Monday, January 7, 2008 10:51 am
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heat boxes for RV-4
> Installation was pretty easy. I had a scat tube running from
> the baffles to the firewall, into a box that splits to two scat
> tubes going to the air vents, just below the panel on either
> side of the fuselage. I simply plugged that box into the
> firewall box, connected a cable and the heater tube. Haven't
> used it yet, so I'm not sure how it's gonna work, but should be
> flying in a few days.
>
> My biggest concern is there is no place to vent the heat
> overboard. It's going to pre heat the mixer tube I imagine,
> which might effect the temperature of cool air going in.. We'll see.
>
> Paul Besing
>
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Hilditch" <wmjack1(at)t3cs.net> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
I don't know if it will help, but just for the heck of it, why don't you try
getting a quote from a freight consolidator/forwarder such as
www.efreightline.com? When I needed to ship engine parts from Little Rock, AR
to Connecticut a few months ago, this company was able to negotiate a much
better price than I could. When I get ready to order my 9A Finish kit later this
year, that is what I will be doing (again.) Good luck.
Jack Hilditch
RV-9A Wings done, Emp. Done,
Fuse past boat stage,
working on engine & electrics.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bret Smith
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:41 PM
Subject: RV-List: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
Well, it looks like I win the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my
finish kit ships this week. I asked her who she had it scheduled with for
shipping and the cost and she told me ABF for $787.00!
I asked her to get a quote from several others and about a half-hour later
she called me back. The best price to ship from Aurora, OR to Mineral Bluff,
GA is $710 using FedEx Freight.
Unbelievable!
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
--
AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
In a message dated 01/07/2008 10:44:54 PM Central Standard Time,
wgill10(at)comcast.net writes:
Retrieving the kit
shipments from the local (or nearest) trucking terminal can save you a
bundle.
Ya got that right! Plus, unloading a semi at home can be a major hassle
unless you have a forklift handy- REALLY bad if the truck can't negotiate your
driveway and wants it unloaded at the street. I've collected my big stuff at the
terminal in Nashville where they can easily fork it onto the bed of a pickup
or trailer, making it much easier to deal with back at the shop. Another
option is Tony Partain- have you given him a holler?
Mark
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BRUCE GRAY <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
Bret,
WOW! I really feel for you. I know the shipping companies need to make mone
y but that is crazy. $700.00 could go to good use on some more airplane goo
dies. I was fortunate enough to kill to birds with one trip during Thanksgi
ving. I drove the family up to Beaverton,OR for Thanksgiving this year(her
side) which happens to be 25 minutes from Aurora(factory). So the 10 1/2 ho
urs up and the same back with a fuel cost of just under 300.00 put my finis
hing kit safe in the garage. It is nice to be somewhat local to factory for
reasons like shipping.
But all in all look at the airplane you'll have when done and the 700+ doll
ars spent on shipping will be a long lost memory.
Luck you don't live overseas and have to pay tax/duties and whatever else a
t you for wanting to build your own airplane.
Good luck with the project!
Bruce Gray
RV8 Fuse
Finishing Kit,wiring,Panel, and what ever else I can jump to.> From: smithh
b(at)tds.net> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RV-List: Finishing Kit Shipp
ing Cost...this week> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:40:34 -0500> > --> RV-List m
essage posted by: "Bret Smith" > > Well, it looks like I w
in the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my> finish kit ships this wee
k. I asked her who she had it scheduled with for> shipping and the cost and
she told me ABF for $787.00!> > I asked her to get a quote from several ot
hers and about a half-hour later> she called me back. The best price to shi
p from Aurora, OR to Mineral Bluff,> GA is $710 using FedEx Freight.> > Unb
elievable!> > > Bret Smith> RV-9A N16BL> Blue Ridge, Ga> www.FlightInnovati
-========================
==> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Watch =93Cause Effect,=94 a show about real people making a real difference
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BRUCE GRAY <brucerv84us(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
Bret,
I did forget I had my fuse shipped to the FedEx terminal local and pick it
up there. Saved about a 100.00 for 40 mile drive. Only thing was I had to u
nload the whole thing when I got home because of the weight. Worth the 100.
00 because it was like Christmas for 2 hours.
Take care,
Bruce G.> From: smithhb(at)tds.net> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RV-Lis
t: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 20:40:34
ell, it looks like I win the prize! I just called Ann at Vans since my> fin
ish kit ships this week. I asked her who she had it scheduled with for> shi
pping and the cost and she told me ABF for $787.00!> > I asked her to get a
quote from several others and about a half-hour later> she called me back.
The best price to ship from Aurora, OR to Mineral Bluff,> GA is $710 using
FedEx Freight.> > Unbelievable!> > > Bret Smith> RV-9A N16BL> Blue Ridge,
==========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_C
PC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
It has been my experience (twice) that the finish kit is more expensive to ship
because the materials are declared "plastic" as opposed to the other kits in
which the materials are declared "bar and angle stock." To further complicate
it, I called Van's to complain about the RV-8 finish kit shipping cost after
ABS reweighed the crate while it was enroute and determined it was lighter than
stated and ABS then tagged on an additional $150! I asked Van's why they didn't
just stick a lead weight in there to meet minimum weight standards and was
told by deleting the landing gear (I went with Grove) the RV-8 finish crate
becomes significantly lighter and they have had many complaints in the past.
When I then asked why they didn't just stick a lead weight in the crate or declare
the contents bar and angle stock, they laughed and said they thought about
doing that but it is illegal.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla!"
RV-8 wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
This reweighing and freight reclassification is a Freight Industry
thing. The freight haulers have more ways to extract additional fees
out of shippers than an RV builder has rivets. There is a whole art to
it. We ship a few common carrier freight shipments a week and if we
don't go to the National Motor Freight Classification book (about 3"
thick) and find an appropriate Classification and then describe it
accurately, the shipping company will assign an arbitrary Classification
of 150 or even 250 to it instead of the 50 or 65 that is appropriate.
The reason this is important is the Classification is used as a
multiplier. After they add up the weight and the distance, then they
multiply it by the Classification, so Class 150 will cost three times as
much as Class 50.
And then, we get into weight density.... If the package is too light,
they charge you extra. If the package is too heavy, they charge you
extra. We joke that the freight is free, but they make their money on
the penalties, adders and fuel surcharge. Can you fight
it---absolutely, but remember, its only $150 and you only live so long,
so you have to pick your fights, and I'm not sure this is a good one.
If you really want to get outraged, look carefully at your phone bill!!!
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:48 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
It has been my experience (twice) that the finish kit is more expensive
to ship because the materials are declared "plastic" as opposed to the
other kits in which the materials are declared "bar and angle stock."
To further complicate it, I called Van's to complain about the RV-8
finish kit shipping cost after ABS reweighed the crate while it was
enroute and determined it was lighter than stated and ABS then tagged on
an additional $150! I asked Van's why they didn't just stick a lead
weight in there to meet minimum weight standards and was told by
deleting the landing gear (I went with Grove) the RV-8 finish crate
becomes significantly lighter and they have had many complaints in the
past. When I then asked why they didn't just stick a lead weight in the
crate or declare the contents bar and angle stock, they laughed and said
they thought about doing that but it is illegal.
Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla!"
RV-8 wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
What would be illegal about shipping some lead weight? Is it because it
might then be considered a hazardous material??? Maybe they could throw
in some rebar or such...
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Rick Galati wrote:
> It has been my experience (twice) that the finish kit is more
> expensive to ship because the materials are declared "plastic" as
> opposed to the other kits in which the materials are declared "bar and
> angle stock." To further complicate it, I called Van's to complain
> about the RV-8 finish kit shipping cost after ABS reweighed the crate
> while it was enroute and determined it was lighter than stated and ABS
> then tagged on an additional $150! I asked Van's why they didn't
> just stick a lead weight in there to meet minimum weight standards
> and was told by deleting the landing gear (I went with Grove) the RV-8
> finish crate becomes significantly lighter and they have had many
> complaints in the past. When I then asked why they didn't just stick
> a lead weight in the crate or declare the contents bar and angle
> stock, they laughed and said they thought about doing that but it is
> illegal.
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla!"
> RV-8 wiring
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
SeaLand tried that Schipt on me 28 years ago, when I had a house kit
shipped to me in two vans. 35 ft vans were specified by the shipper. Sea
Land didn't have any available at the time, so said they would supply 40
ft vans at same price. So they arrive, and they call us for payment
prior to delivery. Then they call me back, say they determined the
longer vans would be an extra $1500. I told them it was between them and
the shipper, and if they didn't resolve it at no cost to me, I would
refuse the entire shipment and they could do whatever they wanted with
it. (also called shipper and advised them of the bait and switch) Took
2 days for them to cave and deliver. It cost me dearly schedule-wise,
but was worth it. Since the shipper was a good customer, they weren't
about to risk losing their business.
Chuck Jensen wrote:
> This reweighing and freight reclassification is a Freight Industry thing. The
freight haulers have more ways to extract additional fees out of shippers than
an RV builder has rivets. There is a whole art to it. We ship a few common
carrier freight shipments a week and if we don't go to the National Motor Freight
Classification book (about 3" thick) and find an appropriate Classification
and then describe it accurately, the shipping company will assign an arbitrary
Classification of 150 or even 250 to it instead of the 50 or 65 that is appropriate.
The reason this is important is the Classification is used as a multiplier.
After they add up the weight and the distance, then they multiply
it by the Classification, so Class 150 will cost three times as much as Class
50.
>
> And then, we get into weight density.... If the package is too light, they charge
you extra. If the package is too heavy, they charge you extra. We joke
that the freight is free, but they make their money on the penalties, adders
and fuel surcharge. Can you fight it---absolutely, but remember, its only $150
and you only live so long, so you have to pick your fights, and I'm not sure
this is a good one. If you really want to get outraged, look carefully at your
phone bill!!!
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 1:48 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
>
>
> It has been my experience (twice) that the finish kit is more expensive to ship
because the materials are declared "plastic" as opposed to the other kits in
which the materials are declared "bar and angle stock." To further complicate
it, I called Van's to complain about the RV-8 finish kit shipping cost after
ABS reweighed the crate while it was enroute and determined it was lighter than
stated and ABS then tagged on an additional $150! I asked Van's why they
didn't just stick a lead weight in there to meet minimum weight standards and
was told by deleting the landing gear (I went with Grove) the RV-8 finish crate
becomes significantly lighter and they have had many complaints in the past.
When I then asked why they didn't just stick a lead weight in the crate or
declare the contents bar and angle stock, they laughed and said they thought about
doing that but it is illegal.
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A "Darla!"
> RV-8 wiring
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
dhall(at)donka.net wrote:
> I had a negative experience with ABF. Terrible service, ..........Don Hall
Consistent with the terrible service and shoddy reputation that ABF seems to have
earned is my first hand experience. Not only is ABF expensive, but it seems
the company does not understand nor really care about the difference between
right side up and sideways. Imagine my surprise when standing outside the ABS
truck with a digital camera in hand, this was my very first view of the RV-8
fuselage kit! By the way, the home delivery cost extra.
(http://imageshack.us) [Shocked]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156914#156914
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
On the flip side ... I have had two very positive experiences with
ABF. One in particular had nice surprises associated with it. When I
had the QB fuselage shipped to me they re-weighed it, noticed it was
less than the declared weight by a few hundred pounds, and _lowered_
the price for shipping. I was at first confused by the bill presented
to me at the freight dock, then happily surprised.
It was still VERY expensive to ship though ... needless to say.
Yellow Freight, on the other hand, mis-handled my engine badly enough
to break the tie-down strap inside the crate and caused one of the
valve covers to end up being dented in. Nicely enough Superior sent
me a replacement valve cover with -zero- hesitation. Fortunately no
other damage was done to the engine.
-- Dwight
On Tue Jan 8 23:17:56 2008, Don Hall wrote :
>
>I had a negative experience with ABF. Terrible service, and they tried to
>jack the price on me claiming Van's had misweighed the package. I had to
>sick Van's on them to convince them to reweigh the box without a 200 pound
>thumb on the scale.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
While I railed about the freight industry's pricing practices, one area where there
is justification for extra charges is home delivery. When they deliver to
a business, there are loading docks, forklifts and extra hands. When they deliver
to a home, they are met with a blank stare and a look of oooooo-mmmmmyyyyy-gawwwd.
Instead of a turn around of 5 minutes, the offloading takes much
longer and time is money for them as it is for everyone. So if saving a hundred
bucks is worth the trip to the terminal, do so--it'll make you happy and the
freight company as well.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:14 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Finishing Kit Shipping Cost...this week
dhall(at)donka.net wrote:
> I had a negative experience with ABF. Terrible service, ..........Don Hall
Consistent with the terrible service and shoddy reputation that ABF seems to have
earned is my first hand experience. Not only is ABF expensive, but it seems
the company does not understand nor really care about the difference between
right side up and sideways. Imagine my surprise when standing outside the ABS
truck with a digital camera in hand, this was my very first view of the RV-8
fuselage kit! By the way, the home delivery cost extra.
(http://imageshack.us) [Shocked]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=156914#156914
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Falcon Pitot Tube |
| From: | dfischer(at)iserv.net |
I have a chromed Falcon heated pitot tube without the static air line.
For the airspeed connection, it has a tapered fitting (like an AN
fitting). Does anyone know what the fitting surface angle is on this
pitot? I have a 37-deg Flaring tool and I want to run aluminum line for
10-12 inches for heat dissipation. Is the taper 37-deg? Will the Falcon
fitting work with a 37-deg. flare? Thanks in advance for any help!
Doug Fischer
RV-9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Barnes" <rickbarnes(at)highlanddental.com> |
| Subject: | 2 or 3 blade props |
Let's get back to the building of RV10's. I've seen some 10's with 2 blade
and a few with 3 blade props. I've heard many differing ideas on which to
use. Why have some chosen going with a 2 and some with 3 blades? I know
3's are sexier and smoother running, but some of us are too old to care
about that.
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Falcon Pitot Tube |
dfischer(at)iserv.net wrote:
>
> I have a chromed Falcon heated pitot tube without the static air line.
> For the airspeed connection, it has a tapered fitting (like an AN
> fitting). Does anyone know what the fitting surface angle is on this
> pitot? I have a 37-deg Flaring tool and I want to run aluminum line for
> 10-12 inches for heat dissipation. Is the taper 37-deg? Will the Falcon
> fitting work with a 37-deg. flare? Thanks in advance for any help!
>
You should be able to get a pretty good idea by holding the pitot tube fitting
next to an aviation fitting and comparing the angles with the Mark I eyeball.
It is quite likely a 37 deg aviation flared fitting.
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 or 3 blade props |
I'm going with a MT three blade on my 6A along with counterweighted crank as suggested
by MT.....for the smoothness - we've added a set of Vetterman exhausts
with mufflers for quietness. My wife and I are planning on a lot of cross country
flying and don't want to arrive with a body buzz
-----Original Message-----
>From: Rick Barnes <rickbarnes(at)highlanddental.com>
>Sent: Jan 9, 2008 11:41 AM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: 2 or 3 blade props
>
>Let's get back to the building of RV10's. I've seen some 10's with 2 blade
>and a few with 3 blade props. I've heard many differing ideas on which to
>use. Why have some chosen going with a 2 and some with 3 blades? I know
>3's are sexier and smoother running, but some of us are too old to care
>about that.
>
>
>
>Rick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | update on hangar lighting |
My electrician had suggested I'd get the most light for the cost by using an
outside yard light for my hangar shop lighting. I tried one, and it worked
great, so I documented the steps I used to do it and created a web page for
it. See here:
http://brian76.mystarband.net/HangarLights.htm
If you want inexpensive lighting, this is your best bet, from all I've seen
brian
9:14 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
And here's some useful info from his ad:
"If you need help deciding what type lights are right for your application
you can use the following basic guidelines: 1) High Bays with an aluminum or
acrylic reflector are used when your mounting height is 16 foot or above. 2)
Standard Aluminum or Acrylic lowbays are used when your mounting height is
between 10 and 16 foot. If you need a basic layout of your area use the
formula listed below (Length x width) over (Fixture spacing squared)
Fixtures needed. An average spacing for this fixture is 15 foot. So just
multiply the length times the width of your area and put that number over
225 and you will have a close ideal of the number of fixtures you will need
for a 75 foot candle light level. This is the light level typically used in
Machine Shops and other close work areas. If you have a question please feel
free to email me or give me a call on my 800 number at 800 785 0473."
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 12:59 AM
Subject: RV-List: hangar lighting
There was some discussion last month about hangar lights so I thought
there might still be some interest in this.
One of my neighbors just bought some 400 W metal halide low-bay lights
for his business & hangar for a pretty good price & they appear to be
high quality. The only downside is this seller sells them in lots of 10
(4 is all you should need in a 50x50 hangar).
Search ebay for item 120205873311 then go to this seller's store to pick
the right light. Be sure to check the input voltage. He's got some that
are 120/240 volt & some that are 277/480 volt.
Charlie
12:05 PM
9:14 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: update on hangar lighting |
Brien,
Thanks for the info on the hangar lighting.
Would it work to mount the area light, using the vertical surface mounting
arm, on the side of the horizontal member of the wood truss in my hangar? It
appears that the globe of the light would still be below the bottom level of
the truss.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: update on hangar lighting
>
> My electrician had suggested I'd get the most light for the cost by using
> an
> outside yard light for my hangar shop lighting. I tried one, and it
> worked
> great, so I documented the steps I used to do it and created a web page
> for
> it. See here:
>
> http://brian76.mystarband.net/HangarLights.htm
>
> If you want inexpensive lighting, this is your best bet, from all I've
> seen
>
> brian
>
> 9:14 AM
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
Anyone know any details about this product?
http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
after the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper
than typical PLBs with built in GPS.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
On 19:18 2008-01-09 Charlie England wrote:
> Anyone know any details about this product?
>
> http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
>
> IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
> after the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper
> than typical PLBs with built in GPS.)
Nothing more than is already posted on their website, but it looks like a
very interesting device. I've been following it for a while now, and will
probably pick one up this year when the weather gets better and I start
flying more.
Personally, I find the tracking/datalogging capability to be more
interesting than the emergency functionality, but the emergency capability
is extremely compelling. Flying around the mountains in the Pacific
Northwest it's nice to know that someone will have a starting point to
locate your carcass if something goes wrong unexpectedly.
I could see myself using the findmespot product for flying, motorcycling,
bicycling, and hiking. In all cases, it would be neat to be able to call
up a Google map later and see where i've been. Up until now, the only way
is to download a track from my GPS, convert it to a Google-compatible file,
and then view it on Google Maps. And that does nobody any good if the GPS
goes down with the plane...
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
Charlie England wrote:
>
> Anyone know any details about this product?
>
> http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
>
> IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
> after the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper
> than typical PLBs with built in GPS.)
>
> Charlie
There is quite a bit of info and background on the Spot on the VAF site
and forums. Looks like a useful device.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
You can do something similar called APRS, if you have a amateur radio
license. Feed nearly any sort of telemetry from airplane (or whatever) to a
repeater, and the the internet if you like. I don't know enough about it to
be dangerous yet, but plan to figure it out and equip the RV-7 with it.
Another RVer in VA has it working in his RV-6A. Cool stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Position_Reporting_System
http://www.byonics.com/microtrak/
http://n1vg.net/opentracker/
http://aprs.fi/?
etc
--
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
On Jan 9, 2008 10:18 PM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> Anyone know any details about this product?
>
> http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
>
> IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
> after the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper
> than typical PLBs with built in GPS.)
>
> Charlie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 2 or 3 blade props |
In a message dated 1/9/2008 11:04:52 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
recapen(at)earthlink.net writes:
My wife and I are planning on a lot of cross country flying and don't want
to arrive with a body buzz
==================================================
My wife liked the Kitfox for the opposite reason ;o)
-GV
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cato 3 blade vs sen 2 blade RV6a's |
Shortly after I bought my 6a, I went on a trip with another 6a with
almost ident paint job, with 3 blade and 160hp. I have 2 blade 150hp. He
told me he had to max it out to stay with me as I was lead. On return he
asked if I wanted to do form takeoff, and altho hadnt before, I said
yes.( him in lead) I stayed with him thru long ground effect run and
sharp pullup that we like to do (Rv builders on the ground watching), an
then broke off with an instictive vert pull and hard rt turn when he
pulled left in front of me. Other factors have a bearing of course, but
that is my take on the 3 vs 2 blade comparison. I will add that he said
his 6a performed better with the Cato than with his previous 2 blade.
Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
I doubt that it uses current SARSAT satellites. As Rob mentions in a reply,
the "I am OK/Check-in" position reporting function seems helpful. It would
greatly reduce
the area that needs to be searched in the event of a problem.
If I did not already have a 406 MHz PLB I would probably get one of the Spot
systems.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
There is another site that advertises this unit for $20 less. See:
https://secure.baxinternet.com/~satdir/spot_sales_order.html
RHDudley
Ron Lee wrote:
>
> I doubt that it uses current SARSAT satellites. As Rob mentions in a
> reply,
> the "I am OK/Check-in" position reporting function seems helpful. It
> would greatly reduce
> the area that needs to be searched in the event of a problem.
>
> If I did not already have a 406 MHz PLB I would probably get one of
> the Spot
> systems.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
The other point is that after 4-5 years it becomes more expensive
than a 406 MHz PLB when you add in the $100/year cost.
However, the "I am OK/Check-in" function is one that a PLB does not
have and can easily justify the extra cost.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
On 8:16 2008-01-10 Richard Dudley wrote:
> There is another site that advertises this unit for $20 less. See:
> https://secure.baxinternet.com/~satdir/spot_sales_order.html
They could give the units away for free and still make money on the system.
It's the yearly fee that's paying their bills, not the capital received
from selling units.
I heard that COPA (Canadian Owners and Pilot's Association) is trying to
arrange a discount for it's members. Maybe AOPA would do the same in the
US?
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2 or 3 blade props |
The best value, performance, customer support by far is
a BA (blended airfoil) from Vans. A three blade hartzell
is going to be heavy.
Short answer is buy a BA Harzell from Van and be
done.
The other choice is a MT prop. They are fine but will be
significantly slower (6 mph at least, some report 9 mph
or more). It will cost more to buy a MT, repair and
overhaul. It will be way more expensive and time
consuming, because you have to ship it to Germany for
major repair. Also a small thing like a nick or erosion
shield de-bonding, coming loose, means removal of the
prop and shipping it, ie big BUCKS.
A nick on a metal prop like a Hartzell might mean 5
minutes on the ramp with a super fine spoon file to
blend the little nick out.
If you want a WHITE prop get a Hartzell and paint it
white and put pretty stripes on it if you want.
I CANT OVER emphasize how much better Hartzell's
service support will be. There are prop shops all over
the US. You can even fly into Hartzell (Ohio) and they
will repair your prop while you wait or overnight. You
can call Hartzell and talk to an engineer or service
expert in English, any work day of the week. MT? They
speak German and the America centers tend to be
staffed with sales people or technicians, not engineers.
Van had the choice to overhaul a MT on one of his
demo planes. The DOWN time was going to be long (a
few weeks) and cost was going to be the better part of a
new Hartzell. So they overhauled a Hartzell they had
laying around the shop and had it back in a few days for
less than $2k. This was in the RVator, so no hate mail,
its Van saying this.
MT is a good company, but it's a foreign company, a
small boutique prop company. They are getting better,
adding service centers, but chances are you will be far
away from one. Composites and bonding is a wonderful
thing but cost more and not easily ramp repaired.
Last is performance. There is no debate. The fair and
balanced unbiased tests have shown consistently the
MT wood blade props are slower. That is to be
expected. Wood blades are thicker and therefore lose
efficiency at high speed. It's NOT a put down just
aerodynamic facts and reality. Now the plus side is they
are "smoother". Well I have flown metal blades and if
balanced (with a balanced engine) and good engine
mounts metal blades are plenty smooth. There is no
doubt wood has its own natural dampening
characteristics. Also a MT prop will be lighter. Here are
some good links to Prop info.
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/9791/prop200415me.jpg
http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/4741/prop200559zw.jpg
http://www.romeolima.com/RV8/Prop.htm
http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm
Enjoy, its a personal choice but a very expensive one. George
***************
>From: "Rick Barnes" <rickbarnes(at)highlanddental.com>
>Subject: 2 or 3 blade props
>Let's get back to the building of RV10's. I've seen some 10's with 2 blade
>and a few with 3 blade props. I've heard many differing ideas on which
to
>use. Why have some chosen going with a 2 and some with 3 blades? I know
>3's are sexier and smoother running, but some of us are too old to care
>about that. Rick
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cato 3 blade vs sen 2 blade RV6a's |
Charles Heathco wrote:
> Shortly after I bought my 6a, I went on a trip with another 6a with
> almost ident paint job, with 3 blade and 160hp. I have 2 blade 150hp.
> He told me he had to max it out to stay with me as I was lead. On
> return he asked if I wanted to do form takeoff, and altho hadnt
> before, I said yes.( him in lead) I stayed with him thru long ground
> effect run and sharp pullup that we like to do (Rv builders on the
> ground watching), an then broke off with an instictive vert pull and
> hard rt turn when he pulled left in front of me. Other factors have a
> bearing of course, but that is my take on the 3 vs 2 blade comparison.
> I will add that he said his 6a performed better with the Cato than
> with his previous 2 blade. Charlie Heathco
Within about a month we will have a better comparison of 3 vs 2 blade
propellers. My hangar mate and building buddy has an RV-7 with a
Mattituck O-360 180 HP engine and Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop. I
am putting a Catto 3 blade on my RV-7A O-360 180 HP that should be
flying sometime in April. My Catto prop is scheduled to ship in another
week. When it gets here we are going to put it on my hangar mates RV-7
and get comparison performance numbers for both props on the same
plane. Should be interesting.
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A - O-360-A1A, Catto 3 blade, Slider and a whole bunch of Kandy
Apple Red paint
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cato 3 blade vs sen 2 blade RV6a's |
When I changed my Aymar-Demuth 2 blade for a catto three blade
(will need to provide prop specs on both) I saw a 3-3.5 knot improvement
in 75% power, full speed with the Catto prop.
Personally, a Hartzell blended airfoil 2 blade would be optimal.
I know of a guy using a MT 2 blade constat speed prop and has had prop
grease leaage issues on the original and a replacement prop.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | update on hangar lighting |
Yes, it would work.
And you'd save all that modification work ;-)
My trusses aren't open, so I didn't have that option.
brian
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale Ensing
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: update on hangar lighting
Brien,
Thanks for the info on the hangar lighting.
Would it work to mount the area light, using the vertical surface mounting
arm, on the side of the horizontal member of the wood truss in my hangar? It
appears that the globe of the light would still be below the bottom level of
the truss.
Dale Ensing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: update on hangar lighting
>
> My electrician had suggested I'd get the most light for the cost by using
> an
> outside yard light for my hangar shop lighting. I tried one, and it
> worked
> great, so I documented the steps I used to do it and created a web page
> for
> it. See here:
>
> http://brian76.mystarband.net/HangarLights.htm
>
> If you want inexpensive lighting, this is your best bet, from all I've
> seen
>
> brian
>
> 9:14 AM
>
>
>
9:14 AM
10:16 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
Builders and flyers,
Since there is the subject of prop's going on I'd like to know how many
out there have there's polished? You know the pretty chromed looking
ones. I do not know a great deal about prop's yet because I'm not even
close to making that final decision on models and such. So my questions
is what does it take to get a polished c/s prop? Other than having to be
metal, what do I need to be aware of? I'm looking to hang a 180 or 210
hp motor.
Carlos in AZ - 7A
--
Carlos Hernandez <carlosh@sec-engr.com>
Structural Engineers Company
2963 W. Elliot Rd. - Suite 3
Chandler, AZ 85224
Phone: 480.968.8600
Fax: 480.968.8608
www.sec-engr.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged.
This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or
organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or
an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any review, dissemination or copyingof this email and
its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is
prohibited. If you havereceived this email in error, please
immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email
from your system.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: update on hangar lighting |
You can also avoid all the internal wiring mods by either cannibalizing
the plug in photocell or buying a twist lock plug & hotwiring across the
switched pins. Then all you need to do is hook up black, white & ground.
One thing you might want to research is UV emission from 'yard lights'
if you plan to spend a lot of time under the lights.
You might also want to preserve your options with the diffuser.
Sometimes, removing the diffuser will get you a nice bright spot under
the light & the rest of the area will still be 'dark'.
Charlie
Brian Meyette wrote:
>
> Yes, it would work.
> And you'd save all that modification work ;-)
> My trusses aren't open, so I didn't have that option.
> brian
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale Ensing
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: update on hangar lighting
>
>
> Brien,
> Thanks for the info on the hangar lighting.
> Would it work to mount the area light, using the vertical surface mounting
> arm, on the side of the horizontal member of the wood truss in my hangar? It
>
> appears that the globe of the light would still be below the bottom level of
>
> the truss.
> Dale Ensing
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 3:06 PM
> Subject: RV-List: update on hangar lighting
>
>
>>
>> My electrician had suggested I'd get the most light for the cost by using
>> an
>> outside yard light for my hangar shop lighting. I tried one, and it
>> worked
>> great, so I documented the steps I used to do it and created a web page
>> for
>> it. See here:
>>
>> http://brian76.mystarband.net/HangarLights.htm
>>
>> If you want inexpensive lighting, this is your best bet, from all I've
>> seen
>>
>> brian
>>
>> 9:14 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <d-burton(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | update on hangar lighting |
You might also want to preserve your options with the diffuser.
Sometimes, removing the diffuser will get you a nice bright spot under
the light & the rest of the area will still be 'dark'.
Charlie
And it's good to realize that what only looks like a diffuser can also be an
explosion proof housing to contain the screaming hot quartz pieces that are
ejected when the bulb dynamites...
Thanks for taking time to documenting this for us.
DaveB
RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael D. Cencula" <matronics(at)cencula.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polished prop's |
I attended a forum at Oshkosh a few years ago which was put on by the
engineering manager at Hartzell. They recommend against polishing any
of their props. I recall they want to keep the corrosion protective
properties of their coating (anodizing?) as long as possible. I *do*
like the way those polished props look, though.
Mike Cencula
RV-7A Fuse
Carlos Hernandez wrote:
>
> Builders and flyers,
> Since there is the subject of prop's going on I'd like to know how
> many out there have there's polished? You know the pretty chromed
> looking ones. I do not know a great deal about prop's yet because I'm
> not even close to making that final decision on models and such. So my
> questions is what does it take to get a polished c/s prop? Other than
> having to be metal, what do I need to be aware of? I'm looking to hang
> a 180 or 210 hp motor.
>
> Carlos in AZ - 7A
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Leonard" <wdleonard(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cato 3 blade vs sen 2 blade RV6a's |
I also had an Aymar Demuth 2-blade that I swaped out for a Catto 3-blade.
And I'll tell you - performance schmormance!
Look, it is an essentially undisputed fact that the fewer the blades, the
more efficient the transference of h.p. Some RC models use even use a ONE
bladed prop with a counter weight. That is, props that are optimum.
For me, now that I know the difference, give me the slightly less efficient
3 blade any day. The smoothness of the 3-blade makes all the difference in
the world. Who cares if you get there 5 minutes later if the entire 3 hour
trip was more pleasant?
I know, you really still want to know about the performance change.
Performance for me is difficult to judge because the props are so
different. I was under pitched with my 2-blade so the 3 blade has a lot
more pitch in addition to the extra blade, though it is shorter. The extra
pitch solidly increased my high altitude top speed, but take off roll and
climb are marginally diminished. The Catto seems to have a slimmer and
better blade, but the Aymar Demuth has a good reputation for efficiency.
The point is that the the other properties of the prop are going to usually
make more difference than the 3-blade vs 2-blade issue. But the smoothness
of the 3-blade makes a big difference.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Jan 10, 2008 10:12 AM, Ron Lee wrote:
>
> When I changed my Aymar-Demuth 2 blade for a catto three blade
> (will need to provide prop specs on both) I saw a 3-3.5 knot improvement
> in 75% power, full speed with the Catto prop.
>
> Personally, a Hartzell blended airfoil 2 blade would be optimal.
>
> I know of a guy using a MT 2 blade constat speed prop and has had prop
> grease leaage issues on the original and a replacement prop.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cato 3 blade vs sen 2 blade RV6a's |
FWIW, Catto himself told me that for the O-320 RV's his 2 blade is about
the same as the 3 blade in terms of performance. For the O-360's he
prefers the 3-blade because it has better harmonics. I bought a
3-blade, as I have an IO-360 on my RV-6A. Not flying yet (give me a few
more months).
I talked to many people about props before I made this choice. The
stories about performance were pretty much all over the map. One thing
they all agreed on was that the 3-blade is very smooth. That's enough
for me right there. The prop is beautiful and Craig tells a pretty good
story (which I obviously bought in to), so I'm hoping for good cruise
performance. But, there's more art than science in the marriage of a
particular plane and a particular propeller. I hope I got a good
combination, but there's definitely an element of luck involved. We'll see.
--
Tom S.
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
FWIW I purchased a security light 175W from Wal-Mart fo $28.26 that was
labeled as a "Brinks" product. It is absolutely identical to the one
shown by Brian in his article. Interestingly, when I used the Home Depot
store id number to see if I could order the lights on line, their web
site didn't even recognize their own product id.
The Wal-Mart unit is make in China of course, as I suspect the Home
Depot unit was.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
I attended a presentation on this device a few days ago.
- It absolutely does not replace any kind of ELT on aircraft. You must
still have an ELT, either 121.5 or 406 MHz.
- It is a private satellite service. You don't pay the annual fee, it
doesn't work for you.
It seems to be an initially cheaper alternative to portable PLBs, but they
then charge annual fees to make up the cheaper purchase price. Seems really
designed for outdoors hikers, backpackers, sportsmen, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
Anyone know any details about this product?
http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work after
the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper than typical
PLBs with built in GPS.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
| From: | <John.Morrissey(at)csiro.au> |
Hi All,
There are some poor man's versions of tracking for mobile phones that
might do some of the functions outlined here.
Have a look at
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/mobile/FindMe.aspx
It's a program that gets your GPS equipped Mobile phone to report its
location in response to a SMS call.
I would still have the PLB but if the family want to find you then this
may be a cheap alternative using stuff you may already have.
Cheers
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Sunday, 13 January 2008 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
I attended a presentation on this device a few days ago.
- It absolutely does not replace any kind of ELT on aircraft. You must
still have an ELT, either 121.5 or 406 MHz.
- It is a private satellite service. You don't pay the annual fee, it
doesn't work for you.
It seems to be an initially cheaper alternative to portable PLBs, but
they
then charge annual fees to make up the cheaper purchase price. Seems
really
designed for outdoors hikers, backpackers, sportsmen, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:18 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
Anyone know any details about this product?
http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work
after
the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper than
typical
PLBs with built in GPS.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rveighta <rveighta(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV8 Sliding Canopy Question |
What solutions have others come up with to pull sliding canopies forward when you're
in the front seat of a taildragger and the canopy is all the way back? I've
seen some pretty ingenious cranking mechanisms, but would rather not get into
that much effort. Maybe a pull cord, etc.? (Man, this was never a problem
on my 8A)
Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carl.froehlich(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RV8 Sliding Canopy Question |
The simple solution is the mid position lock. Move the canopy up to the mid
position before getting in.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (400 hrs)
RV-10 (wings)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of rveighta
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV8 Sliding Canopy Question
What solutions have others come up with to pull sliding canopies forward
when you're in the front seat of a taildragger and the canopy is all the way
back? I've seen some pretty ingenious cranking mechanisms, but would rather
not get into that much effort. Maybe a pull cord, etc.? (Man, this was never
a problem on my 8A)
Walt Shipley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Sliding Canopy Question |
I never had a problem just reaching back for it, and I have fairly wide
shoulders.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 400 hrs, sold
----- Original Message -----
From: "rveighta" <rveighta(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 5:42 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV8 Sliding Canopy Question
>
> What solutions have others come up with to pull sliding canopies forward
> when you're in the front seat of a taildragger and the canopy is all the
> way back? I've seen some pretty ingenious cranking mechanisms, but would
> rather not get into that much effort. Maybe a pull cord, etc.? (Man, this
> was never a problem on my 8A)
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RV-4 Rudder .020 skin problem |
For those of you building an RV-4 or going to, and you have the .020 skin for the
rudder (not sure if they are shipping it, but it is an option, and recommended
to keep the trailing edge from cracking) read this and apply to your project.
The drawing 7a calls for the stiffeners to extend to 3/16" of the radius of the
trailing edge bend on the skin. Do NOT put your stiffeners there. Bring them
to about 3/8" back from the radius. The reason is, the thicker material allows
for less space at the radius and the skin will not be able to bend completely
when it's time to "crush" the trailing edge. I had to drill out every stiffener,
shorten them, and re rivet them in place. After I did that, it worked
perfectly. Only now, this skin isn't perfect from all the crushing I was doing
on it trying to get it to bend.
For the archives.
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD
Arizona
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative? |
My brother-in-law told me about Spot after he saw it in action at a
Colorado company that rents helicopters in Mexico. Near real-time
tracking of expensive assets including Lat/Long and altitude. I had
already splurged on a PLB so I didn't follow up and have no first-hand
experience. If you fly in the mountains or remote areas, it seems like a
good idea... we are still looking for Steve Fossett near Reno.
John Morgensen
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> I attended a presentation on this device a few days ago.
>
> - It absolutely does not replace any kind of ELT on aircraft. You must
> still have an ELT, either 121.5 or 406 MHz.
>
> - It is a private satellite service. You don't pay the annual fee, it
> doesn't work for you.
>
> It seems to be an initially cheaper alternative to portable PLBs, but they
> then charge annual fees to make up the cheaper purchase price. Seems really
> designed for outdoors hikers, backpackers, sportsmen, etc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:18 PM
> To: aeroelectric list; RV list
> Subject: RV-List: Cheaper 406mhz plb alternative?
>
>
> Anyone know any details about this product?
>
> http://www.findmespot.com/explorespot/spotmessenger.aspx
>
> IF it's using the public SARSAT satellites, maybe it would still work after
> the 1st mandatory subscription lapses. (Still be a lot cheaper than typical
> PLBs with built in GPS.)
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Weiler" <dcw(at)mnwing.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Rudder .020 skin problem |
Hi Paul:
I did this conversion to my flying RV (got rudder and elevator cracks
after 30 hours of flying... fortunately not painted). I reskinned both
elevators and rudder with .020 skins and also added an additional
stiffener by reducing the spacing between what was originally laid out
in the plans. I positioned the stiffeners as you outlined below.
I now have 450 hours on the airplane with a beautiful paint job and no
cracks. I am now building an RV-7 which has .020 elevators and .016
rudder skins but I have heard of no issues with RV-7 rudder cracks.
We'll see.
Doug Weiler
Hudson, WI
N722DW
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Besing
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 Rudder .020 skin problem
For those of you building an RV-4 or going to, and you have the .020
skin for the rudder (not sure if they are shipping it, but it is an
option, and recommended to keep the trailing edge from cracking) read
this and apply to your project.
The drawing 7a calls for the stiffeners to extend to 3/16" of the
radius of the trailing edge bend on the skin. Do NOT put your
stiffeners there. Bring them to about 3/8" back from the radius. The
reason is, the thicker material allows for less space at the radius and
the skin will not be able to bend completely when it's time to "crush"
the trailing edge. I had to drill out every stiffener, shorten them,
and re rivet them in place. After I did that, it worked perfectly.
Only now, this skin isn't perfect from all the crushing I was doing on
it trying to get it to bend.
For the archives.
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD
Arizona
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Davis <rvpilot(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Sliding Canopy Question |
Walt.
I am still selling my RV-8 Canopy latch. For details, see http://
home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/rv8-latch.html
Bill Davis
>
> What solutions have others come up with to pull sliding canopies
> forward when you're in the front seat of a taildragger and the
> canopy is all the way back? I've seen some pretty ingenious
> cranking mechanisms, but would rather not get into that much
> effort. Maybe a pull cord, etc.? (Man, this was never a problem on
> my 8A)
>
> Walt Shipley
>
> _
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tailgummer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Sliding Canopy Question |
Bill, I have one of your latches, and it works just fine. Thanks for making
these available to us.
John D'Onofrio RV8
In a message dated 1/13/2008 3:05:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rvpilot(at)embarqmail.com writes:
Walt.
I am still selling my RV-8 Canopy latch. For details, see
_http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/rv8-latch.html_
(http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/rv8-latch.html)
Bill Davis
(mailto:rveighta(at)earthlink.net) >
What solutions have others come up with to pull sliding canopies forward
when you're in the front seat of a taildragger and the canopy is all the way
back? I've seen some pretty ingenious cranking mechanisms, but would rather not
get into that much effort. Maybe a pull cord, etc.? (Man, this was never a
problem on my 8A)
Walt Shipley
_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
Well,
I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load away
from the final rivets.
And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
any cracks.
The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the
taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches in
the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated
aluminum to arrive.
Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
zoom-zoom, wheeeee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed
using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could
have an indefinite life.
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
> Well,
>
> I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
>
> I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
>
> I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
>
> I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> away
> from the final rivets.
>
> And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
> any cracks.
>
> The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the
> taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches
> in
> the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated
> aluminum to arrive.
>
> Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
> zoom-zoom, wheeeee
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Pichon <deanpichon(at)msn.com> |
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is (mo
stly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The cr
acking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the gro
und. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was just
an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 d
eveloped a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon> From: randy(at)romeolima.com> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject:
Re: RV-List: cracks> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800> > --> RV-List
message posted by: "Randy Lervold" > > Further info on
getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...> http://www.romeolima.
com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage> > My research among RV-4 and ear
ly RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed > using the techniques detailed
above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could > have an indefinite life.> >
Randy Lervold> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wheeler North" <w
north(at)sdccd.edu>> To: > Sent: Monday, January 14, 20
"Wheeler North" > >> > Well,> >> > I am using the .016 sk
ins on the RV-3, but...> >> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.> >>
> I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.> >>
> I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> > away> > from the final rivets.> >> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of
flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans> > any cracks.> >> > The RV-3 plan
s also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the> > taper to be
way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches > > in> > the
-6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated> >
aluminum to arrive.> >> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, ligh
===================> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TA
GLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
Larger engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but
the fundamentals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply.
Build it right and go light!
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Pichon
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking
is (mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and
up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily
while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute
this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of
years ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon
> From: randy(at)romeolima.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800
>
>
> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
>
> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if
constructed
> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight
surfaces could
> have an indefinite life.
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
> Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
>
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
> >
> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
> >
> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each
other.
> >
> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the
load
> > away
> > from the final rivets.
> >
> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016
skins, sans
> > any cracks.
> >
> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and
for the
> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6
inches
> > in
> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of
unviolated
> > aluminum to arrive.
> >
> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight
super-fast,
> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
=============
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows
Live=99. Start now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
I heard that, too....when I talked with Ken, and asked him a question about
the .020 or .016 skin, he asked what engine I had...I told him 200HP IO-36
0, and he chuckled and said, "Well, there you go." I have finished the rud
der now, with the RTV on the stiffeners...I like the idea about proseal..di
dn't think of it. Also like the idea of adding a stiffener...but I have th
e .020 skin, so we'll see what happens. I have about 900 hours on the airf
rame, and it was cracked well before that when I bought it 2 years ago. St
op drilled, but then the cracks started continuing, so I grounded it and bu
ilt the new one.=0A=0APaul Besing=0ARV-4 N73DD=0AArizona =0A=0A=0A----- Ori
ginal Message ----=0AFrom: Dean Pichon <deanpichon(at)msn.com>=0ATo: rv-list@m
atronics.com=0ASent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22:01 AM=0ASubject: RE: RV
-List: cracks=0A=0ASome time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told
the cracking is (mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180
HP and up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primari
ly while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute
this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of yea
rs ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.=0A =0ADean Pichon
=0A=0A> From: randy(at)romeolima.com=0A> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com=0A> Subject
: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800=0A> =0A> --
Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...=0A> ht
tp://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage=0A> =0A> My re
search among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed =0A> us
ing the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces could
=0A> have an indefinite life.=0A> =0A> Randy Lervold=0A> =0A> =0A> ----- Or
iginal Message ----- =0A> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>=0A> To:
=0A> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM=0A> Subj
r North" =0A> >=0A> > Well,=0A> >=0A> > I am using the .0
16 skins on the RV-3, but...=0A> >=0A> > I've run a trailing edge bead of s
ilicon.=0A> >=0A> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across t
o each other.=0A> >=0A> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to bett
er distribute the load =0A> > away=0A> > from the final rivets.=0A> >=0A> >
And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sans
=0A> > any cracks.=0A> >=0A> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffener
s to be too long, and for the=0A> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 in
ches where it called for 6 inches =0A> > in=0A> > the -6 plans, all of whic
h was cause for yet another new box of unviolated=0A> > aluminum to arrive.
=0A> >=0A> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super
-fast,=0A> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > =0A>
==================0A> =0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A
=0A=0AMake distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Li
===========0A=0A=0A ______________________________
______________________________________________________=0ANever miss a thing
. Make Yahoo your home page. =0Ahttp://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Besing <pbesing(at)yahoo.com> |
Well, it's done now with .020...so guess I'll deal with the extra pound..ca
n use the aft CG anyway due to a light prop/starter combination. The eleva
tors, however are fine after 18 years and 900 hours of flying.=0A=0APaul Be
sing=0ARV-4 N73DD=0AArizona=0A=0A=0A----- Original Message ----=0AFrom: Ran
dy Lervold =0ATo: rv-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Monday
, January 14, 2008 11:48:11 AM=0ASubject: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A=0A=0ALarge
r engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but the fundam
entals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply. Build it right a
nd go light!=0A =0ARandy=0A----- Original Message ----- =0AFrom: Dean Picho
n =0ATo: rv-list(at)matronics.com =0ASent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
=0ASubject: RE: RV-List: cracks=0A=0A=0ASome time ago, I called Van's on th
e issue and was told the cracking is (mostly) limited to those aircraft wit
h larger engines (180HP and up). The cracking was attributed to buffeting
on the tail - primarily while on the ground. Unfortunately, I have no data
to support or refute this. It was just an explanation (hypothesis?) given
to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 developed a crack in the rudder skin
.=0A =0ADean Pichon=0A=0A> From: randy(at)romeolima.com=0A> To: rv-list@matron
ics.com=0A> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks=0A> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:5
olima.com>=0A> =0A> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without crac
king here...=0A> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empen
nage=0A> =0A> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if
constructed =0A> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flig
ht surfaces could =0A> have an indefinite life.=0A> =0A> Randy Lervold=0A>
=0A> =0A> ----- Original Message ----- =0A> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@s
dccd.edu>=0A> To: =0A> Sent: Monday, January 14, 200
8 8:25 AM=0A> Subject: RV-List: cracks=0A> =0A> =0A> > --> RV-List message
posted by: "Wheeler North" =0A> >=0A> > Well,=0A> >=0A> >
I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...=0A> >=0A> > I've run a trail
ing edge bead of silicon.=0A> >=0A> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trai
ling tips across to each other.=0A> >=0A> > I've prosealed the stiffeners t
o the skin to better distribute the load =0A> > away=0A> > from the final r
ivets.=0A> >=0A> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6
w/.016 skins, sans=0A> > any cracks.=0A> >=0A> > The RV-3 plans also called
for the stiffeners to be too long, and for the=0A> > taper to be way too s
hort, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches =0A> > in=0A> > the -6
plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of unviolated=0A> > a
luminum to arrive.=0A> >=0A> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko,
lightweight super-fast,=0A> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >
=0A> >=0A> > =0A> =0A> =0A> ===============0A>
=0A> =0A> =0A=0A=0A=0A=0AMake distant family not so distant with Windows Vi
sta=AE + Windows Live=99. Start now! =0A=0A=0Ahref="http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List=0Ahref=
"http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com=0Ahref="http://
=========================0A
=0A=0A _______________________________________________________________
_____________________=0ANever miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. =0A
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Pichon <deanpichon(at)msn.com> |
When I built my rudder (with the 0.016 skin) the use of RTV was just becomi
ng "in vogue" and I built mine that way. So far, I have 5 cracks, all 2-3
years old. None have crack beyond the stop drill holes... yet. I have com
pleted a new rudder with an 0.020 skin and used Proseal, in addition to riv
ets, to attach the stiffeners and the spar. As soon as I complete the swit
chover from hinges to Skybolt fasteners, I will have both the cowl and the
rudder painted and test-out the thicker skin.
Dean Pichon
Bolton, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:30:26 -0800From: pbesing(at)yahoo.comSubject: Re: RV
-List: cracksTo: rv-list(at)matronics.com
I heard that, too....when I talked with Ken, and asked him a question about
the .020 or .016 skin, he asked what engine I had...I told him 200HP IO-36
0, and he chuckled and said, "Well, there you go." I have finished the rud
der now, with the RTV on the stiffeners...I like the idea about proseal..di
dn't think of it. Also like the idea of adding a stiffener...but I have th
e .020 skin, so we'll see what happens. I have about 900 hours on the airf
rame, and it was cracked well before that when I bought it 2 years ago. St
op drilled, but then the cracks started continuing, so I grounded it and bu
ilt the new one.
Paul Besing
RV-4 N73DD
Arizona
----- Original Message ----From: Dean Pichon <deanpichon(at)msn.com>To: rv-lis
t(at)matronics.comSent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22:01 AMSubject: RE: RV-Li
st: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is (mo
stly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The cr
acking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the gro
und. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was just
an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my -4 d
eveloped a crack in the rudder skin. Dean Pichon> From: randy(at)romeolima.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks> Date: Mon, 14 Ja
ndy(at)romeolima.com>> > Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cr
acking here...> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empenn
age> > My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constru
cted > using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surface
s could > have an indefinite life.> > Randy Lervold> > > ----- Original Mes
sage ----- > From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>> To: <rv-list@matroni
cs.com>> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM> Subject: RV-List: cracks>
> Well,> >> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...> >> > I've run
a trailing edge bead of silicon.> >> > I've silicon glued the stiffener tr
ailing tips across to each other.> >> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to th
e skin to better distribute the load > > away> > from the final rivets.> >>
> And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins, sa
ns> > any cracks.> >> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be
too long, and for the> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where
it called for 6 inches > > in> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for
yet another new box of unviolated> > aluminum to arrive.> >> > Do archive,
subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,> > zoom-zoom, whee
eee> >> >> >> >> >> > &=================
====> > > Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista=AE
+ Windows Live=99. Start now! http://www.matronics.com/Navigics.com/contrib
ution" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://www.matronics.c=====
============
Looking for
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120
08
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Spot PLB was: Cheaper 406mhz alternative |
We have the Spot and used it this weekend. We had the first non-raining day
in quite some time and so took advantage of the situation and went flying.
My wife was in the backseat; initiated some alerts from the Spot; and
received email notices on her Blackberry with time, location and the
message. Everything worked as it is supposed to.
Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a tool that
lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that we are safe; and
has the likelihood of being more useful than currently available ELT and PLB
devices in an emergency. Our Super D has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet
regs.
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA
Super Decathlon
Rocket (under construction)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" wrote:
> Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a
> tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that
> we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than
> currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency. Our Super D
> has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.
Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA
requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and
create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a
long time...
The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there
any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the
requirements? We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told
"do not meet standards for factory built aircraft". At least, in Canada we
have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them
that (in both English *and* French, no less!). So why can't our location
device also "not meet standards"? Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)
406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual
trigger?
Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
the plane is experimental in the first place?
Discuss... :)
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
MHz is not in a ham band...
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Rob Prior wrote:
>
>
>
>
>Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
>really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
>the plane is experimental in the first place?
>
>Discuss... :)
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott wrote:
> Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
> called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
> and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
> exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
> MHz is not in a ham band...
True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm not
advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing is a
G-switch.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Rob Prior wrote:
>
> On 12:46 2008-01-14 "Larry James" wrote:
>> Our intent has nothing to do with meeting FAA regs; it is simply a
>> tool that lets me (or us) let loved ones know where we are and that
>> we are safe; and has the likelihood of being more useful than
>> currently available ELT and PLB devices in an emergency. Our Super D
>> has the FAA legal ELT in it to meet regs.
>
> Someone else brought up the point that the Spot doesn't meet FAA
> requirements for a locating device... Your email prompted me to reply, and
> create a new thread on this, as it's something i've been wondering for a
> long time...
>
> The Spot doesn't meet FAA requirements for a locating device, but is there
> any reason that a similar, home-made, device couldn't meet the
> requirements? We're flying around in airplanes that we're frequently told
> "do not meet standards for factory built aircraft". At least, in Canada we
> have to have a sticker prominently visible to the passenger telling them
> that (in both English *and* French, no less!). So why can't our location
> device also "not meet standards"? Why couldn't we start with a (cheap)
> 406Mhz PLB, rig up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or manual
> trigger?
>
> Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from doing this, it's
> really not rocket science. The question is, why isn't it acceptable, if
> the plane is experimental in the first place?
>
> Discuss... :)
>
> -Rob
I think I suggested this earlier, but it might have been on another
list; this topic is hot on 3 different lists right now. You'd still be
legally required to carry at least the 121.5 unit (that requirement is
outside the homebuilt rules) but there's no reason not to rig a G-switch
on a PLB. (They've already got the manual trigger.)
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "don wentz" <dasduck(at)comcast.net> |
Randy is right, built right they will last.
I finished my RV-6 in 94 and I paid special attention to making sure the
trailing edges of the tail surfaces were bent enought that it didn't take
any pressure to 'close' them on the spars. This required some extra
trimming of the siffeners so you could squeeze far enough.
I didn't use ANY type of goop anywhere, just built them carefully, and after
1050 hrs with a 180 and props ranging from wood to Hartzell and back to
fixed composite, I don't have a single crack in the .016 skins.
In every case where I've seen cracks at the ends of the stiffeners, you
could look down the trailing edge and it was obvious by the tension and bend
at the stiffeners that the builder didn't squeeze the trailing edge enough.
Don
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randy Lervold
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
Larger engines will indeed exacerbate and accelerate the problem, but the
fundamentals of proper elevator/rudder construction still apply. Build it
right and go light!
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Pichon <mailto:deanpichon(at)msn.com>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 10:22 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: cracks
Some time ago, I called Van's on the issue and was told the cracking is
(mostly) limited to those aircraft with larger engines (180HP and up). The
cracking was attributed to buffeting on the tail - primarily while on the
ground. Unfortunately, I have no data to support or refute this. It was
just an explanation (hypothesis?) given to me a coupe of years ago when my
-4 developed a crack in the rudder skin.
Dean Pichon
> From: randy(at)romeolima.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: cracks
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 09:51:58 -0800
>
>
> Further info on getting .016 skins to live without cracking here...
> http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Empennage
>
> My research among RV-4 and early RV-6 drivers showed that if constructed
> using the techniques detailed above that .016 skinned flight surfaces
could
> have an indefinite life.
>
> Randy Lervold
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 8:25 AM
> Subject: RV-List: cracks
>
>
> >
> > Well,
> >
> > I am using the .016 skins on the RV-3, but...
> >
> > I've run a trailing edge bead of silicon.
> >
> > I've silicon glued the stiffener trailing tips across to each other.
> >
> > I've prosealed the stiffeners to the skin to better distribute the load
> > away
> > from the final rivets.
> >
> > And this 'model' has 1200 hours of flight time in my -6 w/.016 skins,
sans
> > any cracks.
> >
> > The RV-3 plans also called for the stiffeners to be too long, and for
the
> > taper to be way too short, as in 2.5 inches where it called for 6 inches
> > in
> > the -6 plans, all of which was cause for yet another new box of
unviolated
> > aluminum to arrive.
> >
> > Do archive, subject words: cracks, el sucko, lightweight super-fast,
> > zoom-zoom, wheeeee
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =============
>
>
>
_____
Make distant family not so distant with Windows VistaR + Windows LiveT.
Start now!
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008>
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
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Why the problem. If you need a G-switch to activate it then you may
be dead. Mount it where you can push the one 911 button when you need it.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On Jan 14, 2008 6:52 PM, Rob Prior wrote:
>
> On 14:52 2008-01-14 Scott wrote:
> > Technically, here in the states we have a pesky problem to get around
> > called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) that regulates any
> > and all transmitters. Most must be type certified by the FCC. One
> > exception to type certification is amateur (ham) radio stuff, but 406
> > MHz is not in a ham band...
>
> True, but that's a regulatory issue too, not a technical one. And i'm not
> advocating designing your own transmitter, far from it. I'd like to see
> someone rig up a "hack" to an existing 406 MHz PLB, that would make it do
> all the things an aircraft-certified one would, at 1/10th the cost.
>
> I'm just continually amazed that it costs so much to get a certified
> aviation-quality 406MHz ELT into an airplane, when you can buy a
> technically superior unit (the Spot) for so little. All it's missing is a
> G-switch.
>
> -Rob
>
C'mon, somebody... make the G-Spot joke that Rob is begging for...
-Stormy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
>"Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from
doing this"
Yes there is. Nice try but ELT's are one device that
MUST meet strict specifications regardless of type of
aircraft its mounted to. Not saying you can't make a
homemade ELT, but it would be illegal and break FAA,
FCC and international SAR regulations. The ELT and
transponder are two devices that must be "certified"
even if in an experimental aircraft.
Fork over $1000 for a Artex 406ME, be done,
and also get a $600 PLB.
>From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
>Subject: RV-List: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives?
Why couldn't we start with a (cheap) 406Mhz PLB, rig
up our own GPS interface, and our own inertial or
manual trigger?
Technically, there's nothing stopping any of us from
doing this, it's really not rocket science. The question
is, why isn't it acceptable, if the plane is experimental in
the first place?
Discuss... :) -Rob
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
My suggestion for the below comment is get the GPS enabled 406 MHz ELT
and the Spot unit for everyday notification of your position.
The most important thing is don't make stupid decisions about piloting.
Ron Lee
Fork over $1000 for a Artex 406ME, be done,
and also get a $600 PLB.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Hello All,
I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that
the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
this subject.
Bill
RV-7
Lee's Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Get a copy of AC-20-138A dated 12/22/03. It is the latest guidance on
panel mount GPS. However, it is written for TC aircraft. How that
translates to amateur built is not clear to me. Key tests the FAA is
interested in include frequency interference with installed navcoms, and
a flight test in VFR demonstrating its accuracy by visual observation on
some approaches and over known points in the database.
William Gill wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7.
> During discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not
> allowed to use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with
> a field approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not
> aware that the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops
> as the Type Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I
> welcome all input on this subject.
>
> Bill
>
> RV-7
>
> Lees Summit, MO
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
William Gill wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During
> discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to
> use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field
> approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that
> the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type
> Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on
> this subject.
337's are not applicable to aircraft with an experimental airworthiness
certificate. The 337 form is authorized under FAR 43.
However, FAR 43.1 (3b) states:
"This part (FAR 43) does not apply to any aircraft for which an
experimental airworthiness certificate has been issued, unless a
different kind of airworthiness certificate had previously been issued
for that aircraft."
The FAA official is sadly misinformed.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
To install a KLN 94 in an experimental aircraft and NOT perform the tests
required in AC-20-138A would be, in my opinion, reckless and foolish. I'm
not saying you need a 337, just do the tests and verify that the thing works
as advertised before you fly IMC.
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 Kelly McMullen
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:49 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
Get a copy of AC-20-138A dated 12/22/03. It is the latest guidance on
panel mount GPS. However, it is written for TC aircraft. How that
translates to amateur built is not clear to me. Key tests the FAA is
interested in include frequency interference with installed navcoms, and
a flight test in VFR demonstrating its accuracy by visual observation on
some approaches and over known points in the database.
William Gill wrote:
>
> Hello All,
>
> I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7.
> During discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not
> allowed to use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with
> a field approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not
> aware that the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops
> as the Type Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I
> welcome all input on this subject.
>
> Bill
>
> RV-7
>
> Lee's Summit, MO
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Well, someone read it so it must be true....or not. How does stupid
stuff like that get started and how does it seem to take on a life of
its own? It's a scary world we live in!
Chuck Jensen
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bret Smith
I know this is a little drift to the thread...but since Mike has entered
the fray I would like his input on another recent declaration. A fellow
pilot just told me this past week that he had read in a popular
aero-related magazine that aircraft with "composite props" could not be
certified for IFR flights. He could not remember which magazine. Can
anyone confirm this?
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Finishing"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
I would like them too please.
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard McBride
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
Bill,
I'll send you four documents directly. If anyone else would like a copy
please just let me know.
Rick McBride
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Bret,
That is absolutely false. I fly behind a composite prop myself and the RV-
9A that I fly is fully IFR ready.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirementsDate: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:21:08 -
0500From: cjensen(at)dts9000.comTo: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Well, someone read it so it must be true....or not. How does stupid stuff
like that get started and how does it seem to take on a life of its own? I
t's a scary world we live in!
Chuck Jensen
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com]On Behalf Of Bret Smith
I know this is a little drift to the thread...but since Mike has entered th
e fray I would like his input on another recent declaration. A fellow pilo
t just told me this past week that he had read in a popular aero-related ma
gazine that aircraft with "composite props" could not be certified for IFR
flights. He could not remember which magazine. Can anyone confirm this?
Bret SmithRV-9A "Finishing"Blue Ridge, GAwww.FlightInnovations.com
_________________________________________________________________
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_C
PC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McBride" <rickrv8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Ralph,
I've attached four documents. One just outlines the requirements. The
other three are the addendum to the POH and the ground and flight results.
Rick
>From: "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
>Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:11:54 -0800
>
>
>I would like them too please.
>
>Ralph Finch
>Davis, California
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard McBride
>Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:11 AM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
>
>
>Bill,
>
>I'll send you four documents directly. If anyone else would like a copy
>please just let me know.
>
>Rick McBride
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kirt klevin <rv6aokcity(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | New Alternative to PayPal... |
Being a cheap RV builder/flyer I've always been a little irked with PayPal's fee's
as I though they might be a bit high and at times they are difficult to deal
with....as our small business has grown (its still very small) the paypal fee's
do take a chunk out of the bottom line and we don't do enough volume to invest
in a credit card machine and associated monthly and transaction fees....
But now we have found Revolution Money Exchange (www.revolutionmoneyexchange.com). You sign up (free) just like paypal, but when you exchange money with other members (just like paypal) its free! The only charges are if you want to cash out with a check (vice money transfer to your bank account) and a few other things I don't think any of us will ever use. Sending and receiving money is totally free.
Thought you all might benefit when buying and selling on the net. Wouldn't mind
hearing any experiences anyone has had with Revolution Money Exchange.
Happy Flying/Building!!!
Kurt
Bison Mountain
www.bisonmountainbags.com
bisonmountain(at)yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <3edcft6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
It sounds like people are looking for something better than an ELT to
help people find them after a crash. I have an idea that I think is
worth exploring. To be legal you will still need an ELT or some other
"official" device. In order to do this you would have to get a HAM
radio license, but that should be a deterrent, any one who can build an
air plane should be able to pass the amazingly simple 35 question test
to get their call sign (Morse code is no longer required for any ham
license). In ham radio we have this thing called APRS (Automatic
Position Reporting System). All you need is a GPS receiver with a
serial output, a transmitter with antenna, and a TNC. In ham radio a
TNC is used to convert digital data to audio tones in a similar way that
a telephone modem does. There are a few special purpose TNCs that are
just for APRS and they cost less than $50. Some are so small that they
could be installed inside the transmitter. A good 2 meter transmitter
can be found new for $160 or less. You wouldn't have to fly much more
than 1000' AGL to get at least a 100 mile range. If you had a good
antenna and were over 5000' AGL a 300 mile range wouldn't be
surprising. There are enough repeaters and monitoring stations around
the USA to give you coverage if your range is 100 miles. The repeaters
and monitoring stations then send the data to the internet where anyone
can go online and find where you are at. Go here to find where I am at.
http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/find.cgi?call=ke5gix
If you have friends that know that you are out flying somewhere they can
check and find out where you were when you last transmitted your
position. Not only will it tell them where you were it will tell them
when you were there, how fast you were going and in what direction. The
TNC I use is called an "Open Tracker" and has 2 configurations that can
be changed with a flip of a switch. In normal flight you could have it
set to transmit your position once every 5 minutes. Then in an
emergency, you could flip the switch and have it transmit every 15
seconds along with an emergency message so anyone who sees the position
report will know you are in trouble. Even if you didn't flip the
switch, the standard mode will transmit your position more rapidly if
there is any significant change in course.
Obviously this isn't the best system because once you are on the ground
the range of the system isn't near as great, and if you go down in the
middle of nowhere, there may not be a repeater or monitoring station in
range. However, there will be a record of your recent flight history on
the internet for anyone to see and you will have a transmitter that is
probably more useful in finding help than just an air band radio. There
are satellites for ham radio but there aren't very many so, you could
end up having to wait nearly 20 hours before one was overhead and you
could get a signal out. The most common one you could use to retransmit
your emergency position report is the International Space Stations that
orbits the earth about every 90 minutes. However, it's orbit is such
that only 2 or 3 passes each day will be in range of a given point on
the earth. I think there are other satellites up there that could be
used for that but I haven't got into it enough to know for sure.
If you want to spend the money and get a nice radio with a lot of these
features built in, you can also see weather reports on the screen.
Along with position data, fixed stations that have a weather station can
also transmit the weather conditions along with their position reports.
When I get my base station reorganized the way I want, I will be doing
this. I can't really say how many people do that so how useful it would
be in flight is unknown.
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
Chris W wrote:
...snip...
>
> If you want to spend the money and get a nice radio with a lot of
> these features built in, you can also see weather reports on the
> screen. Along with position data, fixed stations that have a weather
> station can also transmit the weather conditions along with their
> position reports. When I get my base station reorganized the way I
> want, I will be doing this. I can't really say how many people do
> that so how useful it would be in flight is unknown.
>
>
I'm interested. Can you point to products for someone with zero HAM
knowledge?
John Morgensen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
I've said before that if we could have a personal tracker PC program that
you could setup to ping your tracking cell phone every five minutes and update
itself as to location, everyone could help in their own rescue if it were
needed. Any takers?
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
On 14:07 2008-01-16 Vanremog(at)aol.com wrote:
> I've said before that if we could have a personal tracker PC program
> that you could setup to ping your tracking cell phone every five
> minutes and update itself as to location, everyone could help in
> their own rescue if it were needed. Any takers?
Interesting, but unfortunately only useful in areas with Cell coverage.
That means not useful for flying in the Pacific Northwet, where you quickly
get into areas without coverage.
So far the best solutions still seem to be the Spot and the APRS, although
the APRS solution also needs coverage by the APRS repeaters. I don't have
a feel for how good that coverage is.
For that matter, I don't have a feel for how good the coverage of a
satellite phone is either, and that's what the Spot system uses. Does
anyone know how constant the coverage is, or if it will go to nothing if
you crash in a valley?
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris W <3edcft6(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
John Morgensen wrote:
>
> I'm interested. Can you point to products for someone with zero HAM
> knowledge?
>
> John Morgensen
For a basic radio to transmit the position reports I would pick this one....
http://www.texastowers.com/tm271ak.htm
The nice thing about that radio for emergencies is it puts out lots of
power and in standby mode between transmissions, it draws less than
250ma with the display back light off.
For a fancy radio that will transmit the position reports as well as
display position reports from other stations on the screen and display
weather data for other stations, this is pretty much the best radio...
http://universal-radio.com/catalog/fm_txvrs/0710.html
That radio can also be had at Texas Towers but for some reason they
don't have it on their web site. I like Texas towers as a business
better than Universal Radio but their web site doesn't have much on it.
If you want a GPS receiver just for this, I would suggest this one....
https://www.argentdata.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23&products_id=61&osCsid=1li39b4ffp9fv3k7km6mkbfva6
or maybe
https://www.argentdata.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23&products_id=37
They both are small and use very little power.
The open tracker TNC can be had here....
https://www.argentdata.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=72
If you don't mind soldering the TNC to wires and hooking it up to the
radio inside you can get the tiny version of the open tracker here
https://www.argentdata.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=22&products_id=64
For more information on the Open Tracker project go here
http://n1vg.net/opentracker/
You will also need to buy or build wires to hook everything together.
If you use the expensive radio, you don't need the TNC as it has that
built in. If you use the basic radio, you can hook up the TNC either
via the Microphone and speaker jack or you can order a cable that for
some bizarre reason Kenwood only sells in the European version of the
radio. The cable is only $12 from one of the Kenwood parts stores and
it is pretty simple to take the top of the radio and install the wire to
a plug on the circuit board. That way is much nicer because then you
can have the microphone also hooked up for voice communication.
There are lots of antenna options. The antenna can be just like the
antennas for you com radio, they just need to be a little shorter since
the 2 meter ham band is at a little higher frequency (144 - 148Mhz).
Depending on your power setting, the radio will need 3 to 10 amps during
transmit, however each position report takes less than 1 second, so if
it is set to transmit your position once every 2 to 5 minutes after you
are on the ground, it shouldn't need too big of a battery.
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
How would that work in the remote parts of the west and mountains were I
fly?
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Vanremog(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz
alternatives?
I've said before that if we could have a personal tracker PC program
that you could setup to ping your tracking cell phone every five minutes
and update itself as to location, everyone could help in their own
rescue if it were needed. Any takers?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How To Found: was Home-made 406 MHz alternatives? |
No offense, but cell phone coverage in the Sierra Nevada Mountains is
spotty at best. If I am going to crash, the odds are that it will be in
the most inaccessible place you can imagine. The PLB and Spot systems
are satellite based and should work anywhere on the planet that you can
get a GPS signal. I would like to learn more about the APRS system
mentioned by Chris W.
John Morgensen
Vanremog(at)aol.com wrote:
> I've said before that if we could have a personal tracker PC program
> that you could setup to ping your tracking cell phone every five
> minutes and update itself as to location, everyone could help in their
> own rescue if it were needed. Any takers?
>
>
>
> *N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)*
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape
> <http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489>
> in the new year.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Cudney <yenduc(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 406 MHz alternatives? |
I had the opportunity to fly in the Alaskan wilderness last summer.
We, Loretta and I, were instructed in the use of a satellite phone
which was on board in case of an emergency. It was simple to use and
as I recall costs were a couple of bucks a call depending on the
length of the call. The guide mentioned that the cost of satellite
phones has dropped recently to make them competitive with cell phones
-- at least for occasional use. They are also much smaller than I
remembered. I would consider their use particularly if you are flying
over sparely populated areas where cell phone coverage might not be
reliable.
dave
RV7A--90% done 90% to go
On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:10 PM, John Morgensen wrote:
> No offense, but cell phone coverage in the Sierra Nevada Mountains
> is spotty at best. If I am going to crash, the odds are that it will
> be in the most inaccessible place you can imagine. The PLB and Spot
> systems are satellite based and should work anywhere on the planet
> that you can get a GPS signal. I would like to learn more about the
> APRS system mentioned by Chris W.
>
> John Morgensen
>
> Vanremog(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> I've said before that if we could have a personal tracker PC
>> program that you could setup to ping your tracking cell phone every
>> five minutes and update itself as to location, everyone could help
>> in their own rescue if it were needed. Any takers?
>>
>>
>>
>> N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 883hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
>>
>>
>>
>> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.
>>
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Rick,
I will be going through the same thing when I get a little farther
down the road. Posting the tests from John would probably benefit a
number of folks.
Thank you.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Bell" <carlbell(at)gforcecable.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
Mike,
I'm curious, what composite prop are you using. I'm looking for an
alternative to a metal prop that may run smoother. Thx CJ
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
Bret,
That is absolutely false. I fly behind a composite prop myself and the
RV-9A that I fly is fully IFR ready.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
_____
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:21:08 -0500
From: cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Well, someone read it so it must be true....or not. How does stupid stuff
like that get started and how does it seem to take on a life of its own?
It's a scary world we live in!
Chuck Jensen
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bret Smith
I know this is a little drift to the thread...but since Mike has entered the
fray I would like his input on another recent declaration. A fellow pilot
just told me this past week that he had read in a popular aero-related
magazine that aircraft with "composite props" could not be certified for IFR
flights. He could not remember which magazine. Can anyone confirm this?
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Finishing"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com <http://www.flightinnovations.com/>
t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
p://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_____
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows VistaR + Windows LiveT.
Start now!
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC
_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Hoover <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
I replied too soon, You posted and I now have them also. Thanks:)
"Ralph,
I've attached four documents. One just outlines the requirements. The
other three are the addendum to the POH and the ground and flight results.
Rick
From: "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us>
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: was IFR GPS requirements, now flt test paperwork |
Rick-
> If anyone is interested I can provide a copy of my two
>tests.
I'd love to see that! Plz send to my email below, or if need be I'll send
my snail mail address. Thanks!!!
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: ifr props, was IFR GPS requirements |
Hi Bret-
RE: ... aircraft with "composite props" could not be
certified for IFR flights.
2 of the 3 prop driven airliners I've flown in the past had composite
props. I suspect someone has gotten something crossed up somewhere.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | IFR GPS requirements |
We have been flying with a Whirlwind 151. We got ours very early on in the
development. We may have even been one of the first ten to get the 151 bl
ades. It has been extremely smooth, vibration wise, and works well.
Mike Robertson
From: carlbell(at)gforcecable.comTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List
: IFR GPS requirementsDate: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:07:32 -0500
Mike,
I=92m curious, what composite prop are you using. I=92m looking for an alt
ernative to a metal prop that may run smoother. Thx CJ
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of Mike RobertsonSent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:3
1 PMTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirements
Bret, That is absolutely false. I fly behind a composite prop myself and t
he RV-9A that I fly is fully IFR ready. Mike RobertsonDas Fed
Subject: RE: RV-List: IFR GPS requirementsDate: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:21:08 -
0500From: cjensen(at)dts9000.comTo: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Well, someone read it so it must be true....or not. How does stupid stuff
like that get started and how does it seem to take on a life of its own? I
t's a scary world we live in!
Chuck Jensen
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com]On Behalf Of Bret Smith
I know this is a little drift to the thread...but since Mike has entered th
e fray I would like his input on another recent declaration. A fellow pilo
t just told me this past week that he had read in a popular aero-related ma
gazine that aircraft with "composite props" could not be certified for IFR
flights. He could not remember which magazine. Can anyone confirm this?
Bret SmithRV-9A "Finishing"Blue Ridge, GAwww.FlightInnovations.com t=_bl
ank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listp://forums.matronics.comblank
>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista=AE + Windows Live=99.
Start now! http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo
ur "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Controlling defrost fans |
I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of the instrument
panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the support bulkhead
parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs that point aft
that support the top of the instrument panel in three places.
I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put in a rheostat
to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple on-off switch
would work - but has anyone out there wished for a half-speed?
Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a regular basis
Thanks,
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling defrost fans |
A rheostat probably has the same numbers of wires but you can turn it.
Hardly seems harder and it does offer flexibility.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: RV-List: Controlling defrost fans
>
> I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of
> the instrument panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the
> support bulkhead parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs
> that point aft that support the top of the instrument panel in three
> places.
>
> I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put
> in a rheostat to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple
> on-off switch would work - but has anyone out there wished for a
> half-speed?
>
> Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a
> regular basis
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS requirements |
Quoting Bret Smith :
> read in a popular aero-related magazine that aircraft with
> "composite props" could not be certified for IFR flights. He could
> not remember
FWIW, I recently flew a Diamond DA-40 with an MT (composite) prop that
was IFR certified.
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Controlling defrost fans |
Ralph, I have a pair of 4" fans mounted in the top skin forward of the
instrument panel to blow on W/S of my 6A slider. No need for speed control.
Maybe the larger fans turn lower RPM. They are similar to cooling fans in a
computer tower.
BTW I use them in the summer to pull hot air from behind the panel and help
cool the avionics.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:35 AM
Subject: RV-List: Controlling defrost fans
>
> I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of
> the instrument panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the
> support bulkhead parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs
> that point aft that support the top of the instrument panel in three
> places.
>
> I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put
> in a rheostat to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple
> on-off switch would work - but has anyone out there wished for a
> half-speed?
>
> Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a
> regular basis
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Controlling defrost fans |
I doubt that anything more than an on off switch would be needed. I
installed a fan in mine but have not needed it. Enough heat develops under
the panel that just having the opening in there has been sufficient. I park
in a hangar however so if you need to seriously defrost, than a simple on/
off switch would be all you would need.
My opinion of course.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:36 AM
> To: rv-list; Aeroelectric-list
> Subject: RV-List: Controlling defrost fans
>
>
> I have a pair of 1.5"x1.5" fans (Radio Shack 273-240) mounted forward of
> the instrument panel on my 6A slider - think about the intersection of the
> support bulkhead parallel and forward of the instrument panel and the ribs
> that point aft that support the top of the instrument panel in three
> places.
>
> I am wondering if a straight on-off switch is sufficient or should I put
> in a rheostat to control the fan speed? KISS would dictate that a simple
> on-off switch would work - but has anyone out there wished for a half-
> speed?
>
> Here on the DelMarVa peninsula - I'm certain that I'll need it on a
> regular basis
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | RE: ifr props, was IFR GPS requirements |
Glen, apparently the reference is in FAR part 23.867. It says as follows:
Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart D--Design and Construction
Electrical Bonding and Lightning Protection
Sec. 23.867
[Electrical bonding and protection against lightning and static
electricity.]
(a) The airplane must be protected against catastrophic effects from
lightning.
(b) For metallic components, compliance with paragraph (a) of this section
may be shown by--
(1) Bonding the components properly to the airframe; or
(2) Designing the components so that a strike will not endanger the
airplane.
(c) For non-metallic components, compliance with paragraph (a) of this
section may be shown by--
(1) Designing the components to minimize the effect of a strike; or
(2) Incorporating acceptable means of diverting the resulting electrical
current so as not to endanger the airplane.
Far part 23.1 states the following:
Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 23 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER
CATEGORY AIRPLANES
Subpart A--General
Sec. 23.1
Applicability.
[(a) This Part prescribes airworthiness standards for the issue of type
certificates, and changes to those certificates, for airplanes in the
normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter categories.]
(b) Each person who applies under Part 21 for such a certificate or change
must show compliance with the applicable requirements of this Part.
Soo...I would not think this applied to experimentals with the special
airworthiness category.
Bret Smith
RV-9A N16BL
Blue Ridge, Ga
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:09 AM
December 26, 2007 - January 17, 2008
RV-Archive.digest.vol-tf