RV-Archive.digest.vol-ti
March 04, 2008 - March 14, 2008
> keep finding these antennae in the tail cones of aircraft.
> We just found *two* in the back of an Aerocommander last
> week. They are going to kill someone damn soon.
>
> ACK E-01 ELT's have the problem, just not as prevalent. I
> still take these out and hand them to the owner for better storage.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT aux antenna |
| From: | darnpilot(at)aol.com |
What is the issue?
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 3:12 am
Subject: RV-List: ELT aux antenna
Saw this on another list. I've got an ACK E-01 in both my RV and Navion. I'm
going to look for a way to safety wire the antenna to the tray or remove it.
Regards,
Greg Young
>
> By the way, I've mentioned it before, I've written letters
> with pictures to the FAA and to Ameriking-
>
> If you have an Ameriking AK-450 ELT installed, REMOVE the
> auxiliary antenna from the unit NOW.
> Put it in a zippered pocket or secure it some other way. I
> keep finding these antennae in the tail cones of aircraft.
> We just found *two* in the back of an Aerocommander last
> week. They are going to kill someone damn soon.
>
> ACK E-01 ELT's have the problem, just not as prevalent. I
> still take these out and hand them to the owner for better storage.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
The potential is for the antenna (the portable one clipped to the mounting
tray) to get loose in the tailcone and jam the controls. With push tubes the
RVs are not as susceptible as those with cables and pulleys but it's a
potential problem that can be eliminated.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of darnpilot(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT aux antenna
What is the issue?
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Young <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Sent: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 3:12 am
Subject: RV-List: ELT aux antenna
Saw this on another list. I've got an ACK E-01 in both my RV and Navion. I'm
going to look for a way to safety wire the antenna to the tray or remove it.
Regards,
Greg Young
>
> By the way, I've mentioned it before, I've written letters
> with pictures to the FAA and to Ameriking-
>
> If you have an Ameriking AK-450 ELT installed, REMOVE the
> auxiliary antenna from the unit NOW.
> Put it in a zippered pocket or secure it some other way. I
> keep finding these antennae in the tail cones of aircraft.
> We just found *two* in the back of an Aerocommander last
> week. They are going to kill someone damn soon.
>
> ACK E-01 ELT's have the problem, just not as prevalent. I
> still take these out and hand them to the owner for better storage.
>
_____
Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar
<http://download.aim.com/client/aimtoolbar?NCID=aolcmp00300000002586> for
your browser.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=27399
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=167609#167609
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stuart Witham Field SUA |
| From: | eddyfernan(at)aol.com |
Any RVers at SUA airport in South Florida? ?I need to fly in Wed. about 5pm for
a couple of hours and was looking for place to tie down.? Looks like Galaxy will
"take me" for $18 tie down fee plus 11 gallon min. fuel purchase @ $6.45 per
gallon.? Any other options?? If not that is the plan.
Eddy Fernandez
954-914-5579 (C)
RV9A
230 hrs TT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 tipup finish kitsearchable inventory list? |
Just picked up my -7 taildragger tipup finish kit. Does anyone have a
searchable pick list they are willing to share?
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mario Nolte <Mario.Nolte(at)post.rwth-aachen.de> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 tipup finish kitsearchable inventory list? |
Hi Charlie,
just ask vans, I got a .txt for empennage and wings by return mail.
Kind regards
Mario
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Pre-presurizing the oil system |
I have a pressure pot and need to pre-pressurize the oil system on a
Lycoming IO540 (no, this isn't in my RV-6). My question is where is the
best place to connect the hose from the pressure pot to make sure we get
oiling throughout the engine and not just dumped into the pan. I was
thinking the oil pressure gage port but not sure what gets bypassed. The
repair was a top overhaul only so oiling the bottom wouldn't be as
necessary, but I suspect that is the end of the oil chain anyway.
Thanks
Tim
RV-6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-presurizing the oil system |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Judge" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Virtual RV land:
It seems an Eggenfeller had a forced landing. The blurb pasted in at
the bottom is from Vans first flight web page.
My condolences to Roger Evenson, I really am sorry about what
happened. Please don't take offense at my opinions.
It breaks my heart to hear about these incidents. Anyone seriously
considering these engines needs to think long and hard about the
accident rate associated with these engines.
I helped a builder who had serious trouble keeping his CHT's down on a
garden variety lyc 360 RV-7. He was running nearly 450 F on climb
out. He made some changes and everything is in line now. This is a
well defined installation with step by step instructions but the
builder still had issues that could have led to failure.
I'm not being critical of this builder but my point is that even with
a well defined off the shelf installation there are many pitfalls that
you have to be careful of. With a completely new design there going
to be many lessons learned that will come out only when the design
sees actual service. In short the "right" way to run and install the
Subaru still is unknown, if it was then the guy at the bottom of this
message wouldn't be building another plane right now.
There are people that are well suited to establishing new designs and
there are people who want to fly blissfully planes places.
I know it is closed minded and counter to the mentality of most of us
experimental builders but I don't see the risk reward benefit in using
the Subaru engine compared to an IO-360 with electronic ignition.
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8 210 hrs.
rv-8.blogspot.com
From: Roger Evenson
To: webmaster(at)vansaircraft.com
Subject: first flight report
Date sent: Mon, 03 Mar 2008
RV Grin
With Darwin Barrie and Glenn Brasch flying chase in Darwin's RV7, the
first flight for 394RS occurred on 5/2/07 at KRYN, Tucson, Arizona.
This "farm tractor", a 9A (90534) was powered by a supercharged,
Eggenfellner EJ-25. First flight was a fabulous experience and a very
sweet ride. Many thanks to my wife Susie, bucking buddy Glenn, tech
counselor Gil Alexander, Charles Wilhite, Dan Watters and many others.
These things can't be built without lots of support.
RV Frown
With 50 hours on the Hobbs, and shortly after takeoff on 6/29/07, an
overboost (40" MAP) resulted in loss of engine power, and an
off-airport landing. Though the mains touched down on solid desert,
they soon encountered a mound of soft earth and a root which threw the
plane forward. A very quick nose-over followed. I thank the Lord (and
Van's design) for getting out with only a scratch. Charles' composite
canopy also did it's job, absorbing lots of energy. Now building a 7A
and looking forward to another first flight.
Roger Evenson
[ revenson at comcast.net ]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pre-presurizing the oil system |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:11, Bill Judge wrote:
>
> I know it is closed minded and counter to the mentality of most of us
> experimental builders but I don't see the risk reward benefit in using
> the Subaru engine compared to an IO-360 with electronic ignition.
>
I agree that people installing alternate engines or propellers need
to have a realistic understanding of the increased risks they are
undertaking. But, if they really do understand those risks, it is a
bit presumpstious of us to try to tell them to install a Lycoming
instead. After all, the accident rate during the flight test phase
on RVs is quite a bit higher than the first 40 hours that a new owner
does in his Cessna. If we are really concerned about risk, why
aren't we all flying Cessnas?
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT aux antenna |
I ran into that a little with the ACK portable ELT antenna that clips on. It's
just a chrome telescoping antenna you can attach if you remove the ELT for portable
use. It never came loose but I could see it was not super secure.
I safety wired it with some thin copper wire, you can break, if you pull hard
enough, but it's strong enough to keep the antenna from getting lost in the tail
cone. G
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
George,
He could use some electrical tape to keep it secured. A half a
dozen wraps will keep it there longer than he needs.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
All true Bill,
I spend about as much time trying to talk builders out of alternative
engines (even the one I use) as I do helping them with advice on how to
install them.
It's very amusing to read the various alternative engine company websites
that talk about their proven reliability, numbers sold (total fiction
usually) and how you can fly your loved ones with complete confidence when
using their products. IMO, if you install an alternative engine in your
airplane, you are a test pilot flying what truly is an experimental aircraft
in every sense of the word.
I usually don't say this to builders who call me because I don't want them
to think I'm insulting them but being on an open forum makes it easier.
FWIW, If you have to ask someone if you should put an alternative engine
in your plane, you shouldn't.
If it's a good idea for you, you don't have to ask and no one could possibly
talk you out of it.
Tracy Crook
Mazda 13B rotary powered RV-4, 20B powered RV-8
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Bill Judge wrote:
>
> Virtual RV land:
> It seems an Eggenfeller had a forced landing. The blurb pasted in at
> the bottom is from Vans first flight web page.
>
> My condolences to Roger Evenson, I really am sorry about what
> happened. Please don't take offense at my opinions.
>
> It breaks my heart to hear about these incidents. Anyone seriously
> considering these engines needs to think long and hard about the
> accident rate associated with these engines.
>
> I helped a builder who had serious trouble keeping his CHT's down on a
> garden variety lyc 360 RV-7. He was running nearly 450 F on climb
> out. He made some changes and everything is in line now. This is a
> well defined installation with step by step instructions but the
> builder still had issues that could have led to failure.
>
> I'm not being critical of this builder but my point is that even with
> a well defined off the shelf installation there are many pitfalls that
> you have to be careful of. With a completely new design there going
> to be many lessons learned that will come out only when the design
> sees actual service. In short the "right" way to run and install the
> Subaru still is unknown, if it was then the guy at the bottom of this
> message wouldn't be building another plane right now.
>
> There are people that are well suited to establishing new designs and
> there are people who want to fly blissfully planes places.
>
> I know it is closed minded and counter to the mentality of most of us
> experimental builders but I don't see the risk reward benefit in using
> the Subaru engine compared to an IO-360 with electronic ignition.
>
> Bill Judge
> N84WJ, RV-8 210 hrs.
> rv-8.blogspot.com
>
>
> From: Roger Evenson
> To: webmaster(at)vansaircraft.com
> Subject: first flight report
> Date sent: Mon, 03 Mar 2008
>
> RV Grin
>
> With Darwin Barrie and Glenn Brasch flying chase in Darwin's RV7, the
> first flight for 394RS occurred on 5/2/07 at KRYN, Tucson, Arizona.
> This "farm tractor", a 9A (90534) was powered by a supercharged,
> Eggenfellner EJ-25. First flight was a fabulous experience and a very
> sweet ride. Many thanks to my wife Susie, bucking buddy Glenn, tech
> counselor Gil Alexander, Charles Wilhite, Dan Watters and many others.
> These things can't be built without lots of support.
>
> RV Frown
>
> With 50 hours on the Hobbs, and shortly after takeoff on 6/29/07, an
> overboost (40" MAP) resulted in loss of engine power, and an
> off-airport landing. Though the mains touched down on solid desert,
> they soon encountered a mound of soft earth and a root which threw the
> plane forward. A very quick nose-over followed. I thank the Lord (and
> Van's design) for getting out with only a scratch. Charles' composite
> canopy also did it's job, absorbing lots of energy. Now building a 7A
> and looking forward to another first flight.
>
>
> Roger Evenson
> [ revenson at comcast.net ]
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell" <lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using the
2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds due
to thermals and wind shears.
Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
around 70 knots.
What are other RV-7s with O360s and FPP getting?
Thanks.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
> I agree that people installing alternate engines or propellers need
> to have a realistic understanding of the increased risks they are
> undertaking. But, if they really do understand those risks, it is a
> bit presumpstious of us to try to tell them to install a Lycoming
> instead. After all, the accident rate during the flight test phase
> on RVs is quite a bit higher than the first 40 hours that a new owner
> does in his Cessna. If we are really concerned about risk, why
> aren't we all flying Cessnas?
Do they understand the risk or is it some infatuation with an auto
conversion and cheaper auto fuel? Was the RV-10 that crashed
with one fatality using an auto engine?
I will admit that I am biased against some things and one is auto
engines in aircraft. I won't fly in one or buy one.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
>
> I agree that people installing alternate engines or propellers need
> to have a realistic understanding of the increased risks they are
> undertaking. But, if they really do understand those risks, it is a
> bit presumpstious of us to try to tell them to install a Lycoming
> instead. After all, the accident rate during the flight test phase
> on RVs is quite a bit higher than the first 40 hours that a new owner
> does in his Cessna. If we are really concerned about risk, why
> aren't we all flying Cessnas?
> Kevin Horton
Well put, Kevin
I have flown my rotary powered RV-6A for 10 years now. There is no
question that there is an added element of risk when you are performing
your own Design, Research and Development and Testing rather than
relying on a company who has spent $$$$ on same.
I go back far enough when I can remember when the GA crowd considered
anybody building/flying an experimental a bit crazy. Now the alternate
engine guys are considered crazy by many of the experimental aircraft
crowd - so I guess that makes us a subset of the crazies {:>).
Building "experimental" aircraft is nowhere near the risk it used to be
thanks to a number of well proven designs to choose from. Lets face it
- most experimentals flying now are really assembled kit-planes
including mine. However, experimental engines have been part of
experimental aircraft going back to the Ford powered pietenpol and
beyond. Given the increasing cost of certified engines it is not
surprising that some probably set on the alternative engine track
thinking they are going to save a bunch of money - you can install a
safe alternative engine for less than a new Lycoming, however, if you
consider a rebuilt Lycoming (for example) then the price differential
can narrow considerably.
In all seriousness, rolling your own engine installation requires
knowledge, understanding and execution in a number of different areas
where anything less than getting it correct can be "rewarded" with that
dreaded dead silence after take off. My personal opinion is that there
are two classes of folks who are currently installing alternative
engines. Those who "roll their own" and those who purchased FWF kits.
Most (but not all) who attempt to "roll their own" quickly realize the
magnitude of the task required to design, conduct FEMA, fabricate,
install and successfully test and operate all the required subsystems
either buckled down to the task OR realize the task is beyond their
knowledge, experience and skill level and go to other options.
One option is to purchase a FWF kit - nothing wrong with that in itself
- but, one must realize that no alternative engine provider that I am
aware of has the decades of information that a certified engine
manufacture does to make their design safer over time. So if you
recognize that as an individual that you perhaps do not have the
knowledge and skills to tackle a "roll you own", then the question is
"Do you have the knowledge to adequately assess the FWF alternative
engine kit you are considering?" Even then you still have to install
the package successfully.
We all know that even given the 1000 of installations of Lycomings in
RVs that there are still an unfortunate few who encounter that dreaded
period of silence - it does not take much of a mistake or error for that
to happen. It is much easier for that mistake to happen with an
non-standard installation of an alternative engine - where yours is
likely the first such installation. Some people have attempted to
alleviate there lack of knowledge by "copying" another successful
installation of an alternative engine - one thing we have found out is
that unless it is an exact duplication in every aspect - its a
completely different system and may have failure modes induced with each
and every change made that differ from the "successful" installation. .
I have had numerous discussion over the past 10 years with individuals
about the advisability of putting an alternative engine in their
project. I normally attempt to discourage such attempts. Even with my
successful 10 years of flying behind a rotary, there were times,
particularly in the early days, when I wondered why in the h---- I
didn't just stick a Lycoming in the bird.
I tell folks that if you really like to experiment, are something of a
GearHead and can put up with repeated frustration and problem solving
then an alternative engine might be your cup of tea. However, if what
you are really interested in is flying - then do yourself a favor and
install a Lycoming (or equivalent) and go enjoy flying.
But, if you are going to go down the alternative road, do yourself a
favor and sign on to the email list of your favorite candidate engine
(these list are out there), lurk, ask questions and listen to get an
idea of what you are considering chewing off. Its very easy to make a
claim - check into any such claims, ask tough questions - its your butt
you'll be risking. Remember what you mom told you "if it sounds too
good to be true......"
Just my opinion of course
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
> Do they understand the risk or is it some infatuation with an auto
> conversion and cheaper auto fuel? Was the RV-10 that crashed
> with one fatality using an auto engine?
>
> I will admit that I am biased against some things and one is auto
> engines in aircraft. I won't fly in one or buy one.
> Ron Lee
>
Nothing wrong being biased against something that can add more risk to an
activity that is already a bit more risky than sitting on the couch watching
TV [:>).
But, risk tolerance is certainly a personal and relative thing. Ever known
someone who thought it was too risky to even fly on an airliner or get on a
motorcycle or sky-dive. Sky-Dive!! You couldn't pay me enough to jump out
of a perfectly good airplane for the fun of it!! But, I've no problem
flying behind my rotary powered RV-6A since 1998. I think a large part of
it is how much "control" do we think we have over a situation.
I can recall a number of decades back when most pilots flying Spam Cans
would have made the same statement about getting in an experimental aircraft
and there are still some who won't. I always tell folks, if you don't feel
comfortable about it - you are probably pushing your risk tolerance envelope
and that is seldom a wise thing to do.
Fortunately, in this country we are permitted to make those risk tolerance
decisions as they best suit each of us - hopefully, with an informed
understanding of what the risk really is.
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:44, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell wrote:
>
>
> We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
>
> We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using
> the 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
>
> We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
>
> However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds
> due to thermals and wind shears.
>
> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
> around 70 knots.
>
> What are other RV-7s with O360s and FPP getting?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Roger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scott bilinski <rv8a2001(at)yahoo.com> |
I monitor the Eggenfelner E-mail list. He stated this accident happened right after
a non Eggenfelener ignition and injection system was installed.
Scott
RV-8a Lycoming!
----- Original Message ----
From: Bill Judge <bjudge(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2008 12:11:45 PM
Subject: RV-List: Subaru down
Virtual RV land:
It seems an Eggenfeller had a forced landing. The blurb pasted in at
the bottom is from Vans first flight web page.
My condolences to Roger Evenson, I really am sorry about what
happened. Please don't take offense at my opinions.
It breaks my heart to hear about these incidents. Anyone seriously
considering these engines needs to think long and hard about the
accident rate associated with these engines.
I helped a builder who had serious trouble keeping his CHT's down on a
garden variety lyc 360 RV-7. He was running nearly 450 F on climb
out. He made some changes and everything is in line now. This is a
well defined installation with step by step instructions but the
builder still had issues that could have led to failure.
I'm not being critical of this builder but my point is that even with
a well defined off the shelf installation there are many pitfalls that
you have to be careful of. With a completely new design there going
to be many lessons learned that will come out only when the design
sees actual service. In short the "right" way to run and install the
Subaru still is unknown, if it was then the guy at the bottom of this
message wouldn't be building another plane right now.
There are people that are well suited to establishing new designs and
there are people who want to fly blissfully planes places.
I know it is closed minded and counter to the mentality of most of us
experimental builders but I don't see the risk reward benefit in using
the Subaru engine compared to an IO-360 with electronic ignition.
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8 210 hrs.
rv-8.blogspot.com
From: Roger Evenson
Subject: first flight report
Date sent: Mon, 03 Mar 2008
RV Grin
With Darwin Barrie and Glenn Brasch flying chase in Darwin's RV7, the
first flight for 394RS occurred on 5/2/07 at KRYN, Tucson, Arizona.
This "farm tractor", a 9A (90534) was powered by a supercharged,
Eggenfellner EJ-25. First flight was a fabulous experience and a very
sweet ride. Many thanks to my wife Susie, bucking buddy Glenn, tech
counselor Gil Alexander, Charles Wilhite, Dan Watters and many others.
These things can't be built without lots of support.
RV Frown
With 50 hours on the Hobbs, and shortly after takeoff on 6/29/07, an
overboost (40" MAP) resulted in loss of engine power, and an
off-airport landing. Though the mains touched down on solid desert,
they soon encountered a mound of soft earth and a root which threw the
plane forward. A very quick nose-over followed. I thank the Lord (and
Van's design) for getting out with only a scratch. Charles' composite
canopy also did it's job, absorbing lots of energy. Now building a 7A
and looking forward to another first flight.
Roger Evenson
[ revenson at comcast.net ]
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:44, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell wrote:
>
>
> We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
>
> We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using
> the 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
>
> We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
>
> However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds
> due to thermals and wind shears.
>
> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
> around 70 knots.
I can't help you with any comparative performance, but I can offer
some comments that might help you get better data. At low altitudes,
such as 2000 to 3000 ft, there is little hope of getting good data
except in a short period after sunrise. As soon as the thermals
start there is no point in trying to do any more low altitude
performance flight testing. If you want good data you need to be
cranking the engine when the sun peeks above the horizon. In the
summer that will mean a very early start, but it is the only way to
get smooth air. On some days you might only get 30 minutes of
testing before you can start to feel the light bumps from thermals,
while on other days you might get several hours of testing. Mornings
with a high overcast are the best, as that reduces the amount of sun
heating the ground, which delays the start of the thermals. Once you
can start to feel any perceptible turbulence from thermals, there is
no point in trying to record performance data, as it won't be very
accurate.
Even early in the morning, the wind speed and direction will usually
change with altitude, and this affects the results. You can minimize
the errors induced by wind change with altitude by doing two runs at
each climb speed, with the two runs on headings that differ by 180
degrees. The effect of wind on the two runs will be in the opposite
sense, so if you average the rates of climb you will mostly cancel
out the effects of this wind shear.
Good luck,
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
My guess is:
Best glide seems to be higher than Vy on my RV-4 (or most any airplane with
a FP prop) because the higher airspeed allows the engine to turn faster and
make more power. This more than makes up for the increased drag at the
higher speed (up to a certain point of course). A CS prop changes the
picture.
Your numbers are almost identical to mine.
Tracy Crook
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell <
lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
> lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net>
>
> We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
>
> We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using the
> 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
>
> We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
>
> However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds due
> to thermals and wind shears.
>
> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
> around 70 knots.
>
> What are other RV-7s with O360s and FPP getting?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Roger
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
Opps, that should have read "Best glide seems to be LOWER than Vy"
T.C.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Tracy Crook
wrote:
> My guess is:
> Best glide seems to be higher than Vy on my RV-4 (or most any airplane
> with a FP prop) because the higher airspeed allows the engine to turn faster
> and make more power. This more than makes up for the increased drag at the
> higher speed (up to a certain point of course). A CS prop changes the
> picture.
>
> Your numbers are almost identical to mine.
>
> Tracy Crook
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell <
> lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > lrsecaldwell(at)earthlink.net>
> >
> > We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
> >
> > We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using the
> > 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
> >
> > We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
> >
> > However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds due
> > to thermals and wind shears.
> >
> > Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
> > around 70 knots.
> >
> > What are other RV-7s with O360s and FPP getting?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:44, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell wrote:
>
>
> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
> around 70 knots.
One more thing: we either have a typo here, or a terminology
problem. Vy is the speed for best rate of climb.
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
All great comments, and some really interesting data.
However, possibly some might have missed the gist of my post. The prop has
varying loads upon it in torque and the crankshaft also has varying loads on
it in torque.
The longer the crankshaft (and more power it is producing) the more likely
that the aft end might be doing something different than the front end, and
this will not be measured by external sensing.
Drive gears, crankshafts, cam shafts and magnetos throughout the years have
occasionally had problems that were traced back to this. The fix was varied
and in some cases called for highly modified counter weighted crankshafts.
Somewhere, years ago, pre-internet, I saw footage of a crankshaft flexing
30degs from stem to stern at a high power/rpm setting as it went into
longitudinal resonance. It is really amazing to see that tough a piece of
steel turn into a wet noodle.
There are many things that can be additive or not in a resonance problem,
but cyclical pulsing of the load and of the input are big ones. By
reindexing you will be moving the phase of those load/input cycles and the
engine may get smoother. But is that because you got lucky or because the
crankshaft is now absorbing that vibration in an unsafe manner???
The shorter four cylinder engines seem to not be as prone to this, but I'm
pretty sure that the testing which was done on your engine was done in one
indexed position, if indexed on any other position then you are conducting
test flights every time you fly it.
If doing this makes you less uncomfortable than the slightly increased
vibration did, then you are an adult capable of decision making. In my mind
it an easy choice, but then I have a solid nose crank that seems to be about
as smooth as it gets, and I all I did was build the engine right before I
screwed a prop on it.
Condolences to friends, colleagues and family of the lost ones in FL. While
we try our best to make better what we can, sadly there is no cure for a
millisecond of exceptionally bad luck.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Kevin Horton said,.. "If we are really concerned about risk, why aren't we
all flying Cessnas? "
Answer: Risk versus Reward,....... We all think the Reward outweighs the
Risk,...not that there isn't any! Kinda like the stock market but we're
betting our butts and not our buns ;-)
Bill S
7a wannabe flying soon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down
On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:11, Bill Judge wrote:
>
> I know it is closed minded and counter to the mentality of most of us
> experimental builders but I don't see the risk reward benefit in using
> the Subaru engine compared to an IO-360 with electronic ignition.
>
I agree that people installing alternate engines or propellers need to have
a realistic understanding of the increased risks they are undertaking. But,
if they really do understand those risks, it is a bit presumpstious of us to
try to tell them to install a Lycoming instead. After all, the accident
rate during the flight test phase on RVs is quite a bit higher than the
first 40 hours that a new owner does in his Cessna. If we are really
concerned about risk, why aren't we all flying Cessnas?
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
Shoot me, but this whole auto conversion thing is still in the snake oil stage.
Everyone wants something better than the lycoming and Continental offerings,
and people tend to see what they want to see and ignore or minimize the rest.
It is laudable that some want to be a part of developing the dream of a more modern,
consistently reliable aircraft engine; but pretending that that engine
is available today in the 120HP and up range is wishful thinking at best and approaches
delusional at worst. So I say good luck and thank you to those doing
the R+D with these engines, because someday due to your hard work and acceptance
of the risk, we will all benefit. Just don't pretend that you are not participating
in the R+D of an as yet unproven technology.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=167974#167974
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
We don't pretend Dr..... There is an 'EXPERIMENTAL"decal on our planes..
Remember. ?
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "steveadams" wrote:
Shoot me, but this whole auto conversion thing is still in the snake oil
stage. Everyone wants something better than the lycoming and Continenta
l offerings, and people tend to see what they want to see and ignore or
minimize the rest. It is laudable that some want to be a part of develop
ing the dream of a more modern, consistently reliable aircraft engine; b
ut pretending that that engine is available today in the 120HP and up ra
nge is wishful thinking at best and approaches delusional at worst. So I
say good luck and thank you to those doing the R+D with these engines,
because someday due to your hard work and acceptance of the risk, we wil
l all benefit. Just don't pretend that you are not participating in the
R+D of an as yet unproven technology.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=167974#167974
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for free information on exciting leadership programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4s3CmeMRbvXppXLxyBv
WS8FVd0AvJ2Mz9KtiJzKcF7HUbDth/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wanted GPS and Parachute |
| From: | "GreasySideUp" <greasysideup(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello, I'm a member of the Yak list down below but noticed the RV forums are busy
as well. I'm looking for a GPS and a Seat Pack Parachute. Open to Garmin
96c, 195 196 295 and maybe a 296 but the price has to be sweet. Possibly others
as well.
Let me know what you have, and please send a picture if you can.
Thanks,
Josh
greasysideup(at)hotmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=167994#167994
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
> We don't pretend Dr..... There is an 'EXPERIMENTAL"decal on our planes.. Remember.
?
>
>
> Ben Haas
> N801BH
> www.haaspowerair.com
>
So does spaceship one, but I think anyone flying spaceship one realizes that his
level of experimentation is a bit more than someone flying in a stock RV. I
don't believe some builders (and their passengers) of planes with auto conversions
have this same level of realization.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168002#168002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Shoot me, but this whole auto conversion thing is still in the snake oil
stage. Everyone wants something better than the lycoming and Continental
offerings, and people tend to see what they want to see and ignore or
minimize the rest. It is laudable that some want to be a part of
developing the dream of a more modern, consistently reliable aircraft
engine; but pretending that that engine is available today in the 120HP
and up range is wishful thinking at best and approaches delusional at
worst. So I say good luck and thank you to those doing the R+D with
these engines, because someday due to your hard work and acceptance of
the risk, we will all benefit. Just don't pretend that you are not
participating in the R+D of an as yet unproven technology.
Won't shoot you Steve, You are absolutely correct, risk is always
involved when trying something new (in fact even when using the tried
and true).
Almost ever advance in aircraft design and performance of the aircraft
you are flying today was at one point "Experimental". But, until a
concept/approach is proven (and even then) it is Research and
Development and carries a greater risk element. However, like almost
everything else, if the risk is correctly recognized and approached
properly means of minimizing (but, not elminating) the risk can be
developed. You are absolutely correct, I tell folks that developing
your own alternative engine installation is a miniature R&D project and
like all such projects, it will cost you more and take longer than you
ever planned. It takes a understanding of the requirements for each
subsystem, a plan for developing and fabricating each, the installation
and then the risky part - testing.
We have all seen the engine developments which appear year after year
at the major EAA events, with all their potential promise - but, they
never quite make it to the production stage. It is unfortunately that
some (but not all or even the majority) of engines offered have
unrealistic and unsubtanuated claims to power, performance and cost,
this does not help the "snake oil" factor, you mentioned. However,
there are many/most alternative engine projects which never have any
objective of offering a product - we do it for a number of reasons, but
seldom is it done because of a potential profit motive.
In this day and age, getting any sort of new type engine (no matter how
good) into production status requires enomous resources, which given the
limited market, this just doesn't seem to happen. The only one I am
aware of is a Swiss Company which clearly has deep pocket support for
their certification (which they have applied for) of a rotary derived
engine. But, it will end up costing at least as much (probably more) as
a Lycoming - so no magic bullet. But, this too started out as an
experimental engine.
Engine model G300 C2B and Mistral proprietary DEM system
are presently undergoing FAA type certification
under FAA project number TC9823 AT-E.
http://www.mistral-engines.com/
Personally, I did it because of the technical challenge and the
potential I saw in the rotary as an reliable aircraft engine. I
certainly do not recommend taking this route for most folks. . As Tracy
Crook (1600+ hours behind a rotary powered RV-4) stated - if you have to
ask someone whether you should go the alternative engine route - you
probably should not. I certainly would never entertain producing FWF
kits of any engine - just too many things beyond the manufacture's
control, too little profit and too much liability risk.
Best Regards
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
On 5 Mar 2008, at 18:22, Kevin Horton wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:44, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
>>
>> We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using
>> the 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
>>
>> We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
>>
>> However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb
>> speeds due to thermals and wind shears.
>>
>> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
>> around 70 knots.
>
> I can't help you with any comparative performance, but I can offer
> some comments that might help you get better data. At low
> altitudes, such as 2000 to 3000 ft, there is little hope of getting
> good data except in a short period after sunrise. As soon as the
> thermals start there is no point in trying to do any more low
> altitude performance flight testing. If you want good data you
> need to be cranking the engine when the sun peeks above the
> horizon. In the summer that will mean a very early start, but it
> is the only way to get smooth air. On some days you might only get
> 30 minutes of testing before you can start to feel the light bumps
> from thermals, while on other days you might get several hours of
> testing. Mornings with a high overcast are the best, as that
> reduces the amount of sun heating the ground, which delays the
> start of the thermals. Once you can start to feel any perceptible
> turbulence from thermals, there is no point in trying to record
> performance data, as it won't be very accurate.
>
> Even early in the morning, the wind speed and direction will
> usually change with altitude, and this affects the results. You
> can minimize the errors induced by wind change with altitude by
> doing two runs at each climb speed, with the two runs on headings
> that differ by 180 degrees. The effect of wind on the two runs
> will be in the opposite sense, so if you average the rates of climb
> you will mostly cancel out the effects of this wind shear.
>
One more thing - it may be more productive to delay detailed
performance testing until you are out of the flight test phase so you
can carry someone to record data. It can be very difficult to
accurately fly the aircraft, keep a look out for traffic, and record
climb data. If you try to do it all yourself, you probably won't
hold airspeed as accurately as desired, which will make the results
inconsistent. It is much easier if you can divide the tasks between
two people. Just make sure you agree on which of you is in charge of
looking for traffic, or you might find that neither of you is doing it.
For phase one flight testing, if I didn't have an automatic data
logger, I would probably just do very rudimentary performance tests.
Then once I could legally carry someone to record data I would do the
detailed performance testing.
Fly safe,
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
Ed,
I really think your post is right on and I for one don=92t have the
knowledge to install any engine other than a Lycoming and I will need
some good backup in that department. As we all know someday our birds
need to take to the air with us at the controls!
I was on the internet a few months ago researching this subject, and
soon located your site. By the way you have a wonderful site and lots
of experience, practical knowledge and dedication. I looked at the site
for a short time and said to myself, this is not me. I=92m not really
mechanical and everyday I learn something new just trying to build the
RV9A.
Thanks for you post today and thanks for keeping us builder on track.
Jim Fogarty
RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Thanks for you comments, Jim
One of the objectives of my website and postings is to try and convey
the good, the bad, and the ugly of MY conversion process - so that
others may make a better informed decision. I don't advocate anybody
taking on such a project - but, if you are going to, best to get a feel
for what is really ahead of you.
Fortunately, unlike the "old" days, most alternative engines of popular
interest now have an e mail list. Being able to share information has
significantly enhanced safety, lessened risk and promoted good practices
as we exchange the successful approaches and perhaps equally important -
those approaches which were less than successful. Just having the moral
support of like-minded individuals can help get you over the rough
spots. But, there is still the added risk element.
If your primary objective is to fly, I always recommend sticking in a
proven engine and go enjoy - life is too short to do otherwise. But, if
you have a streak of masochism in you, enjoy (I know -sounds sort of
sick) solving technical problems and tinkering then it MIGHT be your cup
of tea.
Thanks again, Jim, you used the information as I would have hoped - to
make the decision best suited to you.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:43 AM
Subject: RV-List: The Risks
Ed,
I really think your post is right on and I for one don=92t have the
knowledge to install any engine other than a Lycoming and I will need
some good backup in that department. As we all know someday our birds
need to take to the air with us at the controls!
I was on the internet a few months ago researching this subject, and
soon located your site. By the way you have a wonderful site and lots
of experience, practical knowledge and dedication. I looked at the site
for a short time and said to myself, this is not me. I=92m not really
mechanical and everyday I learn something new just trying to build the
RV9A.
Thanks for you post today and thanks for keeping us builder on track.
Jim Fogarty
RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
An additional suggestion to add to Kevin's comments is to see if you can
borrow an electronic barograph to carry aboard during your climb
performance testing. These are reasonably common among soaring club
pilots as part of altitude-record flight requirements.
With the barograph you will have a precise altitude-versus-time record
that you can study after the flight to determine the instantaneous as
well as average rate of climb during all your controlled speed climbs.
All you need additionally is to keep a record of the target airspeed
during each climb so you can correlate the performance shown by the
barograph recordings after the flight. Where possible, set the barograph
to record at the shortest time interval available such as every second.
Check ahead of time to be sure the fastest recording rate will still
give the barograph enough capacity to operate without running out of
storage space before your intended flight duration. Whoever you can
obtain the barograph from should be able to also provide the operating
manual which will show this capability.
If you don't know of any Soaring Clubs in your area, contact the
national headquarters for the closest club by e-mailing the National
Headquarters at: http://www.ssa.org/
Jim McCulley
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Mar 2008, at 18:22, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>> On 5 Mar 2008, at 16:44, Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We have a RV-7 with O0360 and FP prop (72-85).
>>>
>>> We are in the phase I process and measuring various speeds using the
>>> 2000 ft to 3000 ft and stopwatch metnod.
>>>
>>> We get best glide at about 85 knots which seems about right.
>>>
>>> However we are having difficulties getting consistant climb speeds
>>> due to thermals and wind shears.
>>>
>>> Vy seems to be 90 to 95 knots(seems high) with best rate of climb
>>> around 70 knots.
>>
>>
>> I can't help you with any comparative performance, but I can offer
>> some comments that might help you get better data. At low altitudes,
>> such as 2000 to 3000 ft, there is little hope of getting good data
>> except in a short period after sunrise. As soon as the thermals
>> start there is no point in trying to do any more low altitude
>> performance flight testing. If you want good data you need to be
>> cranking the engine when the sun peeks above the horizon. In the
>> summer that will mean a very early start, but it is the only way to
>> get smooth air. On some days you might only get 30 minutes of
>> testing before you can start to feel the light bumps from thermals,
>> while on other days you might get several hours of testing. Mornings
>> with a high overcast are the best, as that reduces the amount of sun
>> heating the ground, which delays the start of the thermals. Once you
>> can start to feel any perceptible turbulence from thermals, there is
>> no point in trying to record performance data, as it won't be very
>> accurate.
>>
>> Even early in the morning, the wind speed and direction will usually
>> change with altitude, and this affects the results. You can minimize
>> the errors induced by wind change with altitude by doing two runs at
>> each climb speed, with the two runs on headings that differ by 180
>> degrees. The effect of wind on the two runs will be in the opposite
>> sense, so if you average the rates of climb you will mostly cancel
>> out the effects of this wind shear.
>>
>
> One more thing - it may be more productive to delay detailed
> performance testing until you are out of the flight test phase so you
> can carry someone to record data. It can be very difficult to
> accurately fly the aircraft, keep a look out for traffic, and record
> climb data. If you try to do it all yourself, you probably won't hold
> airspeed as accurately as desired, which will make the results
> inconsistent. It is much easier if you can divide the tasks between
> two people. Just make sure you agree on which of you is in charge of
> looking for traffic, or you might find that neither of you is doing it.
>
> For phase one flight testing, if I didn't have an automatic data
> logger, I would probably just do very rudimentary performance tests.
> Then once I could legally carry someone to record data I would do the
> detailed performance testing.
>
> Fly safe,
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Lenhardt" <av8or(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
Try using a camcorder pointed at the panel and a cable connection from
your headset mic to the camcorder. Then all you have to do is talk and
the information is recorded.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Mcculley
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb
An additional suggestion to add to Kevin's comments is to see if you
can
borrow an electronic barograph to carry aboard during your climb
performance testing. These are reasonably common among soaring club
pilots as part of altitude-record flight requirements.
With the barograph you will have a precise altitude-versus-time record
that you can study after the flight to determine the instantaneous as
well as average rate of climb during all your controlled speed climbs.
All you need additionally is to keep a record of the target airspeed
during each climb so you can correlate the performance shown by the
barograph recordings after the flight. Where possible, set the
barograph
to record at the shortest time interval available such as every
second.
Check ahead of time to be sure the fastest recording rate will still
give the barograph enough capacity to operate without running out of
storage space before your intended flight duration. Whoever you can
obtain the barograph from should be able to also provide the operating
manual which will show this capability.
If you don't know of any Soaring Clubs in your area, contact the
national headquarters for the closest club by e-mailing the National
Headquarters at: http://www.ssa.org/
Jim McCulley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>
> One more thing - it may be more productive to delay detailed
> performance testing until you are out of the flight test phase so
you
> can carry someone to record data. It can be very difficult to
> accurately fly the aircraft, keep a look out for traffic, and record
> climb data. If you try to do it all yourself, you probably won't
hold
> airspeed as accurately as desired, which will make the results
> inconsistent. It is much easier if you can divide the tasks between
> two people. Just make sure you agree on which of you is in charge
of
> looking for traffic, or you might find that neither of you is doing
it.
>
> For phase one flight testing, if I didn't have an automatic data
> logger, I would probably just do very rudimentary performance tests.
> Then once I could legally carry someone to record data I would do
the
> detailed performance testing.
>
> Fly safe,
>
> --
> Kevin Horton
> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> |
What is the range of empty weight measurements found by builders of RV-4
projects, in particular those with Hartzell CS props? If not available,
fixed pitch Sensenich props will be OK.
Jim
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine |
On 9:23 2008-03-06 Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
> Great question. I suspect with the best engineering team in the
> world, they couldn't get the weight with all the cooling apparatus
> down enough. Or, they'd have to get $50K for it. Would be good to
> know, for sure. After all, Honda is now manufacturing complete jet
> aircraft, race engines, all kinds of auto engines, motorcycles,
> scooters, lawn mowers, etc... Any Honda engineers out there? Pls
> tell us!!!
I suspect it's even simpler than that. I recall that the engine was built,
and flying, on a test aircraft, wasn't it? So they were clearly able to
surpass any technical hurdles.
No, I suspect the real problem was the business side of the equation. The
sales volume just isn't there to support Honda building aircraft engines.
The market is too fragmented, and us down at the 200HP and lower range are
probably not the market to target if you're looking for high volume and
profitable returns. Homebuilders are a notoriously thrifty group.
And really, a new Honda powerplant would also be "unproven", and carry with
it many, if not all, of the same risks as a current popular automotive
conversion. How do you justify choosing a Honda engine over a Rotary
conversion?
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Garry" <garrys(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine |
I am 99% certain that Jabiru stopped development on their 8 cylinder
engine, over one year ago. I'm told that there is a long waiting list
for their 4 and 6 cylinder engines so they have concentrated on ramping
up production on those. The 8 cylinder engine is on the back burner for
now. None have ever been shipped to my knowledge.
Garry Stout
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
I thought I remembered the Jabaru engine as having Honda pistons, but
either my memory is wrong or they changed to General Motors pistons.
Here is a link to the 180 hp 8 cylinder version, which according to
them has firewall forward packages for side by side RV's. Now if they
would just do a 12 cylinder version maybe we could sound like a Rolls
Royce Merlin, and go like a Mustang with 270 hp out front.
http://www.jabiru.net.au/
Terry
RV-8A w/ Superior XP-360
Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Pichon <deanpichon(at)msn.com> |
1050lbs empty - IO-360 w/Hartzell CS> Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:56:31 -0500>
From: mcculleyja(at)starpower.net> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com> Subject: RV-Lis
a(at)starpower.net>> > What is the range of empty weight measurements found by
builders of RV-4 > projects, in particular those with Hartzell CS props? I
f not available,> fixed pitch Sensenich props will be OK.> > Jim> ---------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
==> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser!
http://biggestloser.msn.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Honda Piston Engine |
Yes, I thought that they gave up on it too, but the web site which was
updated last month seems to say otherwise.
Terry
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garry
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
I am 99% certain that Jabiru stopped development on their 8 cylinder engine,
over one year ago. I'm told that there is a long waiting list for their 4
and 6 cylinder engines so they have concentrated on ramping up production on
those. The 8 cylinder engine is on the back burner for now. None have ever
been shipped to my knowledge.
Garry Stout
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson <mailto:terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:11 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
I thought I remembered the Jabaru engine as having Honda pistons, but either
my memory is wrong or they changed to General Motors pistons. Here is a link
to the 180 hp 8 cylinder version, which according to them has firewall
forward packages for side by side RV's. Now if they would just do a 12
cylinder version maybe we could sound like a Rolls Royce Merlin, and go like
a Mustang with 270 hp out front.
http://www.jabiru.net.au/
Terry
RV-8A w/ Superior XP-360
Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <bifft(at)xmission.com> |
| Subject: | Honda Piston Engine |
$B:#F|$O$M!"$3$3$G%T%6$,$"$C$?!#(J
$B!JFCJL$N$o$1$8$c$J$+$C$?!"2??M$,$7$h$&$H$7$?!"KM$b(J$5.00$B$r=P$7$?!K(J
$B$@$+$iLk$O?)$Y$J$/$F$$$$!#(J
$B$$$$$+$H!#H~:=$O$9$09T$/$7!#(J
$B$G$b$M!#:#D+$OHh$l$?!#:#$G$bL2$$!#(J
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (bifft(at)xmission.com)
RV-8A 80091
1/4 Starduster II N23UT flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | NMEA Data String for NavAid Operation |
I have been using a NavAid for a long time. No problems using it with a
Lowrance GPS, or a Tracker Blue GPS, or an unidentified GPS from Control
Vision.
I am now playing with a Qstarz 51-channel GPS that is WAAS enable, and
that works by itself just fine. But it only outputs NMEA sentences GGA,
GSA, GSV, and RMC. It appears that I would need sentence RMB for
following a flight plan.
Am I missing something here?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Huffaker <bifft(at)xmission.com> |
| Subject: | Honda Piston Engine |
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Brian Huffaker wrote:
sorry, sent to the wrong address.
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (bifft(at)xmission.com)
RV-8A 80091
1/4 Starduster II N23UT flying
________________________________________________________________________________
I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of =9Crisk
=9D when it comes
to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience with an
automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I owned a
Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive dollar per h
our
plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could not get a repa
irman
=99s certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to find an A
&P who
would sign it off each year only because they weren=99t =9Cfamil
iar=9D with anything
not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed more like rapists. Issue 2
;
Some insurance people I talked to back then didn=99t want to hear abo
ut
airplanes without =9Cairplane=9D engines. Issue 3; When I eventu
ally went to sell it I
found I had a limited customer base because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A
builder can save a chunk of money by using alternative power plants however
=9C
building=9D can be addictive and eventually you have to face the fact
that some
day you may want something =9Cnewer=9D, =9Cfaster
=9D, etc and will be looking at
selling. Odds are that what you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale
due
to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer to have
something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an age wher
e each
class III (God forbid) may be my last.
Jim
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Question |
1044 with Sensenich fixed and 0-360 on mine
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> ------------------------------
> It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.<http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Your right, Jim. No question (in my mind) that an RV powered by a
alternative engine would have less resale value. However, keep in mind
that there could be a $10,000- $20,000 cost difference in the engine
cost alone - so, I would not expect to get as high a resale value (even
if the alternative engine installation is perfect) as I simply do not
have as much engine money in it.
I think more to the point might be the difficulty of selling it due to
perception of risks, difficulty of acquiring insurance (I've had none,
but others have), and perhaps not being able to find an A&E to sign off
on the conditional inspections if you are not the original builder.
I think most if not all alternative engine enthusiasts are aware of
these factors - resale value is simply not a major factor - the
challenge of the project is probably what appeals to most.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: JFLEISC(at)aol.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Subaru down
I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of
=9Crisk=9D when it comes to using automotive engines in
experimental aircraft. My experience with an automotive powered
aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I owned a Sonerai, (VW
powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive dollar per hour plane
I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could not get a
repairman=99s certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying
to find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they
weren=99t =9Cfamiliar=9D with anything not Cont or
Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed more like rapists. Issue 2; Some
insurance people I talked to back then didn=99t want to hear about
airplanes without =9Cairplane=9D engines. Issue 3; When I
eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base because
of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by using
alternative power plants however =9Cbuilding=9D can be
addictive and eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may
want something =9Cnewer=9D, =9Cfaster=9D, etc
and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what you saved in the
beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I
prefer to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that
I am at an age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
Jim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru. I am
completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my RV-6A this year.
I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have been any problems
with these engines are generally self inflicted because of a serious deviation
from the installation manual.
Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package he sells
and the crafted workmanship and design he offers.
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
---- Tracy Crook wrote:
============
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected. I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue 3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2, and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rsipp(at)earthlink.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Question |
1025LB
IO-320 CS two radios full instrumentation
Dick Sipp
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ronburnett(at)charter.net
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 7:23 AM
Subject: RV-List: Alternative engines
I changed the post subject as it seems to have drifted away form Subaru.
I am completing and expecting to fly my Eggenfellner H-4 Subaru on my
RV-6A this year. I took delivery of it in 2004 and my observations have
been any problems with these engines are generally self inflicted
because of a serious deviation from the installation manual.
Check out his website and I believe you'll be impressed with the package
he sells and the crafted workmanship and design he offers.
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to
fly more hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe
the future in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with
viable alternative engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
---- Tracy Crook wrote:
============
Good points Jim. I plan to be buried with my rotary powered RVs so it
wasn't a factor
Tracy
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 7:51 PM, wrote:
> I have no issue with the highly subjective concept of "risk" when it
> comes to using automotive engines in experimental aircraft. My
experience
> with an automotive powered aircraft, however, was not what I expected.
I
> owned a Sonerai, (VW powered) and admittedly it was the least
expensive
> dollar per hour plane I ever flew. I was not the original builder so I
could
> not get a repairman's certificate. Issue 1; I had a difficult time
trying to
> find an A&P who would sign it off each year only because they weren't
> "familiar" with anything not Cont or Lyc. The ones that would sign
seemed
> more like rapists. Issue 2; Some insurance people I talked to back
then
> didn't want to hear about airplanes without "airplane" engines. Issue
3;
> When I eventually went to sell it I found I had a limited customer
base
> because of Issues 1 and 2. Issue 4; A builder can save a chunk of
money by
> using alternative power plants however "building" can be addictive and
> eventually you have to face the fact that some day you may want
something
> "newer", "faster", etc and will be looking at selling. Odds are that
what
> you saved in the beginning will be lost at sale due to Issues 1, 2,
and 3.
>
> Considering the investment I now have in my Lyc RV-4 I
prefer
> to have something I can liquidate quickly and equitably now that I am
at an
> age where each class III (God forbid) may be my last.
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges? |
Any recommendations for sealing RV-4 front and side canopy edges against
rain? It rains in Seattle!
Don Schmiesing
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.
You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.
Whether you can or should is up to you.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
>
>
> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the
> FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into
> aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes
> the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft?
>
> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will
> be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.
> Set me straight.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
John,
Do not claim to be an expert in this subject but I cannot burn ethanol fuel in
our Luscombe as the FAA approved STC prohibits it. I do know most of the Subaru
drivers burn autogas which contains ethanol. Our seals are nitron instead
of rubber. As to ethanols effect on alum. tanks, fittings, there seems to be
no adverse effects so far.
Ron Burnett
Do not archieve
---- "John W. Cox" wrote:
============
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
> not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
> flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
> fuel in aircraft?
>
> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
> to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
I heard a radio report that some folks (corn growers?) may lobby for up to
20% ethanol in auro fuel.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Death of the RV-12] |
Subject: Death of the RV-12
If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51% rule, quickbuild
kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the balance. Van attempts to
put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest train wreck but if you read pages 3
thru 7 you get a clearer picture. To me it reads as step number one in getting
rid of the 51% violators by eliminating everyone involved, including those who
play by the rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice
of engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate either.
You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take the class so I can
qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane.
Where did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
IMHO you NEED to do some long term testing of your PRC covered with your
favorite varieties of mogas, with and without ethanol.
I don't know with the current PRC, but what was used back 30 years is
turned to goooo by mogas.
Greg Young wrote:
>
> The FAA only cares about ethanol for certified aircraft with a mogas STC.
> You can run your experimental on chicken fat or cow pies if you want.
> Whether you can or should is up to you.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
>> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:52 AM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
>>
>>
>> Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the
>> FAA does not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into
>> aircraft for flight. Do you have some reference that refutes
>> the ASTM standard for fuel in aircraft?
>>
>> That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will
>> be dune up to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero.
>> Set me straight.
>>
>> John Cox
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>
> Subject: Death of the RV-12
>
> If you have not yet read the the RVator on line you should. The 51%
> rule, quickbuild kits and the REAL fate of the RV-12 are in the
> balance. Van attempts to put on a "happy face" about the FAA latest
> train wreck but if you read pages 3 thru 7 you get a clearer picture.
> To me it reads as step number one in getting rid of the 51% violators
> by eliminating everyone involved, including those who play by the
> rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a "clone". No choice of
> engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no repairmans certificate
> either. You get one ONLY by attending the classes. I guess I'll take
> the class so I can qualify IF & WHEN I build another airplane. Where
> did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and 601XL ? KABONG
Let's not be too hasty to sign the death warrant of the amateur-built
RV-12. ;-)
Vans is in a holding pattern until the FAA gets their act together and
releases the new evaluation process of the 51% rule. Until that new
process is released, Vans has no choice other than to offer the RV-12 as
a S-LSA since at this point in time......there is no way for ANYONE to
get a new kit classified as experimental amateur built. As soon as the
FAA releases the new process, you can rest assured Vans will make a
serious effort to offer an E-AB RV-12.
The concern is the FAA may make the new evaluation process so
restrictive that it will be difficult to classify a kit that is as
advanced as the RV-12 as experimental amateur built. Nobody knows at
this point how this will play out. But even if Vans can't achieve this
goal, an individual builder could register an RV-12 as E-AB provided he
can demonstrate to a DAR that he built as least 51% of the plane, and
provided Vans offers the RV-12 as an E-AB kit.
We need to sit tight while this matter is resolved and not panic...yet.
There was an interesting article in one of the Oregon newspapers about
how the FAA had bungled this process by not considering the impact on
some of Oregon's aircraft revenue (Lancair and Epic).
http://tinyurl.com/3a85ch
The article states that the FAA may be taking an expedited look at this
situation with the intent of clarifying things somewhat.
But......we're talking about the FAA.........
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jhstarn(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Death of the RV-12] |
I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory" and
produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Date: 2008/03/07 Fri PM 09:14:08 CST
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
>jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Death of the RV-12
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom & Cathy Ervin <tcervin(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
I agree with Sam but would also add the following: If the RV-12 can't be built
E-AB his market for the kit will be so low I predict it will be eventually
be phased out.
Tom in Ohio (RV6-A)
----- Original Message -----
From: jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2008 2:26:10 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory" and
produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>Date: 2008/03/07 Fri PM 09:14:08 CST
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
>jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Death of the RV-12
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
First the Lyc is perfectly adapted to
aircraft use. It's like a Alligator, may
be prehistoric but its design is made
for the mission. A "Honda" will be
heavier, more cooling drag, cost more
and in the end will NOT have better
economy or performance. True, read on.
>From: "mike humphrey"
>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>Then why did Honda buy 53% of
>Continental stock? I believe that is
>the last % that I saw. According to
>Honda's own press release they were
>going to use the Continental as their
>springboard. The release of the 'Honda
>engine' was going to be in three phases:
>1. conventional engine based on the
> Continental but with Honda
>manufacturing techniques, ie improved
>metals, air cooling, etc.
Mike no offense but your comments are
based on myth and miss information. WHAT
modern metals and materials? Really I
have to hear this? The fact is the low
production is what cost money. The
"metals" used are STATE OF THE ART. There
is nothing BETTER. Manufacturing? Well the
detailed high precision Grade class A1
castings are complicated x 100 than a car
engine. The crank materials, forgings and
QC is beyond what a car engine part
needs.
>2. was to be still Continental based but
>with EFI, EI, better pistons,
>higher TBO,
Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
in a car. This IDEA that there is
something OLD or inadequate with a
Lycoming and Continental is ignorance.
Car engines run around at 25% power most
of the time. A Ly or TCM can fly along at
75% for 2000 hours. A car engine can not
do that. Why do race cars rebuild there
engine ever 1/4 mile or 200 or 500 miles?
>3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4
>and 6, all the above improvements, even
>better manufacturing techniques-more
>like auto engines, and the biggie, water
>cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more
>air cooled engines, improved cabin
>heating ability, no CO threat at all,
>noise reduction, interchangeable auto
>parts right off of the shelf.
Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
every year? Big air cooled radials from
the 40's and 50's. There is SOOOO much
air available and we never park and run
the engine at high power water cooling is
a JOKE JOKE JOKE. Yes IN A CAR, water
cooling makes the engine mechanical noise
quieter, yes reduces emissions due to
tighter piston/cylinder wall clearances.
COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
AIRPLANES. Look at all the Subaru's and
rotaries. There are flying R&D, test
pilots all. They are heaver, tend to go
slower AND/OR burn way more gas. Air
cooling is IDEAL for aircraft. WHY. Noise
is not an issue because with prop and
exhaust and slip stream nose the
clacking of the valves is a small part of
the noise signature. When you put water
jackets on a Lyc (Like the "cool jugs", a
Lyc sounds like a Subaru. Emission? Not
and issue. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE
RADIATORS? Well the P-51 was made around
the engine. The P-38 Lightning? Same
thing. Most tractor GA planes or kit
planes are a Jury RIG of stuff radiators
somewhere to make it work. Most under size
the radiator and run hot. I'll admit that
cooling on a HOT HOT day and tight cowl
with gross weight climbs to 8,000 feet
might mean you have to watch CHT, but
with time in 3 or 4 types of
experimentals and 40 GA piston planes
from C-152 to several turbo charged twins
I can tell you engine management is NOT
HARD. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS A MIXTURE
KNOB, WHAT DO I DO? Move it about 4-5
times a flight.
>Doesn't that sound like exactly what all
>of us want and have complained about
>Lyco's forever?
What complaints? I have 16,000 hours and
made, most in jets now but spent 1000's
and 1000's of hours behind one or two
Lycs and they where rock solid dependable
all going to or past TBO?
>They anticipated the TBO to be in excess
>of 10k hrs. Instead they go after an
>even smaller market - The Honda Jet.Mike
>H 9A/8A
Look both Honda and Bombardier tried to
come out with engines. Honda got as far
as a picture. Bombardier got as far as
pictures and some specs for a few model.
THEY WHERE HEAVY! They where expensive
and they where better? Look when these
engines are cheaper than a Lyc or Lyc
clone, where I can go out and buy a BRAND
NEW O-360 or IO-360 for $21,000 and get
and engine as light, reliable and simple
than I'll look at it.
Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
based engines are at least several or all
of the following:
-heavier
-More noise
-low on power
-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
-more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
Most auto engine conversions are 100 lbs
more. The Mazda rotary is loud. The
others are spinning fast are have a higher
pitch noise and vibration. Different yes
but better? No.
Auto engines advertise the peak HP as
at near red line, but in airplanes operate
will below peak HP. Most of the car
engines do not get any better fuel
consumption than a Lyc or TCM. Well
because Lycs/TCM have a mixture control
and usually EGT gauges. Some even run
LOP. The AUTO engine EFI with O2 sensor
(which last a few hours with avgas) and
open/closed loop does nothing at high
power settings. I'd rather have manual
mixture control.
The Lyc has:
two cables - Mixtures and Throttle
One fuel line and a mechanical pump
Two P-leads to self powered mags
So two push-pull cables, two single wires
and one fuel line is all that is needed
and NON requires electrical power. The
MODERN engine needs computers and has
one spark plug & needs dual electric pumps,
two batteries and blaa blaa blaa.
There is something elegant in a simple
air cooled engine independant engine.
Honda bought TCM because it was cheap.
Honda engines are just 4 stroke piston
reciprocal "otto cycle" engines just like
a Lycoming. THERE IS NOTHING NEW.
4 valves per cylinder or water cooling is
NOT NEW. It has been around since the
20's. The Lyc does not use any of this
because its NOT NEEDED or desirable.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>
> I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory"
and produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>
>
My take was a little different. 1st, what wasn't said: Think about why
the 51% rule came into play. It wasn't about safety; it was (and is)
about protecting existing certified manufacturers. Why is there this
sudden attention to build percentage after decades of allowing more &
more prefab & assistance? Could it be that the Big Dog manufacturers see
high performance homebuilts cutting into their sales and potential big
bucks from LSA & want to limit competition? Lunch with a few Senators,
Senators write a few letters to the FAA, & suddenly there's a big
'problem' with assisted EAB.
Next, what seemed to be buried between the lines of the article I read
was the possibility of an additional category of experimental, where
there is a less restrictive percentage allowing more professional
assistance. This might not be such a bad thing, if existing EAB rules
are kept. It would still allow us to build & allow those with more money
than time or skills to pay for help.
I follow one of the ultralite lists, & everyone there was terrified that
LSA would end ultralites. Well, they lost 2 seat 'trainers' but nothing
changed with single seaters & everyone got LSA making 2 seaters
available legally to folks that might not be able to get a medical under
existing (overly restrictive) medical requirements.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
Excellent point about the 'Big Dogs' and their political impact on GA. With
the FAA getting so twitchy so quickly, I bet if I was a fly on the wall,
some very Big Dogs brought this whole process about. Is it coincidence that
Cessna is wanting to get into the LSA market and launched their concept
entry at OSH this past year and then 6 months later the FAA stops
conditionals just when Van's is about to launch it's LSA entry into the
market? Being overly skeptical of any government interference in our lives,
I suspect that the 'smoking gun' is LSA - NOT the 51% rule. If a study was
performed, I suspect that 'professionally' built aircraft probably have a
safety record equal to or better than certified aircraft, excluding pilot
error as the cause of an accident/incident. The FAA is simply using it as
an excuse. When the FAA admits, that prior to their suspension of
conditional inspections for manufacturers, that they DID NOT do an economic
impact study on the effects of the suspension, when they do said impact
study for every other FAA change prior to implementing said change, it
speaks volumes as to what is going on 'Behind' the scenes, that we, the
private citizen are not privy to. Don't forget that the FAA still wants
'user fees' for GA. This current round of FAA infringement may only be a
gambit, bargaining chip so to speak, to accomplish that end. Life is
compromise, we are taught, who better knows that than government. Clouded
issues, clouded agendas, all is not what it seems on the surface of the mill
pond when you are dealing with government agencies. The eddies, currents,
below the surface are what is really at stake here. The FAA is flexing it's
sizable muscle, letting us know who is REALLY in charge; government - not
the citizen. If you really are upset by the FAA's current actions, and you
are fearful of the future of GA-Experimental-CALL/WRITE you congressman and
senator. Express your concerns in WRITING-encourage them to intervene on
your behalf. You are the taxpayer, electorate. GET PRO-ACTIVE and protect
yourself.
Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. Our voice was heard and
stopped the 'FAA User Fees' proposal. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.
'nuff said'
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
> jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more
>> than two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA
>> will still allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA
>> for paying customers...the very thing this whole change was to prevent.
>> Why should Vans continue to fight for an E-AB when there will be those
>> who set up their "factory" and produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying
>> the parts. After all he is in the business of selling kits. KABONG
>>
>>
>
> My take was a little different. 1st, what wasn't said: Think about why the
> 51% rule came into play. It wasn't about safety; it was (and is) about
> protecting existing certified manufacturers. Why is there this sudden
> attention to build percentage after decades of allowing more & more prefab
> & assistance? Could it be that the Big Dog manufacturers see high
> performance homebuilts cutting into their sales and potential big bucks
> from LSA & want to limit competition? Lunch with a few Senators, Senators
> write a few letters to the FAA, & suddenly there's a big 'problem' with
> assisted EAB.
>
> Next, what seemed to be buried between the lines of the article I read was
> the possibility of an additional category of experimental, where there is
> a less restrictive percentage allowing more professional assistance. This
> might not be such a bad thing, if existing EAB rules are kept. It would
> still allow us to build & allow those with more money than time or skills
> to pay for help.
>
> I follow one of the ultralite lists, & everyone there was terrified that
> LSA would end ultralites. Well, they lost 2 seat 'trainers' but nothing
> changed with single seaters & everyone got LSA making 2 seaters available
> legally to folks that might not be able to get a medical under existing
> (overly restrictive) medical requirements.
>
> It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mike humphrey" <mike109g6(at)insideconnect.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
So was the Model T Ford. It's called - Progress. When is the
production of 100LL supposed to be stopped? Another US manufacturer
that can't keep up with times-like the auto industry. What kind of car
do you drive? Where is it built? Not US, is it, I bet? The 'issues'
pointed out as to reasons against, are simply based in conjecture.
There is absolutely no data to support: heavier, more drag, increase
cost and not better economy or performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
constructive arguments, only opinions.
With regards to that rant following, the person has never built/flown a
Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything that he states that it doesn't.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one should leave the
emotional outburst for the pulpit. What I was trying to point out is
that if US A/C engine manufacturers don't look past today, tomorrow will
make them extinct.
I'd be the first to admit that I hate change. But sometimes it's
necessary for survival.
Enough on this subject, it's like beating a dead horse,
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
First the Lyc is perfectly adapted to
aircraft use. It's like a Alligator, may
be prehistoric but its design is made
for the mission. A "Honda" will be
heavier, more cooling drag, cost more
and in the end will NOT have better
economy or performance. True, read on.
>From: "mike humphrey"
>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>Then why did Honda buy 53% of
>Continental stock? I believe that is
>the last % that I saw. According to
>Honda's own press release they were
>going to use the Continental as their
>springboard. The release of the 'Honda
>engine' was going to be in three phases:
>1. conventional engine based on the
> Continental but with Honda
>manufacturing techniques, ie improved
>metals, air cooling, etc.
Mike no offense but your comments are
based on myth and miss information. WHAT
modern metals and materials? Really I
have to hear this? The fact is the low
production is what cost money. The
"metals" used are STATE OF THE ART. There
is nothing BETTER. Manufacturing? Well the
detailed high precision Grade class A1
castings are complicated x 100 than a car
engine. The crank materials, forgings and
QC is beyond what a car engine part
needs.
>2. was to be still Continental based but
>with EFI, EI, better pistons,
>higher TBO,
Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
in a car. This IDEA that there is
something OLD or inadequate with a
Lycoming and Continental is ignorance.
Car engines run around at 25% power most
of the time. A Ly or TCM can fly along at
75% for 2000 hours. A car engine can not
do that. Why do race cars rebuild there
engine ever 1/4 mile or 200 or 500 miles?
>3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4
>and 6, all the above improvements, even
>better manufacturing techniques-more
>like auto engines, and the biggie, water
>cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more
>air cooled engines, improved cabin
>heating ability, no CO threat at all,
>noise reduction, interchangeable auto
>parts right off of the shelf.
Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
every year? Big air cooled radials from
the 40's and 50's. There is SOOOO much
air available and we never park and run
the engine at high power water cooling is
a JOKE JOKE JOKE. Yes IN A CAR, water
cooling makes the engine mechanical noise
quieter, yes reduces emissions due to
tighter piston/cylinder wall clearances.
COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
AIRPLANES. Look at all the Subaru's and
rotaries. There are flying R&D, test
pilots all. They are heaver, tend to go
slower AND/OR burn way more gas. Air
cooling is IDEAL for aircraft. WHY. Noise
is not an issue because with prop and
exhaust and slip stream nose the
clacking of the valves is a small part of
the noise signature. When you put water
jackets on a Lyc (Like the "cool jugs", a
Lyc sounds like a Subaru. Emission? Not
and issue. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE
RADIATORS? Well the P-51 was made around
the engine. The P-38 Lightning? Same
thing. Most tractor GA planes or kit
planes are a Jury RIG of stuff radiators
somewhere to make it work. Most under size
the radiator and run hot. I'll admit that
cooling on a HOT HOT day and tight cowl
with gross weight climbs to 8,000 feet
might mean you have to watch CHT, but
with time in 3 or 4 types of
experimentals and 40 GA piston planes
from C-152 to several turbo charged twins
I can tell you engine management is NOT
HARD. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS A MIXTURE
KNOB, WHAT DO I DO? Move it about 4-5
times a flight.
>Doesn't that sound like exactly what all
>of us want and have complained about
>Lyco's forever?
What complaints? I have 16,000 hours and
made, most in jets now but spent 1000's
and 1000's of hours behind one or two
Lycs and they where rock solid dependable
all going to or past TBO?
>They anticipated the TBO to be in excess
>of 10k hrs. Instead they go after an
>even smaller market - The Honda Jet.Mike
>H 9A/8A
Look both Honda and Bombardier tried to
come out with engines. Honda got as far
as a picture. Bombardier got as far as
pictures and some specs for a few model.
THEY WHERE HEAVY! They where expensive
and they where better? Look when these
engines are cheaper than a Lyc or Lyc
clone, where I can go out and buy a BRAND
NEW O-360 or IO-360 for $21,000 and get
and engine as light, reliable and simple
than I'll look at it.
Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
based engines are at least several or all
of the following:
-heavier
-More noise
-low on power
-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
-more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
Most auto engine conversions are 100 lbs
more. The Mazda rotary is loud. The
others are spinning fast are have a higher
pitch noise and vibration. Different yes
but better? No.
Auto engines advertise the peak HP as
at near red line, but in airplanes operate
will below peak HP. Most of the car
engines do not get any better fuel
consumption than a Lyc or TCM. Well
because Lycs/TCM have a mixture control
and usually EGT gauges. Some even run
LOP. The AUTO engine EFI with O2 sensor
(which last a few hours with avgas) and
open/closed loop does nothing at high
power settings. I'd rather have manual
mixture control.
The Lyc has:
two cables - Mixtures and Throttle
One fuel line and a mechanical pump
Two P-leads to self powered mags
So two push-pull cables, two single wires
and one fuel line is all that is needed
and NON requires electrical power. The
MODERN engine needs computers and has
one spark plug & needs dual electric pumps,
two batteries and blaa blaa blaa.
There is something elegant in a simple
air cooled engine independant engine.
Honda bought TCM because it was cheap.
Honda engines are just 4 stroke piston
reciprocal "otto cycle" engines just like
a Lycoming. THERE IS NOTHING NEW.
4 valves per cylinder or water cooling is
NOT NEW. It has been around since the
20's. The Lyc does not use any of this
because its NOT NEEDED or desirable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly
more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable
alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
John,
I also live in "People's Republic of OR", so I feel your pain. However, I do
believe you can burn whatever in your Experimental. To burn mogas in
certified, you have to have an STC, and not sure whether that includes gas with
ethanol. I will try the 10% ethanol in my -6a in one tank some day in the future.
Just at cruise up high, mind you. 100LL in the other tank. Main concern with
ethanol is it seems to melt rubber on hoses, gaskets, etc. They say...
Neoprene allegedly OK. Maybe I'll buy a bottle of "White Lighting" and submerge
some hoses/gaskets, etc. in a couple oz. of it. What to do with the rest of
the bottle?
Ideas?
Jerry
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with fuel type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly
more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable
alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "c.ennis" <c.ennis(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
Among other comments, the article says this..
"Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircra
ft for the following reasons:
* The addition of alcohol to automobile
gasoline adversly affects the
volatility of the fuel, which could
cause vapor lock.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is corrosive and not
compatible with the rubber seals and
other materials used in aircraft, which
could lead to fuel system deterioration
and malfunction.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is subject to phase separation,
which happens when fuel is cooled
as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
higher altitude. When the alcohol
separates from the gasoline, it may
carry water that has been held in
solution and that cannot be handled by
the sediment bowl.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline reduces the energy content of
the fuel. Methanol has approximately
55 percent of the energy content of
gasoline, and ethanol has
approximately 73 percent of the
energy of automobile gasoline.
The greater amount of alcohol in
the automobile gasoline, the greater
the reduction in the airdraft's range."
The article goes on with several reccomendations.
The most explicite says.
"ii. Automobile gasolines
containing alcohol
(methanol or ethanol) are
not acceptable, unless
specifically approved by the
TC or STC.
For Further Information Contact
Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
(816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse(at)faa.gov
Charlie Ennis
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
On 6:45 2008-03-08 wrote:
> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
> in a car.
1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph. That's a pretty fast car that
you're driving for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million
miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
hours. Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let
alone 60.
> Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
> every year? Big air cooled radials from
> the 40's and 50's.
For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-51's) traded the checkered flag,
while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea Fury), etc. trickled in behind.
> COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
> AIRPLANES.
Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes. The challenge is minimizing it.
The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the cooling system at certain power
settings. Surely there's a way to realize similar gains with an automotive
conversion.
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative engines |
Most of my flying is either local or within 2-way range of full tanks.
My -7 will have extended range tanks & will push the percentage of
round-trips without refueling to about 90%.
Charlie
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
> airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol.
> So when you go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
>
> Jerry
>
> In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
>
> The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow
> me to fly more
> hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe
> the future
> in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with
> viable alternative
> engines like Jan offers.
>
> Do Not Archieve.
>
> Ron Burnett
> St. Charles, MO
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
c.ennis wrote:
> Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
>
> FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
>
> Among other comments, the article says this..
>
> "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in
> aircraft for the following reasons:
>
> * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> gasoline adversly affects the
> volatility of the fuel, which could
> cause vapor lock.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is corrosive and not
> compatible with the rubber seals and
> other materials used in aircraft, which
> could lead to fuel system deterioration
> and malfunction.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> which happens when fuel is cooled
> as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> higher altitude. When the alcohol
> separates from the gasoline, it may
> carry water that has been held in
> solution and that cannot be handled by
> the sediment bowl.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline reduces the energy content of
> the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> 55 percent of the energy content of
> gasoline, and ethanol has
> approximately 73 percent of the
> energy of automobile gasoline.
> The greater amount of alcohol in
> the automobile gasoline, the greater
> the reduction in the airdraft's range."
>
> The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> The most explicite says.
> "ii. Automobile gasolines
> containing alcohol
> (methanol or ethanol) are
> not acceptable, unless
> specifically approved by the
> TC or STC.
>
> For Further Information Contact
>
> Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse(at)faa.gov
>
> Charlie Ennis
> RV-6A
Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments against
alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional wisdom'
arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can make analogous
arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last paragraph?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative engines |
These issues have been addressed by our group and the Eggenfellner firewall forward
product.
1. The volatility issue is addressed by testing the fuel for the altitude that
vapor lock could occur, usually above 12,000 feet, even in summer.
2. Rubber seals are not used.
3. Any water present would be absorbed in the fuel/ethanol mixture, and run right
thru the fuel injection system.
4. I am willing to accept any reduced range, especially for local flying to save
extensively on fuel costs and cross country I can buy 100LL or MOGAS as available
anyway.
5. Should vapor lock occur, we have a fuel bypass valve that would immediately
restart the engine and most likely, you would never miss a beat or be aware that
vapor lock had even occured.
An STC is unnecessary in an automotive engine and I am comfortable with these solutions.
I do not burn auto fuel in my STC approved Luscombe as I agree with the premises
stated for certified aircraft. Life is often a dichotomy!
---- "c.ennis" wrote:
============
Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
Among other comments, the article says this..
"Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircraft for
the following reasons:
* The addition of alcohol to automobile
gasoline adversly affects the
volatility of the fuel, which could
cause vapor lock.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is corrosive and not
compatible with the rubber seals and
other materials used in aircraft, which
could lead to fuel system deterioration
and malfunction.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is subject to phase separation,
which happens when fuel is cooled
as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
higher altitude. When the alcohol
separates from the gasoline, it may
carry water that has been held in
solution and that cannot be handled by
the sediment bowl.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline reduces the energy content of
the fuel. Methanol has approximately
55 percent of the energy content of
gasoline, and ethanol has
approximately 73 percent of the
energy of automobile gasoline.
The greater amount of alcohol in
the automobile gasoline, the greater
the reduction in the airdraft's range."
The article goes on with several reccomendations.
The most explicite says.
"ii. Automobile gasolines
containing alcohol
(methanol or ethanol) are
not acceptable, unless
specifically approved by the
TC or STC.
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Charlie, Thank You. There is an ASTM standard which I understood was
required of all aircraft flying. This was a condition not restricted to
just certificated production aircraft but experimental built as well.
It has something to do not just with octane but the diverse difference
of the Reid Pressure Value when Ethanol in any amount is added.
Clearly there are some who feel experimental built can fly on corn
squeezing. My understanding was that No ethanol was allowed. And yet
there was a feature story in one of my aviation pubs of a three ship
RV-4 group which flies with E-85. I remain confused and curious.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
c.ennis wrote:
> Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
>
> FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
>
> Among other comments, the article says this..
>
> "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in
> aircraft for the following reasons:
>
> * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> gasoline adversly affects the
> volatility of the fuel, which could
> cause vapor lock.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is corrosive and not
> compatible with the rubber seals and
> other materials used in aircraft, which
> could lead to fuel system deterioration
> and malfunction.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> which happens when fuel is cooled
> as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> higher altitude. When the alcohol
> separates from the gasoline, it may
> carry water that has been held in
> solution and that cannot be handled by
> the sediment bowl.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline reduces the energy content of
> the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> 55 percent of the energy content of
> gasoline, and ethanol has
> approximately 73 percent of the
> energy of automobile gasoline.
> The greater amount of alcohol in
> the automobile gasoline, the greater
> the reduction in the airdraft's range."
>
> The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> The most explicite says.
> "ii. Automobile gasolines
> containing alcohol
> (methanol or ethanol) are
> not acceptable, unless
> specifically approved by the
> TC or STC.
>
> For Further Information Contact
>
> Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse(at)faa.gov
>
> Charlie Ennis
> RV-6A
Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments against
alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional wisdom'
arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can make analogous
arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last
paragraph?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, wrote:
> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
> based engines are at least several or all
> of the following:
>
> -heavier
> -More noise
> -low on power
> -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
> -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
>
I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most
builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)
-Heavier
Not necessarily. My Mazda powered RV-4 empty weight (but including engine
oil) is 948 lbs. This is at the light end of the spectrum.
-More noise
True, but only when not running a muffler. Measured with a sound pressure
instrument, my muffled rotary was a couple of db less than a Lyc on fly-by
at same airspeed.
-Low on power
My rate of climb solo with 1/2 tanks on a standard day is 2650 fpm with a
fixed pitch prop. This was measured back when I was running an early 13B
rated at 160 HP. No documentation to support that, just my word. That same
engine turned in a standing start average speed of 209.2 MPH in 2003 and
217.56 MPH in 2004 Sun 100 air races. These are numbers you can verify.
After all the agony of installing an alternative engine (and there was a
lot), it was all worth it for that radio call - "Race 25, Race 29 is passing
high and outside" for the first place win in Category 8. Life is defined
by moments like that!
- Fuel burn higher
Sometimes yes. At low altitude, it looks like I burn about 5% more than an
agressively leaned Lycoming. The guys that run ROP Lycs burn slightly more
than I do. My fuel numbers look best at high altitude. At 15,500 ft.
throttled back to 172 mph TAS it burns 6 GPH. Most RV drivers think this
is fantastic but a lot of Lyc powered RVs could show similar numbers if they
throttled back a bit.
None of this was accomplished by spending cubic dollars, fancy airframe mods
or ultra precise building. The RV-4 was built on a $20k budget (1994
dollars) and most pilots would describe it as 'rough around the edges'. I
do think it was built with a good understanding of how cooling drag is
minimized in a liquid cooled installation. I'm sure Honda could do better
but true, there ain't no money in it for them.
Tracy Crook
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000(at)yahoo.com> |
[quote="rv7(at)b4.ca"]On 6:45 2008-03-08 wrote:
> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
> in a car.
>
>
1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph. That's a pretty fast car that
you're driving for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million
miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
hours. Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let
alone 60.
[quote]
Someone needs to check their math!
1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph
1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph
2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph ----- not 60-120!
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168572#168572
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Spinner fit to prop cutout ? |
Just mounted the prop - Hartzell BA and now need to fit the spinner. 7a
with o-360. It has not been run yet so there has never been any oil
circulating from the engine to the prop. Is there any problem twisting
the prop from coarse to fine pitch by hand to fit the prop relief in the
spinner cutout? Any way to damage the prop? Any way to make it easier?
How much effort would be "normally" required to twist it from coarse to
fine?
Help appreciated!
Thanks
Bill S
7a Ark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | c.ennis(at)insightbb.com |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
John,
As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any insight into what's right
or what's wrong about flying with auto fuel, I only know what I read. Having
said that, I fly with a certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In
order to maintain that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole carburation
system to some other special improved system, voids the certification
and I must remove the factory data plate from my engine. I realize that some
would see no problem with this, though it does reduce the perceived value of
your aircraft in some buyers minds. As I recall Lyc. does not sanction the use
of auto fuel in any of its engines, STC's from the EAA and Peterson are not recomended
by them.
As for the RV-4 ethanol group, I understand they are financed and backed by the
corn lobby, and their aircraft are set up and altered to run on alcohol. I would
suppose the engines are all de-certified(notice, I didn't say "assume") .
In the past, pre ethanol, it was assumed to be safe to run autogas IF you could
find your specific engine listed in the STC's from the EAA or Peterson. I feel
the addition of alcohol has negated that presumption of safety. The EAA even
sells an alcohol detection kit for use by it's STC holders and others because
too high a precentage of alcohol voids the STC.
If I were willing and determined enough to run an auto engine conversion in my
aircraft, I would certainly try auto fuel with alcohol, Just as I ran auto fuel
in my Lyc. before alcohol became the government mandated additive of the moment.
Finally, cheaper fuel is a poor reason to risk your investment of time and money,
not to mention your hide, on a questionable fuel. But that's just my opinion,
others with opinions may differ.
Charlie
---- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com
Date: Saturday, March 8, 2008 20:18
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
>
> Charlie, Thank You. There is an ASTM standard which I
> understood was
> required of all aircraft flying. This was a condition not
> restricted to
> just certificated production aircraft but experimental built as well.
> It has something to do not just with octane but the diverse difference
> of the Reid Pressure Value when Ethanol in any amount is added.
>
> Clearly there are some who feel experimental built can fly on corn
> squeezing. My understanding was that No ethanol was
> allowed. And yet
> there was a feature story in one of my aviation pubs of a three ship
> RV-4 group which flies with E-85. I remain confused and curious.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
> EnglandSent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
>
>
> c.ennis wrote:
> > Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
> >
> > FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
> >
> > Among other comments, the article says this..
> >
> > "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be
> used in
> > aircraft for the following reasons:
> >
> > * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> > gasoline adversly affects the
> > volatility of the fuel, which could
> > cause vapor lock.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline is corrosive and not
> > compatible with the rubber seals and
> > other materials used in aircraft, which
> > could lead to fuel system deterioration
> > and malfunction.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> > which happens when fuel is cooled
> > as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> > higher altitude. When the alcohol
> > separates from the gasoline, it may
> > carry water that has been held in
> > solution and that cannot be handled by
> > the sediment bowl.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline reduces the energy content of
> > the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> > 55 percent of the energy content of
> > gasoline, and ethanol has
> > approximately 73 percent of the
> > energy of automobile gasoline.
> > The greater amount of alcohol in
> > the automobile gasoline, the greater
> > the reduction in the airdraft's range."
> >
> > The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> > The most explicite says.
> > "ii. Automobile gasolines
> > containing alcohol
> > (methanol or ethanol) are
> > not acceptable, unless
> > specifically approved by the
> > TC or STC.
> >
> > For Further Information Contact
> >
> > Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> > Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> > (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse(at)faa.gov
>
> >
> > Charlie Ennis
> > RV-6A
> Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
>
> All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments
> against
> alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional
> wisdom'
> arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can
> make analogous
> arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
>
> Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last
> paragraph?
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RV-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
>From: "mike humphrey"
>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>So was the Model T Ford. It's called -
>Progress. When is the
>production of 100LL supposed to be
>stopped?
We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL
like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will
run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.
>Another US manufacturer that can't keep
>up with times-like the auto industry.
>What kind of car do you drive? Where is
>it built? Not US, is it, I bet?
You got me two Acuras, and a '67
Camano.
>The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons
>against, are simply based in conjecture.
>There is absolutely no data to support:
>heavier, more drag, increase
>cost and not better economy or
>performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
>constructive arguments, only opinions.
>With regards to that rant following, the
>person has never built/flown a
You just don't know what you are talking
about. All the EAA cross country races
are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers
in the top gold ultimate class are P&W
radials, with a few V12 merlins as also
ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc
with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled
race engine. Put up or shut up. There is
lots of talk but no proof on your part.
Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries.
We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged)
with $9,000 electric MT props and all
they could do was match or slightly beat
a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5
gal and hour and lots of noise. Van
tested an Eggenfellner RV-9A against a
320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but
nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot,
slower and gas mileage was not better. It
also made not less noise or vibration,
just different buzzy high Freq noise and
vibration (because the engine is spinning
fast).
Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in
EAA since 1985 and followed alternative
engines carefully. I have a masters in
engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000
hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true.
Cooling drag with most (not all) water
cooled adaptations are higher than air-
cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling
has 70 years of R&D with millions if not
billions spend on optimizing it.
>Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything
>that he states that it doesn't.
I have no idea what that means? However
if you are running a freight or corporate
business with some C421's or Aerostars or
Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see
where FADEC would be worth it. However
for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is
a lot to do about nothing. You need all
these sensors to work and all you get is
one less knob. I love the mixture control
on my plane and the work load of moving
it 4 times a flight is well, a no
brainier. The EFI on car engines don't
work well. Real World Solution and SDS
have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane
conversions. The RWS even give the pilot
a mixture control. My point is EFI is
great for a car going from idle to
acceleration and idle to acceleration
over and over. In a plane at one power
setting 90% of the time, other wise its
wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or
FADEC has little value for way more
complication and a million extra failure
modes.
>Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
>But one should leave the
>emotional outburst for the pulpit.
There is no emotion. I am an airline
pilot and have an engineering degree.
It's all fact and science. You on the
other hand WANT so badly for something
NEW and better and you believe all the
hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of
engineering. Any short coming is a
planned compromise not some hair brained
screw up. They are indeed state of the
art. Physics and the laws of
thermodynamics have not changed in the
last 1000 years, as far as I know. You
can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.
>What I was trying to point out is
>that if US A/C engine manufacturers
>don't look past today, tomorrow
>will make them extinct.
That is a fair point. So the new
DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The
Thielert Diesel had a dual flame out
because the ECU died because the
batteries where low or something? The new
Diamond twin crashed. People using the
engine are having terribly short TBO.
You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS!
Look if I was starting a new engine from
scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be
a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct
drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what
would that look like? Oh yea it would
look like a Lycoming or TCM.
There is something to be said for a Lyc
with dual mags (self powered) and a
mechanical fuel injection or carb. They
are dead simple, reliable even if they
are "farm tractor" technology they don't
stop flying EVER, unless you run out
of gas or something really big lets loose.
Electrical independence is GOLDEN.
Most of the car improvements has been
in the electronics, which is a milestone
for cars, but not so much needed in a
piston plane.
>I'd be the first to admit that I hate
>change. But sometimes it's necessary
>for survival. Enough on this subject,
>it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H
Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it,
ate it, **** it out and than threw it on
the wall, ha ha.
I know you want something better but when
you fly Lycs like I did everyday for
years and years as a CFI and Freight
pilot and corporate pilot, you will
appreciate them more than have fear and
loathing out of ignorance. You are
listing to the kool-aid drinkers who
think automotive engines are the best
thing in the world. The thing that kills
aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and
months and years at a time. You fly every
day and keep the engine within limits
(which is easy) and change the oil, it
will last to TBO. If your car sat for
weeks and weeks and years than you jumped
in and started it, and got on the free
way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than
parked it for a few months and did that
again, with out changing the oil and
running it as hot as you can get it. I
guarantee your car engine would not last
very long. Stop believing all the bad
things you hear about Lycs and TCM.
TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and
1000's of hours every day/wk world wide.
Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do
with abuse and poor maintenance. When it
comes to the design and QC of the parts
and materials they are SECOND TO NONE.
Yes TCM and LYC both went through their
own crank shaft QC disaster in the early
90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There
is no excuse and they are embarrassed
(and sued). Stuff happens. However the
cranks made for 4 decades before and the
decade since are fine. Cheers
On last note about other countries are
taking or stealing Americas markets,
ie, "I drink your milkshake".
Yep it can and does and will happen. I do
like Japan car companies and the USA
ones are floundering. I hate that in all
trade agreements such as NAFTA,
trade with Euro and China, screws the
USA. They cheat and we let them.
Enough. We still have the best scientest
and engineers. They just steal, copy than
improve, while using slave labor to
undercut our market.
The LSA market
is dominated by foreign manufactures
and engine maker. Why did we make
laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude
American planes. Our planes are bigger
and heavier because they need to be.
Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will
be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is
an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to
maintain, over rated power wise, they
just had a "gear box failure". So over
weight, under powered planes for the
US market, Progress? America is a
big country with big people (sorry fat)
and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN
over gross with two people. We need
more range and gross in America than
they do in Europe.
It is a joke and the gross should have
been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross
so more US planes and engines could
comply. I would rather a O200 or O235
than a Rotax any day. At least TCM
is making a light O200 for the LSA
market for the Cessna LSA, which by
the way is MADE IN CHINA!
Goodgreef, yea let them drink our
milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is
anti-American. The Japanese, eruo
and Chinese are not brilliant, better or
smarter; they just exploit our market
while cutting off our products. Even
the US Air Force bought AIRBUS!
I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece
of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and
it is way better than an Airbus, Why
do you think there are still 707's flying
as AWACS and tankers? They where
designed and built well. Northrop and
Airbus are just undercutting their price,
but they will have problems with them
and they will not last. The B52 is still
flying? Why? because its a Boeing.
I know America hating is in fashion
but not with me.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:
> John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> minds.
You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ollie Washburn" <ollie6a(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Are you done now---
Ollie
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
> >From: "mike humphrey"
> >
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>
> >So was the Model T Ford. It's called -
> >Progress. When is the
> >production of 100LL supposed to be
> >stopped?
>
> We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL
> like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will
> run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.
>
> >Another US manufacturer that can't keep
> >up with times-like the auto industry.
> >What kind of car do you drive? Where is
> >it built? Not US, is it, I bet?
>
> You got me two Acuras, and a '67
> Camano.
>
> >The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons
> >against, are simply based in conjecture.
> >There is absolutely no data to support:
> >heavier, more drag, increase
> >cost and not better economy or
> >performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
> >constructive arguments, only opinions.
> >With regards to that rant following, the
> >person has never built/flown a
>
> You just don't know what you are talking
> about. All the EAA cross country races
> are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers
> in the top gold ultimate class are P&W
> radials, with a few V12 merlins as also
> ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc
> with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled
> race engine. Put up or shut up. There is
> lots of talk but no proof on your part.
> Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries.
> We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged)
> with $9,000 electric MT props and all
> they could do was match or slightly beat
> a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5
> gal and hour and lots of noise. Van
> tested an Eggenfellner RV-9A against a
> 320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but
> nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot,
> slower and gas mileage was not better. It
> also made not less noise or vibration,
> just different buzzy high Freq noise and
> vibration (because the engine is spinning
> fast).
>
> Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in
> EAA since 1985 and followed alternative
> engines carefully. I have a masters in
> engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000
> hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true.
> Cooling drag with most (not all) water
> cooled adaptations are higher than air-
> cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling
> has 70 years of R&D with millions if not
> billions spend on optimizing it.
>
> >Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything
> >that he states that it doesn't.
>
> I have no idea what that means? However
> if you are running a freight or corporate
> business with some C421's or Aerostars or
> Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see
> where FADEC would be worth it. However
> for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is
> a lot to do about nothing. You need all
> these sensors to work and all you get is
> one less knob. I love the mixture control
> on my plane and the work load of moving
> it 4 times a flight is well, a no
> brainier. The EFI on car engines don't
> work well. Real World Solution and SDS
> have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane
> conversions. The RWS even give the pilot
> a mixture control. My point is EFI is
> great for a car going from idle to
> acceleration and idle to acceleration
> over and over. In a plane at one power
> setting 90% of the time, other wise its
> wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or
> FADEC has little value for way more
> complication and a million extra failure
> modes.
>
> >Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> >But one should leave the
> >emotional outburst for the pulpit.
>
> There is no emotion. I am an airline
> pilot and have an engineering degree.
> It's all fact and science. You on the
> other hand WANT so badly for something
> NEW and better and you believe all the
> hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of
> engineering. Any short coming is a
> planned compromise not some hair brained
> screw up. They are indeed state of the
> art. Physics and the laws of
> thermodynamics have not changed in the
> last 1000 years, as far as I know. You
> can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.
>
> >What I was trying to point out is
> >that if US A/C engine manufacturers
> >don't look past today, tomorrow
> >will make them extinct.
>
> That is a fair point. So the new
> DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The
> Thielert Diesel had a dual flame out
> because the ECU died because the
> batteries where low or something? The new
> Diamond twin crashed. People using the
> engine are having terribly short TBO.
> You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS!
> Look if I was starting a new engine from
> scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be
> a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct
> drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what
> would that look like? Oh yea it would
> look like a Lycoming or TCM.
>
> There is something to be said for a Lyc
> with dual mags (self powered) and a
> mechanical fuel injection or carb. They
> are dead simple, reliable even if they
> are "farm tractor" technology they don't
> stop flying EVER, unless you run out
> of gas or something really big lets loose.
> Electrical independence is GOLDEN.
> Most of the car improvements has been
> in the electronics, which is a milestone
> for cars, but not so much needed in a
> piston plane.
>
> >I'd be the first to admit that I hate
> >change. But sometimes it's necessary
> >for survival. Enough on this subject,
> >it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H
>
> Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it,
> ate it, **** it out and than threw it on
> the wall, ha ha.
>
> I know you want something better but when
> you fly Lycs like I did everyday for
> years and years as a CFI and Freight
> pilot and corporate pilot, you will
> appreciate them more than have fear and
> loathing out of ignorance. You are
> listing to the kool-aid drinkers who
> think automotive engines are the best
> thing in the world. The thing that kills
> aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and
> months and years at a time. You fly every
> day and keep the engine within limits
> (which is easy) and change the oil, it
> will last to TBO. If your car sat for
> weeks and weeks and years than you jumped
> in and started it, and got on the free
> way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than
> parked it for a few months and did that
> again, with out changing the oil and
> running it as hot as you can get it. I
> guarantee your car engine would not last
> very long. Stop believing all the bad
> things you hear about Lycs and TCM.
>
> TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and
> 1000's of hours every day/wk world wide.
> Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do
> with abuse and poor maintenance. When it
> comes to the design and QC of the parts
> and materials they are SECOND TO NONE.
>
> Yes TCM and LYC both went through their
> own crank shaft QC disaster in the early
> 90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There
> is no excuse and they are embarrassed
> (and sued). Stuff happens. However the
> cranks made for 4 decades before and the
> decade since are fine. Cheers
>
> On last note about other countries are
> taking or stealing Americas markets,
>
> ie, "I drink your milkshake".
>
> Yep it can and does and will happen. I do
> like Japan car companies and the USA
> ones are floundering. I hate that in all
> trade agreements such as NAFTA,
> trade with Euro and China, screws the
> USA. They cheat and we let them.
> Enough. We still have the best scientest
> and engineers. They just steal, copy than
> improve, while using slave labor to
> undercut our market.
>
> The LSA market
> is dominated by foreign manufactures
> and engine maker. Why did we make
> laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude
> American planes. Our planes are bigger
> and heavier because they need to be.
> Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will
> be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is
> an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to
> maintain, over rated power wise, they
> just had a "gear box failure". So over
> weight, under powered planes for the
> US market, Progress? America is a
> big country with big people (sorry fat)
> and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN
> over gross with two people. We need
> more range and gross in America than
> they do in Europe.
>
> It is a joke and the gross should have
> been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross
> so more US planes and engines could
> comply. I would rather a O200 or O235
> than a Rotax any day. At least TCM
> is making a light O200 for the LSA
> market for the Cessna LSA, which by
> the way is MADE IN CHINA!
>
> Goodgreef, yea let them drink our
> milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is
> anti-American. The Japanese, eruo
> and Chinese are not brilliant, better or
> smarter; they just exploit our market
> while cutting off our products. Even
> the US Air Force bought AIRBUS!
> I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece
> of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and
> it is way better than an Airbus, Why
> do you think there are still 707's flying
> as AWACS and tankers? They where
> designed and built well. Northrop and
> Airbus are just undercutting their price,
> but they will have problems with them
> and they will not last. The B52 is still
> flying? Why? because its a Boeing.
> I know America hating is in fashion
> but not with me.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Galati <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that comes from
many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda and glossly sold
to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning to wonder if former President
Jimmy Carter had it right all along. While in office, he stated that
growing food crops to produce ethanol fuel was a morally wrong thing to do.
Given that some experts today believe that the world will soon experience global
food shortages, perhaps it is time to revisit President Carter's unpopular
view. Imagine a world in which food competes with fuel. That is a very real
prospect and only the seriously delusional will believe that a full fuel tank
is worth more than a hungry belly fueled with anger. Already, corn to ethanol
is driving an alarming increase in the price of corn products and the result
can be seen in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the country. But that is
only the beginning. Certainly, you are free to
agree or disagree with Carter's position, politics does have a way of polarizing
people but the irrefutable and undeniable fact is this and this fact is golden:
If every single ear of corn produced in this country destined for human
consumption was diverted for ethanol production, that production would account
for only 7% of the fuel energy consumed by Americans. In addition, some would
argue that simply producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a
gallon of ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means
no corn flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the cob.
That seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never live up to the
hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby. They just don't want
to hear it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn thing
into perspective.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
Subject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that comes
from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda and
glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning to
wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all along. While in
office, he stated that growing food crops to produce ethanol fuel was a
morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts today believe that the
world will soon experience global food shortages, perhaps it is time to
revisit President Carter's unpopular view. Imagine a world in which food
competes with fuel. That is a very real prospect and only the seriously
delusional will believe that a full fuel tank is worth more than a hungry
belly fueled with anger. Already, corn to ethanol is driving an alarming
increase in the price of corn products and the result can be seen in the
cereal aisle of any supermarket in the country. But that is only the
beginning. Certainly, you are free to agree or disagree with Carter's
position, politics does have a way of polarizing people but the irrefutable
and undeniable fact is this and this fact is golden: If every single ear of
corn produced in this country destined for human consumption was diverted
for ethanol production, that production would account for only 7% of the
fuel energy consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that
simply producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no corn
flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the cob. That
seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never live up to the
hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby. They just don't
want to hear it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
Ron,
Thank you for that. I had used Airnav while still using 100LL exclusively,
and forgot they also tell you where mogas is available. I just checked one of
my one fuel stop routes, KUAO~KBIL and happily discovered mogas available at
Pullman, WA right along the way. Gotta luv this list.
Jerry Cochran
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with fuel
type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So
when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
---- Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:
> > John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> > insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> > fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> > certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> > that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> > factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> > carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> > certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> > engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> > does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> > minds.
>
>
> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Alternate Engines |
Without rehashing this interesting discussion, I recall recently having
somewhat the same discussion (argument) with a Subaru equipped plane's
owner, and after listenting to all the advantages of and new technology
in those auto engines, I said, "But you're missing the main point."
He said , "What's that?"
I responded, "My airplane is still flying!"
His Subie engine quit in flight and he lost the plane. Fortuantely he
survived with only minor hurts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
>From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>> wrote:
>> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
>> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
>> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
>> in a car.
>1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph.
>That's a pretty fast car that you're driving
>for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1
>to 2 million miles," in which case you're
>only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
>hours. Most cars on the road today would
>do well to average 40mph, let alone 60.
NO you missed the point an AIRPLANE doing
200kts for 2000 hours. That is a lot of
miles (460,000 statute miles). How far does
a car go in its life, on a good day? 1/2 that.
>> Water cooling? Who wins Reno air races
>> every year? Big air cooled radials from
>> the 40's and 50's.
>For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-
>51's) traded the checkered flag,
>while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea
>Fury), etc. trickled in behind.
Well not any more my friend, they can't even
come close with out blowing up. Also in WWII
the air cooled radials would get jugs shot
off and they would fly home with the
connecting rod flopping about. The P-51 got
one shot in the wrong place, it was toast.
Water hoses, radiators, pumps all things to
fail. True!
>> COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
>> AIRPLANES.
>Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes. The
>challenge is minimizing it.
Yea but we cracked the code with
horizontally air cooled tractor driven planes.
With the NASA research done in the early
70's, people like LoPresti & Barnard have
adapted the data; we have way way lower
cooling drag. Look at an RV with a Sam James
Cowl. About 25 sq inch of inlet. Now look at
what Eggenfellner has for his latest cowl,
two huge square scoops dumping into
radiators with little pressure recovery and
lots of drag, of all kinds. The stagnant
point is out side the cowl and there is all
kinds of external drag and internal loss. It
sucks. But he had to put these big scoops
to get enough air to go through those two
little heat exchangers to avoid overheating.
Now add a turbo and altitude to the
Eggenfellner engine. They will run hot, trust
me. Water cooling is not a panacea.
Car's can afford to have a radiator the size
of a large flat screen TV when they are
only going 70 mph and are in front of a
vehicle with a large flat plate area, so
fit and drag are not issues. A plane, going
200 mph, there is no room for a radiator in
the front of a small cowl.
You are minimizing frontal area and yes it's
a challenge, you are right. However with
air cooled horz AIRCRAFT ENGINES,
you have all the heads and cylinders, plus
oil cooler to shed heat. Because the whole
engine is a heat exchanger, its easy to duct
air to and through those fins, well not easy
but well understood. Now if like in WWII
billions in today's money was put into an
all new airframe and water cooled piston
engine, yea they could do something. But
just adapting a car engine with a PSRU
and throwing in some too small heat
exchangers where they fit is not optimal.
ITS JUST NOT A QUANTUM LEAP IN
TECHNOLOGY OR PERFORMANCE.
Sorry.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the Lycoming is
ONE BIG HUGE HEAT EXCHANGER.
However instead of going from air to liquid
and engine, it's just AIR & ENGINE. No
middle man, hoses, pumps or radiators.
Also Lycoming is LIQUID COOLED!!!!!!
Yes! What I'm talking about. Lycs have
OIL COOLERS, so they are actually air
AND oil cooled just like a BMW boxer
motorcycle and Porsche 911.
Yes the liquid cooled guys have a challenge but
the problem is they are using airframes
optimized for air cooled engines. So every
thing is a jury rig make do, make it work
adapt it fit it, not optimal. There is a RV-
10 going together with a P-51 belly scoop. I
am eager to see that fly and hope for the
best. Remember the P-51 sucked unless it was
going 400 mph. It over heated on the ground.
>The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the
>cooling system at certain power settings.
>Surely there's a way to realize similar
>gains with an automotive conversion.
-Rob
Yea I hear they shut the engine down and
flew on cooling thrust? ha-ha, Look there is no
such thing. It takes WORK or ENERGY to cool.
Yes I have heard the rumor but there is NO FREE
LUNCH in life, aviation or physics. Some where
you write out all the equations of P-51
aerodynamics and thermodynamics; you will
find a loss. Just having that scoop on the
belly with the flap open or closed is drag,
even if just parasitic drag. There is no
doubt cooling drag on reciprocating engines
is a large part of total drag. All the best.
Myths and legend does not make me think
water cooling is some panacea for GA
aircraft. P-51 does not = GA plane.
Water cooling has been around since
the Wright brothers. It is NOT new or
novel. It is in fact for all its pros has
cons, the net of which is a bit of a
negative in a GA plane, where simplicity,
lightness and low drag are king. Sorry to
burst peoples bubbles.
Lycoming and Wright, P&W and
Continental all knew what they where
doing when they made air cooled engines.
It was a choice not because of lack of
technology. It was there. It was just
not desirable.
I'll admit water cooling is "better". Meaning
it has more thermal capacity and is more
uniform and controllable (to get engines
warm faster), but water cooling can overheat.
Porsche 911 was air cooled up to 1998,
when they went to a water cooled version.
Why? Well laws on noise and pollution.
Water cooling dampens mechanical clacking
of valves and lifters. However in a plane
there is slip stream wind noise, prop noise
and exhaust noise. The difference is very
small, except on the ground to observers
outside while you taxi. Also water cooling
allows tighter piston/cyl wall clearance
which does lower pollution. Yes a Lyc
needs oil changes ever 25 hours because
it gets dirty. BTW the myth that Lycs use
oil, well they do, I go through about 1 qrt
per 16 to 18 hours. Many people get
well over 10 hrs/qt. So water cooling does
have that advantage. However I love changing
my planes oil and looking under the cowl.
On the other hand dirt bikes have mostly
all gone to water cooling, but than many
use titanium and magnesium in their engines.
A good new high tech dirt bike can cost as
much as some new econo cars.
To over take the Lyc and Continental it will take
a totally new technology with vastly better specs,
lighter, more hp per fuel burned, less expensive
and less cooling drag. Turbines fill many of these
but are vastly more expensive and burn more
fuel per HP. However after about 400-500 hp,
turbines start to earn their keep, at least for
applications that are going to be flown more
than a personal plane. Most of us only need
about 150-250 hp. Most auto engine conversions
are hard pressed to make this HP and still
be lighter. simpler more efficient. In the 100hp
and under class, car conversions are more
attractive and practical in my opinion. Still
in the 100HP range the O200 or O235 are
hard to beat.
Water cooling has little use in a plane.
If you want modern get a jet. Now a jets
for a plane that fly's 150 hrs a year by
a VFR pilot is a waste and not efficient.
Jets earn their keep in reliability and
speed, which is more for commercial
applications. Fuel burn of turbines, hp
per hp is beyond most individuals
budget.
In conclusion you should worship the
Continental & Lycoming, not vilify them.
They are engineering marvels and the grey
hairs, no doubt long retired, knew their
stuff. It comes after WWII development
that brought piston engines to their
pinnacle. Sodium filed valves than, now
roller cams, composite sumps, electronic
ignition, FADEC and so on. The Lyc and
TCM's are still evolving and getting better
and even CHEAPER. We now have not
one but THREE manufacturers of the engine
and countless others making accessories
and props for them.
They are in fact AIRCRAFT ENGINES
made for AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, no
frill no fluff. What is great in a car commercial
like overhead cam's, 300hp (at 6 grand) or 4valve
per cyl. is not needed in a plane engine turning
2,500 rpm. If you want gear boxes and 6,000 rpm
engines, fine, go for it. Rotary? Sure but poor fuel
econ and noise are draw backs. Eggenfellner?
PSRU issues? may be? I don't know.
Go out, buy a new Lyc $21k, warranty & huge
network of support & large corporation behind
it, or go do unpaid test pilot duties for a
one man show, mom-pop business. I am cool
with either, it's your choice. Me? My engine
conversion involved converting about $12,000
into a used O360 Lyc & full overhaul. It bolted
right up to my RV-7 with factory engine mount,
cowl and a Hartzell prop. I know how fast it will
go and burn and what to expect. Done. Just
one mans opinion.
Notice I am not bashing Alt engines. I don't have to.
However notice that many alternative engine
proponents BASH Lycomings to make their self
feel better about their choice. If alternative engines
are so much better, than they could stand on
their own merits, not negative comments of Lycs.
I am just pointing to the many positive facts
about Lycs and TCM's and busting some myths
and urban legends.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Arnold" <arno7452(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Looks to me like kudzu should be the basic ingredient. We have plenty
of it here in the south. I suspect it can be obtained for almost
nothing.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better friend, newshound, and
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Correct! Just as you can't take a "certified" Lyc from a certified Piper and
replace the certified Cont in a certified Cessna with that Lyc and still
call it certified to the original aircraft. Once it has been run with a
different cooling system, prop, etc.(different from the certificate) it has no
longer been maintained as it was certified. My understanding, technically it needs
to be "torn down" and "re-certified" that nothing changed.
Jim
In a message dated 3/9/2008 3:32:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sbuc(at)hiwaay.net writes:
You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
Sam Buchanan
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Define "properly maintained". Example; A certified aircraft guarantees that
the airframe's cooling system won't fry the engine. No experimental can
guarantee that which is why it is "experimental".
Jim
In a message dated 3/9/2008 4:15:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com writes:
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness
certificate and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied
with, the airworhiness certificate remains valid
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
But will Air Nav list the MOgas with NO Ethanol once so many states go
GREEN at 10% or more? I will bet Oregon still lists Mogas and yet the
requirement for 10% Ethanol will give a false Positive.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:59 PM
Subject: RV-List: Airnav:Mogas
Ron,
Thank you for that. I had used Airnav while still using 100LL
exclusively, and forgot they also tell you where mogas is available. I
just checked one of my one fuel stop routes, KUAO~KBIL and happily
discovered mogas available at Pullman, WA right along the way. Gotta luv
this list.
Jerry Cochran
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with
fuel type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol.
So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
________________________________
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
<http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
| From: | "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
In Oregon, a state I serves as Legislative Affairs for the Oregon Pilots
Association for , the governor was in bed with a single source
distillery for Ethanol and a single lobby group to fund his 2004
re-election campaign. The bill in 2005 died in committee, In 2007 it
was a "Must Pass" at the direction of the governor (through is
Department of Agriculture). Oregon doesn't currently have enough grain
to comply with the mandate but that did not stop the Petroleum Institute
and their lobbyist from greasing the gears. We pay and subsidize the
diesel fuel to truck the grain into the state. The theory was to keep
tax dollars within the state. The Summer of 2008 should show the
availability of proper fuel supply and the "Rightness" of the Green
Legislation.
The more important question is what steps should we do to allow Ethanol
combustion with Owner Built and Maintained Aircraft. Someone recently
said to do a Proseal dilution test with Ethanol and report the findings.
Many of us have yet to hear what could be improved on during
construction to deal with the Mandated Ethanol fuel. It is only a
question of time before 100LL goes away.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn thing
into perspective.
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure
that comes from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an
agenda and glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am
beginning to wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all
along. While in office, he stated that growing food crops to produce
ethanol fuel was a morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts
today believe that the world will soon experience global food shortages,
perhaps it is time to revisit President Carter's unpopular view.
Imagine a world in which food competes with fuel. That is a very real
prospect and only the seriously delusional will believe that a full fuel
tank is worth more than a hungry belly fueled with anger. Already, corn
to ethanol is driving an alarming increase in the price of corn products
and the result can be seen in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the
country. But that is only the beginning. Certainly, you are free to
agree or disagree with Carter's position, politics does have a way of
polarizing people but the irrefutable and undeniable fact is this and
this fact is golden: If every single ear of corn produced in this
country destined for human consumption was diverted for ethanol
production, that production would account for only 7% of the fuel energy
consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that simply
producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no
corn flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the
cob. That seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never
live up to the hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby.
They just don't want to hear it.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
c
om/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 Question |
J. Mcculley wrote:
>
> What is the range of empty weight measurements found by builders of
> RV-4 projects, in particular those with Hartzell CS props? If not
> available,
> fixed pitch Sensenich props will be OK.
>
> Jim
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've owned 2 different -4s, both built by others, both with O-320 & wood
prop, built light with only fabric covered cushions & painted interior.
One weighed 930, the other, that I'm currently flying, weighs 910.
You can figure that the c/s prop will add around 45-55 lbs (including
governor) & bigger engine would add anywhere from 15-45 lbs, depending
on engine model. Anything above that is extra paint, interior, avionics,
etc.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom & Cathy Ervin <tcervin(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Sorry Sam is right your engine can no longer be installed in a "Certified Aircraft"
that the engine was originally designed for. A complete tear-down and re-certification
by an authorized A&P or repair station would be required to return
it's original certified application.
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael phil" <michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2008 4:10:20 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
---- Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:
> > John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> > insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> > fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> > certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> > that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> > factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> > carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> > certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> > engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> > does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> > minds.
>
>
> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Hey Mike,
I agree with you that the data plate doesn't have to be removed, but
what if maintainence (other than preventive) is signed off by a person
without a powerplant license? I don't think you could legally transplant
the engine back into a Cessna or Piper without an overhaul. And just to
be picky, I don't think the engine carries an airworthiness cert. It
does comply with a TCDS, though.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com wrote:
>
> I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
>
> ---- Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>>
>> c.ennis(at)insightbb.com wrote:
>>
>>> John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
>>> insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
>>> fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
>>> certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
>>> that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
>>> factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
>>> carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
>>> certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
>>> engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
>>> does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
>>> minds.
>>>
>> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
>> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
>> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
>> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>>
>> Sam Buchanan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Tom & Cathy Ervin wrote:
>
>
> Sorry Sam is right your engine can no longer be installed in a
> "Certified Aircraft" that the engine was originally designed for. A
> complete tear-down and re-certification by an authorized A&P or
> repair station would be required to return it's original certified
> application. Tom in Ohio
I don't think a tear-down and overhaul is required per the regs, only
that an IA sign the log book stating the engine complies with the type
certificate for installation in a particular certificated aircraft.
However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
specifications before signing the book? :-)
So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Which is irrelevant to whether it is certified or not. As long as it is
still in its TCDS condition with the same accessories, it can go from
one experimental to another, and only a 25 hour fly off will be
required. As soon as you change something from that certified
configuration, a 40 hour test flight period is supposed to be required.
No one in their right mind is going to source an engine for a certified
aircraft from an experimental aircraft unless they are desperate. No, a
full overhaul would neither be required to determine conformity, nor
would an IA in their right mind do one if they were trying to minimize
cost/down time. Pulling a couple cylinders to verify the integrity of
the lower end, or a teardown and reassembly would be the likely action.
Cost would be less than 1/2 of an overhaul.
KM
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
Sam Buchanan wrote:
> However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
> the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
> specifications before signing the book? :-)
>
> So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Which is irrelevant to whether it is certified or not. As long as it is
> still in its TCDS condition with the same accessories, it can go from
> one experimental to another, and only a 25 hour fly off will be
> required. As soon as you change something from that certified
> configuration, a 40 hour test flight period is supposed to be required.
> No one in their right mind is going to source an engine for a certified
> aircraft from an experimental aircraft unless they are desperate. No, a
> full overhaul would neither be required to determine conformity, nor
> would an IA in their right mind do one if they were trying to minimize
> cost/down time. Pulling a couple cylinders to verify the integrity of
> the lower end, or a teardown and reassembly would be the likely action.
> Cost would be less than 1/2 of an overhaul.
> KM
> A&P/IA
> EAA Tech Counselor
Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would get
an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable determination
to protect the career of the IA. :-)
Sam Buchanan
====================
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
>> However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
>> the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
>> specifications before signing the book? :-)
>>
>> So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
I don't believe you understand the difference between teardown
inspection and an overhaul. The former is nothing more than take it
apart, inspect the parts, measure dimensions, and reassemble with new
gaskets, and hopefully new bearings. Time SMOH continues on the engine.
Overhaul requires that parts be at least within service limits(most are
done to new limits), and manufacturer's recommendations for parts
replacement should be done, to give zero SMOH time and reasonable chance
of making TBO. Stuff like valves, valve seats, pistons normally get
replaced. On a teardown only the bearings and rings and gaskets would
get replaced, just like a prop strike inspection.
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
> was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would
> get an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
> customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable
> determination to protect the career of the IA. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
> ==========================================================
> _
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Britton" <william(at)gbta.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our dependency
on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting rich, how
about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about that. It
may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast we are
trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements like
yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better friend, newshound, and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
I know nothing about farming, so I will just come right out and ask.
How much corn does it take to make one gallon of ethanol? How much
would this amount of corn cost? How much electricity cost is involved
in one gallon of ethanol production? In other words, what is the total
cost to produce one gallon of ethanol? This way, I'll be able to
compare price per gallon between ethanol and gas (assuming I could burn
100% ethanol).
Scott
William Britton wrote:
> Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
> rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say
> that farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
> portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
> food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm
> bill--I don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid
> for their commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent
> price we are all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so
> it seems. My grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he
> sold wheat for nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple
> years wheat was still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you
> do for a living but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of
> sales your prices have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always
> will have the cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world.
> The price of commodities actually has very little to do with the price
> of food at your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the
> middle men such as millers.
>
> As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam.
> However, I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our
> dependency on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers
> getting rich, how about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people
> bitch about that. It may or may not be the answer to our fuel
> problems but atleast we are trying something besides oil.
>
> As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
> inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
> ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
> bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag
> plants about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are
> $150,000, tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel
> has gone up nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to
> need over 60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
> $3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single
> family farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who
> is getting rich.
>
> I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements
> like yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
> truth!!!
>
> Bill Britton
> Lewis, KS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com <mailto:gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
>
> Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
> of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
> ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
> more energy to make it, than you get from it.
> Land use is such it drives prices up in other
> crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
> the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
> of our money to have them grow corn, not even
> good corn). Why do we give them tax money
> and oil companies tax breaks when they are
> making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
> gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
> because they use sugar which has a positive
> energy return way superior to corn by a factor
> of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
> Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
> has less energy density and does not work
> in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
> "hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
>
> Write congress and tell them enough. Love
> farmers but enough with handing out billions.
> Most "farmers" by the way are just big
> corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
> there any wounder why Iowa is the first
> primary. Who cares about Iowa except
> once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
> system keeps us (the government) from making
> good (but hard) decisions, void of special
> interest, for the best interest of the nation.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
>
>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/c
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3/9/2008 12:17 PM
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Alternative engines |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I don't believe you understand the difference between teardown
> inspection and an overhaul. The former is nothing more than take it
> apart, inspect the parts, measure dimensions, and reassemble with new
> gaskets, and hopefully new bearings. Time SMOH continues on the engine.
> Overhaul requires that parts be at least within service limits(most are
> done to new limits), and manufacturer's recommendations for parts
> replacement should be done, to give zero SMOH time and reasonable chance
> of making TBO. Stuff like valves, valve seats, pistons normally get
> replaced. On a teardown only the bearings and rings and gaskets would
> get replaced, just like a prop strike inspection.
Uhhhhhh, I think we are saying the same thing.
I'm well aware of the difference between teardown and overhaul. :-)
Sam Buchanan
========================
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
>> was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would
>> get an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
>> customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable
>> determination to protect the career of the IA. :-)
>>
>> Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest. Nothing but the facts from
the "scrambled letters after the name man". Has more ratings than a
movie. gmcjectpilot is a fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our dependency
on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting rich, how
about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about that. It
may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast we are
trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements like
yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
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/c
_____
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "NEIL HENDERSON" <neil459(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
_____
From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo(at)btinternet.com]
Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
Listers
I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top cowl. I
find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work very well it's
just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14 sets.
Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would require? I'm
assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of the hinge to
accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mauri" <maurv8(at)compuplus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Your half right. The real big winner is the Arthur Daniels Midland
(ADM). This company has spent millions of dollars to get corn ethanol
into our fuels and ,now, they get a piece of the total action as well as
subsidies from the Federal Government. The corn ethanol thing is one of
the biggest rip-offs the Feds have put on the people.
On a side note, while the Montana legislature was being beat up by the
"greenies" to include ethanol in mogas, the Montana Pilots Assoc and
several other user groups got together to issuer one grade of mogas was
ethanol free. So, in Montana, you can be assured that 91 octane is
ethanol free.
Mauri
RV-8 finishing still
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better friend, newshound, and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The Ethanol Fantasy |
FWIW, This is not a formal test but I have burned mostly auto fuel (some of
which contained ethanol) over the past 14 years. The sloshing compound (no
longer recommended by Van's) turned to mush and clogged filters a couple
of times. Fortunately I noticed falling fuel pressure and caught it before
the fan quit turning. Proseal has been unaffected so far.
Tracy Crook
Mazda powered RV-4, 1600+ hrs.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:48 PM, John W. Cox wrote:
> In Oregon, a state I serves as Legislative Affairs for the Oregon Pilots
> Association for , the governor was in bed with a single source distillery
> for Ethanol and a single lobby group to fund his 2004 re-election campaign.
> The bill in 2005 died in committee, In 2007 it was a "Must Pass" at the
> direction of the governor (through is Department of Agriculture). Oregon
> doesn't currently have enough grain to comply with the mandate but that did
> not stop the Petroleum Institute and their lobbyist from greasing the
> gears. We pay and subsidize the diesel fuel to truck the grain into the
> state. The theory was to keep tax dollars within the state. The Summer of
> 2008 should show the availability of proper fuel supply and the "Rightness"
> of the Green Legislation.
>
>
> The more important question is what steps should we do to allow Ethanol
> combustion with Owner Built and Maintained Aircraft. Someone recently said
> to do a Proseal dilution test with Ethanol and report the findings. Many of
> us have yet to hear what could be improved on during construction to deal
> with the Mandated Ethanol fuel. It is only a question of time before 100LL
> goes away.
>
>
> John Cox
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *John Jessen
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:58 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
>
>
> A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn thing
> into perspective.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Galati
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
>
> The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that comes
> from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda and
> glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning
> to wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all along. While in
> office, he stated that growing food crops to produce ethanol fuel was a
> morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts today believe that the
> world will soon experience global food shortages, perhaps it is time to
> revisit President Carter's unpopular view. Imagine a world in which food
> competes with fuel. That is a very real prospect and only the seriously
> delusional will believe that a full fuel tank is worth more than a hungry
> belly fueled with anger. Already, corn to ethanol is driving an
> alarming increase in the price of corn products and the result can be seen
> in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the country. But that is only the
> beginning. Certainly, you are free to agree or disagree with Carter's
> position, politics does have a way of polarizing people but the irrefutable
> and undeniable fact is this and this fact is golden: If every single ear of
> corn produced in this country destined for human consumption was diverted
> for ethanol production, that production would account for only 7% of
> the fuel energy consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that
> simply producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
> ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no corn
> flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the cob. That
> seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never live up to the
> hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby. They just don't
> want to hear it.
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *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/c*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Airnav:Mogas |
In a message dated 3/10/2008 12:03:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Subject: RE: RV-List: Airnav:Mogas
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
But will Air Nav list the MOgas with NO Ethanol once so many states go
GREEN at 10% or more? I will bet Oregon still lists Mogas and yet the
requirement for 10% Ethanol will give a false Positive.
John
Correct you are John. I'd never trust a mogas pump so would test a sample
first for ethanol. I doubt if a sane FBO would sell 10% gasahol anyway.
Liability.
Jerry Cochran
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
I used an .063 flange and a spacer in some places to get the cowl thickness correct.....
They have a kit - which I got for my 6A and installed last summer.
I also got a half dozed of each of the individual parts as spares.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: NEIL HENDERSON <neil459(at)btinternet.com>
>Sent: Mar 10, 2008 10:33 AM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: FW: Skybolt Fasteners
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo(at)btinternet.com]
>Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
>To: 'rv-list(at)matronics.com'
>Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
>
>
>
>Listers
>
>
>
>I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top cowl. I
>find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work very well it's
>just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
>
>I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14 sets.
>Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would require? I'm
>assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of the hinge to
>accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ethanol not from corn |
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the
energy input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ethanol not from corn |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
I have only one correction to your post, that being about only a small amount of
cellulosic ethanol being produced. That's true in the U.S., but in Brazil,
they produce massive quantities (world leader) of cellulosic ethanol (from sugar
cane stalks, I believe). The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S.
is the U.S. slaps a 30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel
Midlands and their buddies for that. As things stand right now, I'd rather
send my fuel dollars to Brasil than ________ (insert name of any Middle Eastern
country as well as Venezuela).
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of dave(at)rv-7.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Ethanol not from corn
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the
energy input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The Ethanol Fantasy |
If the Wright Bros had never flew the first plane would we be flying
today? Guys, it's not about the ethanol, it is about the dream of
making our world a better place for the next generation. It's about the
opportunity to fly your plane on a beautiful day because the Wright Bros
had this dream of flight. Look at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983190/posts
Look further down the road and just maybe something will come out of the
research that will make our planes fly for less or even better.
Jim Fogarty
RV9A Builder MN
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn
thing into perspective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that
comes from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda
and glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning
to wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all along.
While in office, he stated that growing food crops to produce ethanol
fuel was a morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts today
believe that the world will soon experience global food shortages,
perhaps it is time to revisit President Carter's unpopular view.
Imagine a world in which food competes with fuel. That is a very real
prospect and only the seriously delusional will believe that a full fuel
tank is worth more than a hungry belly fueled with anger. Already, corn
to ethanol is driving an alarming increase in the price of corn products
and the result can be seen in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the
country. But that is only the beginning. Certainly, you are free to
agree or disagree with Carter's position, politics does have a way of
polarizing people but the irrefutable and undeniable fact is this and
this fact is golden: If every single ear of corn produced in this
country destined for human consumption was diverted for ethanol
production, that production would account for only 7% of the fuel energy
consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that simply
producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no
corn flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the
cob. That seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never
live up to the hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby.
They just don't want to hear it.
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/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/8/2008 10:14 AM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Lervold" <randy(at)romeolima.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
Yep, check this page...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Finish
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: NEIL HENDERSON
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:33 AM
Subject: RV-List: FW: Skybolt Fasteners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo(at)btinternet.com]
Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
To: 'rv-list(at)matronics.com'
Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
Listers
I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top
cowl. I find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work
very well it's just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14
sets. Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would
require? I'm assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of
the hinge to accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
| From: | "Rick Galati" <rick6a(at)yahoo.com> |
Chuck,
I feel your rage but for the record, sugar is the second most profitable crop in
the U.S. only exceeded by tobacco. The Florida Everglades produces hundreds
of tons of the stuff each year. Don't assume Archer Daniel Midland is behind
sugar prices and tariff restrictions. Just follow the money. There is plenty
of blame to spread around and in the special case of sugar we can look to vast
sums of money that are funneled into the pockets of two little known, yet extremely
wealthy and politically powerful brothers named Alfie and Pepe Fanjul of
Palm Beach Fla. They are far and away the prime recipients of the sugar program
in the United States, estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayers 1.4 billion a year.
How? According to NBC news, our government guarantees the Fanjul brothers
22 cent per pound of sugar even though the worldwide price is 7 cents a pound.
It is argued that elements of the sugar program are custom crafted to serve
the Fanjul brothers and include import quotas and tariffs that effectively keeps
foreign sugar out of the U.S. Look no further than Canada to the north and
Mexico to the south to observe two nearby countries that enjoy sugar prices
one third the U.S. price. Not only that, it is said the Fanjul brothers have
petitioned our government to amend immigration laws so they can and do legally
bring in foreign workers who live an anonymous life of hard labor and virtual
bondage in company "housing." If more Americans really knew about the ongoing
sweetheart deal in Florida, especially as regards the Fanjul brothers and
the Florida Crystals Corp., maybe the sugar program could finally be adjusted
to truly serve the needs of the average American citizen the way the sugar program
was intended to instead of lining and relining the pockets of two fantastically
wealthy brothers and the political cover they have nurtured for years.
They dispense large sums of money to gain political access while covering all
the bases. One brother is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote:
> ......The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S. is the U.S. slaps a
30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel Midlands and their
buddies for that..... Chuck Jensen-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168867#168867
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
| From: | "Reak, Brad" <brad.reak(at)verigy.com> |
I have and RV7A with O360 180HP and the same Sensenich prop. I just completed
my testing a few weeks ago and here is a summary of what I did and learned.
1. Do testing early in the morning, my afternoon data was thrown out because I
could never get the plane stabilized.
2. I live in Colorado at around 5000ft so had take my data from 7000ft to 8000ft.
3. Climbs were stated at about 6200ft to be stabilized by 7000ft.
4. Data was taken from 60kias to 110kias at 5kt increments, with a minimum of four
runs in opposite directions. As I learned more I took more data from 80 to
95kts.
5. The OAT varied from 5C to 8C over the test period (three mornings at the same
time).
6. Plane, pilot and fuel averaged, 1525 lbs.
7. Testing always started with full fuel but fuel is burned during the test and
I could only guess at the exact weight during a particular test.
8. Climb rate data from a particular airspeed was averaged.
9. Climb rate data was Graphed and Vx computed from the tangent to the best rate
of climb as described in AC90-89A pages 47 and 48.
My result was:
Vy = 88KIAS
Vx = 72KIAS
Things I learned:
Wow, this was harder than I imagined. When I look at my best rate of climb curve
it is very flat from 80 to about 100kts but there is a small peak at 88kts.
The Vy data isn't very useful because climbing at 88kts produces a deck angle
that is much too high to be safe, I cannot see over the nose and it's uncomfortable
for pilot and passenger. Also, I need to get the speed higher to achieve
CHT under 400F on warm days. In practice I find the 110kts is a better climb
speed.
I've estimated my best glide speed to be 80KIAS.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Mersek" <1rv6flyer(at)internet49.com> |
| Subject: | Calaveras County Airport Fly-In Event |
RVators,
The annual Calaveras Airport Day Event is coming up soon and I would
like to extend an invitation to the RV community to attend Sat. April
26. We had a great variety of aircraft flying in last year with more
that 30 of them RV types. Looking forward to seeing many new (and old)
RV's flying in!
--Larry Mersek
N336RV
Calaveras Air Fair 2008
Apr. 26-San Andreas, CA. Calaveras County Airport (KCPU)-Fly-In & Open
House 8am-5pm.
Aircraft static displays, Local non-profit food vendors, Classic car and
Military vehicle displays,
$5 scenic airplane rides, Radio control airplane display, and more!
Kathy Zancanella: kz(at)mlode.com or Larry Mersek:
1rv6flyer(at)internet49.com
Airport Info: (209) 736-2501
http://www.co.calaveras.ca.us/departments/admin/airport.asp
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPU
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
As long as the government has the power to reward some at the expense of
others, there will be smart people to game the system at other's expense. We
don't need to adjust the various subsidies -- we need to eliminate them, and
then eliminate the power to grant them.
There are very, very few ideas so good that passing a law to make them
mandatory won't make bad ideas, or granting a little subsidy won't distort
beyond recognition.
I grew up on a little "family farm" in the Nooksack River valley of Western
Washington. I will forever be thankful that it didn't occur to anyone
running for county commissioner that maybe they should subsidize stumps.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
.... maybe the sugar program could finally be adjusted to truly serve the
needs of the average American citizen the way the sugar program was intended
to instead of lining and relining the pockets of two fantastically wealthy
brothers and the political cover they have nurtured for years. They
dispense large sums of money to gain political access while covering all the
bases. One brother!
is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote:
> ......The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S. is the U.S.
slaps a 30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel Midlands
and their buddies for that..... Chuck Jensen-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168867#168867
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Ethanol not from corn |
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the energy
input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
Dave: Suggest you look at R Squared Energy Blog. As of now (3-10-08 6:40pm
edt) the 4th article comments on cellulosic ethanol. I'll try to write down
the address. Robert Rapier claims to have been in the energy business for
some years in various capacities. You may find his site to be of interest.
Http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ I am not sure if the last slash is
needed but if it doesn't work just try googling as above.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
| From: | "cknauf" <cknauf(at)comcast.net> |
Sorry I'm keeping this forum off-topic, but as a Minnesota resident this ethanol
game is driving me crazy.
The study I read was done by the U of MI. The conclusion was that the Net Energy
Balance of ethanol was slightly better than petroleum, BUT ONLY after they
added several "other" factors like less reliance on imported oil from unstable
countries, creation of American jobs. Without those credits, it took more BTUs
to make a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself produced. I'm sorry, but
the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for such improvisation. When you think
about it, by using fossil fuel to produce ethanol, we are actually using more
petroleum than we would have if we didn't mess with ethanol in the first place.
So, we're really just burning through the dwindling oil endowment even
faster.
Go nuclear!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168918#168918
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put
down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have
you worked on you plane in hours? How many hours of
R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does
not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on
it will give you known performance and less tinkering.
It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda
conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers.
However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not
trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's
just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's
since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a
RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special
oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That
is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared
to other sport cars with the same performance as the
RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that
is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft
engine operates at very high power settings like 75%.
Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated
power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?
I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries
which by all account where some of the most beautify
highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly
off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport
rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with
Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP.
http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg
http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg
For some reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the
180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)
Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that
out. They had the same or few more mph or fpm more
speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh
more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and
significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn
copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs,
not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !
Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher,
even bringing people out side to listen.
These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of
one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their
own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used
as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You
stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or
ugly. You don't sugar coat problems. However you are
the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and
enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.
How many races have you or other Alt engines won?
Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one
year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS,
but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class?
I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance
than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP
class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down
just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark
or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van
did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test
needs to be repeatable.
I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be
a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be
turbo (to keep noise down and get some more
efficiency).
Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place
you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people
and honest with smart designs. However be realistic,
you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming.
You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I
track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's
turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always
burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile
and it is true of a rotary in a plane.
Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS
you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have
$12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an
OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad.
Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp)
is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most
Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball
park with fixed wood prop.
All the best to you Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and P&W.
>>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, wrote:
>> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
>> based engines are at least several or all
>> of the following:
>>
>> -heavier
>> -More noise
>> -low on power
>> -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
>> -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
>>
>I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most
>builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
>From: "William Britton" <william(at)gbta.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
>Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
>rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
Well I do care and resent you saying that.
>farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
>portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
>food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
Right, uhmm huha. Sure. Farmers don't get subsidies.
>My grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
>nearly $2.50/bushel.
>have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
>cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
>commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
>your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
>such as millers.
Don't know how we got onto wheat, but your are right US is bread
basket of the world with best agraculture bar none. What does
that have to do with all the tea in china?
>As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
See WE AGREE, I'll buy you a beer!
>I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our dependency
>on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting rich, how
>about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about that. It
>may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast we are
>trying something besides oil.
I agree, and if we listened to Jimmy Carter in the 70's and when every
on sold thier Caddy for a Honda Civic went down that road and we
also did not MESS up Nuke power which we need more of, than we
would not be in this mess. We learned our lesson in the 70's but
forgot and SUV's abound. I love the Mom loading her shopping
into this monster SUV with her 1.5 kids. What a waste.
>As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
>inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
>ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
>bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
>about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
>tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone
>up nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
>60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
>$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single
> family farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
>getting rich.
No no no no I never said that. Many farmers struggle. I know. I am just
saying CORN ehtonal is NOT the answer and we need to work on
the other kinds of ehtonal, switch grass or what ever. We need solar,
wind, nuke as well. AND MOST OF ALL... we need to conserve. Yes
I know that is un-American but we need to use less energy. You hear
figures about if all cars got like 50 mpg we could get off of most forign
oil.
FACT OIL WILL RUN OUT. We used a 1/3rd of the easist oil to
get in the last 100 years. The next 1/3rd will be much harder to get
and we are using it at an a rate, accelerating at such a fantastic
rate (as China/India explode), we will use that 1/3rd in the next
40 years or less? Than the wars will break out. Oh wait too late
they already have.
Tax money to help farmers grow things that don't work is dumb.
I am all for providing subsides to grow the right crops the right
way with out screwing up all the other crops. How? I don't know
we need MORE farms, new ones growing switchgrass or sugar
cane (I know it will not grow in KS.)
>I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements like
>yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
>truth!!!
>
>Bill Britton
I guess we totally agree. I am sorry but we agree. Bummer for you.
Cheers Goerge, love farmers, hate politichians.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
A couple of tmes a year I have to chime in to straighten out the facts.
Alot of auto / truck engines are run hard... Take for example a Uhaul /
Ryder rental truck. They are underpowered from the get go. People rent t
hem and overload them till the tires blow out. They start them up, never
let them warm up and hit the interstate, hold the throttle wide open ti
ll they get to the other side of the country, unload it, return it to th
e local dealer. A few days later the truck heads back across the countr
y, doing it all over again. Week after week. month after month... ya thi
nk this isn't a torture test ?????????????
Take the marine applications. They use automotive blocks, heads cranks,
yada, yada. Most boaters hit the boat ramp, dump it off the trailer, sta
rt it, don't let it warm up and spend the day on the lake running wide o
pen. Sometimes running it through rough water making the boat jump out o
f the water, this causes the motor to overrev alot and then when it hits
the water again it instantly loads the drivetrain. A plane cannot creat
e that kind of abuse, but day after day, week after week boats do this t
o engines and ya know what... They live to run another summer, and summe
rs after that... So your theory is suspect at best and BS at worst...
Ben Haas
A true auto engine conversion addict.
www.haaspowerair.com
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- wrote:
Right that is my point, car engines are not worked as hard or long as a
plane engine so there is no comparison, at least millage or speed wise o
r even continuous higher power output for an aircraft engine. It is just
a totally different mission and the engines reflect that. People are am
azed at there Lexus. I get it, but its a car not a plane. You also have
all this steel and insulation and long tail pipes.....big radiator...etc
.....Can you imagine every time you drove your car, you had to start off
climbing "Pikes Peak" at 100 mph, just to get going, than drive down th
e freeway at 120 mph, every trip. From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
On 8:20 2008-03-09 "Bubblehead" wrote:
> Someone needs to check their math!
> 1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph
> 1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph
> 2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph ----- not 60-120!
Whoops, you're right! I did that quickly late at night, and
erroneously
thought that doubling the distance would halve the speed.
Still, my original point stands. Most automobiles would be lucky to
average 30-40 mph over their lives, let alone 250 or more.
-Rob
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
====
_____________________________________________________________
Garage overflowing? Click for steel buildings that are durable and easy
to install.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uigju3zRt2vmuCm1wS
NZoZwTWelUvyHFulBAjnux0oxHVZh/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
Hmmpf,
Seems like the laws of thermal dynamics are pretty clear about heat
rejection, it takes what it takes regardless of medium used.
The only advantage liquid cooling has is the capacity to provide a heat
reservoir, to absorb it when too much is being generated, and to retain it
when not enough is being generated.1
The rejection of heat off of aluminum radiator fins versus cylinder cooling
fins is the same if the delta T between the fins and air is the same. Typical
coolant based radiators need to be a bit larger per HP because the engine
designers are shooting for lower temps (220deg vs 350deg) But a radiator that
was designed for aircraft use, or a coolant medium that allowed for higher
operating tempertures would solve all the proscribed complaints.
Unfortunately there is no real science to the claims made in this argument
because the P51 is the only one mentioned that was designed completely to be
both liquid cooled and aircraft. The auto conversions are not using radiators
or coolant designed to be in an aircraft, nor is the aircraft discussed
designed to be using a liquid cooled engine.
If you put a bullet in the sump or oil tank of a radial it will stop
producing power relatively quickly, just like the P-51. And it is a mistake
to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their coolant. That is not
true. They will need overhaul after landing but they will produce power when
decidedly overheated particularly if one backs off the power. Of note here is
that while I have tagged a few birds I've yet to take in any lead so the
stray sniper arguement is a bit of a reach.
The fact that one design wins a race over another means nothing to this
discussion without a discussion about mean time between overhauls and rate of
catastrophic failures, which data likely shows happening more often as a
function of more HP being produced (along with winning) versus type of
cooling system used.
The down side of liquid cooling is sophistication and the inherent cost. But
something exotic like micro ducting of a high temp coolant in the cowl or
wing skins would provide all the surface cooling one would ever need with no
extra drag, and viola, eliminate the cooling inlet/outlets all together while
also having a huge thermal reservoir for extra long straight up climbouts.
So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength lightweight
smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and then use oil cooling
systems off the main oil pump. I think the point of the original poster is
that there are ways to get to a better design if we are willing to be a
little open about it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
"A true auto engine conversion addict."
Sometimes people ask if scuba diving is good in Cancun Mexico.
My response is that if it were, dive shops would make trips there
instead of (or in addition to) Cozumel Mexico. So I have to reach
the conclusion that scuba diving in Cancun does not compare to
Cozumel.
I see the auto conversion in aircraft the same way. If auto conversions
were so great then they would have become very prevalent. Since
they have not, I reach the conclusion that they are inferior.
Do as you wish but if you ever try to sell your airplane the reality
of your choice will become obvious.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
-----Original Message-----
Fr
Unfortunately there is no real science to the claims made in this argument
because the P51 is the only one mentioned that was designed completely to be
both liquid cooled and aircraft. The auto conversions are not using
radiators or coolant designed to be in an aircraft, nor is the aircraft
discussed designed to be using a liquid cooled engine.
If you put a bullet in the sump or oil tank of a radial it will stop
producing power relatively quickly, just like the P-51. And it is a mistake
to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their coolant. That is not
true. They will need overhaul after landing but they will produce power when
decidedly overheated particularly if one backs off the power.
Wheeler:
There were, of course, many aircraft designed and built exclusively for
liquid cooled engines. The P-51 is mentioned as one of the best. Liquid
cooling does not equate to lower drag. Properly done it can be good. Not
many are that good and you hit it when you referred to the basic design as
important in such aircraft. The design of diffusers, heat exchangers and
discharge nozzles is not trivial and responds to longer flow channels. If
one truly wants liquid cooling and low drag the original design should
accommodate it.
With regard to losing power as a result of engine damage, a couple of
anecdotes might be illuminating. A few years ago a local pilot departed
Toledo Express in his P-51D with an apparent defect in the cooling system.
The engine destroyed itself within 22 nm and the ensuing forced landing cost
the lives of two people. On the other hand a friend of mine flew his P-47
from France to England and successfully landed at an emergency strip after a
20mm shell physically removed 7 cylinders from the bottom of his R-2800. He
said he knew it was running rough but his wingman said his oil loss didn't
look too bad.
Gordon Comfort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Absolutely, the Lycoming IS the Gold Standard. It is very hard to beat a
purpose built engine with that many years of development.
I do think you over state the fuel economy issue when used in aircraft
applications. The disadvantage of the rotary is much less when run at
higher percentages of power. BTW, If anything, I think your estimate of
power used in a car is high by a factor of 3 at 65 mph. This is the main
reason the rotary makes such a lousy car engine and partly why I bought a Z3
instead of an RX-8 At low power settings the quench areas are huge and
unburned fuel is really bad. With higher loading, the flame front travels
farther into that ill-shaped combustion chamber and the losses are not as
bad. The lack of valve train losses help as well. As I said, it still has
about a 5% BSFC disadvantage even when well tweaked.
The PowerSport comparison was flawed for two reasons. 1. The artificial
fixing of prop rpm during the economy test. The Powersport should have been
run at lower rpm and higher manifold pressure for best economy. 2. The ECU
used by Powersport was tragically flawed in it's fuel mapping. To take best
advantage of the rotary, it should have been run well below LOP in cruise (I
cruise as much as 150 deg LOP). There are valid engineering reasons why
the rotary can be run leaner than the piston engine but that's a long
discussion. Short version: There is a stratification of mixture in the
chamber of the rotary with richest mix out near the plugs, but only above
4500 rpm. That makes it of no advantage in a car where you don't cruise
that high.
I could say that my engine does not use any oil between changes (75 hrs) but
that would be a deception. For several reasons, I don't use the factory oil
injection. Instead, I premix 2 stroke oil in the fuel (4 oz per 6 gal of
fuel). The factory injection will make it past warranty period (usually)
but engine life is at least tripled using premix. Yes, it's a hassle
sometimes but no big disadvantage in the big picture. This eliminates the
need for special oil in the crankcase. I use Mobile 1. I have yet to
wear one out so I don't know what TBO is.
Ultimately you are right. The only reason to install an alternative is for
the fun of it. There are NO other good reasons. But the fun of being your
own aircraft propulsion engineer is not to be underestimated
Always a pleasure to debate this stuff with knowledgeable guys like you.
All the best,
Tracy
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:05 PM, wrote:
> Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put
> down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have
> you worked on you plane in hours? How many hours of
> R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does
> not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on
> it will give you known performance and less tinkering.
>
> It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda
> conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers.
>
> However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not
> trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's
> just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's
> since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a
> RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special
> oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That
> is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared
> to other sport cars with the same performance as the
> RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that
> is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft
> engine operates at very high power settings like 75%.
> Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated
> power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?
>
> I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries
> which by all account where some of the most beautify
> highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly
> off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport
> rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with
> Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP.
>
> http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg
> http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg
>
>
> For some reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the
> 180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)
>
> Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that
> out. They had the same or few more mph or fpm more
> speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh
> more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and
> significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn
> copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs,
> not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !
>
> Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher,
> even bringing people out side to listen.
>
> These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of
> one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their
> own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used
> as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You
> stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or
> ugly. You don't sugar coat problems. However you are
> the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and
> enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> How many races have you or other Alt engines won?
>
> Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one
> year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS,
> but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class?
>
> I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance
> than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP
> class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down
> just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark
> or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van
> did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test
> needs to be repeatable.
>
> I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be
> a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be
> turbo (to keep noise down and get some more
> efficiency).
>
> Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place
> you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people
> and honest with smart designs. However be realistic,
> you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming.
> You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I
> track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's
> turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always
> burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile
> and it is true of a rotary in a plane.
>
> Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS
> you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have
> $12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an
> OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad.
> Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp)
> is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most
> Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball
> park with fixed wood prop.
>
> All the best to you Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and
> P&W.
>
>
> >>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy@rotaryaviation.com<http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=tracy@rotaryaviation.com&YY=6843&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>
> >
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
> >On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com&YY=6843&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>>
> wrote:
> >> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
> >> based engines are at least several or all
> >> of the following:
> >>
> >> -heavier
> >> -More noise
> >> -low on power
> >> -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
> >> -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
> >>
>
> >I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most
> >builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Nobody talks about the units of energy needed to refine crude oil. You
start with 1 barrel and you never get close to one barrel out. Not only
that, but only perhaps 0.6 of the barrel can be of compounds available
for gasoline of any variety, maybe 0.3-0.4 of kerosene...the ratio
between kero and gas can be adjusted through cracking, but you get less
of one to get more of the other. Then you get smaller fractions as
asphalt and bunker oil....but there is a significant fraction of btus
that is consumed in the refining...whether it comes from crude, natural
gas, or coal, and whichever fuel the refinery uses it emits huge amounts
of CO2.
Depending on whose study you use, ethanol gives 1.3 to 1.6 btus for each
btu in when corn is the feedstock and the Energy Dept supports a figure
a bit above 1.3. Yes there are one or two studies that are written by
fervent opponents to ethanol, that fail to acknowledge the energy and
fuel value of the distiller's grain left from the ethanol production,
and also include figures for the energy used to manufacture the
tractors, combines, trucks and all other farm vehicles, and the energy
to heat the farmers home, etc. You decide where reality lies. Oh, and
ethanol from sugar cane, as Brazil does it, produces 8 btus for each btu
input.
Not to mention biodiesel that produces 3-5 btu per btu input, depending
on which plants are used for oil source.
cknauf wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm keeping this forum off-topic, but as a Minnesota resident this ethanol
game is driving me crazy.
>
> The study I read was done by the U of MI. The conclusion was that the Net Energy
Balance of ethanol was slightly better than petroleum, BUT ONLY after they
added several "other" factors like less reliance on imported oil from unstable
countries, creation of American jobs. Without those credits, it took more
BTUs to make a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself produced. I'm sorry,
but the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for such improvisation. When you
think about it, by using fossil fuel to produce ethanol, we are actually using
more petroleum than we would have if we didn't mess with ethanol in the first
place. So, we're really just burning through the dwindling oil endowment even
faster.
>
> Go nuclear!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168918#168918
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North" wrote:
> And it is a
> mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their
> coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul after landing but
> they will produce power when decidedly overheated particularly if one
> backs off the power.
Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in favour of a rotary
conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running dry and not failing. In
the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a bit, but you won't
have to shut down. Might make the difference between an off-airport
landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe landing followed by an
overhaul.
Not saying that's the only thing you should consider in an engine choice,
but it's something to consider anyway.
> So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength
> lightweight smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and
> then use oil cooling systems off the main oil pump.
I think you'd find that the problem with such a system is the drag
internally, on the oil being pumped around. You'd need a pump almost as
big as your lycoming just to get the pressure necessary to push the oil
around. :)
-Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
I agree with a few of your points. Corn is a poor choice for feedstock
to make ethanol.
We do need to conserve.. We could start by raising the price of airline
flights so that they were a luxury like they were before deregulation,
so that the majority of the population traveled by much more efficient
railroads. We could put major tax on all engines over 2.5 liters like
most of Europe, and tax heavy trucks for the real cost of damage they do
to the roads. We do need 50 mpg cars. They already exist. Most 2.0 liter
and smaller diesel cars are already there. Unfortunately, the President
has deemed it a constitutional right to drive a Suburban or Excursion or
Hummer with 7+ liter gas guzzling engines. Remind me again what the
price of oil and gas was when the current White House resident moved in?
We could make all the 50 year old smoke belching coal power plants clean
up to the same standards as a new plant and add carbon
sequestration..which would raise the price of energy to the point people
wouldn't waste it with so called security lighting and advertising
lighting for billboards, etc.
Oh, we have been at peak oil since about 1905. There will be some oil
for a very long time..you just won't like the price.
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> I know that is un-American but we need to use less energy. You hear
> figures about if all cars got like 50 mpg we could get off of most forign
> oil.
>
>
> FACT OIL WILL RUN OUT. We used a 1/3rd of the easist oil to
> get in the last 100 years. The next 1/3rd will be much harder to get
> and we are using it at an a rate, accelerating at such a fantastic
> rate (as China/India explode), we will use that 1/3rd in the next
> 40 years or less? Than the wars will break out. Oh wait too late
> they already have.
>
> I guess we totally agree. I am sorry but we agree. Bummer for you.
>
> Cheers Goerge, love farmers, hate politichians.
>
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon or Marge" <gcomfo(at)tc3net.com> |
| Subject: | Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail, perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success there
are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few of the
large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no way do
I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Skylor Piper <skylor4(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
--- Rob Prior wrote:
>
>
> On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North"
> wrote:
> > And it is a
> > mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they
> loose their
> > coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul
> after landing but
> > they will produce power when decidedly overheated
> particularly if one
> > backs off the power.
>
> Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in
> favour of a rotary
> conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running
> dry and not failing. In
> the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a
> bit, but you won't
> have to shut down. Might make the difference
> between an off-airport
> landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe
> landing followed by an
> overhaul.
Well, I know of one rotary powered RV-6 that had an
off-airport landing due to cooling system failure, and
subsequent engine failure. His engine did not run for
very long at all after the coolant leaked out and
boiled over. Fortunately, he was able to make a safe
landing on a highway.
Skylor
RV-8 QB
Under Construction
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
At 07:35 PM 3/10/08, you wrote:
> >farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
> >portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
> >food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
>
>Right, uhmm huha. Sure. Farmers don't get subsidies.
I am a farmer, have been doing it for the last 10 years. I have yet
to see any farm subsidies, nor have I ever received any. I quit
raising beef cattle because before I could break even, hamburger at
Wal-Mart would have to be selling for $15.00/Lb. As a farmer, I got
tired of subsidizing the beef eating consumer. I can now sell corn
for more than I can sell beef.
If I got $5 billion for farming, I sure would not have built nor
would I be flying an RV! If money was not a problem, I can think of
many other airplanes I would rather own.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
> Well, I know of one rotary powered RV-6 that had an
> off-airport landing due to cooling system failure, and
> subsequent engine failure. His engine did not run for
> very long at all after the coolant leaked out and
> boiled over. Fortunately, he was able to make a safe
> landing on a highway.
>
> Skylor
> RV-8 QB
> Under Construction
>
I know about the one rotary powered RV-6 with a blown radiator hose where
the pilot elected to make an emergency landing on a dirt road due to the
smoke and steam (and probably fear of fire) - who can blame him. Since both
he and the aircraft flew again - he clearly made a good decision. Could he
have made it to an airport - we will never know for certain and I certainly
would not fault him for the good decision he made.
I do know of two other rotary powered aircraft that lost coolant and
although the engine was fried got both aircraft back to a safe airport
landing. One was a LongEZ and the second was another RV-6. The pilot in
the Rv-6 even had to make a go-a-round due to conflicting traffic. He
stated that when he returned the next day to examine the engine and poured
liquid into the engine - it leaked like a sieve - all the rubber seals had
been destroyed. $600 for another core and $1800 for new parts and he was
flying again for less than $3000.
The rotor engine is a bit different than piston engines in one significant
way that prolongs the engines ability to operate while overheated. In a
piston engine the overheated aluminum pistons will expand more than the
iron cylinder until the engine seizes. The rotary engine on the other hand
has an iron rotor inside an aluminum housing - the housing expands greater
than the rotor so you do lose some compression but the engine will not seize
due to loss of coolant alone.
The rotary can also operate on very low oil pressure due to its large
bearing surface and low inertia loads on the eccentric shaft (crankshaft) -
however, it like any other engine, it will eventually seize without oil to
the bearings.
The mechanical configuration of the rotary also does a good job of isolating
one rotor from what happens to the second rotor. I lost all the power to
one rotor on my way to Sun & Fun one year, my fully loaded RV-6A. I
managed to maintain 6500 MSL on the one remaining good rotor by cranking the
mixture to full rich and getting 14 gph fuel flow. It was just blowing
through the bad rotor but was enabling the good rotor to make max power
which was sufficient to get me to a 6000 foot runway 60 miles away.
Yes, I will admit after 400 hours behind my rotor I am a "bit" biased
toward the rotary, but, I like to think its because it has proven its
suitability as a viable aircraft engine. But, like with any engine -
failures can happen and the one thing all engine failures have in common is
that they rarely happen at a good time {:>).
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Timothy E. Cone" <tcone1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
You have a good point, but I, for one, like this thread very much. It has
been civil, informative, food for thought, has made me dig for more
information. I think it important for our flying community to every once in
awhile have at a critical topic. It'll die down after awhile, but in the
meantime this great forum gives voice to some good debate. Sure it can be
shouted down and moved off the list, but it's one of the great things about
this forum that a RV related topic (oil, gas, are we going to be flying in
20 years time) is heard. I hate it when people get mean about their posts,
driving good RV folks off the list, but that type of behavior isn't on
display here.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [
mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Timothy E. Cone
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
RV drivers are concerned about the various government mandates for ethanol
in auto fuel. Ethanol can cause problems when used in airplane engines. This
lead to a discussion of the merits and demerits of government mandated
programs which lead to a discussion of farm subsidies so now we have some of
what was once that fiercely independent group called farmers defending their
handouts and restrictions on competition.
If you want to destroy an industry, give it price supports. If that doesn't
work, subsidize it, and if that doesn't work protect it from competition,
all the time claiming that without your help we wouldn't have whatever vital
product that industry produces.
Farmers, like so many other groups in an economy are vital to us living
healthy and happy lives. But so is a free market where we can decide for
ourselves how much we are willing to pay for what we consume and charge for
what we produce. If we want to pay too little or charge too much we will
have to make adjustments or do without. This all works extraordinarily well
until someone decides they should get special treatment because of their
unique products or services or needs and gets their congressperson to pass a
law telling the rest of us that we have to pay them a little more or charge
a little less, or buy something we don't need, or buy from someone other
than who we want to buy from.
It's all just a food fight after that.
That's the relevance. It seems to me the thread connecting it back to RV's
is getting pretty thin.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Timothy E. Cone
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
I NEVER do this, but....
Where's the RV relevance in any of this entire thread?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Paul Deits <pdeits(at)comcast.net> |
What type of vibration and sound dampening material is recommended?
Firewall? Cockpit? Other? Where can it be obtained?
Aircraft Spruce has many items in their catalog.
Paul building 7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
"All corn ethanol will do is make corn farmers richer"
"If corn ethanol was so good than it would not need subsidies"
>Subject: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
>From: "Chuck Jensen" cjensen(at)dts9000.com
>
>gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest.
No, I'm not jesting and don't call me Shirley.
>Nothing but the facts from the "scrambled letters
>after the name man".
What does that mean? Sounds like you are grinding
an ax. Why don't you email direct and you can talk
to me like a man, instead of this childish name
calling.
I LOVE how you call me names, but you
don't present any facts or dispute anything I say.
You just posted William Britton, who by the way
is agreeing with me. FACT's are the Gov is
subsidizing corn ethanol. OK, experiment is
done and EVEN the Gov realizes this is stupid
and constituents are complaining so much, even
the Gov is planning ending the subsides.
Why don't you do some research & learn
something and than write, instead of piling on
and acting like a big waa snif sob waa cry baby.
If you have something original and intelligent to
say great, but if all you got is personal attacks,
shut up. If corn ethanol is good it would not
need subsidies.
Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a
knife in a gun fight, you're defenseless. Now
go crawl in your little troll hole.
Because I don't think you can read or write:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
Here is your reading assignment of you can:
http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanolprimer.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005020.html links to
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080215TynerRevolution.html
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/02/ethanol_subsidi.html
NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
>Has more ratings than a movie. gmcjectpilot is a
>fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
>Chuck Jensen
You sound jelious. Yes I do have 9 faa ratings and
three type ratings, so what? If I don't say what my
background is, I get complaints. So shut up.
Cheers :-) WTF
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ethanol not from corn |
>From: "dave@rv-7.com" <dave@rv-7.com>
>Subject: Ethanol not from corn
>
> I haven't heard anybody weighing in on
> "Cellulose Ethanol".
>
> David Richardson
> http://rv-7.com, finishing
Yes sugar cane and switch grass is way better, but
the corn lobby has power. Obviously we don't or
can't grow sugar cane like Brazil. Switch grass is
great but takes lots of land. Bottom line ethanol is
not the panacea or be all end all, to end foreign oil
dependence. It is only a small part of the
solution. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen fuel cells
elec, ethanol, are all bits and pieces of the solution;
none are the single solution. All have negatives.
It will take a little of each technology to get the job
done, but the BIG ONE, no one has the cajones to
talk about, is "CONSERVATION". I am no green
guy, I LOVE burning fossil fuels, but reality is, in
the next 40 years, we, our kids or grand kids will
be looking back at $100 barrel oil as THE GOOD
OLD DAYS. George RV-7, finishing
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Hudes <phudes(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
George,
You go off your medications again?
Pete Hudes
On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:01 PM,
wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
>
> "All corn ethanol will do is make corn farmers richer"
> "If corn ethanol was so good than it would not need subsidies"
>
> >Subject: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
> >From: "Chuck Jensen" cjensen(at)dts9000.com
> >
> >gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest.
>
> No, I'm not jesting and don't call me Shirley.
>
> >Nothing but the facts from the "scrambled letters
> >after the name man".
>
> What does that mean? Sounds like you are grinding
> an ax. Why don't you email direct and you can talk
> to me like a man, instead of this childish name
> calling.
>
> I LOVE how you call me names, but you
> don't present any facts or dispute anything I say.
> You just posted William Britton, who by the way
> is agreeing with me. FACT's are the Gov is
> subsidizing corn ethanol. OK, experiment is
> done and EVEN the Gov realizes this is stupid
> and constituents are complaining so much, even
> the Gov is planning ending the subsides.
>
> Why don't you do some research & learn
> something and than write, instead of piling on
> and acting like a big waa snif sob waa cry baby.
> If you have something original and intelligent to
> say great, but if all you got is personal attacks,
> shut up. If corn ethanol is good it would not
> need subsidies.
>
> Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a
> knife in a gun fight, you're defenseless. Now
> go crawl in your little troll hole.
>
> Because I don't think you can read or write:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II
>
> Here is your reading assignment of you can:
> http://www.taxpayer.net/energy/ethanolprimer.pdf
> http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/005020.html links to
> http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080215TynerRevolution.html
>
> http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/02/ethanol_subsidi.html
>
> NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
>
> >Has more ratings than a movie. gmcjectpilot is a
> >fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
> >Chuck Jensen
>
> You sound jelious. Yes I do have 9 faa ratings and
> three type ratings, so what? If I don't say what my
> background is, I get complaints. So shut up.
>
> Cheers :-) WTF
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List _-
> www.matronics.com/contribution _-
> ===========================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Hi gang,
I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
Time made it worse.
So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
Thanks again.
Louis
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Get a rivet grinding bit from Avery tool. The bit is used in your counter sink
cage. adjust the height to be flush with the cage and then remove the protruding
portions of each rivet.
---- Louis Willig wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
> tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
> x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
> the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
> I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
> to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
> sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
> has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
> OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
> The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
> effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
> Time made it worse.
>
> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
> so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> Louis I Willig
> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
> Penn Valley, PA 19072
> 610 668-4964
> RV-4, N180PF
> 190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
I installed Super sound proof on my firewall, I used the kind without
the sticky back and used contact cement to install it.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/soundproofinstall.php
I installed Classic Aero carpet which has something that looks just like
it on the back of the carpet.
http://www.classicaerodesigns.com/web/public/Products/ProductDetail.asp?ProductID=15&ProductCategory=RV-7/7A&ProductCategoryID=5
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my flying RV7A web page:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
D Paul Deits wrote:
>
> What type of vibration and sound dampening material is recommended?
> Firewall? Cockpit? Other? Where can it be obtained?
>
> Aircraft Spruce has many items in their catalog.
>
> Paul building 7A
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | DPS Smart Tach User Manual |
Does anyone have a user manual for a "Smart Tach", manufactured by DPS?
Unfortunately, DPS is out of business (new business name is DMA Speed
Mods) and the owner is no longer supporting or servicing the unit.
Thanks in advance,
Doug Morrison
RV-8A, fuselage
RV-4, N818WW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25 spacer
recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me say that I
think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it should have been 2
1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA to an O-360 AIA and it
just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal spacer and one washer under
the spinner plate per plans.
The first picture shows the spinner spacer which was three pieces of good
plywood cut accordingly with a couple of nickels for additional space. That
gave me a 2.230" spacer. I fitted the cowl which was a little tight at the
top and a little wide at the bottom. The faces of the top and bottom cowl
are not actually parallel. My plan was to build up the inside back of the
top cowl face and the outside of the bottom face and then shave it parallel
with the spinner plate to make a perfect 1/4. In the second picture with
no prop and spacer, the clearance at the top is a little under 1/4 and maybe
3/8 at the bottom.
Third picture. Now comes the prop and with nothing different,..the gap
closed to 0 at the top and 1/4 at the bottom. No doubt about it, the spacer
was simply too long. It should have been no more that 2 1/8 to 2 1/16 to
leave a little fill room. 2.00 might be perfect if you plan to true up the
face later. It the spacer is too long, it causes you to fit the cowl
further out from the firewall than it should be.
Here is where I would ask for an opinion on my fix.
I don't want to recut the hinges and try to move it around so I am thinking
that I will build up the top cowl face from the inside with epoxy and long
hair flox about 3/8 of an inch and then simply sand off/back 1/4 inch off
the top half of the cowl and square it up with the spinner plate. In the
third picture, you can see marks that would be a 1/4 inch gap. (effectively
just sand back to those lines)
The bottom is about right now but needs to be trued up a bit with some build
on the outside and then the whole cowl face fitted parallel to the spinner.
This doesn't seem like nearly as much work as cutting the whole face off,
trimming, and then glassing back. Other than taking a little patience, I
can't see any reason why it won't work. I don't have a lot of glass
experience yet but I think the epoxy / long hair / layer of glass on the
inside should be as strong as the original when it's sanded back a 1/4. The
last picture shows how much needs to come off on the top. ( 1/4 inch paint
paddle)
Comments please.
Thanks for any help?
Bill Schlatterer
7a ARK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
If you weren't aware, there is a non-hardening version of PRC just for
access plates. It cleans up with isopropyl alcohol and is much easier to
get loose the next time you need into a tank.
Louis Willig wrote:
>
> Hi gang,
>
> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel tank
> last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick x1"
> wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in the
> tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that I
> saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted to
> the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate sit
> inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring has
> 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE OF
> THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank. The
> Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99% effective,
> but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in. Time made it
> worse.
>
> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great so
> far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Louis
>
>
> Louis I Willig
> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
> Penn Valley, PA 19072
> 610 668-4964
> RV-4, N180PF
> 190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
> I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25
> spacer recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me
> say that I think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it
> should have been 2 1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA
> to an O-360 AIA and it just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal
> spacer and one washer under the spinner plate per plans.
>
What about spacers between the engine mount and firewall?
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Settle" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Settle" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Arnold" <arno7452(at)bellsouth.net> |
Good Test to NC
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Settle" <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:36 AM
Subject: RV-List: Test
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
Others answered about the micro scale; I'll answer about power plants.
>I believe that the simple answer is this: The nuclear industry & our
>government were far less than open and pragmatic about danger & risk.
>After Chernobyl, the US party line was that 'nothing like that could
>ever happen here'. Then 3Mile Island happened.
>not being able to trust their government to tell them
>the truth. Obviously. the same principle applies when the government is
>'crying wolf', as we may soon see.
>Charlie
Chernobyl - 1986
3 Mile Island - 1979
If you are going to believe in conspiracy theories get your facts straight.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
Louis...
Be aware that permatex is soluble in alcohol. If you get a tank full of fuel with
ethanol in it and it sits in the tank for awhile you risk a leak.
My lesson from a bad experience with permatex!
Chris Stone
RV-8s
Newberg, OR
-----Original Message-----
>From: Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 11, 2008 4:14 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place!
>
>
>Hi gang,
>
>I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
>tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
>anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
>Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
>x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
>the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
>I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
>to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
>sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
>has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
>OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
>well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
>the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
>The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
>effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
>Time made it worse.
>
>So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
>install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
>fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
>make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
>Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
>so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>Louis
>
>
>Louis I Willig
>1640 Oakwood Dr.
>Penn Valley, PA 19072
>610 668-4964
>RV-4, N180PF
>190HP IO-360, C/S prop
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Medema" <doug.medema(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the
airport. I'm looking for something to inflate the tires,
but will also allow me to do a compression test. Anyone
know the requirements for the compression testers out there?
Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out
there, but I'm just looking for something that will get very
occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any
compressor requirements for the compression tester. Anybody
have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
Date: 3/11/2008 1:41 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
Doug,
It doesn't really take much for a compression test. If you can provide
about 80 psi with hopefully no real volume it is sufficient. If you have a
big leak and need the volume, then you have a problem anyway. The volume
you are filling is the top of your cylinder.
Tim
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Medema
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:58 AM
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do a
compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression testers
out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there, but I'm just
looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any compressor
requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Compressor size for compression testing |
Hi Doug,
After I finished building and painting my RV-6A using a 7HP, 60 gallon
compressor, I sold it and bought an 8 gallon compressor from Harbor
Freight. It serves all my current needs including tire filling AND
compression test. I have used this compressor for small painting jobs
with a touch-up gun. This compressor cost about $100 and has an oilless
direct drive compressor. To conduct the compression test, I found that I
need to have it maximum pressure (about 100 psi) to start the test. That
means that I bleed down the tank pressure to cause the compressor to
start and pump up to shut off pressure. I think what this means is the
tank capacity is adequate only if I start the test with max tank
pressure allowing the compression tester to maintain its 80 psi during
each cylinder test. I would wonder if the 3 gallon machine will stay
above 80 psi during a compression test.
Most of the time I keep the compressor at home to use in the garage. I
have a tank at the airport that I fill from the compressor for tire
filling. It is adequate for occasional topping off of my aircraft tires
and requires infrequent refilling from the compressor. When I do my
annual, I take the compressor to the hangar for the compression test and
to power my plug cleaner and re-fill my tire filling tank.
Hope this information is some help.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Medema
To: RV-List(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:57 AM
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do
a compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression
testers out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless
unit for $50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there,
but I'm just looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any
compressor requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any
info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
No offense taken at all Gordon. I know that I and Ed (probably Jess too)
welcome all well reasoned critiques. One of the down sides of alternative
engines is that they are constantly evolving, many times for the better and
as a result of comments by others.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Gordon or Marge wrote:
>
>
> This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration for
> the
> Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the problems
> associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
> younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls who
> quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail, perhaps
> many
> times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success
> there
> are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few of
> the
> large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no way
> do
> I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
>
> Gordon Comfort
> N363GC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | Compressor size for compression testing |
That will probably be O.K as long as the compressor will actually fill the
tank to 100 PSI or more. Some of the cheap ones don't get up to their
rated power. I have a 5 gallon tank that I can fill up to about 120 PSI and
bring to the airport and test four cylinders with. If you have a very leaky
cylinder though you might have a problem with a small compressor getting an
exact reading, but with cylinders over 70 you will get accurate readings on
the small compressors.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Doug Medema
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 10:58 AM
To: RV-List(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport. I'm
looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow me to do a
compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the compression testers
out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon 100psi oilless unit for
$50. I know this won't be the highest quality tool out there, but I'm just
looking for something that will get very occasional use.
I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any compressor
requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have any info?
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM
Checked by AVG.
3/11/2008 1:41 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Konrad L. Werner" <klwerner(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
* Don't come to a debate stupid; you are like a knife in a gun fight,
you're defenseless. Now go crawl in your little troll hole.
* NOW SHUT UP IDIOT. :-)
* So shut up.
* Cheers :-) WTF
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen......
Is this a nice way to discuss matters amongst adults??? This list
should have a few moderators to at least curtail the
abusive/disrespectful language found here at certain times...
This is definitely not a nice way to conduct a civilized exchange of
thoughts on the various RV related subjects (...as well as totally
non-related issues, like the worlds future in energy supplies).
If a person is not able to express his or her opinions in a more
civilized fashion here, then that person may better not say anything at
all..., but let us not be so disrespectful of others opinions!
Needless to say, these lists have lost some really great contributors
over the years because of the manner in how some discussions are being
handled...
Just my two cents on list etiquette
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling |
The rotary will run for an amazing amount of time after coolant loss but
loss of oil pressure is a different matter. Main bearings will sieze just
like in a piston engine. Backing off the power does help with oil pressure
loss but the allowed power will not sustain level flight.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Rob Prior wrote:
>
> On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North" wrote:
> > And it is a
> > mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their
> > coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul after landing but
> > they will produce power when decidedly overheated particularly if one
> > backs off the power.
>
> Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in favour of a rotary
> conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running dry and not failing.
> In
> the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a bit, but you won't
> have to shut down. Might make the difference between an off-airport
> landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe landing followed by
> an
> overhaul.
>
> Not saying that's the only thing you should consider in an engine choice,
> but it's something to consider anyway.
>
> > So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength
> > lightweight smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and
> > then use oil cooling systems off the main oil pump.
>
> I think you'd find that the problem with such a system is the drag
> internally, on the oil being pumped around. You'd need a pump almost as
> big as your lycoming just to get the pressure necessary to push the oil
> around. :)
>
> -Rob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
You, Bet! I agree with Tracy.
I love having folks look over my installation when I have the cowl off.
More than one (non-alternative engine) guy has pointed out areas where I
could make improvements and/or improve reliability/safety.
I love to tinker and experiments with intakes, exhausts, throttle
bodies, injectors, etc. In fact, I got to thinking recently about all
the changes made and realized that the only items that are still part of
the original 1997 installation are:
1. The engine mount
2. The exhaust Headers
3. The ignition system
4. The Fuel system
All else has been changed (at least once). Now for most folks who are
mainly into the flying aspect this would be unacceptable - and rightly
so, but for me its a delight - did I mention I love to experiment?
I reduced the weight of my induction system to 11 lbs through use of
thin wall tubing for runners and two part polyurethane castings for the
throttle body mount and plenum - about 5 different intakes throughout
the 10 years. I must have tried 5-6 different approaches to the
experimental exhaust systems before finally admitting that an
off-the-self muffler (a specific make) would survive the exhaust of a
rotary and will give reasonable aerodynamic and weight figures. Then
there was the area of air flow and cooling and that is an entire world
in itself with black magic and state of the art science running neck and
neck {:>)
As Tracy mentioned, as we gain experience and knowledge the internet and
lists such as this makes it much easier to assist others reducing the
risk and aggravation that some of us faced in the early days. Still
risky - always will be - that's why its called experimental. But, with
the dissemination of the good, the bad, and the ugly - folks can make a
more informed decision than in the past. That can only be good for the
alternative engine community and experimental aircraft in general.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
No offense taken at all Gordon. I know that I and Ed (probably Jess
too) welcome all well reasoned critiques. One of the down sides of
alternative engines is that they are constantly evolving, many times
for the better and as a result of comments by others.
Tracy Crook
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Gordon or Marge
wrote:
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration
for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the
problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30
years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob
Nuckolls who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail,
perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every
success there
are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few
of the
large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no
way do
I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
Gordon Comfort
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/03/12/big_corn_and_ethanol_hoax
Farmers = Good
Stupid Government = Bad, nuff said
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gas tank repair & Why They Leaked in the First Place! |
That'll work. If you don't have the special bit, a small grinding wheel
will work, too.
I've used a little 1" diameter diamond wheel in a Dremel tool. Hold it
at enough of an angle to keep the shaft/nut off the surface & gently
drag the edge of the wheel across the rivet head. You can do it with the
shaft almost parallel to the surface, too. Just brace the work so it
won't move & brace your hands on the work as you move the wheel across
the rivet head.
Play with it on some scrap to get a feel for how it wants to move and/or
grab before you attack the tank.
Charlie
dsvs(at)ca.rr.com wrote:
>
> Get a rivet grinding bit from Avery tool. The bit is used in your counter sink
cage. adjust the height to be flush with the cage and then remove the protruding
portions of each rivet.
> ---- Louis Willig wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi gang,
>>
>> I would like to thank all of you who helped me with my leaky fuel
>> tank last month. The removal of the tank was much easier than I
>> anticipated. The removal of the access plate was Hell.
>> Now, there is still a problem to solve. The tank has a 1/16" thick
>> x1" wide reinforcing ring flush riveted around the 5" access hole in
>> the tank wall ( rib). This was the mysterious 2nd layer of metal that
>> I saw when I tried to remove the access plate. This ring is riveted
>> to the outside of the rib. The nutplates that hold the access plate
>> sit inside the tank, and are thru-riveted to the ring. Thus, the ring
>> has 33 flush-head rivets sitting on the ring's surface. BUT NOT ONE
>> OF THEM IS SITTING FLUSH!!! The holes were countersunk, but not very
>> well. Every rivet is different but all of them are sitting proud of
>> the ring. This is why I have always had some leakage on this tank.
>> The Proseal between the access plate and the ring was 99.99%
>> effective, but I believe there were some gaps it couldn't fill in.
>> Time made it worse.
>>
>> So how do I smooth out these flush rivet heads. I have decided to
>> install the access plate with a rubberized cork gasket (that I will
>> fashion myself) and use Permatex Aviation Form-A-Gasket. This will
>> make future removal easier than the proseal. However, these Unflush
>> Rivets must be improved upon. HELP, HELP!! You guys have been great
>> so far. I hope you can continue to tolerate my inexperience.
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Louis
>>
>>
>>
>> Louis I Willig
>> 1640 Oakwood Dr.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer |
Spacers,.... Hmmmm that seems kinda obvious now ;-) Missed that entirely.
Just not much to effect CG or strength.
Thanks Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cowl to Spinner Fit with 2.25 Spacer
> I have a problem with the Spinner gap caused by using the Vans 2.25
> spacer recommendation instead of waiting on the prop. First let me
> say that I think the spacer method would have worked fine BUT it
> should have been 2 1/16 instead of 2 1/4. I am fitting a Hartzell BA
> to an O-360 AIA and it just doesn't work. I used the 1/4 inch metal
> spacer and one washer under the spinner plate per plans.
>
What about spacers between the engine mount and firewall?
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Perkinson" <bobperk90658(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bert murillo <robertrv607(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
Sam:
I also read the article, and agreed with you..
I intend to write to the FAA on this, using Van's
suggestion, at the address given.. ;Hope every one
will do so..
On anotehr topic, I believe you have the Altrac..
unit on your plane (planes?)
Are yu happy with the unit? suggestions? and finally,
are you aware of place to buy it, at better price
than todays ...kind of steep for me...2 years ago
was $1,200, now over 1,600 so every minute I wasit
will cost me another $100.....
thanks,,
Bert
rlv6a
--- Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>
> jhstarn(at)verizon.net wrote:
>
> >
> > Subject: Death of the RV-12
> >
> > If you have not yet read the the RVator on line
> you should. The 51%
> > rule, quickbuild kits and the REAL fate of the
> RV-12 are in the
> > balance. Van attempts to put on a "happy face"
> about the FAA latest
> > train wreck but if you read pages 3 thru 7 you get
> a clearer picture.
> > To me it reads as step number one in getting rid
> of the 51% violators
> > by eliminating everyone involved, including those
> who play by the
> > rules. RV-12 ? ?, now only to be built as a
> "clone". No choice of
> > engines, radios, gauges or seat belts AND no
> repairmans certificate
> > either. You get one ONLY by attending the classes.
> I guess I'll take
> > the class so I can qualify IF & WHEN I build
> another airplane. Where
> > did I put all that stuff I had on the S-19 and
> 601XL ? KABONG
>
>
> Let's not be too hasty to sign the death warrant of
> the amateur-built
> RV-12. ;-)
>
> Vans is in a holding pattern until the FAA gets
> their act together and
> releases the new evaluation process of the 51% rule.
> Until that new
> process is released, Vans has no choice other than
> to offer the RV-12 as
> a S-LSA since at this point in time......there is no
> way for ANYONE to
> get a new kit classified as experimental amateur
> built. As soon as the
> FAA releases the new process, you can rest assured
> Vans will make a
> serious effort to offer an E-AB RV-12.
>
> The concern is the FAA may make the new evaluation
> process so
> restrictive that it will be difficult to classify a
> kit that is as
> advanced as the RV-12 as experimental amateur built.
> Nobody knows at
> this point how this will play out. But even if Vans
> can't achieve this
> goal, an individual builder could register an RV-12
> as E-AB provided he
> can demonstrate to a DAR that he built as least 51%
> of the plane, and
> provided Vans offers the RV-12 as an E-AB kit.
>
> We need to sit tight while this matter is resolved
> and not panic...yet.
>
> There was an interesting article in one of the
> Oregon newspapers about
> how the FAA had bungled this process by not
> considering the impact on
> some of Oregon's aircraft revenue (Lancair and
> Epic).
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3a85ch
>
> The article states that the FAA may be taking an
> expedited look at this
> situation with the intent of clarifying things
> somewhat.
>
> But......we're talking about the FAA.........
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> FAQ,
>
> Forums!
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
Bert,
I used to fly the AlTrak but switched a couple of years ago to the Trio
EZ-Hold. You probably won't be able to beat TruTrak's price on the
AlTrak. The AlTrak works fine and is a stone-simple unit. If you want a
device with more features you might look at the Trio line, but they will
be more $$$$$'s.
I doubt the AlTrak has ever been $1200.
Sam
===============
bert murillo wrote:
>
> Sam:
>
> I also read the article, and agreed with you..
>
> I intend to write to the FAA on this, using Van's
> suggestion, at the address given.. ;Hope every one
> will do so..
>
> On anotehr topic, I believe you have the Altrac..
> unit on your plane (planes?)
>
> Are yu happy with the unit? suggestions? and finally,
> are you aware of place to buy it, at better price
> than todays ...kind of steep for me...2 years ago
> was $1,200, now over 1,600 so every minute I wasit
> will cost me another $100.....
>
> thanks,,
>
> Bert
> rlv6a
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Death of the RV-12] |
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
Sam, why did you go the Trio route? I've looked at both TT and Trio to get
a two axis solution. The Trio makes you cut two holes in your panel, which
is somewhat a bummer. Is there some compelling reason for one over the
other? You hear more about TT than Trio, of course.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
Bert,
I used to fly the AlTrak but switched a couple of years ago to the Trio
EZ-Hold. You probably won't be able to beat TruTrak's price on the AlTrak.
The AlTrak works fine and is a stone-simple unit. If you want a device with
more features you might look at the Trio line, but they will be more
$$$$$'s.
I doubt the AlTrak has ever been $1200.
Sam
===============
bert murillo wrote:
>
> Sam:
>
> I also read the article, and agreed with you..
>
> I intend to write to the FAA on this, using Van's suggestion, at the
> address given.. ;Hope every one will do so..
>
> On anotehr topic, I believe you have the Altrac..
> unit on your plane (planes?)
>
> Are yu happy with the unit? suggestions? and finally, are you aware of
> place to buy it, at better price than todays ...kind of steep for
> me...2 years ago was $1,200, now over 1,600 so every minute I wasit
> will cost me another $100.....
>
> thanks,,
>
> Bert
> rlv6a
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ptrotter(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
John,
I expect Trio will come out wiht a single unit dual axis system in the not too
distant future.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:52 pm
Subject: RE: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
> Sam, why did you go the Trio route? I've looked at both TT and
> Trio to get
> a two axis solution. The Trio makes you cut two holes in your
> panel, which
> is somewhat a bummer. Is there some compelling reason for one
> over the
> other? You hear more about TT than Trio, of course.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:49 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
>
> Bert,
>
> I used to fly the AlTrak but switched a couple of years ago to
> the Trio
> EZ-Hold. You probably won't be able to beat TruTrak's price on
> the AlTrak.
> The AlTrak works fine and is a stone-simple unit. If you want a
> device with
> more features you might look at the Trio line, but they will be more
> $$$$$'s.
>
> I doubt the AlTrak has ever been $1200.
>
> Sam
>
> ===============
>
> bert murillo wrote:
> >
> > Sam:
> >
> > I also read the article, and agreed with you..
> >
> > I intend to write to the FAA on this, using Van's suggestion,
> at the
> > address given.. ;Hope every one will do so..
> >
> > On anotehr topic, I believe you have the Altrac..
> > unit on your plane (planes?)
> >
> > Are yu happy with the unit? suggestions? and finally, are you
> aware of
> > place to buy it, at better price than todays ...kind of steep
> for
> > me...2 years ago was $1,200, now over 1,600 so every minute I
> wasit
> > will cost me another $100.....
> >
> > thanks,,
> >
> > Bert
> > rlv6a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
John Jessen wrote:
>
> Sam, why did you go the Trio route? I've looked at both TT and Trio to get
> a two axis solution. The Trio makes you cut two holes in your panel, which
> is somewhat a bummer. Is there some compelling reason for one over the
> other? You hear more about TT than Trio, of course.
>
> John
John, selecting an autopilot hinges on many variables as I'm sure you
have found. My path to Trio equipment has been a process of evolution,
not one giant leap.
My first transition to an EZ-Pilot was facilitated by the way I could
use the Navaid servo already installed in the plane. That and the fact
the EZ-Pilot was light-years ahead of the Navaid made it a simple choice.
When the EZ-Hold came available, I was ready for another upgrade, once
again because it had far more capability than the AlTrak. Having two
separate devices wasn't a problem for me since that it has always been
that way with my panel.
I have come to know the Trio guys personally and they are a top-notch
operation, not only in technical savvy but in business and support
matters. I can't imagine a company being more ethical in dealing with
customers than Trio. There are other good vendors, but my experience
with Trio has been superb.
TruTrak is also a good vendor, and the AlTrak worked fine in my plane.
My transition to Trio was a combination of my circumstances and timing.
Your situation may lead you in different direction, depending on the
mission profile of your plane and what you want to accomplish with your
autopilot installation.
Download the user manuals, do your homework, make the final decision,
and enjoy whichever systems works best for you. :-)
Sam Buchanan
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
ptrotter(at)optonline.net wrote:
> John,
>
> I expect Trio will come out wiht a single unit dual axis system in
> the not too distant future.
I think that is a safe statement to make. :-)
As with all things pertaining to avionics, it is best to defer major
purchases until the absolute latest time possible....new toys appearing
all the time.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
linn Walters wrote:
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
> snip
>
>>
>> TruTrak is also a good vendor, and the AlTrak worked fine in my plane.
>> My transition to Trio was a combination of my circumstances and timing.
>
> Would you be so kind as to elaborate?
Well....I thought the first part of my post explained my circumstances.
>
>> Download the user manuals, do your homework, make the final decision,
>> and enjoy whichever systems works best for you. :-)
>
> All autopilots do the same thing. HOW they do it makes the difference
> between a 'good' and 'bad' autopilot. So, without trying each and
> everyone of them ..... what criteria can I glean from the user
> manuals???? I'll be looking for a 3-axis ..... and so far as I can
> figure it out ..... the bottom line is who likes what .... but they
> seldom say WHY ..... which makes me think it's all subjective. there
> must be something out there to differentiate between manufacturers.
> Linn ..... totally confused about the pricey stuff!!
It is my opinion you cannot make an informed choice about autopilots (or
any other complex component of your panel) without nailing down the
mission profile of your plane. To make it even more complex, these days
many of the expensive bits and pieces in the panel need to integrate
and/or talk to each other. So not only do you need to decide which
equipment will satisfy the needs of our flying, it behooves us to figure
out how to end up with a panel where all the parts can work together to
create a greater whole rather than being a collection of unsocial parts.
:-)
And I, or anyone else, can't make these decisions for somebody else
because I probably have different expectations than other builders.
We are blessed with having digital equipment from several vendors that
works like a charm. It is unlikely you will end up with a "bad"
autopilot if you do a modest amount of research. But which will work
*best* for your plane? Ya gotta do your homework, and that means
downloading manuals and spec sheets and seeing which systems best meet
your budgetary and mission profile needs.
A VFR pilot will be happy with a far simpler autopilot than the pilot
who is going to be stuffing his plane into nasty weather and wants to be
able to shoot every approach on autopilot the IFR system can possibly
throw at him.
The builder facing real budgetary constraints will have very different
needs than the builder with a bottomless pocket.
So....you gotta know what you want to do with the plane.....or do as
some builders do, throw the most complicated, expensive toys they can
find into the project. But if that builder is a VFR pilot, more than
likely they are going to be quite unhappy with the complexity of their
panel. Or even worse....the panel will result in an unsafe combination
of aircraft and pilot (reference the tragic loss of an RV-10 earlier
this year).
Linn, don't know if I've cleared or muddied the water, but now you know
why I said what I did. :-)
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Trotter <ptrotter(at)acm.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
It wouldn't surprise me to see something at either Sun 'N Fun or Oshkosh.
Paul
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> ptrotter(at)optonline.net wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I expect Trio will come out wiht a single unit dual axis system in
>> the not too distant future.
>
> I think that is a safe statement to make. :-)
>
> As with all things pertaining to avionics, it is best to defer major
> purchases until the absolute latest time possible....new toys
> appearing all the time.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
| From: | "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum. I get enough
conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of your opinions is going to change
as a result of the discussion, and I subscribe to this forum to learn about
and read about RVs!
This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
Thanks,
John
former USN "Nuke"
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Reel" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Registration Display |
Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed
in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel
storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text
attached so the passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed
FAA inspection.
Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really land
smoothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready
to show everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to
sell a plane in great condition with only 50hr flight time.
Dave Reel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
Hi Chuck-
Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern
anymore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,
that represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form than if the
whole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.
However, WRT the tritium issue:
You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear
power with Government
> weapons programs."
In response to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
You also wrote "However, to call tritium
> permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.
In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste leak that
wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"
Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was about the
leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and
getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic things are
as well.
Also: >With a half-life of
> 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government
keeps
> wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short life span. To
someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it lasts long
enough.
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation
given off
> by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of
> interest when ingested.
Like from the city water supply.
>Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
> from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a
biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready
adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated
water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than
exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
[USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage
DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29,
2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**
Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly
each day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific
northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing
the six-pack will only hurt, not help.
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but
neither are
> of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would
like to
> discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,
Savannah
> River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do
> with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please
don't confuse
> the two.
I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a
nuclear
> plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired
plant
> actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes
> in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
> particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
> to be clean for a reason!
Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Bubblehead wrote:
>
>Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.
>
PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is really
dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.
> I get enough conflict and argument in my day job!
>
Ah, but I haven't seen any argument ...... just a difference of opinion
......
> Neither of your opinions is going to change as a result of the discussion,
>
Maybe yes, maybe no, but if factual data gets floated we all benefit
from the education.
> and I subscribe to this forum to learn about and read about RVs!
>
Yeah, me too. However, the nuke thread can be dealt with with by the
delete key, as any other thread.
>This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
>
I agree, but in addition to the nuclear power list info has been
presented that belongs on the 'alternative engine' list, and
'environmental disaster list' ....... etc. ..... and I don't belong to
those. My primary interest is in aviation ...... and at present I decry
the increasingly high cost of energy ..... that could be offset by nuke
power, thereby allowing me to transfer money from my 'energy account' to
my 'avgas account'.
>Thanks,
>
>John
>
>former USN "Nuke"
>
Ah, so you already know all about the subject of this thread. No wonder
you'd like to see it disappear. Well, it will, sooner or later. Until
then, if you decide not to add knowledge to the thread ..... whap that
delete key.
This isn't meant to flame John, nor encourage off-topic threads, but as
long as it's here, I'll put up with it.
Some suggestions though ..... filters do work, and so do 'reply to all'
in an off list discussion.
Linn ..... always looking to be educated ..... :-)
>
>--------
>John Dalman
>Elburn, IL
>RV-8 N247TD
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Registration Display |
The Reg says it must be displayed. However, I keep mine in the glove
compartment. When the aircraft was signed off by the FAA, I asked
the inspector this question and did not get a response, more of a
shrug of the shoulders.
But, If an FAA guy is looking for a reason to write up a violation,
then this would be one.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work
>displayed in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one
>of my panel storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the
>warning blurb text attached so the passenger can read it from their
>aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
At 09:31 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>>Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum.
>
>PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is really
>dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke power.
I too am learning a lot. Over the last 15 years on this list, I can
not believe some of the things I have learned that are not directly
RV related. I am on other building lists and we may have 2-3
messages a week (all building related)! The other lists are no fun at all.
One of the interesting things about this list is the diversity of
opinion, thought and experience and I for one enjoy the input. Yes,
some of the debate can get tiresome, but where else could you take
some of these issues and get the response that comes from an RV
builder/flyer/fanatic?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Leffler" <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
| Subject: | Registration Display |
We were ramp checked during a Young Eagles event awhile ago. They wanted to
see it someplace visible in the cockpit. Mine was in my flight bag at the
time on the back seat of my Cherokee. But since I wasn't first to get
checked, I had an opportunity to put it back in the plastic pouch.
Ironically, it's by my left ankle, so there is no practical way anyone else
in the aircraft could see it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Registration Display
The Reg says it must be displayed. However, I keep mine in the glove
compartment. When the aircraft was signed off by the FAA, I asked
the inspector this question and did not get a response, more of a
shrug of the shoulders.
But, If an FAA guy is looking for a reason to write up a violation,
then this would be one.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:
>Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work
>displayed in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one
>of my panel storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the
>warning blurb text attached so the passenger can read it from their
>aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 2947 (20080314) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 2947 (20080314) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Registration Display |
Short answer is that the Airworthiness Certificate (not the
Registration)
must be displayed. The rest of the ARROW stuff must be carried but
doesn't
need to be displayed. See following for the long answer from an EAA
Question
of the Week...
Q & A: Question of the Week
Question for EAA Aviation Information Services:
I have purchased a homebuilt aircraft from the original builder. It was
issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate. Am I required to carry this
certificate in the aircraft after the initial test phase of flying has
been
completed?
Answer:
Yes, you are always required to carry (and display) the airworthiness
certificate in a US aircraft, regardless of what type of certificate has
been issued. This is called out in the following regulations:
14 CFR 91.203, which states in part:
=93(a) Except as provided in =A791.715, no person may operate a civil
aircraft
unless it has within it the following:
(1) An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S.
airworthiness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except
a
special flight permit**, a copy of the applicable operations
specifications
issued under =A7 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the
air
carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing
that
portion of the operations specifications issued under =A7 21.197(c), or
an
authorization under =A791.611) must have on it the registration number
assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However, the
airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special
identification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed
to
the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an
assigned
special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, may
only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district
office.=94
**Information on =93Special Flight Permits=94 issued by the FAA can be
reviewed
in FAA Order 8300.10, Chapter 89.
Note that the airworthiness certificate be displayed in the aircraft, as
required by 91.203(b):
=93(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airworthiness
certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a special
flight
authorization issued under =A791.715 is displayed at the cabin or
cockpit
entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.=94
Also be aware that your aircraft=92s special airworthiness certificate
was
issued with an attached set of operating limitations. These operating
limitations are considered to be a part of the airworthiness
certificate,
and as such must be carried in the aircraft at all times.
Regards,
Greg Young
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Reel
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:36 AM
Subject: RV-List: Registration Display
Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed
in
the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel
storage
boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text attached
so
the passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed FAA
inspection.
Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really land
smoothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready
to
show everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to sell a
plane in great condition with only 50hr flight time.
Dave Reel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nuclear Energy |
Use the delete key. You don't have to read what you aren't interested in.
Others might be interested. Let them pursue the thread.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bubblehead
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:47 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy
Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off this forum. I get
enough conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of your opinions is
going to change as a result of the discussion, and I subscribe to this forum
to learn about and read about RVs!
This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.
Thanks,
John
former USN "Nuke"
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, since nuclear power is certainly off topic,
but intellectual curiousity rarely knows bounds nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed
to just building an RV. Personnally, I enjoy education whereever I bump
into it but some are advised to avail themselves of the delete key if they
are not similarly stricken.
Hi, Glen,
Good comments all. Hanford particularly has some scary environmental stuff out
there...and certainly not as well contained as it should be. Billions have been
spent and many billions more are in line to be spent to mitigate, not solve
the problems. For instance, they have several, million-gallon single walled
tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches' brew that will actually boil
from the heat generated by the decaying cesium. I think most of this material
has been transferred to new double-walled tanks, but there are always residual
problems.
Hanford has had multiple plumes reach the Columbia River. There's no pretty face
that can be put on it. However, the fact that tritium has migrated off of
the reservation shouldn't be used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials.
Tritium, because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can not
be filtered, is by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.
Even in this circumstance, you would have to drink massive quantities of water
from the Columbia everyday, and not excrete any liquids, for a long period of
time to even begin to register a potential health threat. Yes, liquid tritium
is 10,000 times more of a threat than gaseous tritium, but then, 10,000 times
nothing is still not much. If you want to be scared, watch the trucks going
down the highway loaded with chemicals or the trains running through backyards
that contain massive quantities of toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive
materials. THAT is a clear and present danger.
I happen to have beed appointed to the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board.
Our responsibility is to oversee (some would say, second guess) the cleanup activities
of the Oak Ridge Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even
adversarial, review ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge doesn't have the
degree of problem that Hanford does, its still significant. Even then, in the
worst case, a person that drank all of his water from the most polluted stream,
ate one deer and two turkey's from the reservation, ate 3 fish per week from
the stream and breathed the air in the worst part of the reservation 24x7,
he would receive a total exposure of 6 milliRem per year. To put that in perspective,
the average person in the U.S. receives approx. 350 milliRem exposure
from the food we eat, living in a brick house, radon, radium watches, medical
procedures, commercial airline flights, et al. While the unknown is often scary,
the facts are not.
The chemical contamination of our drinking water, including pharmaceuticals, is
something to be far more alarmed about than the isolated incident of a small
leak of tritium or other radioisotope (though even a small one is inexcusable).
Just my thoughts.
Thanks,
Chuck Jensen
Diversified Technologies
2680 Westcott Blvd
Knoxville, TN 37931
Phn: 865-539-9000 x100
Cell: 865-406-9001
Fax: 865-539-9001
cjensen(at)dts9000.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: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:52 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
Hi Chuck-
Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern
anymore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,
that represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form than if the
whole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.
However, WRT the tritium issue:
You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear
power with Government
> weapons programs."
In response to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
You also wrote "However, to call tritium
> permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts.
In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste leak that
wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"
Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was about the
leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and
getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic things are
as well.
Also: >With a half-life of
> 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government
keeps
> wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short life span. To
someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it lasts long
enough.
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation
given off
> by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of
> interest when ingested.
Like from the city water supply.
>Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
> from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:
Human Toxicity Excerpts:
...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a
biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready
adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated
water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than
exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
[USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage
DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29,
2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**
Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly
each day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific
northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing
the six-pack will only hurt, not help.
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but
neither are
> of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would
like to
> discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,
Savannah
> River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do
> with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please
don't confuse
> the two.
I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil
power industry, "
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a
nuclear
> plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired
plant
> actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes
> in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
> particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
> to be clean for a reason!
Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well.
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ptrotter(at)optonline.net |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08 |
Personally, I have enjoyed reading these posts. It is particularly interesting
when someone like Chuck, who is very knowledgable on the subject, can give us
real information.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jensen
Date: Friday, March 14, 2008 2:53 pm
Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
>
> Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, since nuclear power is
> certainly off topic, but intellectual curiousity rarely knows
> bounds nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed to just building an
> RV. Personnally, I enjoy education whereever I bump into it but
> some are advised to avail themselves of the delete key if they
> are not similarly stricken.
>
> Hi, Glen,
>
> Good comments all. Hanford particularly has some scary
> environmental stuff out there...and certainly not as well
> contained as it should be. Billions have been spent and many
> billions more are in line to be spent to mitigate, not solve the
> problems. For instance, they have several, million-gallon
> single walled tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches'
> brew that will actually boil from the heat generated by the
> decaying cesium. I think most of this material has been
> transferred to new double-walled tanks, but there are always
> residual problems.
>
> Hanford has had multiple plumes reach the Columbia River.
> There's no pretty face that can be put on it. However, the fact
> that tritium has migrated off of the reservation shouldn't be
> used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials.
> Tritium, because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can
> not be filtered, is by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.
>
> Even in this circumstance, you would have to drink massive
> quantities of water from the Columbia everyday, and not excrete
> any liquids, for a long period of time to even begin to register
> a potential health threat. Yes, liquid tritium is 10,000 times
> more of a threat than gaseous tritium, but then, 10,000 times
> nothing is still not much. If you want to be scared, watch the
> trucks going down the highway loaded with chemicals or the
> trains running through backyards that contain massive quantities
> of toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive materials. THAT is
> a clear and present danger.
>
> I happen to have beed appointed to the Oak Ridge Site Specific
> Advisory Board. Our responsibility is to oversee (some would
> say, second guess) the cleanup activities of the Oak Ridge
> Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even
> adversarial, review ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge
> doesn't have the degree of problem that Hanford does, its still
March 04, 2008 - March 14, 2008
RV-Archive.digest.vol-ti