RV-Archive.digest.vol-tq
August 23, 2008 - September 05, 2008
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Las Vegas Aircraft Crash |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Many would be surprised at the high number of previously owned and built
aircraft, now flown by second or third owners(Non Builders) during the
first few hours of their familiarization with the aircraft.
We all want the ability to sell our OBAM aircraft. We give little
consideration to the individual purchasing it or their ability to fly
without future incident. Just think how the original builder must now
feel.
The airport spokesman's bigoted and narrowly focused attitude towards
"His Airport" will soon be conditioned by the reality of the millions in
FAA dollars that have been invested into the public's right to have
operational access. It is all too familiar a narrative. Commercial Air
Carrier operations should take authority over the public's access.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash
Tom Gummo wrote:
> Subject: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash
>
>
> I heard about a Velocity crashing into a house and killing the pilot
> and two people in the house while trying to land at North Las Vegas.
> It was the flight test period as the plane only had 5 hours of flight
> time. I went on the Internet to find a little more info. I was
> shocked to read the comments of the airport director.
Aero-News reported Saturday morning the following:
"FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said the plane crashed at 0628 local time
Friday, shortly after takeoff from North Las Vegas Airport (VGT). The
pilot radioed mayday to the VGT before the plane went down, telling
controllers he was unable to gain altitude.
The impact sparked a fire, that emergency crews were able to quickly
extinguish.
Gregor told The Seattle Times the accident aircraft was approved by the
FAA in 2002, and was owned by a Las Vegas resident."
If this report is factual it sounds like the plane had been in service
for quite some time.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "richard sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash |
John:
I have to take exception to your comment "We give little consideration to
the individual......
When I sold my 4 that was my primary consideration; would the buyer be able
to handle
the airplane successfully. I only agreed to sell the airplane to the
eventual buyer (who had limited
experience) after being re-assured by his brother, a very experienced high
performance pilot that
he would fly with his brother and not let him solo the airplane until he was
ready.
I think all of us who sell or are thinking of selling an airplane we have
built worry a great deal
about the ability of the buyer to successfully operate the airplane because
we want the buyer to
be as happy with the airplane as we were and of course the fear of a
liability issue if the worst were
to happen.
Dick Sipp
N110DV 40065 flying
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 1:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash
>
> Many would be surprised at the high number of previously owned and built
> aircraft, now flown by second or third owners(Non Builders) during the
> first few hours of their familiarization with the aircraft.
>
> We all want the ability to sell our OBAM aircraft. We give little
> consideration to the individual purchasing it or their ability to fly
> without future incident. Just think how the original builder must now
> feel.
>
> The airport spokesman's bigoted and narrowly focused attitude towards
> "His Airport" will soon be conditioned by the reality of the millions in
> FAA dollars that have been invested into the public's right to have
> operational access. It is all too familiar a narrative. Commercial Air
> Carrier operations should take authority over the public's access.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
> Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:23 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash
>
>
> Tom Gummo wrote:
>> Subject: Las Vegas Aircraft Crash
>>
>>
>> I heard about a Velocity crashing into a house and killing the pilot
>> and two people in the house while trying to land at North Las Vegas.
>> It was the flight test period as the plane only had 5 hours of flight
>> time. I went on the Internet to find a little more info. I was
>> shocked to read the comments of the airport director.
>
>
> Aero-News reported Saturday morning the following:
>
> "FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said the plane crashed at 0628 local time
> Friday, shortly after takeoff from North Las Vegas Airport (VGT). The
> pilot radioed mayday to the VGT before the plane went down, telling
> controllers he was unable to gain altitude.
>
> The impact sparked a fire, that emergency crews were able to quickly
> extinguish.
>
> Gregor told The Seattle Times the accident aircraft was approved by the
> FAA in 2002, and was owned by a Las Vegas resident."
>
>
> If this report is factual it sounds like the plane had been in service
> for quite some time.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Elevator Skin Trailing Edge Bowing... |
Dear Listers,
Backing into the garage today I noticed the elevator skin bowing at
the trailing edge in the review mirror because of the way the light
was hitting it. Basically what the deal is I think is that I bent
the trailing edge of the elevators more than necessary. So, when I
pulled the leading edge apart to fit it over the spar, I now have a
concave bowing effect between some of the bays. Van's goes to great
lengths in the manual to make sure that bend the elevator trailing
edges *enough*, but doesn't make mention of what is "too much". The
radius of the trailing edge is still within spec and there is no
cracking or stress marks. Its just bent too much and looks like of
stupid. Somehow, I did the rudder perfectly, but both elevators
suffer from the effect. I've included some pictures below.
What the common thought on this issue? Are the safety/flutter issues
with over-bending as I have done? What to do...?
Thanks!
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880
RV-8 Fuse/Wing QB Kit Delivery Next Week! (Ordered May 20 2008)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Skin Trailing Edge Bowing... |
Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> Backing into the garage today I noticed the elevator skin bowing at
> the trailing edge in the review mirror because of the way the light
> was hitting it. Basically what the deal is I think is that I bent the
> trailing edge of the elevators more than necessary. So, when I pulled
> the leading edge apart to fit it over the spar, I now have a concave
> bowing effect between some of the bays. Van's goes to great lengths
> in the manual to make sure that bend the elevator trailing edges
> *enough*, but doesn't make mention of what is "too much". The radius
> of the trailing edge is still within spec and there is no cracking or
> stress marks. Its just bent too much and looks like of stupid.
> Somehow, I did the rudder perfectly, but both elevators suffer from
> the effect. I've included some pictures below.
>
> What the common thought on this issue? Are the safety/flutter issues
> with over-bending as I have done? What to do...?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880
> RV-8 Fuse/Wing QB Kit Delivery Next Week! (Ordered May 20 2008)
I'll bet that there are many flying that look worse.
Do you have RTV in the bend? If yes, you might be stuck with what you've
got. If not:
If it really bothers you, try this (try on a test piece made from some
scrap first). Hold a piece of wood against the trailing edge so that it
spans most of one bay. Use a rubber mallet to drive the wood toward the
trailing edge. Light blows at first, checking for movement. If you use
rigid wood, take care to hit the center of the block so that the force
is spread evenly. Light plywood (1/4" or 3/8") minimizes the risk of the
wood's edge digging in & causing a dent. If you put the assembly on some
foam rubber, it will reduce the risk of over-correcting (or bending
something else) since it can move a bit when struck. Work along the
edge with multiple blows & check often.
I used this technique on an aileron when I over-bent trying to fix a
heavy wing.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lance Sorensen <lancej(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | strobe wire routing |
Hello,
I am constructing an RV9A and finishing the fiberglass tip at bottom
of rudder. What is the recommended routing of strobe/position light
wires at
rear of fuselage through to the tip of rudder? Thanks.
Lance Sorensen
Selah, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu> |
The skins may not be the problem, and un-bending it could make it worse.
The spar flanges are likely not perfectly bent to be aimed correctly at the
theoretical point of convergence of both skin radials the proper distance
aft from the spar. Vans spars, and in particular end ribs are rarely bent
accurately enough to create the perfectly shaped V across the entire span of
the surface. Then you spend a bunch of hours banging on that metal even
more.
As well, unbending it will cold work the metal even further and could
possibly damage the skin or set it up for future cracking.
Depending on your paint scheme you probably won't notice it and it will not
affect how it flies in any manner, the airflow is way too messy to matter
back there. (who knows, you may have just reinvented pressure recovery
elevators and it will go faster)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Skin Trailing Edge Bowing... |
At 07:09 PM 8/23/2008 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>Matt Dralle wrote:
>>
>>Dear Listers,
>>
>>Backing into the garage today I noticed the elevator skin bowing at the trailing
edge in the review mirror because of the way the light was hitting it. Basically
what the deal is I think is that I bent the trailing edge of the elevators
more than necessary. So, when I pulled the leading edge apart to fit it
over the spar, I now have a concave bowing effect between some of the bays. Van's
goes to great lengths in the manual to make sure that bend the elevator trailing
edges *enough*, but doesn't make mention of what is "too much". The radius
of the trailing edge is still within spec and there is no cracking or stress
marks. Its just bent too much and looks like of stupid.
>>Somehow, I did the rudder perfectly, but both elevators suffer from the effect.
I've included some pictures below.
>>
>>What the common thought on this issue? Are the safety/flutter issues with over-bending
as I have done? What to do...?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Matt Dralle
>>RV-8 #82880
>>RV-8 Fuse/Wing QB Kit Delivery Next Week! (Ordered May 20 2008)
>
>I'll bet that there are many flying that look worse.
>
>Do you have RTV in the bend? If yes, you might be stuck with what you've got.
If not:
>
>If it really bothers you, try this (try on a test piece made from some scrap first).
Hold a piece of wood against the trailing edge so that it spans most of
one bay. Use a rubber mallet to drive the wood toward the trailing edge. Light
blows at first, checking for movement. If you use rigid wood, take care to hit
the center of the block so that the force is spread evenly. Light plywood (1/4"
or 3/8") minimizes the risk of the wood's edge digging in & causing a dent.
If you put the assembly on some foam rubber, it will reduce the risk of over-correcting
(or bending something else) since it can move a bit when struck.
Work along the edge with multiple blows & check often.
>
>I used this technique on an aileron when I over-bent trying to fix a heavy wing.
I did use a little RTV in the trailing edges. I can definitely see how that technique
could "unbend" it a bit, but it sounds really scary wacking away on the
trailing edge like that. Were there any adverse results of the process?
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: strobe wire routing |
In a message dated 8/24/2008 6:53:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
lancej(at)charter.net writes:
I am constructing an RV9A and finishing the fiberglass tip at bottom
of rudder. What is the recommended routing of strobe/position light
wires at
rear of fuselage through to the tip of rudder?
======================================
My suggestion is always to get some distance along a hinge line, so that the
wiring will tend to flex in torsion. That is, exit the leading edge of the
rudder low and then dress the wire harness up vertically about 3 inches
before then turning and going forward thru the tail post.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 900hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Bruce Bell" <brucebell74(at)sbcglobal.net> |
On my 4 I followed Van's instructions and mine came out ok. I made a brake
out of a piece of redwood 2x6, an old interior door and some door hinges.
Squeezed the trailing edge down till the skin just touched the spar. Worked
for me. I think you will not be happy till you get it just like you want it!
Regards, Bruce Bell RV-4 N23BB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth(at)sdccd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: RV-List: skiins
>
> The skins may not be the problem, and un-bending it could make it worse.
>
> The spar flanges are likely not perfectly bent to be aimed correctly at
> the
> theoretical point of convergence of both skin radials the proper distance
> aft from the spar. Vans spars, and in particular end ribs are rarely bent
> accurately enough to create the perfectly shaped V across the entire span
> of
> the surface. Then you spend a bunch of hours banging on that metal even
> more.
>
> As well, unbending it will cold work the metal even further and could
> possibly damage the skin or set it up for future cracking.
>
> Depending on your paint scheme you probably won't notice it and it will
> not
> affect how it flies in any manner, the airflow is way too messy to matter
> back there. (who knows, you may have just reinvented pressure recovery
> elevators and it will go faster)
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Skin Trailing Edge Bowing... |
Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> At 07:09 PM 8/23/2008 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>>
>> Matt Dralle wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Listers,
>>>
>>> Backing into the garage today I noticed the elevator skin bowing at the trailing
edge in the review mirror because of the way the light was hitting it.
Basically what the deal is I think is that I bent the trailing edge of the elevators
more than necessary. So, when I pulled the leading edge apart to fit it
over the spar, I now have a concave bowing effect between some of the bays.
Van's goes to great lengths in the manual to make sure that bend the elevator
trailing edges *enough*, but doesn't make mention of what is "too much". The
radius of the trailing edge is still within spec and there is no cracking or
stress marks. Its just bent too much and looks like of stupid.
>>> Somehow, I did the rudder perfectly, but both elevators suffer from the effect.
I've included some pictures below.
>>>
>>> What the common thought on this issue? Are the safety/flutter issues with
over-bending as I have done? What to do...?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Matt Dralle
>>> RV-8 #82880
>>> RV-8 Fuse/Wing QB Kit Delivery Next Week! (Ordered May 20 2008)
>>>
>> I'll bet that there are many flying that look worse.
>>
>> Do you have RTV in the bend? If yes, you might be stuck with what you've got.
If not:
>>
>> If it really bothers you, try this (try on a test piece made from some scrap
first). Hold a piece of wood against the trailing edge so that it spans most
of one bay. Use a rubber mallet to drive the wood toward the trailing edge. Light
blows at first, checking for movement. If you use rigid wood, take care to
hit the center of the block so that the force is spread evenly. Light plywood
(1/4" or 3/8") minimizes the risk of the wood's edge digging in & causing a dent.
If you put the assembly on some foam rubber, it will reduce the risk of over-correcting
(or bending something else) since it can move a bit when struck.
Work along the edge with multiple blows & check often.
>>
>> I used this technique on an aileron when I over-bent trying to fix a heavy wing.
>>
>
>
> I did use a little RTV in the trailing edges. I can definitely see how that
technique could "unbend" it a bit, but it sounds really scary wacking away on
the trailing edge like that. Were there any adverse results of the process?
>
> Matt Dralle
No adverse affects if it's done right. :-) I did it in '94 on a plane I
bought already flying. I sold it in 2001 & haven't heard of any issues
since then. FWIW, I don't think that I dreamed this up; it probably came
from someone more experienced than me at the time.
If the RTV is down in the fold where you need to open it up, it'll be a
real problem to open the fold without causing more problems. If it just
bridges between the stiffeners (away from the fold), you can probably
get away with it.
You're right, it is scary & you can do more harm than good. Note that I
said 'if it really bothers you'.
Option 1, leave it alone; unless you're building an award contender,
only you will talk about it. ("A gentleman never points out [cosmetic]
flaws in another gentleman's creation.") As I said, there are many
flying safely that are much worse.
Option 2, (if you just can't stand it), try it; it will either work or
not and since you'd be building another anyway you have nothing to lose.
Option 3, disassemble to open it up (pretty much the same as building a
new one).
Option 4, ask Van's (they will say pick option 1 :-) ).
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Hurd <jhurd1(at)twcny.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Flight time with Mike Seager at EAA-486 FZY Fulton, NY |
Hi All,
I am still trying to fill the available slots for time with Mike Seager
September 12-14, 2008 at
Oswego County Airport (FZY), Fulton, NY
Please contact me at 315-761-1702 (leave a message if I
cannot answer) or at jhurd1(at)twcny.rr.com to schedule your time with Mike.
I need to hear from you by Aug 28th if you wish to schedule time with
Mike so that I can let him know if there is enough work here to make it
worth his trip to central New York.
Thanks,
Jim Hurd
http://eaachapter486.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | N924RV first flight |
Hi all,
N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time.
After flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were
found. The plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no
pilot input!
After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
Much better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP
injected engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no
weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a
few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the
GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
The 40 hour test period should go fast!
Fred Stucklen
N924RV RV-7A Flying!
N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | N924RV first flight |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Congratulations...and you will love the GNS-480. Superb box.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fred Stucklen
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:35 AM
Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
Hi all,
N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time.
After flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were
found. The plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no
pilot input!
After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
Much better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP
injected engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no
weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a
few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the
GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
The 40 hour test period should go fast!
Fred Stucklen
N924RV RV-7A Flying!
N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N924RV first flight |
Way COOL congratulations!
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: Fred Stucklen <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:35:11 AM
Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
Message
Hi
all,
N924RV, my
new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time. After flying in circles
around the airport for an hour, no issues were found. The plane trimmed out fine
and flies straight and level with no pilot input!
After
flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great. Much better
visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP injected engine runs
great! Empty weight came out at 1185
lbs with no weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs.
There's a few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use
the GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real
issues.
The 40
hour test period should go fast!
Fred
Stucklen
N924RV RV-7A Flying!
N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an
RV-10!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: N924RV first flight |
Congrats, Fred. I'm on the sidelines considering a 7A to replace my 10 year
old 6A myself... your comment on the better fwd visibility is fuel for the
fire, to be sure. With all the other irons in the fire, even a matched hole
kit would likely take me longer than the 4 years I worked on the old-style
6A, but I sure am thinking about it.
Enjoy the fruits of your labor!
-Bill B.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Mike Divan wrote:
> Way COOL congratulations!
>
> Mike Divan
> N64GH - RV6,flying :)
> SLOW 7 Builder :(
> EAA - 577486
> FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Fred Stucklen <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:35:11 AM
> Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> Hi all,
>
> N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time. After
> flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were found. The
> plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no pilot input!
> After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great. Much
> better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP injected
> engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no weight &
> balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a few calibration
> issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the GNS-480 and the GRT
> HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
> The 40 hour test period should go fast!
>
> *Fred Stucklen*
> *N924RV RV-7A Flying!*
> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: N924RV first flight |
MessageHow is visibility much better than a 6A?
Ron Lee
After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
Much better visibility over the nose.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Rowbotham <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | N924RV first flight |
Fred=2C
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!!!
For the Third Time !
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A (sold)
From: wstucklen1(at)cox.netTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV-List: N924RV f
irst flightDate: Mon=2C 25 Aug 2008 08:35:11 -0400
Hi all=2C
N924RV=2C my new RV-7A=2C took to the air yesterday for the first time.
The 40 hour test period should go fast!
Fred Stucklen
N924RV RV-7A Flying!
N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garey Wittich <gareywittich2000(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning" |
Matt:
Thank you for your Matronic Web Site - GREAT help !!!
I have no experience with your "bowing" problem.
Do have a question for you about "Oil Canning" of the Rudder Skin and did you have
the same problem ??
It occurs ONLY on the "right side" of the Rudder Skin: If I press down on the
Rudder Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2, it stays DOWN and between Stiffener 2 and
3 the Skin pops UP and stays popped UP. Pressing down between Stiffener 2
and 3 (Skin stays down) and the Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2 pops up and stays
that way. Acts like the Skin is stretched. Was VERY carefull with the Skin
so as not to damage it during construction.
Not sure if this will effect flight characteristics or is a common problem with
other builders or can be a future fatigue problem. Anybody have any experience
or ideas or knowledge about this ?????
Thanks, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning" |
At 11:52 AM 8/25/2008 Monday, Garey Wittich wrote:
>
>Matt:
>
>Thank you for your Matronic Web Site - GREAT help !!!
>
>I have no experience with your "bowing" problem.
>
>Do have a question for you about "Oil Canning" of the Rudder Skin and did you
have the same problem ??
>
>It occurs ONLY on the "right side" of the Rudder Skin: If I press down on the
Rudder Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2, it stays DOWN and between Stiffener 2
and 3 the Skin pops UP and stays popped UP. Pressing down between Stiffener 2
and 3 (Skin stays down) and the Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2 pops up and stays
that way. Acts like the Skin is stretched. Was VERY carefull with the Skin
so as not to damage it during construction.
>
>Not sure if this will effect flight characteristics or is a common problem with
other builders or can be a future fatigue problem. Anybody have any experience
or ideas or knowledge about this ?????
>
>
>Thanks, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA
My rudder doesn't seem to have any of the oil-canning you're talking about. Seems
straight and flat.
Matt
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
useful?
--
Tom S., RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
Tom,
The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has a
flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
useful?
--
Tom S., RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
Don:
As luck would have it I found some 1/4" I.D. tygon tube on my
random-parts shelf and tried it. It grips the aluminum aggresively, so
yes, it looks like it will work better than I expected.
Along these same lines, I just ordered some nylo-seal fittings and 1/4"
tube to hook up my airspeed, altimeter and VSI. Is that what folks
usually use for this purpose?
Don Vs wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
> The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
> other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has a
> flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
> female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
>
> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>
> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>
> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
> useful?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
Yes but you always need to use the inserts to get a good seal.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
Don:
As luck would have it I found some 1/4" I.D. tygon tube on my
random-parts shelf and tried it. It grips the aluminum aggresively, so
yes, it looks like it will work better than I expected.
Along these same lines, I just ordered some nylo-seal fittings and 1/4"
tube to hook up my airspeed, altimeter and VSI. Is that what folks
usually use for this purpose?
Don Vs wrote:
>
>
> Tom,
> The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
> other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has a
> flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
> female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>
> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>
> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
> useful?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy" <djdist(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 08/25/08 |
Congratulations Fred, you are a veteran RV builder! What prop are you using
and where are you located?
Randy Utsey
RV-7 / N55CU / 130 hrs.
Charlotte, NC
djdist(at)bellsouth.net
www.djdist.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV-List Digest Server" <rv-list(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:58 AM
Subject: RV-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 08/25/08
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete RV-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the RV-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-08-25&Archive=RV
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-08-25&Archive=RV
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> RV-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Mon 08/25/08: 13
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 05:36 AM - N924RV first flight (Fred Stucklen)
> 2. 06:15 AM - Re: N924RV first flight (Chuck Jensen)
> 3. 07:55 AM - Re: N924RV first flight (Mike Divan)
> 4. 08:18 AM - Re: N924RV first flight (Bill Boyd)
> 5. 08:47 AM - Re: N924RV first flight (Ron Lee)
> 6. 10:30 AM - Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
> (sarg314(at)comcast.net)
> 7. 11:39 AM - Re: N924RV first flight (Charles Rowbotham)
> 8. 11:52 AM - Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning" (Garey
> Wittich)
> 9. 07:01 PM - Re: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning"
> (Matt Dralle)
> 10. 08:08 PM - Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly (tom
> sargent)
> 11. 08:40 PM - Re: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly (Don
> Vs)
> 12. 09:10 PM - Re: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly (tom
> sargent)
> 13. 09:26 PM - Re: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly (Don
> Vs)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> Hi all,
>
> N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time.
> After flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were
> found. The plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no
> pilot input!
> After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
> Much better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP
> injected engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no
> weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a
> few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the
> GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
> The 40 hour test period should go fast!
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N924RV RV-7A Flying!
> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N924RV first flight
> From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
>
> Congratulations...and you will love the GNS-480. Superb box.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fred Stucklen
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:35 AM
> Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time.
> After flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were
> found. The plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no
> pilot input!
> After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
> Much better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP
> injected engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no
> weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a
> few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the
> GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
> The 40 hour test period should go fast!
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N924RV RV-7A Flying!
> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> Way COOL congratulations!
>
> Mike Divan
> N64GH - RV6,flying :)
> SLOW 7 Builder :(
> EAA - 577486
> FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Fred Stucklen <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:35:11 AM
> Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> Message
> Hi
> all,
>
> N924RV, my
> new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time. After flying in
> circles
>
> around the airport for an hour, no issues were found. The plane trimmed
> out fine
>
> and flies straight and level with no pilot input!
> After
> flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great. Much better
> visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP injected engine
> runs
> great! Empty weight came out at 1185
> lbs with no weight & balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs.
> There's a few calibration issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to
> use
>
> the GNS-480 and the GRT HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real
> issues.
> The 40
> hour test period should go fast!
>
> Fred
> Stucklen
> N924RV RV-7A Flying!
> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an
> RV-10!)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 4
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> Congrats, Fred. I'm on the sidelines considering a 7A to replace my 10
> year
> old 6A myself... your comment on the better fwd visibility is fuel for
> the
> fire, to be sure. With all the other irons in the fire, even a matched
> hole
> kit would likely take me longer than the 4 years I worked on the old-style
> 6A, but I sure am thinking about it.
>
> Enjoy the fruits of your labor!
>
> -Bill B.
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Mike Divan wrote:
>
>> Way COOL congratulations!
>>
>> Mike Divan
>> N64GH - RV6,flying :)
>> SLOW 7 Builder :(
>> EAA - 577486
>> FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Fred Stucklen <wstucklen1(at)cox.net>
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:35:11 AM
>> Subject: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> N924RV, my new RV-7A, took to the air yesterday for the first time.
>> After
>> flying in circles around the airport for an hour, no issues were found.
>> The
>> plane trimmed out fine and flies straight and level with no pilot input!
>> After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
>> Much
>> better visibility over the nose. The Mattituck TMX IO-360 180 HP injected
>> engine runs great! Empty weight came out at 1185 lbs with no weight &
>> balance issues through the full gross of 1950 lbs. There's a few
>> calibration
>> issue with fuel flow, and I need to learn how to use the GNS-480 and the
>> GRT
>> HS EFIS boxes (3), but otherwise, no real issues.
>> The 40 hour test period should go fast!
>>
>> *Fred Stucklen*
>> *N924RV RV-7A Flying!*
>> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
>> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
>> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
>>
>> *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>
> ________________________________ Message 5
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
> MessageHow is visibility much better than a 6A?
>
> Ron Lee
> After flying more than 2900 hours in RV-6A's, this plane felt great.
> Much better visibility over the nose.
>
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: sarg314(at)comcast.net
> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Charles Rowbotham <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: N924RV first flight
>
>
> Fred=2C
>
> CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!!!
>
>
> For the Third Time !
>
>
> Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
> RV-8A (sold)
>
>
> From: wstucklen1(at)cox.netTo: rv-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RV-List: N924RV
> f
> irst flightDate: Mon=2C 25 Aug 2008 08:35:11 -0400
>
> Hi all=2C
>
> N924RV=2C my new RV-7A=2C took to the air yesterday for the first time.
> The 40 hour test period should go fast!
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N924RV RV-7A Flying!
> N926RV RV-6A Sold at 876 Hrs
> N925RV RV-6A sold at 2008 Hrs
> N923RV (Reserved - Maybe an RV-12 or an RV-10!)
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts.
> http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Garey Wittich <gareywittich2000(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning"
>
>
> Matt:
>
> Thank you for your Matronic Web Site - GREAT help !!!
>
> I have no experience with your "bowing" problem.
>
> Do have a question for you about "Oil Canning" of the Rudder Skin and did
> you have
> the same problem ??
>
> It occurs ONLY on the "right side" of the Rudder Skin: If I press down on
> the
> Rudder Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2, it stays DOWN and between Stiffener
> 2 and
> 3 the Skin pops UP and stays popped UP. Pressing down between Stiffener 2
> and 3 (Skin stays down) and the Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2 pops up and
> stays
> that way. Acts like the Skin is stretched. Was VERY carefull with the
> Skin
> so as not to damage it during construction.
>
> Not sure if this will effect flight characteristics or is a common problem
> with
> other builders or can be a future fatigue problem. Anybody have any
> experience
> or ideas or knowledge about this ?????
>
>
> Thanks, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 9
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning"
>
>
> At 11:52 AM 8/25/2008 Monday, Garey Wittich wrote:
>>
>>Matt:
>>
>>Thank you for your Matronic Web Site - GREAT help !!!
>>
>>I have no experience with your "bowing" problem.
>>
>>Do have a question for you about "Oil Canning" of the Rudder Skin and did
>>you
> have the same problem ??
>>
>>It occurs ONLY on the "right side" of the Rudder Skin: If I press down on
>>the
> Rudder Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2, it stays DOWN and between Stiffener
> 2
> and 3 the Skin pops UP and stays popped UP. Pressing down between
> Stiffener 2
> and 3 (Skin stays down) and the Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2 pops up and
> stays
> that way. Acts like the Skin is stretched. Was VERY carefull with the
> Skin
> so as not to damage it during construction.
>>
>>Not sure if this will effect flight characteristics or is a common problem
>>with
> other builders or can be a future fatigue problem. Anybody have any
> experience
> or ideas or knowledge about this ?????
>>
>>
>>Thanks, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA
>
> My rudder doesn't seem to have any of the oil-canning you're talking
> about. Seems
> straight and flat.
>
> Matt
>
>
> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 10
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>
> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>
> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
> useful?
>
> --
> Tom S., RV-6A
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 11
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> Tom,
> The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
> other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has a
> flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
> female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>
> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>
> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
> useful?
>
> --
> Tom S., RV-6A
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 12
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> Don:
> As luck would have it I found some 1/4" I.D. tygon tube on my
> random-parts shelf and tried it. It grips the aluminum aggresively, so
> yes, it looks like it will work better than I expected.
>
> Along these same lines, I just ordered some nylo-seal fittings and 1/4"
> tube to hook up my airspeed, altimeter and VSI. Is that what folks
> usually use for this purpose?
>
>
> Don Vs wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tom,
>> The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
>> other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has
>> a
>> flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
>> female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>>
>> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
>> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
>> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
>> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
>> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>>
>> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
>> useful?
>>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 13
> ____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> Yes but you always need to use the inserts to get a good seal.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 9:08 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>
>
> Don:
> As luck would have it I found some 1/4" I.D. tygon tube on my
> random-parts shelf and tried it. It grips the aluminum aggresively, so
> yes, it looks like it will work better than I expected.
>
> Along these same lines, I just ordered some nylo-seal fittings and 1/4"
> tube to hook up my airspeed, altimeter and VSI. Is that what folks
> usually use for this purpose?
>
>
> Don Vs wrote:
>>
>>
>> Tom,
>> The simple way is to do as Van's says to do. Dan C did it that way. An
>> other slternative is to flair the al tube ahd use an AN fitting that has
>> a
>> flair on one end and pipe threads on the other. Mate this to a nylo seal
>> female pipe fitting and you are all set. Don VS
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
>> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:07 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>>
>> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
>> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
>> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
>> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
>> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
>>
>> Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
>> useful?
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
You could also use the quick connects from the likes of Stein or SafeAir that
are basically commercial air line versions of the plumbing quick connects from
your local Lowes Depot.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Fuselage
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly
I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
Will those nylo-seal fittings grip the aluminum tube well enough to be
useful?
--
Tom S., RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mate aluminum ram air pressure tube to poly |
tom sargent wrote:
>
> I'll try this again since my text got clobbered last time:
>
> I have a 1/4" O.D. aluminum tube coming out of my wing from the pitot
> tube which has to some how get mated to a 1/4" poly tube that goes to
> the air speed indicator. What is a good way to do this? Van's says just
> butt the two tubes together with a length of plastic tube with a 1/4"
> I.D. slipped over it. That doesn't sound very reliable.
Tom, Vans knows of what they speak. :-)
Connecting the tubing with a short length of plastic tubing works very
well and has performed perfectly on my RV-6 for the past nine years.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Hurd <jhurd1(at)twcny.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Flight time with Mike Seager at EAA-486 FZY Fulton, NY |
Hi All,
I have 1 slot left on Friday and 3 left on Sunday for flight time with
Mike Seager. He will be here with the RV-7 taildragger. If you wish to
take advantage of this opportunity then please contact me ASAP.
September 12-14, 2008 at
Oswego County Airport (FZY), Fulton, NY
Please contact me at 315-761-1702 (leave a message if I
cannot answer) or at jhurd1(at)twcny.rr.com to schedule your time with Mike.
I need to hear from you by Aug 28th if you wish to schedule time with
Mike so that I can let him know if there is enough work here to make it
worth his trip to central New York.
Thanks,
Jim Hurd
http://eaachapter486.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | "ice-box" avionics cooling fan |
I bought an "Ice-Box" avionics cooling fan from spruce. The FN-200
model has 3 output ports and seems to blow a lot of air for not much
current. The output tubes are about 3/4" long and have a diameter that
is 0.025" LARGER than 5/8". You're supposed to push a 5/8" CAT tube
over these outlets. The 5/8" CAT tube I bought does NOT want to go over
those tubes. It's not very stretchy stuff. The fan manufacturer tells
me to push hard and "screw" the tube on. Lubricants don't seem to help.
It's really hard to do. I succeeded with one tube. Ruined the second
one. The prospect of having to do this while laying under the instrument
panel is awful.
Has any one dealt with this fan product? Is there some secret to
getting the tube to go over the outlets or is there some other type of
tubing that I can use. I don't like vinyl tubing - it ages fast and
makes bad chemicals when it burns. There's some polyethylene tube that
might work.
Thanks for any ideas.
--
tom s., RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | nylo-seal and "inserts" |
The spruce catalog says that the 259-N nylo-seal inserts are not
necessary when using the nylo-seal (nylon) tubing with the Nylo-seal
fittings, but are to be used with polyethelene tubing. Yet Van's
drawing #49 for my 6A shows them being used with the nylo-seal tubing
and people seem to always mention the inserts regardless of tubing type.
Are the inserts really necessary if you use the right tubing?
Thanks,
--
Tom S., TV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Perkinson" <bobperk90658(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "ice-box" avionics cooling fan |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and I've been
trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371
magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots of stuff,
but
not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding checking points, rebuild etc.
Her timing has always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about making sure she
stays in perfect health.
Advice? Links?
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Vs" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | nylo-seal and "inserts" |
Tom,
If you8 cut the tube at exactly 90 degrees and tighten the fittings just the
right amount, not doo much or too little you can get by with out the
inserts. I would use them because with them you can make all the mistakes
and they still seal. Don VS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:41 PM
Subject: RV-List: nylo-seal and "inserts"
The spruce catalog says that the 259-N nylo-seal inserts are not
necessary when using the nylo-seal (nylon) tubing with the Nylo-seal
fittings, but are to be used with polyethelene tubing. Yet Van's
drawing #49 for my 6A shows them being used with the nylo-seal tubing
and people seem to always mention the inserts regardless of tubing type.
Are the inserts really necessary if you use the right tubing?
Thanks,
--
Tom S., TV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Well during my Part 65 A&P course last week, one of the question was
when does a Mag get rebuilt? The answer was during the engine rebuild. I
di learn how to take it all apart and change/set the points and set the
e-gap (an internal setting) and put it back together and set the timeing.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and
> I've been trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370
> & 4371 magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to
> do lots of stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding
> checking points, rebuild etc. Her timing has always been spot-on, but
> I'm concerned about making sure she stays in perfect health.
>
> Advice? Links?
>
> Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
> http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where /you/ want to go. Find your travel deal
> *here*
> <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Slick Mag Health Check-up |
| From: | "George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 605 TES/TBM" <Neal.George(at)hurlburt.af.mil> |
...and (if memory serves) Slick has a Mandatory Service Bulletin that
stipulates 400-Hr rebuild. If one experiences an engine stoppage, and
the overhaul has not been accomplished, I would bet the insurance
company won't pay.
neal
----
Well during my Part 65 A&P course last week, one of the question was
when does a Mag get rebuilt? The answer was during the engine rebuild. I
di learn how to take it all apart and change/set the points and set the
e-gap (an internal setting) and put it back together and set the
timeing.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up
and I've been trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick
4370 & 4371 magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW
to do lots of stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding
checking points, rebuild etc. Her timing has always been spot-on, but
I'm concerned about making sure she stays in perfect health.
Advice? Links?
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
slick mags 500 hr inspection.
-at a minimum you should change the points and cam, relube,check the cond
ensor
inspect the distributor and change the brush. inspect the impluse coupling.
and rotor bearings.
-
the problem with a slick is the cost of the parts and the bench check requi
red after tear down makes them basically a throwaway mag. for a certified a
ircraft at least.
-
rick
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 9:10 PM
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and I've bee
n trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371 magne
tos.- Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots of stuff
, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding checking points, rebu
ild etc.- Her timing has always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about mak
ing sure she stays in perfect health.
-
Advice?- Links?
-
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | nylo-seal and "inserts" |
If you are talking about brakes, then use them on the suction side. They
may not be required, but they will allow you tighten the fittings enough to
insure no leaks without concern for the tubing.
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of tom sargent
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:41 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: nylo-seal and "inserts"
>
>
> The spruce catalog says that the 259-N nylo-seal inserts are not
> necessary when using the nylo-seal (nylon) tubing with the Nylo-seal
> fittings, but are to be used with polyethelene tubing. Yet Van's
> drawing #49 for my 6A shows them being used with the nylo-seal tubing
> and people seem to always mention the inserts regardless of tubing
> type.
> Are the inserts really necessary if you use the right tubing?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Tom S., TV-6A.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tim Bryan" <n616tb(at)btsapps.com> |
| Subject: | Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Rick,
Are you suggesting the mags should be thrown away after 500 hours? It isn't
clear in your message.
Thanks
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB over 100 hours now
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RICHARD MILLER
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
slick mags 500 hr inspection.
at a minimum you should change the points and cam, relube,check the
condensor
inspect the distributor and change the brush. inspect the impluse coupling.
and rotor bearings.
the problem with a slick is the cost of the parts and the bench check
required after tear down makes them basically a throwaway mag. for a
certified aircraft at least.
rick
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 9:10 PM
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and I've been
trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371
magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots of
stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding checking points,
rebuild etc. Her timing has always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about
making sure she stays in perfect health.
Advice? Links?
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
_____
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
<http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047> here.
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
D========================
=========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Trevor" <davist(at)xsinet.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning" |
Yes I also had the exact same experience. Van's just shrugged their
shoulders and asked how I riveted. I have found another builder with the
same problem also one who was not aware of the "oil canning" until I pointed
it out. All on the right! I think their jig is slightly out or else the
batches were made at different times of the year where maybe temperature
differences had a part to play. Before riveting, I un-clecoed the left skin
and with the tension released, found the fit on the right to be perfect.
I managed to cure it somewhat by attaching a bit of left over stiffner angle
across 4 or so of the skin stiffeners (like a bridge) and glueing some foam
blocks between this stffener angle and the skin to make it more rigid. Not
perfect but at least the skin returns to normal after been "popped"
Trevor RV-7 Cape Town
----- Original Message -----
From: "Garey Wittich" <gareywittich2000(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 8:52 PM
Subject: RV-List: Elevator Skin "bowing" and Rudder "Oil Canning"
>
> Matt:
>
> Thank you for your Matronic Web Site - GREAT help !!!
>
> I have no experience with your "bowing" problem.
>
> Do have a question for you about "Oil Canning" of the Rudder Skin and did
> you have the same problem ??
>
> It occurs ONLY on the "right side" of the Rudder Skin: If I press down on
> the Rudder Skin between Stiffener 1 and 2, it stays DOWN and between
> Stiffener 2 and 3 the Skin pops UP and stays popped UP. Pressing down
> between Stiffener 2 and 3 (Skin stays down) and the Skin between Stiffener
> 1 and 2 pops up and stays that way. Acts like the Skin is stretched. Was
> VERY carefull with the Skin so as not to damage it during construction.
>
> Not sure if this will effect flight characteristics or is a common problem
> with other builders or can be a future fatigue problem. Anybody have any
> experience or ideas or knowledge about this ?????
>
>
> Thanks, Garey Wittich Santa Monica, CA
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Composites for RV-10 |
AirCrafters will be holding another workshop for composites on RV-10s on the
weekend of November 18 and 19, 2008. The class will concentrate on RV-10s
but is also applicable to other RVs and as an intro to other composite
kitplanes.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 18 & 19, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 10.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Composites for RV-10 |
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
Dave, this time I think I can make the class. Please sign me up. I'll send
a check. To whom do I make it out?
My best,
John Jessen
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: RV-List: Composites for RV-10
AirCrafters will be holding another workshop for composites on RV-10s on the
weekend of November 18 and 19, 2008. The class will concentrate on RV-10s
but is also applicable to other RVs and as an intro to other composite
kitplanes.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 18 & 19, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 10.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Slick Mag Health Check-up |
tim
-with the replacment cost of 514/577$ repectively
and the overhaul parts only cost of 887/1189$. for overhaul these things ar
e throwaway. now for the five hundred inspection the t100 tooling kit is 43
2 dollars. the only time you need the full kit is for twin points so say 50
$ in special tools
-
next most people will charge about 200 to 250$ to go through one of these p
lus what ever parts are required.so lets say you just want to give it tune
up points cap condensor and rotor- = 415 dollars worth of parts alone s
o with labor you already 100.00$ over new cost. what most of my customers d
ue is inspect at every hundred/annual and throwaway at 750 or at any signs
of damage.
-
point kit- 40.00
condensor 97.00
bearings 126.00
bearing cap 64.00
coil 266
impluse coupling 302.00
rotor gear 8.00
oil seal 8.00
distributor block and gear 278.00
-
since an impluse coupling failure means a very expensive engine overhaul it
is your call about inspect or replace at the five hundred
-
-
let me tell you a recent story about a set of slicks on an io-520
at about 420 hr on the mags the owner complained to another shop that he ha
d high egts on climb out. for the next eighty hours they fiddle fart around
with the bird including a full fuel system overhaul for the price of 7500.
00$ still no luck fixing it. at 510 on the mags the owner experiences a twi
n mag failure a barely limps it to the field. after both mags are replace t
he egt problem goes away. eighty hours later the right mags burns up, then
started the saga of the sb-03. inspected the new mag after 10 hrs run found
out that it was already eating the brush and the left had not been built r
ight from the factory, excessive clearance on the coil tab, replace the lef
t mag. so in 600 hrs we have gone through 4 mags and had three in flight fa
ilures. changed the brushes to the aero assy. brush to stop the inspections
. and now plan to only open then at every annual. if you fly with slicks an
d especially if you fly high open them up every annual.
-
rick a+p, i/a
--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Tim Bryan wrote:
From: Tim Bryan <n616tb(at)btsapps.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 6:26 AM
Rick,
-
Are you suggesting the mags should be thrown away after 500 hours?- It is
n=A2t clear in your message.
Thanks
-
Tim Bryan
RV-6 Flying
N616TB-over 100 hours now
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matro
nics.com] On Behalf Of RICHARD MILLER
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
-
slick mags 500 hr inspection.
-at a minimum you should change the points and cam, relube,check the cond
ensor
inspect the distributor and change the brush. inspect the impluse coupling.
and rotor bearings.
-
the problem with a slick is the cost of the parts and the bench check requi
red after tear down makes them basically a throwaway mag. for a certified a
ircraft at least.
-
rick
--- On Tue, 8/26/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2008, 9:10 PM
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and I've bee
n trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371 magne
tos.- Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots of stuff
, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding checking points, rebu
ild etc.- Her timing has always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about mak
ing sure she stays in perfect health.
-
Advice?- Links?
-
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
- -
- - -http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhttp://forums.matronic
s.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution -
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "ice-box" avionics cooling fan |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Tom,
Take a hair dryer, or even better, a shrink tube heater/blower, and heat up the
hose until its very hot to the touch. This will make the end pliable and stretch
over the hose nipple a little easier. When it cools, it'll be on for good.
Becareful if you used petroleum based lubricates, depending on hose type,
it can eventually degrade the hose.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of tom sargent
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 11:19 PM
Subject: RV-List: "ice-box" avionics cooling fan
I bought an "Ice-Box" avionics cooling fan from spruce. The FN-200
model has 3 output ports and seems to blow a lot of air for not much
current. The output tubes are about 3/4" long and have a diameter that
is 0.025" LARGER than 5/8". You're supposed to push a 5/8" CAT tube
over these outlets. The 5/8" CAT tube I bought does NOT want to go over
those tubes. It's not very stretchy stuff. The fan manufacturer tells
me to push hard and "screw" the tube on. Lubricants don't seem to help.
It's really hard to do. I succeeded with one tube. Ruined the second
one. The prospect of having to do this while laying under the instrument
panel is awful.
Has any one dealt with this fan product? Is there some secret to
getting the tube to go over the outlets or is there some other type of
tubing that I can use. I don't like vinyl tubing - it ages fast and
makes bad chemicals when it burns. There's some polyethylene tube that
might work.
Thanks for any ideas.
--
tom s., RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
At those prices why not throw away the mags, put in Lightspeed
electronic units and be done with it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Well Mark, looks like you know exactly what to do now! Ha ha ha!
Unbelievable! I do not have a maintenance manual for the slick mags but
will try to get one from a buddy soon. I am sure you would still like to
know what the manual says is due and when.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and
> I've been trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370
> & 4371 magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to
> do lots of stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding
> checking points, rebuild etc. Her timing has always been spot-on, but
> I'm concerned about making sure she stays in perfect health.
>
> Advice? Links?
>
> Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
> http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where /you/ want to go. Find your travel deal
> *here*
> <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
HERE IS THE MANUAL
RICK
--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Bobby Hester wrote:
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 3:01 PM
Well Mark, looks like you know exactly what to do now!- Ha ha ha!
Unbelievable! I do not have a maintenance manual for the slick mags but wil
l try to get one from a buddy soon. I am sure you would still like to know
what the manual says is due and when.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and I've bee
n trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371 magne
tos.- Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots of stuff
, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding checking points, rebu
ild etc.- Her timing has always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about mak
ing sure she stays in perfect health.
-
Advice?- Links?
-
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
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/co
ntribution
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | RV-10 Composite Class Real Dates Nov 15 & 16 |
OK, let's make that November 15 and 16, which should really be a Saturday
and Sunday. Just to be complete:
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 15 & 16, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 7.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Composites for RV-10 |
Thanks, John. Did you see the "real" dates?
Dave
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Composites for RV-10
Dave, this time I think I can make the class. Please sign me up. I'll send
a check. To whom do I make it out?
My best,
John Jessen
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Saylor
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: RV-List: Composites for RV-10
AirCrafters will be holding another workshop for composites on RV-10s on the
weekend of November 18 and 19, 2008. The class will concentrate on RV-10s
but is also applicable to other RVs and as an intro to other composite
kitplanes.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 18 & 19, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 10.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/N
avigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Sparling" <jhs_61(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
If you are looking for someone to complete your project, I will be available
in September. Please take a look at my blog and give me a call to discuss
your needs.
All the best,
Jack Sparling
N5115Q 40487 210hrs.
Crestwood, Kentucky
Cell: (502) 262-6557
Jhs_61(at)yahoo.com
N5115Q.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "ice-box" avionics cooling fan |
Thanks for the responses on this. Bob Perkins suggestion of clipping
out the spiral wire in the last 1/2" of the CAT tube seems to work
pretty good. An old A&P I know suggested that also. It's a litle
tricky since the wire is on the inside of the tube, but you can do it.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
In a message dated 8/27/2008 2:15:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
with the replacment cost of 514/577$ repectively
Nick-
I'm not asking for horror stories or conjecture- I simply want to know what
I NEED to examine when I perform this next annual. The idea that these are
"throwaway" components after 500 hours of faithful service with no attention
whatsoever kind of speaks to their reliability and in my case at least,
debunks your assertion. Offering someone's component pricelist is informative,
but
I have a difficult time believing that EVERY component you list absolutely
needs replacement. This isn't about the FAA being forced to issue an AD
because some idiot deliberately pushed his hardware way beyond its limits, but
rather what I need to do to ensure that my carefully maintained and respectfully
operated machine continues to function as designed.
Please bear in mind that these mags are installed on an experimental
aircraft- I do NOT operate under threat of the Almighty AD, but rather the assurance
that the aircraft performs as expected by ME, the builder, and holder of the
Repairman Certificate for same...
So........
The original query stands: I've got these two little black chunks of
magneto I'd just LOVE to thoroughly investigate to make damn sure they will
continue to do what they do.
Specifically WHAT should I do?
Mark (thanks to all who have chimed in here!)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | dual brakes vs. single |
I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake lines for
my dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I organized things on
the firewall). He observed that he thinks dual brakes aren't worth it.
It's a few pounds of weight that almost never gives any benefit. He
says he's taking the dual brakes out of his plane soon.
Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right side? I
thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with me. However,
removing them now would greatly simplify my brake routing problems.
I've just about decided to tear out the right side.
Thanks for any opions.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
mark
-it is rick not nick
the first post i told you what to look for.
-
i have posted the manual and told you what we do for this inspection. if i
have to put it in big letters i will.slick mags are junk. given half a chan
ce they will kill you. ask any mag shop what they think about them. they ar
e plastic pieces of crap and i would not have them on my aircraft. yes i fl
y slicks only because some of my customers have them. this is not conjectur
e, this is the truth. slick got a place in the industry with the throwaway
mag originally, and stayed there when bendix had the ad problem. if you don
't have the money to throw them away, then plan on going thru them. but if
you have one problem you will have spent more then a new mag. by the way if
the mag impluse coupling comes apart they will not cover any damages. sinc
e they did not do the inspection. and the price list was slicks not mine or
anybodyelse . the list i included was for all of the items that slick requ
ires to be replaced at overhaul with is not to exceed the tbo of the
engine. From field experience, if you get more then 1000 hr from a slick y
ou are looking-for an off field landing. this-did not include the recen
t cam service bulletin or the brush bulletin. they have had problems with t
he brush for the last four years, so take your chances. it is your bird.
-
if you fly slick mags cost is about 2.50$ per flight hour, to replace at 50
0. bendix with original cost adjustment is about the same. let me guess tha
t is probably how slick figure out thier priceing? book it and budget it. a
nd somebody needs to telll me why a coil costs 60% of the cost of a new mag
.
-
rick
--- On Wed, 8/27/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:12 PM
In a message dated 8/27/2008 2:15:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time, rickpegser
@yahoo.com writes:
with the replacment cost of 514/577$ repectively
Nick-
-
I'm not asking for horror stories or conjecture- I simply want to know what
I NEED to examine when I perform this next annual.- The idea that these
are "throwaway" components after 500 hours of faithful service with no atte
ntion whatsoever kind of speaks to their reliability-and in my case at le
ast, debunks your assertion.- Offering someone's component pricelist is i
nformative, but I have a difficult time believing that EVERY component you
list absolutely needs replacement.- This isn't about the FAA being forced
to issue an AD because some idiot deliberately pushed his hardware way bey
ond its limits, but rather what I need to do to ensure that my carefully ma
intained and respectfully operated-machine continues to function as desig
ned.
-
Please bear in mind that these mags are installed on an experimental aircra
ft- I do NOT operate under threat of the Almighty AD, but rather the assura
nce that the aircraft performs as expected by ME, the builder, and holder o
f the Repairman Certificate for same...
-
So........
-
The original query stands:- I've got these two little black chunks of mag
neto I'd just LOVE to thoroughly investigate to make damn sure they will co
ntinue to do what they do.
-
Specifically WHAT should I do?
-
Mark- (thanks to all who have chimed in here!)
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Mark
when you ask for advice, and someone with 25 yrs of experiance, offers you it
for free, and gives you the manual. i would suggest that you leave the high horse
at home. while you have managed to build one airplane from a kit, that means
you have built one. while the people out in the real world who do this on
a daily basis, might have a little better understanding of what the current problems
are.and an understanding of the difficulties involved. they might have
even played with the mags on more then one engine. so while you seem to think
that you know everything about your engine you still are asking others, how to
fix it. i find this to be strange since if you knew how to fix the problem why
are you asking us?
my suggestion is that you go to your local autozone, and ask them how to fix a
slick mag, since i am sure that they have the training that you are looking for.
since the local autozone types only know to grab thier ass with both hands
when they have no idea how to fix the problem. you should get the answer that
you are looking for. bend over and pray. and with a good bolt of lightening in
the right area the answer might come to you.
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Can you tell me where the manual is posted?
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> mark
> it is rick not nick
> the first post i told you what to look for.
>
> i have posted the manual and told you what we do for this inspection.
> if i have to put it in big letters i will.*_slick mags are junk. given
> half a chance they will kill you._**_ _*ask any mag shop what they
> think about them. they are plastic pieces of crap and i would not have
> them on my aircraft. yes i fly slicks only because some of my
> customers have them. this is not conjecture, this is the truth. slick
> got a place in the industry with the throwaway mag originally, and
> stayed there when bendix had the ad problem. if you don't have the
> money to throw them away, then plan on going thru them. but if you
> have one problem you will have spent more then a new mag. by the way
> if the mag impluse coupling comes apart they will not cover any
> damages. since they did not do the inspection. and the price list was
> slicks not mine or anybodyelse . the list i included was for all of
> the items that slick requires to be replaced at overhaul with is not
> to exceed the tbo of the engine. From field experience, if you get
> more then 1000 hr from a slick you are looking for an off field
> landing. this did not include the recent cam service bulletin or the
> brush bulletin. they have had problems with the brush for the last
> four years, so take your chances. it is your bird.
>
> if you fly slick mags cost is about 2.50$ per flight hour, to replace
> at 500. bendix with original cost adjustment is about the same. let me
> guess that is probably how slick figure out thier priceing? book it
> and budget it. and somebody needs to telll me why a coil costs 60% of
> the cost of a new mag.
>
> rick
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 8/27/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com //* wrote:
>
> From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:12 PM
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2008 2:15:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> with the replacment cost of 514/577$ repectively
>
> Nick-
>
> I'm not asking for horror stories or conjecture- I simply want to
> know what I NEED to examine when I perform this next annual. The
> idea that these are "throwaway" components after 500 hours of
> faithful service with no attention whatsoever kind of speaks to
> their reliability and in my case at least, debunks your
> assertion. Offering someone's component pricelist is informative,
> but I have a difficult time believing that EVERY component you
> list absolutely needs replacement. This isn't about the FAA being
> forced to issue an AD because some idiot deliberately pushed his
> hardware way beyond its limits, but rather what I need to do to
> ensure that my carefully maintained and respectfully
> operated machine continues to function as designed.
>
> Please bear in mind that these mags are installed on an
> experimental aircraft- I do NOT operate under threat of the
> Almighty AD, but rather the assurance that the aircraft performs
> as expected by ME, the builder, and holder of the Repairman
> Certificate for same...
>
> So........
>
> The original query stands: I've got these two little black chunks
> of magneto I'd just LOVE to thoroughly investigate to make damn
> sure they will continue to do what they do.
>
> Specifically WHAT should I do?
>
> Mark (thanks to all who have chimed in here!)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where /you/ want to go. Find your travel
> deal *here*
> <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Removing my pax-side brakes is on my to-do list, Tom. Never used 'em once
in 10 years flying. I have parking brake valve in case I ever need to hand
prop (or just have pax sit on the left for the time being and hold brakes.)
They add weight, expense (probably too late to recoup that) and they, alone,
are the source of the only seepage in the whole system. Mine should be on
ebay within a month :-)
I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
nosewheel aircraft.
-Bill Boyd RV-6A 710 hrs
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51 AM, tom sargent wrote:
>
> I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake lines for my
> dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I organized things on the
> firewall). He observed that he thinks dual brakes aren't worth it. It's a
> few pounds of weight that almost never gives any benefit. He says he's
> taking the dual brakes out of his plane soon.
>
> Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right side? I
> thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with me. However,
> removing them now would greatly simplify my brake routing problems. I've
> just about decided to tear out the right side.
>
>
> Thanks for any opions.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
>
> _= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> mark it is rick not nick the first post i told you what to look for.
>
> i have posted the manual and told you what we do for this inspection.
> if i have to put it in big letters i will.slick mags are junk. given
> half a chance they will kill you. ask any mag shop what they think
> about them. they are plastic pieces of crap and i would not have them
> on my aircraft.
Rick,
I appreciate you posting the Slick magneto manual, that is a very useful
resource.
However, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, stated your disgust
with Slick magnetos. In my opinion, your statement above completed the
process of destroying any credibility you have with me, and I'm
confident, with many other RVers. To state that Slick mags will "kill
you" shows a lack of grounding in reality.
I have no idea why you feel so strongly about this matter, but it is
obvious your strong feelings have clouded any objectivity you may have
about the mag issue. I had a long professional relationship with an A&P
whom I deeply respected, and we discussed the longevity of the Slick
mags on my *experimental* plane at the time we freshened them. We were
able to replace points, cam, condenser, and bearings for about $250 per mag.
The opinion of the A&Ps I've discussed Slick mags with is that yes, they
do have a finite life span, and more than likely it is best to replace
them if they cause problems after several hundred hours of service. But
I have never heard a pro express the vitriol toward Slick mags that you
continue to spew on this list.
I respect your right to express your opinion, but personally, I put no
stock in what you have expressed.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Bill Boyd wrote:
> I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
> nosewheel aircraft.
I would think a CFI would be much more concerned about RH brakes in a
nosewheel aircraft than in a tailwheel plane. Brakes can be pretty
important for steering an -A model but are only needed in a tailwheeler
to avoid taxiing into the gas pump. :-)
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbuilder1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
Jack
I am building an RV-4 and have the emp complete and working on wings. I
would like to know if you are interested in building my fuselage as I travel
quite a bit and do not have the time to dedicate to it.
If you are interested I would have the crate delivered to you from vans
and pick it up when finished. I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana
What would you charge to build the fuselage and possibly add the
finishing kit to it as a separate price?
Regards
John Gould
260-417-3432 cell
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
I was assuming the person getting a BFR or transition training would know
how to taxi (!) but taking off and landing a tailwheel aircraft looks a bit
more risky and complicated than same in a trigear. I've only done it a
half-dozen times with an instructor, and that many more with Mike Segar, so
I admit my opinion isn't worth much. Is it all rudder and no brakes until
you get to the pump, in a taildragger? Shows you what I know...
I was taking my own situation into account: need BFR every 2 years in a
nosewheel RV that I have 700 hours in. CFI not likely to feel anxious about
me having the only brakes in the aircraft. Pit me in a taildragger for a
BFR and suddenly his comfort level is very different, right?
-Bill
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> Bill Boyd wrote:
>
> I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
>> nosewheel aircraft.
>>
>
> I would think a CFI would be much more concerned about RH brakes in a
> nosewheel aircraft than in a tailwheel plane. Brakes can be pretty important
> for steering an -A model but are only needed in a tailwheeler to avoid
> taxiing into the gas pump. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Effects of Wing Loading |
For the aerodynamic experts:
Assuming that aircraft weight can be held constant what would be the
effect of increasing the size of the wing or reducing wing
loading. Or vice versa, reducing wing area increasing wing loading?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
>I was taking my own situation into account: need BFR every 2 years
>in a nosewheel RV that I have 700 hours in. CFI not likely to feel
>anxious about me having the only brakes in the aircraft. Pit me in
>a taildragger for a BFR and suddenly his comfort level is very
>different, right?
I have a taildragger, no right hand brakes. When I do a Flight
Review, there is no need for the CFI to ever touch the controls. The
CFIs that I fly with are not even taildragger qualified.
Speaking of a Flight Review, if all you have is a single seat
aircraft such as the RV3, I assume one has to do the Flight Review in
a different aircraft with at least two seats? Now if the two seat
aircraft is an RV4/8, do you have to have any controls for the CFI at all?
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tomasz Korwel <tomasz(at)korwel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Wing Loading |
Tons of info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
Tomasz
Bob wrote:
>
> For the aerodynamic experts:
>
>
> Assuming that aircraft weight can be held constant what would be the
> effect of increasing the size of the wing or reducing wing loading.
> Or vice versa, reducing wing area increasing wing loading?
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
WHO is on there "high horse"?
Mike D
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 2:03:11 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Mark
when you ask for advice, and someone with 25 yrs of experiance, offers you it
for free, and gives you the manual. i would suggest that you leave the high horse
at home. while you have managed to build one airplane from a kit, that means
you have built one. while the people out in the real world who do this on
a daily basis, might have a little better understanding of what the current problems
are. and an understanding of the difficulties involved. they might have
even played with the mags on more then one engine. so while you seem to think
that you know everything about your engine you still are asking others, how to
fix it. i find this to be strange since if you knew how to fix the problem why
are you asking us?
my suggestion is that you go to your local autozone, and ask them how to fix a
slick mag, since i am sure that they have the training that you are looking for.
since the local autozone types only know to grab thier ass with both hands
when they have no idea how to fix the problem. you should get the answer that
you are looking for. bend over and pray. and with a good bolt of lightening in
the right area the answer might come to you.
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Speaking of which, I need a BFR, and would appreciate recopmmendations for
someone local to the LWB area who is comfortable giving one in an RV.
Thanks, Bob.
-Bill B
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Bob wrote:
>
>
> I was taking my own situation into account: need BFR every 2 years in a
>> nosewheel RV that I have 700 hours in. CFI not likely to feel anxious about
>> me having the only brakes in the aircraft. Pit me in a taildragger for a
>> BFR and suddenly his comfort level is very different, right?
>>
>
> I have a taildragger, no right hand brakes. When I do a Flight Review,
> there is no need for the CFI to ever touch the controls. The CFIs that I
> fly with are not even taildragger qualified.
>
> Speaking of a Flight Review, if all you have is a single seat aircraft such
> as the RV3, I assume one has to do the Flight Review in a different aircraft
> with at least two seats? Now if the two seat aircraft is an RV4/8, do you
> have to have any controls for the CFI at all?
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Wing Loading |
I'll take a guess: lowered wing loading => better rate and angle of climb,
lowered stall speed, at the cost of slower cruise and max speeds. How'd I
do?
-Bill B
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Bob wrote:
>
> For the aerodynamic experts:
>
>
> Assuming that aircraft weight can be held constant what would be the effect
> of increasing the size of the wing or reducing wing loading. Or vice versa,
> reducing wing area increasing wing loading?
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Tom
I am not as experienced as 99% of the people here but I have had occasion to use
my right side brakes several times. Twice when the wind was gusting to 30+ knots
(I seem to remember it closer to 40 but that seems high. Any way it was out
at KIFP). There was just no way to get out of the plane without having the
wind pushing it all over the place (granted someone with more flight time might
know a way). My wife got on the brakes and controls and presto problem solved
... well sort of the wind was still causing trouble but I got the plane tied
down. Then twice on a hill she helped out. The hill I could have used my parking
brake but in the wind I really needed someone on and off the brakes several
times. Granted my plane is a not a 6A but I tend to think most CFI's would
want access to the breaking system.
Again I am no expert or authority in any way I have low time in an RV (closing
in on 100 hr in my 6). Just letting ya know that I was glad I had my pax brakes
on at least 2 occasions.
Mike D
N64GH - RV6
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:51:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: dual brakes vs. single
I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake lines for
my dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I organized things on
the firewall). He observed that he thinks dual brakes aren't worth it.
It's a few pounds of weight that almost never gives any benefit. He
says he's taking the dual brakes out of his plane soon.
Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right side? I
thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with me. However,
removing them now would greatly simplify my brake routing problems.
I've just about decided to tear out the right side.
Thanks for any opions.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tracy Crook" <tracy(at)rotaryaviation.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Effects of Wing Loading |
Hopefully I'll soon be able to give a real world example of what happens. I
added 3 feet to the wingspan of my RV-8. Yes, G rating will go down but
yank & bank is not the mission. Weight will be the same as an RV-8 equipped
with an IO - 360 (actual engine is a 300 HP 3 rotor Mazda rotary). Doing
final assembly of the plane now.
The hoped for results are improved fuel economy (at any given speed) at
altitudes above 16,000ft as a result of decreased span loading (higher
aspect ratio) and decreased AOA at economy cruise power settings due to
lower wing loading. Hopefully these improvements in induced drag will more
than compensate for the increased skin drag. The reduced roll rate of the
longer wing is what you give up.
Conventional wisdom would say that the higher HP engine would burn more fuel
and that is certainly true at maximum HP but my thinking is that a larger
engine can be more efficient when making the same HP as the smaller engine.
For example, at 200 HP the IO - 360 has to be run at best power mixture to
make it's rated HP but the larger engine can run LOP at that power setting
resulting in less fuel burn (better BSFC). The HP numbers get smaller at
higher altitudes but the principle is the same.
Tracy Crook
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Bob wrote:
>
> For the aerodynamic experts:
>
>
> Assuming that aircraft weight can be held constant what would be the effect
> of increasing the size of the wing or reducing wing loading. Or vice versa,
> reducing wing area increasing wing loading?
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Meyette" <bmeyette(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
isn't that contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the 51% builder
rule? Nothing against you personally, and i dont say this with any
antagoinstic meaning, but I understand that the current FAA reexamination of
the 51% rule and possible tightening of restrictions on builders is due to
the proliferation of "builders for hire".
brian
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Sparling
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:14 PM
Subject: RV-List: Builder Available!
If you are looking for someone to complete your project, I will be available
in September. Please take a look at my blog and give me a call to discuss
your needs.
All the best,
Jack Sparling
N5115Q 40487 210hrs.
Crestwood, Kentucky
Cell: (502) 262-6557
Jhs_61(at)yahoo.com
N5115Q.blogspot.com
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navigat
or?RV-List
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG.
7:06 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "smitty(at)smittysrv.com" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
This EAA Article says it all:
"Member Comments Reinforce EAAs Message: Enforce Existing 51% Rule"
Read the article and watch the video:
http://www.eaa.org/news/2008/2008-08-21_51percent.asp
Smitty
http://SmittysRV.com
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Brian Meyette bmeyette(at)gmail.com
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:33:36 -0400
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
isn't that contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the 51% builder
rule? Nothing against you personally, and i dont say this with any
antagoinstic meaning, but I understand that the current FAA reexamination of
the 51% rule and possible tightening of restrictions on builders is due to
the proliferation of "builders for hire".
brian
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack Sparling
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:14 PM
Subject: RV-List: Builder Available!
If you are looking for someone to complete your project, I will be available
in September. Please take a look at my blog and give me a call to discuss
your needs.
All the best,
Jack Sparling
N5115Q 40487 210hrs.
Crestwood, Kentucky
Cell: (502) 262-6557
Jhs_61(at)yahoo.com
N5115Q.blogspot.com
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navigat
or?RV-List
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Checked by AVG.
7:06 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft Windows and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Lee" <ronlee(at)pcisys.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Seems like a lot of anguish over just a few pounds.
Ron Lee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
If I'm not mistaken, the FAA changed the rules a few years ago & 'full
dual controls' are now legally required for instruction, including
flight reviews. Having said that, none of the CFI's that I know pay any
attention to the rule, even in TW planes, if they know you & your
abilities. If someone lives in an area where all the CFI's are koolaid
drinking nazi's, it might be worth some research.
Charlie
Bill Boyd wrote:
> Removing my pax-side brakes is on my to-do list, Tom. Never used 'em
> once in 10 years flying. I have parking brake valve in case I ever
> need to hand prop (or just have pax sit on the left for the time being
> and hold brakes.) They add weight, expense (probably too late to
> recoup that) and they, alone, are the source of the only seepage in
> the whole system. Mine should be on ebay within a month :-)
>
> I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
> nosewheel aircraft.
>
> -Bill Boyd RV-6A 710 hrs
>
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51 AM, tom sargent > wrote:
>
> >
>
> I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake
> lines for my dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I
> organized things on the firewall). He observed that he thinks
> dual brakes aren't worth it. It's a few pounds of weight that
> almost never gives any benefit. He says he's taking the dual
> brakes out of his plane soon.
>
> Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right
> side? I thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with
> me. However, removing them now would greatly simplify my brake
> routing problems. I've just about decided to tear out the right side.
>
>
> Thanks for any opions.
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Are you not aware of the current problem with Slick mags, that some are
failing on FIRST flight? Rick is right on this one at the moment. 20
years ago I put slick mags on the plane I had and they were fine. The
last 10 years and 700 hours I have flown behind Bendix mags. Huge
difference in reliability, lack of need for service, etc. I know of
several RV-10s that have had both Slick mags fail within minutes of each
other. Are you willing to play Russian roulette with your plane while
Slick tries to come up with a fix. This has been known for a couple
months, and they still, AFAIK do not have a solution.
When it comes time to buy an engine for my RV-10, it WILL be equipped
with a Bendix mag or P mags, definitely not Slicks.
KM
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> I appreciate you posting the Slick magneto manual, that is a very
> useful resource.
>
> However, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, stated your
> disgust with Slick magnetos. In my opinion, your statement above
> completed the process of destroying any credibility you have with me,
> and I'm confident, with many other RVers. To state that Slick mags
> will "kill you" shows a lack of grounding in reality.
>
> I have no idea why you feel so strongly about this matter, but it is
> obvious your strong feelings have clouded any objectivity you may have
> about the mag issue. I had a long professional relationship with an
> A&P whom I deeply respected, and we discussed the longevity of the
> Slick mags on my *experimental* plane at the time we freshened them.
> We were able to replace points, cam, condenser, and bearings for about
> $250 per mag.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wskimike" <wskimike(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
A friend of mine had a mag business and called it quits because he was
honest and recommended buying new ones.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
At those prices why not throw away the mags, put in Lightspeed
electronic units and be done with it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wskimike" <wskimike(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
The problem is if the person peforming your check doesn't have a tester
where he can turn the mag and check the spark, he is not in compliance
with the check and he is betting your life on his work.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Bobby Hester
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
Well Mark, looks like you know exactly what to do now! Ha ha ha!
Unbelievable! I do not have a maintenance manual for the slick mags
but will try to get one from a buddy soon. I am sure you would still
like to know what the manual says is due and when.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her 500-hour check-up and
I've been trying to determine the maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 &
4371 magnetos. Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do
lots of stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done regarding
checking points, rebuild etc. Her timing has always been spot-on, but
I'm concerned about making sure she stays in perfect health.
Advice? Links?
Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
here.
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
ontribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wskimike" <wskimike(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
I don't think you understood about the CFI. If you plan to get a
certification in the aircraft, the rule states dual controls. This
includes brakes.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Boyd
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: dual brakes vs. single
Removing my pax-side brakes is on my to-do list, Tom. Never used 'em
once in 10 years flying. I have parking brake valve in case I ever need
to hand prop (or just have pax sit on the left for the time being and
hold brakes.) They add weight, expense (probably too late to recoup
that) and they, alone, are the source of the only seepage in the whole
system. Mine should be on ebay within a month :-)
I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
nosewheel aircraft.
-Bill Boyd RV-6A 710 hrs
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51 AM, tom sargent
wrote:
I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake lines
for my dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I organized things
on the firewall). He observed that he thinks dual brakes aren't worth
it. It's a few pounds of weight that almost never gives any benefit.
He says he's taking the dual brakes out of his plane soon.
Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right side?
I thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with me.
However, removing them now would greatly simplify my brake routing
problems. I've just about decided to tear out the right side.
Thanks for any opions.
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
_= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
They call them "Slick" for a reason ;)
Scott
Eisemann, baby, EISEMANN :)
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>
> Are you not aware of the current problem with Slick mags, that some
> are failing on FIRST flight? Rick is right on this one at the moment.
> 20 years ago I put slick mags on the plane I had and they were fine.
> The last 10 years and 700 hours I have flown behind Bendix mags. Huge
> difference in reliability, lack of need for service, etc. I know of
> several RV-10s that have had both Slick mags fail within minutes of
> each other. Are you willing to play Russian roulette with your plane
> while Slick tries to come up with a fix. This has been known for a
> couple months, and they still, AFAIK do not have a solution.
> When it comes time to buy an engine for my RV-10, it WILL be equipped
> with a Bendix mag or P mags, definitely not Slicks.
> KM
> A&P/IA
> EAA Tech Counselor
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> I appreciate you posting the Slick magneto manual, that is a very
>> useful resource.
>>
>> However, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, stated your
>> disgust with Slick magnetos. In my opinion, your statement above
>> completed the process of destroying any credibility you have with me,
>> and I'm confident, with many other RVers. To state that Slick mags
>> will "kill you" shows a lack of grounding in reality.
>>
>> I have no idea why you feel so strongly about this matter, but it is
>> obvious your strong feelings have clouded any objectivity you may
>> have about the mag issue. I had a long professional relationship with
>> an A&P whom I deeply respected, and we discussed the longevity of the
>> Slick mags on my *experimental* plane at the time we freshened them.
>> We were able to replace points, cam, condenser, and bearings for
>> about $250 per mag.
>>
>>
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Thank you Sam!
Darrell
--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Sam Buchanan wrote:
> From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 7:42 AM
>
>
> RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> > mark it is rick not nick the first post i told you
> what to look for.
> >
> > i have posted the manual and told you what we do for
> this inspection.
> > if i have to put it in big letters i will.slick mags
> are junk. given
> > half a chance they will kill you. ask any mag shop
> what they think
> > about them. they are plastic pieces of crap and i
> would not have them
> > on my aircraft.
>
> Rick,
>
> I appreciate you posting the Slick magneto manual, that is
> a very useful
> resource.
>
> However, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, stated
> your disgust
> with Slick magnetos. In my opinion, your statement above
> completed the
> process of destroying any credibility you have with me, and
> I'm
> confident, with many other RVers. To state that Slick mags
> will "kill
> you" shows a lack of grounding in reality.
>
> I have no idea why you feel so strongly about this matter,
> but it is
> obvious your strong feelings have clouded any objectivity
> you may have
> about the mag issue. I had a long professional relationship
> with an A&P
> whom I deeply respected, and we discussed the longevity of
> the Slick
> mags on my *experimental* plane at the time we freshened
> them. We were
> able to replace points, cam, condenser, and bearings for
> about $250 per mag.
>
> The opinion of the A&Ps I've discussed Slick mags
> with is that yes, they
> do have a finite life span, and more than likely it is best
> to replace
> them if they cause problems after several hundred hours of
> service. But
> I have never heard a pro express the vitriol toward Slick
> mags that you
> continue to spew on this list.
>
> I respect your right to express your opinion, but
> personally, I put no
> stock in what you have expressed.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
John Cox wrote:
> Unfortunately to acquire the Airworthiness Certificate regardless of the
> Repairman pursuit the owner of the kit must certify he has done 51%.
The 51% rule has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you
qualify for the Repairman Certificate. The 51% rule is applied so that
the FAA can determine whether or not the majority of the aircraft was
assembled by an amateur builder. This is why some of the newest
composite kits are in jeopardy since they leave the factory with more
than 49% factory fabrication.
You qualify for the Repairman's Certificate by demonstrating you know
enough about the aircraft to safely and adequately perform the condition
inspection. This is often determined by the DAR who inspects your
aircraft prior to flight. The DAR will often write a letter to the FAA
recommending they issue the Repairman's Certificate to you based on his
assessment of your knowledge of the aircraft during his inspection. The
FAA actually issues the certificate.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
John Danielson wrote:
> I don't believe it's a problem to have help building your experimental. To
> hire someone to build the whole plane for you is not a problem either, if
> you don't apply for the repairmen's certificate. This would indicate that
> you built the plane.
Nope, a professionally built experimental aircraft is a major problem.
During the course of requesting registration of your amateur-built
aircraft you must submit FAA Form 8130-12, Eligibility Statement Amateur
Built Aircraft. On that form you sign your name and have your signature
notarized stating that you are the amateur builder of that aircraft. If
you have the plane professionally built, and submit 8130-12.......you
have committed purgery.
http://forms.faa.gov/forms/faa8130-12.pdf
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
YES
Bob wrote:
>
>
>> I was taking my own situation into account: need BFR every 2 years
>> in a nosewheel RV that I have 700 hours in. CFI not likely to feel
>> anxious about me having the only brakes in the aircraft. Pit me in a
>> taildragger for a BFR and suddenly his comfort level is very
>> different, right?
>
>
> I have a taildragger, no right hand brakes. When I do a Flight
> Review, there is no need for the CFI to ever touch the controls. The
> CFIs that I fly with are not even taildragger qualified.
>
> Speaking of a Flight Review, if all you have is a single seat aircraft
> such as the RV3, I assume one has to do the Flight Review in a
> different aircraft with at least two seats? Now if the two seat
> aircraft is an RV4/8, do you have to have any controls for the CFI at
> all?
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
I believe I misread John's post. His statement about the builder needing
to complete 51% of the project is correct if expanded to include *all*
amateur builders of the project.
Sorry for the misread of the original post.
Sam Buchanan
==========================
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> John Cox wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately to acquire the Airworthiness Certificate regardless of the
>> Repairman pursuit the owner of the kit must certify he has done 51%.
>
> The 51% rule has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you
> qualify for the Repairman Certificate. The 51% rule is applied so that
> the FAA can determine whether or not the majority of the aircraft was
> assembled by an amateur builder. This is why some of the newest
> composite kits are in jeopardy since they leave the factory with more
> than 49% factory fabrication.
>
> You qualify for the Repairman's Certificate by demonstrating you know
> enough about the aircraft to safely and adequately perform the condition
> inspection. This is often determined by the DAR who inspects your
> aircraft prior to flight. The DAR will often write a letter to the FAA
> recommending they issue the Repairman's Certificate to you based on his
> assessment of your knowledge of the aircraft during his inspection. The
> FAA actually issues the certificate.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Sorry, you are simply wrong. The Richmond FSDO tried that line and got
slapped down by FAA HQ with a memo that specifically says dual controls
do not mean dual brakes. Heck some planes have no brakes.
wskimike wrote:
> I don't think you understood about the CFI. If you plan to get a
> certification in the aircraft, the rule states dual controls. This
> includes brakes.
>
> * **
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
Glad to see this response. I went to a professional building class for the
empennage, but that pro-builder-assister had an iron rule that the aircraft
owner always had to be present and working/learning. That I too believe
meets the letter and spirit of the Amateur Built rules.
But companies or individuals who blatantly offer to build even a part of
your aircraft if you're too busy are screwing all of us with the FAA. Don't
like the regs? Get 'em changed before you screw the rest of us who really
are building and learning. Still too busy? Why'd you start a kit? Sell
your project and buy someone's completed plane. There are lots on the
market.
Ralph Finch
On Behalf Of Kyrilian Dyer
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Though I don't think it's totally black and white, I don't believe the FAA
has any real problem with builders getting assistance where they're involved
too (working alongside a pro). But the FAA clearly has major issues with
amateur builders who pay for someone else to do the work without being
present and involved.
I think it's important that we all realize what's at stake and remind
ourselves what the regs say. Getting professional assistance (builder
involved) is not the same as hiring out the work (builder not involved). If
we don't abide by the regs then the regs will change--for the worse, I
expect.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Howdy- I tried forwarding the original that had the link- I cc's to myself
and it worked, but my email to you got returned by the deamon-
If you still need it, I'll try to attach to a new e-mail & send- but it's
too late tonight & I gotta get up early!
Holler back at me tomorrow-
Mark
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Nope, the rules weren't changed, just clarified with a General Counsel
memo (IIRC) to straighten out the knuckle draggers at Richmond FSDO.
Dual brakes are not required for flight checks, check rides, BFRs, etc.
IF the CFI feels a need for them for a particular student, then a
different aircraft should be used to satisfy the CFI's concern, but
there is NOTHING in the regs requiring dual brakes. Many certified
aircraft, such as Mooneys do not have dual brakes. I've gotten plenty of
instruction, BFRs and IPCs in Mooneys with only left side brakes,
regardless of whether I was flying left or right seat. Not to mention
all the old aircraft that only had tail skids and no brakes. No aircraft
on skiis or floats have any brakes..makes no difference for flight check
or instruction.
Charlie England wrote:
>
> If I'm not mistaken, the FAA changed the rules a few years ago & 'full
> dual controls' are now legally required for instruction, including
> flight reviews. Having said that, none of the CFI's that I know pay
> any attention to the rule, even in TW planes, if they know you & your
> abilities. If someone lives in an area where all the CFI's are
> koolaid drinking nazi's, it might be worth some research.
>
> Charlie
>
> Bill Boyd wrote:
>> Removing my pax-side brakes is on my to-do list, Tom. Never used 'em
>> once in 10 years flying. I have parking brake valve in case I ever
>> need to hand prop (or just have pax sit on the left for the time
>> being and hold brakes.) They add weight, expense (probably too late
>> to recoup that) and they, alone, are the source of the only seepage
>> in the whole system. Mine should be on ebay within a month :-)
>>
>> I don't think a CFI would be anxious about no brakes on his side in a
>> nosewheel aircraft.
>>
>> -Bill Boyd RV-6A 710 hrs
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:51 AM, tom sargent > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> I talked with Ken at Van's today about problems routing brake
>> lines for my dual brakes (my own fault mostly, for the way I
>> organized things on the firewall). He observed that he thinks
>> dual brakes aren't worth it. It's a few pounds of weight that
>> almost never gives any benefit. He says he's taking the dual
>> brakes out of his plane soon.
>>
>> Do those of you who have dual brakes ever really use the right
>> side? I thought it would be helpful if I ever took a CFI up with
>> me. However, removing them now would greatly simplify my brake
>> routing problems. I've just about decided to tear out the right
>> side.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any opions.
>> --
>> Tom Sargent, RV-6A.
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
I helped a friend build his RV. It was a quick build; so, breaking the
51% rule would be easy. In order to help him, and get paid for doing
it, I required that he be working with me, at all times. There were
times when he had to go somewhere for a few minutes; but, he was with me
working on the airplane pretty much all the time. Otherwise, I wouldn't
help because I believe in the 51% rule, as is. He applied for and got
his repairman's certificate when we were finished because he had a good
working knowledge base for his airplane. Those who have their airplanes
built by professionals have no idea how it goes together and what makes
up the assemblies, etc. They wouldn't be hard to catch lying about
their exposure to the project.
I've often thought about offering my services; but, I'd require the
owner be there with me to shed the blood, sweat, and tears that come
with building a project. For those who have no time to build, it would
not work out, very well. I guess I'd better just work on my own
project. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | New Group on Facebook |
| From: | "smittysrv" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com> |
There's a new group on facebook for Van's Aircraft Builders:
Check it out!
Feel free to put the image on this posting on your website. Just write click on
the image and select "Save Picture As..."
--------
Smittys RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1392#201392
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <smitty(at)smittysrv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: New Group on Facebook |
Oops, the link didn't show up on the email. Here tis...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=36303495524
Smitty
http://SmittysRV.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
>Seems like a lot of anguish over just a few pounds.
>
For some people, I agree it is not an issue weight wise one way or
the other. I on the other hand looked at every piece of equipment on
my RV and asked: 1. How much does it weigh? 2. Do I really need
that extra weight? 3. If so, is there a lighter alternative available.
I usually only fly with 8-10 gals of fuel. I can tell a big
difference between 10 gals and 38 gals in the performance of my
aircraft. And with a passenger, I can really tell the difference. I
like the feel and performance of my aircraft at the lightest possible
weight. And 2 pounds here and 2 pounds there really add up. And it
is not really 2 pounds it is 12 pounds at 6 Gs!
And the passenger brakes that I don't have, have never leaked, nor do
they require any maintenance for the entire life of the aircraft.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
Thanks to everyone who has commented on this. I have decided to remove
the right side brakes and move my brake fluid reservoir over to the left
side of the firewall, mainly because of the simplification it offers.
1- easier routing of lines (my main issue now)
2- fewer joints to leak,
3- easier to bleed to brakes (since there's less tubing, I'm guessing)
The few pounds of weight saving is a extra bonus, though it's important too.
--
Tom S., RV-6A,
almost ready to rivet the forward top skin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
mark
i would like to apoligise, for hammering you i had had a bad day with some
customers i had trusted. i was doing an annual, and found that the vac pump, elt,
and half the radio stack had been changed since the last time i saw the bird
with no paper work ,this was a customer that i had an owner allowed work agreement
in place with as long as i supervised. it seems that he forgot the word
supervised. it is going to turn out to be a very expensive annual.
so you want specific info on why slicks are so bad, first off there are two
thing currently wrong with slicks, the cams and the brushes.
brushes:
slick had a problem with the brushes not making the 500hr inspection after
they changed to a new supplier. so they redsigned the brush again and found out
that they were failing now in ten hours as opposed to 400 hrs. this resulted
in sb3-08, which resulted in a maditory service bullentin for every engine manufacturer,
and every airframe manufacturer, also most of the owners groups have
agreed that this one is for real.
at this time there is no fix for the brush problem. slick also has an inside quality
control issues that they are working on. i have yet to see an improvement
in the field, but after talking to them they are retooling the line to ensure
that this will stop. i hope so
the problem with the brushes is that it will take out a mag and is not detectable
after the post crash fire. i have spoken with the engineer for the faa and
his statement was" you have two mags so what is the problem"
cams:
the next problem was the cams, for some reason that slick won't say they either
forgot to lube the cams to prevent wear or changed material in the cams themselves.
this result in manditory sb2-08
next we have slick pricing policy that ensure that mags are returned to them for
disposal. eleminated field reports of failure. all of the mag returned to slick
due to time or failure slick has not reported those failures to the faa as
thier policy is to destroy the mag rather then rebuild/inspect.
the next problem we see with the slicks is the arching at the mag to harness interface
point. which eats both the harness and the distributor block and gear.
due to the fact that they could not be bothered to design a gasket for this seam
or any of the seams for a nonpressurized mag thier is a problem of contaimination
around the high voltage leads.
Pricing:
then when they charge you 266.00$ for a coil that cost them less then 20.00$
to make and test.
design:
the rotor gear design for the slicks is of insufficent strength for abnormal
engine loads. ie missing and backfire. and the gear driven design requires a
much higher speed then what would be considered normal to the auto industry.
The rotor gear and cam attachment design are insuffeciant for abnormal loads.
which has resulted in rotor gear failure and cam failure. check the saibs to verfiy
this.
What is missing in the slick design:
remove the rotor gear and place the brush in the distributor block so that we eliminate
dynamic wear to the brush. it needs a steel multi lobe cam to get rid
of the plastic piece of crap. seals we need seals we fly in rain. a cam lube
wiper would be nice to.
rick
--- On Thu, 8/28/08, wskimike wrote:
> From: wskimike <wskimike(at)mchsi.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, August 28, 2008, 4:43 PM
> The problem is if the person peforming your check
> doesn't have a tester where he can turn the mag and
> check the spark, he is not in compliance with the check and
> he is betting your life on his work.
>
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bobby Hester
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
>
>
> Well Mark, looks like you know exactly what to do now!
> Ha ha ha!
> Unbelievable! I do not have a maintenance manual for the
> slick mags but will try to get one from a buddy soon. I am
> sure you would still like to know what the manual says is
> due and when.
>
> ----
> Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my website at:
> http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
>
>
> Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> Mojo (She's a good girl!) is approaching her
> 500-hour check-up and I've been trying to determine the
> maintenance needs for her Slick 4370 & 4371 magnetos.
> Research has led to a lot of info regarding HOW to do lots
> of stuff, but not necessarily what NEEDS to be done
> regarding checking points, rebuild etc. Her timing has
> always been spot-on, but I'm concerned about making sure
> she stays in perfect health.
>
> Advice? Links?
>
> Mark, N51PW, E3D, OSHBL, S&FBMH, SERFIGC etc...
> http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go.
> Find your travel deal here.
>
>
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
For some reason I never the received the message with the link for the
Slick manual. Could someone send me that link.
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
> RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>> mark it is rick not nick the first post i told you what to look for.
>>
>> i have posted the manual and told you what we do for this inspection.
>> if i have to put it in big letters i will.slick mags are junk. given
>> half a chance they will kill you. ask any mag shop what they think
>> about them. they are plastic pieces of crap and i would not have them
>> on my aircraft.
>
> Rick,
>
> I appreciate you posting the Slick magneto manual, that is a very
> useful resource.
>
> However, you have repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, stated your
> disgust with Slick magnetos. In my opinion, your statement above
> completed the process of destroying any credibility you have with me,
> and I'm confident, with many other RVers. To state that Slick mags
> will "kill you" shows a lack of grounding in reality.
>
> I have no idea why you feel so strongly about this matter, but it is
> obvious your strong feelings have clouded any objectivity you may have
> about the mag issue. I had a long professional relationship with an
> A&P whom I deeply respected, and we discussed the longevity of the
> Slick mags on my *experimental* plane at the time we freshened them.
> We were able to replace points, cam, condenser, and bearings for about
> $250 per mag.
>
> The opinion of the A&Ps I've discussed Slick mags with is that yes,
> they do have a finite life span, and more than likely it is best to
> replace them if they cause problems after several hundred hours of
> service. But I have never heard a pro express the vitriol toward Slick
> mags that you continue to spew on this list.
>
> I respect your right to express your opinion, but personally, I put no
> stock in what you have expressed.
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Need Slick Mag Maintenance Manual |
I missed the link for the Slick Mag Maintenace Manual, could someone
post it again.
--
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other
six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the
owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 8:59 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Glad to see this response. I went to a professional building class for
the empennage, but that pro-builder-assister had an iron rule that the
aircraft owner always had to be present and working/learning. That I
too believe meets the letter and spirit of the Amateur Built rules.
But companies or individuals who blatantly offer to build even a part of
your aircraft if you're too busy are screwing all of us with the FAA.
Don't like the regs? Get 'em changed before you screw the rest of us
who really are building and learning. Still too busy? Why'd you start
a kit? Sell your project and buy someone's completed plane. There are
lots on the market.
Ralph Finch
On Behalf Of Kyrilian Dyer
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Though I don't think it's totally black and white, I don't believe the
FAA has any real problem with builders getting assistance where they're
involved too (working alongside a pro). But the FAA clearly has major
issues with amateur builders who pay for someone else to do the work
without being present and involved.
I think it's important that we all realize what's at stake and remind
ourselves what the regs say. Getting professional assistance (builder
involved) is not the same as hiring out the work (builder not involved).
If we don't abide by the regs then the regs will change--for the worse,
I expect.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of the
build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro guy
per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more amateurs
than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If I stopped
more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my case! As an
office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding, etc.,
all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in. The only
thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and figuring things
out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came out with real, new
skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also building
RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and confidence builder for
guys like me, who don't have any handyman background at all. I didn't even
own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how they're
still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur rules instead
of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though I do think the FAA
should generate new rules allowing the completely pro-built experimental
aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course
no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other six
builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the owner was
learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I conclude that you
think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of this
great ole abused rule.
John Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
In a message dated 8/29/2008 6:06:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
so you want specific info on why slicks are so bad, first off there are two
thing currently wrong with slicks, the cams and the brushes.
Rick-
Understand the "bad day' thing- I've had more than I care to admit myself!
I genuinely appreciate all of the other information provided in your latest
post. Much MEAT to chew on...
After digging through all the data at hand, perhaps I'll have more questions
needing good advice based on real-world experience.
Thanks!
Mark Phillips
Columbia, TN
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | I got the Slick manual, thanks! |
I got the Slick manual, thanks!
--
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my website at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
let try this again
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
MIKE
we would all love to have fadec systems for our aircraft. and electronic ignition.
but it comes to a comfort factor. electronics fail in worse case mode 95%
of the time. while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you know
what to look for you can find it before total failure.
the next problem with fadec type controls is lightnining, have a billion volts
of electricity running thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have seen
holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes from this. but
to be honest most just look like arc hits and can be drilled out with a 3/16 bit.
with proper burnin and testing electronic work great, but i don't have enough
history with the E+P mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many years to develope
like type equipment. ie get it right enough to go to market. i like the idea i
do not know yet if i like the approach.
So what would the great slick hater do if it was my aircraft. if i won the lotto
i would buy a gulfstream and never have to worry about slicks again, but since
this will not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing around to change
to bendix. inspection is the way to go. look at it and cleanup the carbon
dust that will prolong the life of your mag more then anything else. figure 100
hr inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if you start to see
carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to replace/repair. that is the time
you should start thinking about replacement
i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags, but with my limited experience
with them, i can only say that it is an idea whose time has come but lets
see if they really work in the field.
rick
--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan wrote:
> From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Slick Mags
> To: rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
> Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
> Rick
>
> Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure changed my
> impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big deal.
>
> Now that you have posted a more reasoned response as to why
> you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question for ya. I
> have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old with 70
> hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart with a
> A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he has more
> experience than me) and they did not look bad (again I am
> NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was hard to
> determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad or
> not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB (about
> 100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided to put
> mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me that they
> are having these problems. Not sure what it takes to switch
> over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over $1000 in
> a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the moment is
> pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes first.
> Next time with the help of a more experienced A&P. OK my
> question is what experience (if any) do you
> have with those E & P-mags (http://www.emagair.com/).
> If I need to throw away all that money I want to "up
> grade" to something better. And at lest from reading
> those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic ignition.
>
> I ask your opinion because there at the end you had (to me)
> a reasoned and well thought reason for your opinion.
>
> Mike Divan
> N64GH - RV6,flying :)
> EAA - 577486
> FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Builder Available! |
guys:
one or two kits a year coming out of a shop that does not advertise as a builder.
and claims that those kits were used for training purposes for its employees,
is relativly safe. since the same fsdo will not be seeing the aircraft.
and as long as primary source of income does not come from kit sales. but god
alone will help you if you advertise.
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
Richard are you new to the Experimental aircraft movement? Electronic
ignition has been around for years and years and used successfully.
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>MIKE
>
> we would all love to have fadec systems for our aircraft. and electronic ignition.
but it comes to a comfort factor. electronics fail in worse case mode
95% of the time. while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you know
what to look for you can find it before total failure.
>
> the next problem with fadec type controls is lightnining, have a billion volts
of electricity running thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have
seen holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes from this. but
to be honest most just look like arc hits and can be drilled out with a 3/16
bit.
>
> with proper burnin and testing electronic work great, but i don't have enough
history with the E+P mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many years to develope
like type equipment. ie get it right enough to go to market. i like the idea
i do not know yet if i like the approach.
>
> So what would the great slick hater do if it was my aircraft. if i won the lotto
i would buy a gulfstream and never have to worry about slicks again, but
since this will not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing around to change
to bendix. inspection is the way to go. look at it and cleanup the carbon
dust that will prolong the life of your mag more then anything else. figure
100 hr inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if you start to
see carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to replace/repair. that is the time
you should start thinking about replacement
>
> i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags, but with my limited experience
with them, i can only say that it is an idea whose time has come but lets
see if they really work in the field.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Slick Mags
>>To: rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
>>Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
>>Rick
>>
>>Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure changed my
>>impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big deal.
>>
>>Now that you have posted a more reasoned response as to why
>>you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question for ya. I
>>have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old with 70
>>hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart with a
>>A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he has more
>>experience than me) and they did not look bad (again I am
>>NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was hard to
>>determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad or
>>not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB (about
>>100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided to put
>>mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me that they
>>are having these problems. Not sure what it takes to switch
>>over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over $1000 in
>>a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the moment is
>>pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes first.
>>Next time with the help of a more experienced A&P. OK my
>>question is what experience (if any) do you
>> have with those E & P-mags (http://www.emagair.com/).
>>If I need to throw away all that money I want to "up
>>grade" to something better. And at lest from reading
>>those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic ignition.
>>
>>I ask your opinion because there at the end you had (to me)
>>a reasoned and well thought reason for your opinion.
>>
>> Mike Divan
>>N64GH - RV6,flying :)
>>EAA - 577486
>>FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Ralph Finch/John Cox,
The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane
(PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc). Such a category would make
honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of interest,
but not the time or place to build a plane. If the builder can't do
51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%. The PBP
would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except to
powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would have
to be done by an A&P. What to do about the 100% PBP? Mmmmmm. Make
them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection by an
second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a certified
plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, except they can
add/remove non-certified components at will.
There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars
out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every
year.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other
six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the
owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
----- Original Message -----
From: "RICHARD MILLER" <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:00 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> guys:
>
> one or two kits a year coming out of a shop that does not advertise as a
> builder. and claims that those kits were used for training purposes for
> its employees, is relativly safe. since the same fsdo will not be seeing
> the aircraft. and as long as primary source of income does not come from
> kit sales. but god alone will help you if you advertise.
>
> rick
>
Safe?
My suggestion is that if people want pro-builders, they should work to get
the laws changed, not intentionally break the existing laws, thereby
jeopardizing the entire homebuilt community.
Don't forget the government's ability to over react to a problem and
implement a solution that is so poorly thought-out that it doesn't
accomplish what it sets out to do yet seriously interferes with whaterver it
was designed to help. (See: TSA)
All it would take would be a pro-built airplane having a high visibility
crash and all heck would break loose on the homebuilt/experimental
community.
KB
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "Brent P. Humphreys" <bhumphreys(at)stonetek.com> |
The rules are not making liars out of plane buyers.
The buyers are knowingly and intentionally committing perjury.
If they can't work within the rules, they need to work to change the
rules, or not break them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com> |
WOW - I thought I sent this to you privatively. And I must agree with Jerry and
conclude that you are new to "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft. I will stick with the tried
and true people like Sam B and others. I was just "kicking the tires" on
another source of information. But I like the old hands the best.
Thanks
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:20:39 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Slick Mags
Richard are you new to the Experimental aircraft movement? Electronic
ignition has been around for years and years and used successfully.
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>MIKE
>
> we would all love to have fadec systems for our aircraft. and electronic ignition.
but it comes to a comfort factor. electronics fail in worse case mode
95% of the time. while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you know
what to look for you can find it before total failure.
>
> the next problem with fadec type controls is lightnining, have a billion volts
of electricity running thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have
seen holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes from this. but
to be honest most just look like arc hits and can be drilled out with a 3/16
bit.
>
> with proper burnin and testing electronic work great, but i don't have enough
history with the E+P mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many years to develope
like type equipment. ie get it right enough to go to market. i like the idea
i do not know yet if i like the approach.
>
> So what would the great slick hater do if it was my aircraft. if i won the lotto
i would buy a gulfstream and never have to worry about slicks again, but
since this will not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing around to change
to bendix. inspection is the way to go. look at it and cleanup the carbon
dust that will prolong the life of your mag more then anything else. figure
100 hr inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if you start to
see carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to replace/repair. that is the time
you should start thinking about replacement
>
> i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags, but with my limited experience
with them, i can only say that it is an idea whose time has come but lets
see if they really work in the field.
>rick
>
>
>--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan wrote:
>
>
>
>>From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Slick Mags
>>To: rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
>>Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
>>Rick
>>
>>Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure changed my
>>impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big deal.
>>
>>Now that you have posted a more reasoned response as to why
>>you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question for ya. I
>>have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old with 70
>>hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart with a
>>A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he has more
>>experience than me) and they did not look bad (again I am
>>NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was hard to
>>determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad or
>>not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB (about
>>100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided to put
>>mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me that they
>>are having these problems. Not sure what it takes to switch
>>over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over $1000 in
>>a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the moment is
>>pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes first.
>>Next time with the help of a more experienced A&P. OK my
>>question is what experience (if any) do you
>> have with those E & P-mags (http://www.emagair.com/).
>>If I need to throw away all that money I want to "up
>>grade" to something better. And at lest from reading
>>those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic ignition.
>>
>>I ask your opinion because there at the end you had (to me)
>>a reasoned and well thought reason for your opinion.
>>
>> Mike Divan
>>N64GH - RV6,flying :)
>>EAA - 577486
>>FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fasching" <n1cxo320(at)salidaco.com> |
| Subject: | re: Builder Available |
I spend almost 4 years building my slow-built RV6A. I had PLENTY of help
- almost none of it wanted!
It seems that visitors could never resist telling me how to do things
better, faster, and more airworthy. None of them had ever built an
airplane, but there seems to be a built in desire to impress someone --
I finally gave up. I would just reply, "That's fine. When you build your
airplane you should do it that way." It usually shut them up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple. It resembles the DMIR
(Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it would
attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a premature
death.
As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman Certificate
to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go back to the
purity of the OBAM intent. The FAA should focus their effort on the
DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't maintain their pride
and joy and then those who by their actions did not Build 51% to start
with. Then they could go after all the liars who commit fraud.
The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
Subject: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
Ralph Finch/John Cox,
The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane
(PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc). Such a category would make
honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of interest,
but not the time or place to build a plane. If the builder can't do
51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%. The PBP
would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except to
powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would have
to be done by an A&P. What to do about the 100% PBP? Mmmmmm. Make
them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection by an
second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a certified
plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, except they can
add/remove non-certified components at will.
There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars
out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every
year.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the
other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but
the owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Allen <dballen2007(at)att.net> |
It's time for me to buy a metal prop for my standard RV9A project.
I have a new 160 HP ECi engine.
Van's recommends their new Sensenich with a pitch of 79 inches for $2100.
I have a chance to buy a low time damaged/repaired Sensenich from an RV6A that
has been repitched to 77 inches for about half the price.
How much difference will the 2 inches make? Will I be able to tell any difference,
etc.
Lets hear some of your thoughts about this -- both pro and con.
Thanks in advance for you help.
Dave Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox from
filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | davcor(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: bill(at)vondane.com
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
> from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
> massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carlos Hernandez <carlosh(at)structuralaz.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
I'm not spam really! I'm a lurker... :-)
Carlos Hernandez
bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
> From: bill(at)vondane.com <bill(at)vondane.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 3:40 PM
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting
> over 2000 spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a
> verification program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a
> human before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message
> and leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MikeNellis <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Dave Nellis wrote:
>
>
> --- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
>
>> From: bill(at)vondane.com <bill(at)vondane.com>
>> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 3:40 PM
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting
>> over 2000 spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a
>> verification program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a
>> human before I get your massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message
>> and leave the subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RKAlex123(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill(at)vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vinnfizz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/30/2008 4:25:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
RKAlex123(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill(at)vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line ========================
____________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here_
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
John, thanks for the kind words and your thoughts. I would pass the
idea along to EAA, but they would ignore it....wouldn't make them any
money.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple. It resembles the DMIR
(Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it would
attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a premature
death.
As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman Certificate
to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go back to the
purity of the OBAM intent. The FAA should focus their effort on the
DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't maintain their pride
and joy and then those who by their actions did not Build 51% to start
with. Then they could go after all the liars who commit fraud.
The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.
John
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
Subject: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
Ralph Finch/John Cox,
The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane
(PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc). Such a category would make
honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of interest,
but not the time or place to build a plane. If the builder can't do
51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%. The PBP
would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except to
powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would have
to be done by an A&P. What to do about the 100% PBP? Mmmmmm. Make
them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection by an
second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a certified
plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease, except they can
add/remove non-certified components at will.
There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars
out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every
year.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10% of
the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one pro
guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal, usually more
amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs the whole week. If
I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath the pro guy was on my
case! As an office worker I hadn't done so much physical work for
decades.
I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing, grinding,
etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know squat going in.
The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling through the plans and
figuring things out, there was just no time for that. We amateurs came
out with real, new skills and well-built empennages. Now I am toiling
in my garage with help from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in
town who are also building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge
help and confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any
handyman background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand how
they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new amateur
rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery to me. Though
I do think the FAA should generate new rules allowing the completely
pro-built experimental aircraft but demanding very high, factory-like
build standards and of course no repairman's certificate for the owner.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and the other
six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the build, but the
owner was learning by watching, listening and writing a check, do I
conclude that you think this qualifies?
The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the FAA to
implement a new policy.
I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little outside
assistance who pose questions and become the intent and integrity of
this great ole abused rule.
John Cox
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
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
ontribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
| From: | David Karlsberg <claypride(at)hotmail.com> |
On 8/30/08 12:40 PM, "bill(at)vondane.com" wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
> from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
| From: | cbrxxdrv(at)aol.com |
-----Original Message-----
From: bill(at)vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mauri" <maurv8(at)compuplus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <davcor(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: bill(at)vondane.com
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>> spam/junk
>> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
>> inbox
>> from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
>> get your
>> massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
>> subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:12 PM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mauri" <maurv8(at)compuplus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill(at)vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
> --
> Checked by AVG.
> 6:12 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Cutter" <robertcutter(at)sc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill(at)vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Van Winkle" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Bill
Yes, I am human. My ISP has a very aggressive spam filter that reduced Spam
to essentially zero. It also has a black list and a white list to allow
each client to further control any possible Spam or Junk mail. Previously,
when I was using the "net" sufix, the ISP was just distributing the messages
coming from another provider. With the change to the "org" suffix, all
messages are filtered through our own ISP's system.
Best Regards
Alden Dean Van Winkle
dvanwinkle(at)royell.org
RV-9A 50 %
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill(at)vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Terry Dazey <dazey(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
>From: bill(at)vondane.com
>Sent: Aug 30, 2008 12:40 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
>I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox from
filling up...
>
>So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
>To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
>Thanks!
>-Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "folgie" <folgie(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill(at)vondane.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
6:12 PM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard McBride" <rickrv8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: bill(at)vondane.com<mailto:bill(at)vondane.com>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
bill(at)vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program
to keep my inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before
I get your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
the subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
ator?RV-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Cudney <yenduc(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:40 PM, bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
> program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cudney" <yenduc(at)sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 12:40 PM, bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program
>> to keep my inbox from filling up...
>>
>> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
>> get your massage...
>>
>> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
>> the subject line intact.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dual brakes vs. single |
FWIW: I removed the right side brake cylinders, pedals, nuts, bolts,
tubing etc., and weighed it all very carefully. The weight saving was 2
pounds exactly.
--
Tom S., RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jcarlton3(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "S Hamer" <s.hamer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob sheets <bobs12(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
HUMAN
> From: bill(at)vondane.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6tw
bdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
> Date: Sat=2C 30 Aug 2008 15:40:22 -0400
>
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/ju
nk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I g
et your massage...
>
> To complete this verification=2C simply reply to this message and leave t
he subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
See what people are saying about Windows Live. Check out featured posts.
http://www.windowslive.com/connect?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_connect2_082008
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Paul Deits <pdeits(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Aug 30, 2008, at 3:48 PM, folgie wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bill(at)vondane.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:40 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
> verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my
> inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> 6:12 PM
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
| From: | jvanlaak(at)AOL.COM |
-----Original Message-----
From: bill(at)vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan <dan(at)rdan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
From: bill(at)vondane.com <bill(at)vondane.com>
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 12:40 PM
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
Let me guess.... you're using Outlook or some variation of it, right?
If you switch to a non-microsoft email client like Thunderbird,
Seamonkey, etc that has a smart spam filter built in, you'll only see a
couple per day get past the filter. And it won't spam every list you're
subscribed to, like your new band-aid software is doing. :-(
Charlie
(cleaning up emails because you aren't flagged as spam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
At 03:40 PM 8/30/2008, you wrote:
>
>I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
>spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
>program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
>So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
>before I get your massage...
>
>To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
>leave the subject line intact.
>
>Thanks!
>-Bill
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Tower" <jtower(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill(at)vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:40 PM
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to
> keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
> get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
| From: | "John Cox" <johnwcox(at)pacificnw.com> |
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
cbrxxdrv(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
-----Original Message-----
From: bill(at)vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I
get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave
the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
________________________________
Get the MapQuest Toolbar
<http://mapquest.com/toolbar?ncid=mpqmap00050000000010> . Directions,
Traffic, Gas Prices & More!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
A couple of thoughts.
1st, if I understand the FAA's legal charter correctly it has always
overstepped its authority with the 51% portion of the homebuilt rule.
The 51% rule does not add safety nor does it promote aviation. It's
really the aviation equivalent of the military's don'taskdon'ttell rule;
it's political maneuvering to get homebuilding past an uneducated public
(and mfgrs who fear competition). Having said that, I'm aware that it
isn't likely to go away. It is my opinion that the reason we are seeing
all this activity now is that the big manufacturers are seeing the
potential (money) in Light Sport & want all the pie instead of just
their slice. A lot like the airlines looking at VL jets & realizing that
if they don't get the FAA to do something to cripple them (read that
user fees), the airlines are about to lose virtually all their
high-dollar 1st class & business class ticket sales.
Here's what I intend to send the FAA as my 'comment'.
There is a very simple way to eliminate the abuse of the '51% rule' with
no changes whatsoever to the rule or the methods used to determine
compliance and without creating a new category like 'pro built' that
would require a huge amount of $time$.
All that's needed is a change to the operating limitations for the
Experimental Exhibition category to be the same as Experimental Amateur
Built. The big problem with Exhibition is the 300nm radius, home airport
only limit. If the oplims were simply changed to match EAB, the mfgrs
would still get their protection because there could be no 'for hire'
operation just like EAB, and guys that want to pay someone else (or that
*should* pay someone else due to their lack of skills) would have no
motivation to 'abuse' the 51% rule. If you choose an incompetent 'pro'
to do your work, it would be no different than choosing a bad guide when
you go mountain climbing or a bad car builder if you go racing. Danger
to people 'on the ground' really won't be any greater than these other
activities (quite a few spectators & rescue workers have died due to
other sports).
Oplims can be revised at-will by FAA without any public comment (meaning
very inexpensively). They've done it with EAB several times in the last
decade.
Charlie
John Cox wrote:
> Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple. It resembles the
> DMIR (Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it
> would attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a
> premature death.
>
> As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman
> Certificate to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go
> back to the purity of the OBAM intent. The FAA should focus their
> effort on the DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't
> maintain their pride and joy and then those who by their actions did
> not Build 51% to start with. Then they could go after all the liars
> who commit fraud.
>
> The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
> *Sent:* Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
>
> Ralph Finch/John Cox,
>
> The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane
> (PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc). Such a category would make
> honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of
> interest, but not the time or place to build a plane. If the builder
> can't do 51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%.
> The PBP would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except
> to powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would
> have to be done by an A&P. What to do about the 100% PBP? Mmmmmm.
> Make them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection
> by an second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a
> certified plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease,
> except they can add/remove non-certified components at will.
>
> There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars
> out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *Ralph Finch
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *John Cox
> *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> *To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
>
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
>
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
Once again 51% rule has nothing to do with repairman certficate!!!!
John Cox wrote:
> Chuck - your solution sounds beautifully simple. It resembles the
> DMIR (Designated Manufacturers Inspection Representative) however it
> would attract the howls from the certified boys and probably meet a
> premature death.
>
> As long as the Pro builts don't award the coveted Repairman
> Certificate to a guy that can buy the pro aircraft, we could just go
> back to the purity of the OBAM intent. The FAA should focus their
> effort on the DARs who award certificates to guys/gal who can't
> maintain their pride and joy and then those who by their actions did
> not Build 51% to start with. Then they could go after all the liars
> who commit fraud.
>
> The public deserves a quality OBAM operating in the skies over them.
>
> John
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Chuck Jensen
> Sent: Sat 8/30/2008 4:18 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
>
> Ralph Finch/John Cox,
>
> The only reason that the FAA doesn't create a Professional Built Plane
> (PBP) is it make too much sense (sarc). Such a category would make
> honest men and women of the builders that have a high level of
> interest, but not the time or place to build a plane. If the builder
> can't do 51%, the PBP would come into play if they can document 25%.
> The PBP would let the 'buyer' do maintenance and make changes except
> to powerplant an flight controls but the Conditional Inspection would
> have to be done by an A&P. What to do about the 100% PBP? Mmmmmm.
> Make them construct under the supervision of an A&P, final inspection
> by an second, unrelated A&P and then they are maintained much like a
> certified plane with owner maintenance limited to oil/air/grease,
> except they can add/remove non-certified components at will.
>
> There has to be a better system than the current one that makes liars
> out of hundreds of new plane buyers (masquarading as builders) every year.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 10:00 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Wrong conclusion. In your example the aircraft owner did only 10%
> of the build, obviously not meeting the 51% minimum.
>
> In the class or workshop that I took, it was 50-50, there was one
> pro guy per amateur owner-builder. And that was not normal,
> usually more amateurs than pros. Anyway we all worked like dogs
> the whole week. If I stopped more than 20 secs to catch my breath
> the pro guy was on my case! As an office worker I hadn't done so
> much physical work for decades.
>
> I learned great mechanical skills about riveting, squeezing,
> grinding, etc., all things I really needed since I didn't know
> squat going in. The only thing I didn't get was time puzzling
> through the plans and figuring things out, there was just no time
> for that. We amateurs came out with real, new skills and
> well-built empennages. Now I am toiling in my garage with help
> from VAF, this list, and a couple of buddies in town who are also
> building RVs. But the beginning workshop was a huge help and
> confidence builder for guys like me, who don't have any handyman
> background at all. I didn't even own a shop vac!
>
> The TWTT and its kind are clearly frauds and I don't understand
> how they're still in business. Why the FAA has to promulgate new
> amateur rules instead of enforcing the current ones is a mystery
> to me. Though I do think the FAA should generate new rules
> allowing the completely pro-built experimental aircraft but
> demanding very high, factory-like build standards and of course no
> repairman's certificate for the owner.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 6:09 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RE: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> If the owner is always working and doing 10% of the build and
> the other six builder assist employees (ie TWTT) do 90% of the
> build, but the owner was learning by watching, listening and
> writing a check, do I conclude that you think this qualifies?
>
>
>
> The wide spread misunderstanding provides a solid base for the
> FAA to implement a new policy.
>
>
>
> I still love those guys toiling in their garage with little
> outside assistance who pose questions and become the intent
> and integrity of this great ole abused rule.
>
>
>
> John Cox
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>==========
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>==========
>href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>==========
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>==========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bill(at)vondane.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
Cut Bill Vondane off the email list tell he fixes his problem
this is killing my email. I know I should just block him but it sucks to
come home and open my email and see his spam over and over again.
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Hum, good idea. Done.
Matt
At 08:45 PM 8/30/2008 Saturday, you wrote:
>
>Cut Bill Vondane off the email list tell he fixes his problem
>this is killing my email. I know I should just block him but it sucks to
>come home and open my email and see his spam over and over again.
>
>Jerry
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burnham" <daverv6a(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:40 PM, wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
> emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
> inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
> your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
> subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Stainless AN fittings |
| From: | "AndrewTR30" <AndrewTR30(at)aol.com> |
They cost a lot more, but I'm wondering if there is a good reason or benefit to
using stainless fittings under the cowl?
Along the same lines, what about the Earls Ano-Tuff (type III hard anodized) line
of fittings? Anyone used these in any application?
--------
Andrew Rayhill
RV-10 40078
Phoenix
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1752#201752
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carpe Diem <thorn(at)eim.ae> |
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
On 30/08/2008, at 11:40 , bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
> program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com> |
Jerry,
The real problem is that Bill did not mention to the listers that they should
reply to him DIRECTLY, NOT to the list.
Charlie Kuss
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Jerry Springer wrote:
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Matt
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 11:45 PM
>
>
> Cut Bill Vondane off the email list tell he fixes his
> problem
> this is killing my email. I know I should just block him
> but it sucks to
> come home and open my email and see his spam over and over
> again.
>
> Jerry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Hurricane options |
If any of you guys on the MS or LA coasts need shelter, we've got 2
bedrooms & several airbeds, plus shelter for several RV-size a/c.
We are just north of Jackson MS at MS71.
Give me a call if we can help.
Charlie
601-879-9596
601-752-7198
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000
> spam/junk emails per week I am now forced to use a verification
> program to keep my inbox from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human
> before I get your massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and
> leave the subject line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Stay connected on the go with a full featured tablet PC. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mD8b1wR6IkuLmRgttpHc2yUV2wnDWheZBtrIL6eApCqBWUT/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
The heart of the issue is $$$$$$$$
The old (existing) rules worked just fine until the amateur built factories popped
up.
The FAA and DARs had a large degree of latitude in their inspections and awarding
of airworthiness certificates as well as repairman's certificates.
Unfortunately a few kit manufacturers and small shops stepped over the line hired
some DARs and started assembly lines.
This got the attention of the manufacturers of certified planes and resulted in
the lobbying that will ultimately lead to a rule change.
The really sad thing is that, I suspect, at least one of the most egregious offenders
participated in formulating the new rules.
I had a co worker who spent a year writing checks to have a plane built.
Once every 3 months he flew to the factory and had his picture taken next to his
project with a tool in his hand. He filled out and signed the affidavit, applied
for the N number, and showed up for the inspection with the DAR 1 year after
the aircraft started construction. (Yes for this 2500hr plus airplane his
builders log was compressed into 12 months)
I assumed the hired DAR would sign his papers and voila he was a builder.
Much to my surprise the DAR took his check, asked a few questions and said, "it
is obvious you did not build this plane and I am not going to approve it".
Now at this point my coworker should have gone to jail for falsifying the affidavit,
instead nothing happened to him and the plane got certified with someone
else's name as the builder.
Enforcement of the existing rules would suffice and if applied in this case with
legal action against my coworker and the "factory" would have ended the problem.
Instead we have new scrutiny in a time when the press, the general public,
and many politicians would just love to see us and all of general aviation dissappear.
It would be so refreshing to see the EAA step in and demand vigorous enforcement
of the existing rules. But thats not going to happen is it?
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1796#201796
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill(at)vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
mike
About ten % of my work is experimental. and of that i would say that 20% have
some type of electronic ignition. i just don,t have enough time on the systems
to have a warm and fussy feelings for them. Maybe i am just a stick in the
mud, but new is not always better. show me a system with 20yrs on it and 100,000
hrs. and then i will decide to recommend or not. since this is critical life
support equipment, and none of the manufactures i have seen have published
complete testing data, including esd/lighting, mtf, and age/enviromental relate
degridation, i will just sit on the side line for now.
rick
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, Mike Divan wrote:
> From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Slick Mags
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 8:27 AM
> WOW - I thought I sent this to you privatively. And I must
> agree with Jerry and conclude that you are new to
> "EXPERIMENTAL" aircraft. I will stick with the
> tried and true people like Sam B and others. I was just
> "kicking the tires" on another source of
> information. But I like the old hands the best.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike Divan
> N64GH - RV6,flying :)
> SLOW 7 Builder :(
> EAA - 577486
> FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net>
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 12:20:39 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Slick Mags
>
>
>
> Richard are you new to the Experimental aircraft movement?
> Electronic
> ignition has been around for years and years and used
> successfully.
>
>
> RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
>
> >
> >MIKE
> >
> > we would all love to have fadec systems for our
> aircraft. and electronic ignition. but it comes to a comfort
> factor. electronics fail in worse case mode 95% of the time.
> while mags when they fail tend to do so slowly and if you
> know what to look for you can find it before total failure.
> >
> > the next problem with fadec type controls is
> lightnining, have a billion volts of electricity running
> thru your electronics, can cause a bad day. i have seen
> holes as big as 1/2 inch burned in to commercial airframes
> from this. but to be honest most just look like arc hits and
> can be drilled out with a 3/16 bit.
> >
> > with proper burnin and testing electronic work
> great, but i don't have enough history with the E+P
> mags, to say which way i would go. i do know that this
> testing is expensive and it has taken slick and bendix many
> years to develope like type equipment. ie get it right
> enough to go to market. i like the idea i do not know yet if
> i like the approach.
> >
> > So what would the great slick hater do if it was my
> aircraft. if i won the lotto i would buy a gulfstream and
> never have to worry about slicks again, but since this will
> not happen, and i don't have an extra 2400$ lieing
> around to change to bendix. inspection is the way to go.
> look at it and cleanup the carbon dust that will prolong the
> life of your mag more then anything else. figure 100 hr
> inspection include the mag for cleanup and inspection. if
> you start to see carbon tracking/ arc damage it is time to
> replace/repair. that is the time you should start thinking
> about replacement
> >
> > i wish that could help you more with the e+p mags,
> but with my limited experience with them, i can only say
> that it is an idea whose time has come but lets see if they
> really work in the field.
> >rick
> >
> >
> >--- On Fri, 8/29/08, Mike Divan
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>From: Mike Divan <n343fd(at)yahoo.com>
> >>Subject: Slick Mags
> >>To: rickpegser(at)yahoo.com
> >>Date: Friday, August 29, 2008, 5:20 PM
> >>Rick
> >>
> >>Thanks for your last reply to the list. It sure
> changed my
> >>impression of you. Everyone has bad days so no big
> deal.
> >>
> >>Now that you have posted a more reasoned response
> as to why
> >>you do not like the Slick Mags I have a question
> for ya. I
> >>have new Slick's on my RV6 about a year old
> with 70
> >>hours more or less on them. I pulled them apart
> with a
> >>A&P (a young and relative new A&P but he
> has more
> >>experience than me) and they did not look bad
> (again I am
> >>NEW at this). Some ware on the brushes but it was
> hard to
> >>determine from the drawing in the SB if it was bad
> or
> >>not.Pulled apart some mags that were before the SB
> (about
> >>100 hr on them) and mine looked better so I decided
> to put
> >>mine back into service. HOWEVER it does concern me
> that they
> >>are having these problems. Not sure what it takes
> to switch
> >>over to the Bendix but the thought of chucking over
> $1000 in
> >>a year is not sitting well with me. My plan at the
> moment is
> >>pull them apart ever 100 or annual whichever comes
> first.
> >>Next time with the help of a more experienced
> A&P. OK my
> >>question is what experience (if any) do you
> >> have with those E & P-mags
> (http://www.emagair.com/).
> >>If I need to throw away all that money I want to
> "up
> >>grade" to something better. And at lest from
> reading
> >>those seem like the simplest upgrade to electronic
> ignition.
> >>
> >>I ask your opinion because there at the end you had
> (to me)
> >>a reasoned and well thought reason for your
> opinion.
> >>
> >> Mike Divan
> >>N64GH - RV6,flying :)
> >>EAA - 577486
> >>FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER
> FOR YOURS!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Marshall" <marshall6916(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify |
I'm real.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Knicholas2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC13... |
_KNicholas2(at)aol.com_ (mailto:KNicholas2(at)aol.com) is a real person.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
milt
it is nice to see that at least one dar has the backbone to do what is right.
The only future that i see with builder assist centers that i see is a "rent
a shop" type ideas with "tech advisors" on site. but even that would only help
in areas with high builder density and cheap floor space. some thing like the
military base autoshops that had all the equipment for you and all you did was
rent a stall to work on your car.
rick
--- On Sun, 8/31/08, N395V wrote:
> From: N395V <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP)
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 7:45 AM
>
>
> The heart of the issue is $$$$$$$$
>
> The old (existing) rules worked just fine until the amateur
> built factories popped up.
>
> The FAA and DARs had a large degree of latitude in their
> inspections and awarding of airworthiness certificates as
> well as repairman's certificates.
>
> Unfortunately a few kit manufacturers and small shops
> stepped over the line hired some DARs and started assembly
> lines.
>
> This got the attention of the manufacturers of certified
> planes and resulted in the lobbying that will ultimately
> lead to a rule change.
>
> The really sad thing is that, I suspect, at least one of
> the most egregious offenders participated in formulating the
> new rules.
>
> I had a co worker who spent a year writing checks to have a
> plane built.
> Once every 3 months he flew to the factory and had his
> picture taken next to his project with a tool in his hand.
> He filled out and signed the affidavit, applied for the N
> number, and showed up for the inspection with the DAR 1 year
> after the aircraft started construction. (Yes for this
> 2500hr plus airplane his builders log was compressed into 12
> months)
>
> I assumed the hired DAR would sign his papers and voila he
> was a builder.
>
> Much to my surprise the DAR took his check, asked a few
> questions and said, "it is obvious you did not build
> this plane and I am not going to approve it".
>
> Now at this point my coworker should have gone to jail for
> falsifying the affidavit, instead nothing happened to him
> and the plane got certified with someone else's name as
> the builder.
>
> Enforcement of the existing rules would suffice and if
> applied in this case with legal action against my coworker
> and the "factory" would have ended the problem.
>
> Instead we have new scrutiny in a time when the press, the
> general public,
> and many politicians would just love to see us and all of
> general aviation dissappear.
>
> It would be so refreshing to see the EAA step in and demand
> vigorous enforcement of the existing rules. But thats not
> going to happen is it?
>
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1796#201796
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Godfrey <egodfrey(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
As far as I can tell, I am a human.
bill(at)vondane.com wrote:
>
> I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk emails
per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
>
> So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
>
> To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the subject
line intact.
>
> Thanks!
> -Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mark phipps <skydive80020(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
--- On Sun, 8/31/08, MLWynn(at)aol.com wrote:
From: MLWynn(at)aol.com <MLWynn(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6
twbdu6HC133...
Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 9:13 AM
-
-
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bill@vond
ane.com writes:
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my i
nbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the s
ubject line =====================
====
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Professional Built Plane (PBP) |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
> it is nice to see that at least one dar
I think 99% of DARs are honest, dedicated professionals who would also do the
right thing. It is the 1 % that give the bad impression being generated by this
controversy. Every DAR I have ever met is an honest hardworking individual who
plays by the rules.
I have absolute and immense respect for all the DARs out there.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 1818#201818
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Dean <billoves2fly(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, jvanlaak(at)aol.com wrote:
From: jvanlaak(at)aol.com <jvanlaak(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 7:07 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: bill(at)vondane.com
Sent: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 3:40 pm
Subject: RV-List: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my inbox
from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get your
massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line intact.
Thanks!
-Bill
Get the MapQuest Toolbar. Directions, Traffic, Gas Prices & More!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jimmy" <jimmy(at)jhill.biz> |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9 |
Please stop
----- Original Message -----
From: <bill(at)vondane.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133uJ7PK2r9
>
> This message is a reply to Bill VonDane's email verifcation message.
>
> No action is needed on your part.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "ice-box" avionics cooling fan |
Tom, bevel the edge slightly to ease the scat tubing over the port. The
wire should be bent back and pushed inside the tube where it can't poke
a hole in it. It does take a lot of patience though!
Linn
tom sargent wrote:
>
> I bought an "Ice-Box" avionics cooling fan from spruce. The FN-200
> model has 3 output ports and seems to blow a lot of air for not much
> current. The output tubes are about 3/4" long and have a diameter
> that is 0.025" LARGER than 5/8". You're supposed to push a 5/8" CAT
> tube over these outlets. The 5/8" CAT tube I bought does NOT want to
> go over those tubes. It's not very stretchy stuff. The fan
> manufacturer tells me to push hard and "screw" the tube on. Lubricants
> don't seem to help. It's really hard to do. I succeeded with one
> tube. Ruined the second one. The prospect of having to do this while
> laying under the instrument panel is awful.
>
> Has any one dealt with this fan product? Is there some secret to
> getting the tube to go over the outlets or is there some other type of
> tubing that I can use. I don't like vinyl tubing - it ages fast and
> makes bad chemicals when it burns. There's some polyethylene tube
> that might work.
>
> Thanks for any ideas.
>
> --
> tom s., RV-6A.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick Mag Health Check-up |
Pretty strong words without any data. I have seen both Bendix and Slick
mags go over 2000 hours with no maintenance until I heard about the 500
hour suggested inspection/overhaul time. The difference after overhaul
is astounding. The degradation over time is so slow as to make it
unnoticeable. After the overhaul though, the Bendix mags make a hotter
spark. But the Slicks weigh less. You need to decide which is mor
important to you. I think the inspection/overhaul is best left to
someone that does a lot of them and has the tools.
Linn
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
> mark
> it is rick not nick
> the first post i told you what to look for.
>
> i have posted the manual and told you what we do for this inspection.
> if i have to put it in big letters i will.*_slick mags are junk. given
> half a chance they will kill you._**_ _*ask any mag shop what they
> think about them. they are plastic pieces of crap and i would not have
> them on my aircraft. yes i fly slicks only because some of my
> customers have them. this is not conjecture, this is the truth. slick
> got a place in the industry with the throwaway mag originally, and
> stayed there when bendix had the ad problem. if you don't have the
> money to throw them away, then plan on going thru them. but if you
> have one problem you will have spent more then a new mag. by the way
> if the mag impluse coupling comes apart they will not cover any
> damages. since they did not do the inspection. and the price list was
> slicks not mine or anybodyelse . the list i included was for all of
> the items that slick requires to be replaced at overhaul with is not
> to exceed the tbo of the engine. From field experience, if you get
> more then 1000 hr from a slick you are looking for an off field
> landing. this did not include the recent cam service bulletin or the
> brush bulletin. they have had problems with the brush for the last
> four years, so take your chances. it is your bird.
>
> if you fly slick mags cost is about 2.50$ per flight hour, to replace
> at 500. bendix with original cost adjustment is about the same. let me
> guess that is probably how slick figure out thier priceing? book it
> and budget it. and somebody needs to telll me why a coil costs 60% of
> the cost of a new mag.
>
> rick
>
>
> --- On *Wed, 8/27/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com //* wrote:
>
> From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick Mag Health Check-up
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, August 27, 2008, 9:12 PM
>
> In a message dated 8/27/2008 2:15:27 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> with the replacment cost of 514/577$ repectively
>
> Nick-
>
> I'm not asking for horror stories or conjecture- I simply want to
> know what I NEED to examine when I perform this next annual. The
> idea that these are "throwaway" components after 500 hours of
> faithful service with no attention whatsoever kind of speaks to
> their reliability and in my case at least, debunks your
> assertion. Offering someone's component pricelist is informative,
> but I have a difficult time believing that EVERY component you
> list absolutely needs replacement. This isn't about the FAA being
> forced to issue an AD because some idiot deliberately pushed his
> hardware way beyond its limits, but rather what I need to do to
> ensure that my carefully maintained and respectfully
> operated machine continues to function as designed.
>
> Please bear in mind that these mags are installed on an
> experimental aircraft- I do NOT operate under threat of the
> Almighty AD, but rather the assurance that the aircraft performs
> as expected by ME, the builder, and holder of the Repairman
> Certificate for same...
>
> So........
>
> The original query stands: I've got these two little black chunks
> of magneto I'd just LOVE to thoroughly investigate to make damn
> sure they will continue to do what they do.
>
> Specifically WHAT should I do?
>
> Mark (thanks to all who have chimed in here!)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where /you/ want to go. Find your travel
> deal *here*
> <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Slick mags/bendix mags |
My 2 cents. I had bendix on my cherokee, rt failed while truning base,
scared the crap out of me initially, have had 2 bendix go bad on my
initial engine on my 6A, one which had only 20 hrs on overhaul.
Relitivly low time. I have slicks on the relativly low time used engine
I installed 3 anuals back, nary a peap of trouble. timing spot on all
trhee anualls. Guess what my favorite brand is? Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fiveonepw(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Looking for dipstick & tube |
Howdy, y'all-
My E3D came with a modified (shortened) oil dipstick and tube, and I'd like
to replace them with the correct parts, specifically LW-14735 (stick), 75736
(tube) -part#s from Lycoming parts manual- and have wasted about 2 hours
googling- tried e-bay, Wentworth, broad search queries etc. with no joy. Not
much help digging through current Trade-a-plane either.
Suggestions?
Thanks!
Mark
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Schaefer" <n142ds(at)gmail.com> |
I may know where a prop is .. it just came out of the prop shop and is
shorter than most. Let me find out if it is fixed or constant speed.
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Dave Allen wrote:
> It's time for me to buy a metal prop for my standard RV9A project.
> I have a new 160 HP ECi engine.
> Van's recommends their new Sensenich with a pitch of 79 inches for $2100.
>
> I have a chance to buy a low time damaged/repaired Sensenich from an RV6A
> that has been repitched to 77 inches for about half the price.
> How much difference will the 2 inches make? Will I be able to tell any
> difference, etc.
> Lets hear some of your thoughts about this -- both pro and con.
>
> Thanks in advance for you help.
>
> Dave Allen
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
David W. Schaefer
RV-6A N142DS formerly "Geek One' reborn "Nerdgasm"
TMX-IO360 Dual-LightSpeed Plasma IIIs, Hartzell Blended Airfoil, GRT EFIS
www.n142ds.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for dipstick & tube |
Mark,
I've got a a Lycoming oil dip stick extention in the truck I believe.
Darrell
--- On Mon, 9/1/08, Fiveonepw(at)aol.com wrote:
> From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com <Fiveonepw(at)aol.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Looking for dipstick & tube
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Monday, September 1, 2008, 5:49 PM
> Howdy, y'all-
>
> My E3D came with a modified (shortened) oil dipstick and
> tube, and I'd like
> to replace them with the correct parts, specifically
> LW-14735 (stick), 75736
> (tube) -part#s from Lycoming parts manual- and have wasted
> about 2 hours
> googling- tried e-bay, Wentworth, broad search queries etc.
> with no joy. Not
> much help digging through current Trade-a-plane either.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Thanks!
> Mark
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you
> want to go. Find your travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick mags/bendix mags |
charles
i have to ask a couple of questions, how many hrs. on the rt mag. the two bendix
on the 6a what was the hours on the mags and what was the condition of the
engine, who did the overhaul, you, an a+p, or a mag shop. and for those of you
that think timing will tell you the mag is ok, you are wrong it only tells
you that the cam has not fallen part. it doe's not tell you what is going on with
the rotor.
rick
--- On Mon, 9/1/08, Charles Heathco wrote:
> From: Charles Heathco <cheathco(at)cox.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
> To: "rv-list"
> Date: Monday, September 1, 2008, 6:25 AM
> My 2 cents. I had bendix on my cherokee, rt failed while
> truning base, scared the crap out of me initially, have had
> 2 bendix go bad on my initial engine on my 6A, one which had
> only 20 hrs on overhaul. Relitivly low time. I have slicks
> on the relativly low time used engine I installed 3 anuals
> back, nary a peap of trouble. timing spot on all trhee
> anualls. Guess what my favorite brand is? Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbuilder1(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 8/31/2008 11:19:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
MLWynn(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: bill(at)vondane.com
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line ========================
____________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here_
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
Folks,
I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake system.
It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way to
reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A dual brake
system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
Will this stuff eat plastic? I can get an empty milk jug and clean/dry it out
for storage. The alternative is a few quart mason jars - but then I'm worrid
about the seals on the lids.
What have you folks done with your leftover brake fluid?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rvbuilder1(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
In a message dated 9/2/2008 6:24:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Rvbuilder1(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/31/2008 11:19:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
MLWynn(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line ========================
____________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here_
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) .
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
____________________________________
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal _here_
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047) .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Schulz" <mike(at)profishenterprises.com> |
| Subject: | Your email requires verification verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133...#hVvCOp4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133... |
=======================
Mike Schulz
Pro Fish Enterprises, LLC
4878 Edgewater Drive
Mound, MN 55364
612-590-8604
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rvbuilder1(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Your email requires verification
verify#hVvC0p4JjlzN6twbdu6HC133...
In a message dated 8/31/2008 11:19:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
MLWynn(at)aol.com writes:
In a message dated 8/30/2008 12:42:40 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
bill(at)vondane.com writes:
I'm sorry.....but due to the fact that I am now getting over 2000 spam/junk
emails per week I am now forced to use a verification program to keep my
inbox from filling up...
So.....just this one time I need you to verify you are a human before I get
your massage...
To complete this verification, simply reply to this message and leave the
subject line ========================
_____
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
<http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047> here.
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List
.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
_____
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
<http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047> here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
I left mine in the can and made only two small holes for dispensing and
vent which I plugged with sheetmetal screws. I keep the can in a plastic
storage box along with the modified garden sprayer that I use for brake
bleeding.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake system.
> It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way
to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A dual
brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
>
> Will this stuff eat plastic? I can get an empty milk jug and clean/dry it out
for storage. The alternative is a few quart mason jars - but then I'm worrid
about the seals on the lids.
>
> What have you folks done with your leftover brake fluid?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Kuebler" <scottam65(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV-6 / 6a kit for sale |
RV-6 / 6a kit for sale.
Empennage: Complete except for fiberglass tips. Includes electric elevator
trim kit. All parts are alodined and primed with Marhyde primer.
Wings & Phlogiston Spar: Both skeletons fully assembled. Top skins
riveted. Both tanks are complete and sealed. Flaps and ailerons complete,
but not fitted. Includes electric aileron trim kit. All parts are alodined
and primed with Deft epoxy primer (Mil-P-23377G).
Both kits are the pre-punched versions purchased in 1997 & 1998 by myself.
Construction is excellent. Preview plans and Orndorff videos are included
for both kits.
Detailed photos are available.
Must sell. The first $3750 takes it all. Buyer arranges transportation.
If all items were purchased separately the price would be more than $6500
for the unassembled kits.
Regards,
Scott Kuebler
Buffalo, NY
716-510-0318- cell
scottam65(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
Simple and elegant!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2008 12:08 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282
>
>
>I left mine in the can and made only two small holes for dispensing and
>vent which I plugged with sheetmetal screws. I keep the can in a plastic
>storage box along with the modified garden sprayer that I use for brake
>bleeding.
>
>Pax,
>
>Ed Holyoke
>
>Ralph E. Capen wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake
system.
>> It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way
to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A dual
brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
>>
>> Will this stuff eat plastic? I can get an empty milk jug and clean/dry it out
for storage. The alternative is a few quart mason jars - but then I'm worrid
about the seals on the lids.
>>
>> What have you folks done with your leftover brake fluid?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | emrath(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Mag Gear removal technique |
Can anyone advise me how to remove the nut that holds the drive gear on a Bendix
mag? Turning the nut, turns the mag and there doesn't seem to be anyway of
holding the mag from turning and I sure as heck don't want to risk damaging the
gear which will be mounted to an electronic ign module. Thanks for any ideas.
Marty RV-6A.
Can anyone advise me how to remove the nut that holds the drive gear
on a Bendix mag? Turning the nut, turns the mag and there doesn't seem
to be anyway of holding the mag from turning and I sure as heck don't want
to risk damaging the gear which will be mounted to an electronic ign module.
Thanks for any ideas.
Marty RV-6A.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ollie Washburn" <ollie6a(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mag Gear removal technique |
Use an impact socket.
Ollie
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM, wrote:
> Can anyone advise me how to remove the nut that holds the drive gear on a
> Bendix mag? Turning the nut, turns the mag and there doesn't seem to be
> anyway of holding the mag from turning and I sure as heck don't want to risk
> damaging the gear which will be mounted to an electronic ign module.
> Thanks for any ideas.
> Marty RV-6A.
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bert murillo <robertrv607(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
Use a medium size, OIl Can, the one you push down a lever to push the
oil out, connect the plastic tube to it, and the end to the valve
then use the lever to fill the tube to the breaks etc...
the rest of fluid leave it in the Original Container, tight the cap
that is it..
I think this is what I did..
If you have any question ,write out side the list.
good luck\\
bert rv6a
--- On Tue, 9/2/08, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> From: Ralph E. Capen <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: RV-List: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282
> To: "rv-list"
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 8:00 AM
>
>
> Folks,
>
> I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put
> some in the brake system.
> It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container -
> without a spout or way to reseal after opening. I know I
> won't use the entire gallon for my 6A dual brake system
> so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
>
> Will this stuff eat plastic? I can get an empty milk jug
> and clean/dry it out for storage. The alternative is a few
> quart mason jars - but then I'm worrid about the seals
> on the lids.
>
> What have you folks done with your leftover brake fluid?
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RALPH HOOVER" <hooverra(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
I used a couple of small holes ~1/8"on one side and one on the other filled
the brakes with a pump oil can and then soldered the holes closed.
Ralph & Laura Hoover
RV7A N527LR
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: RV-List: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282
Folks,
I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake
system.
It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way
to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A
dual brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
Will this stuff eat plastic? I can get an empty milk jug and clean/dry it
out for storage. The alternative is a few quart mason jars - but then I'm
worrid about the seals on the lids.
What have you folks done with your leftover brake fluid?
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
In a message dated 9/2/2008 5:39:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hooverra(at)verizon.net writes:
I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake
system.
It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way
to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A
dual brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
Will this stuff eat plastic?
Keep in mind that, despite its being designated as brake fluid, this is
"aircraft" brake fluid, not "automobile" brake fluid. It is actually a general
purpose hydraulic fluid that just happens to be used in many light aircraft
brake systems. Beyond that it has no similarity whatsoever to automotive brake
fluids of any DOT designation.
Because they are not hygroscopic, as are the DOT 3 and 4 fluids, store your
MIL-PRF and the MIL-H fluids essentially the same way you would normal
lubricating oils.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 900hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
In a message dated 9/2/2008 5:39:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
hooverra(at)verizon.net writes:
I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake
system.
It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or way
to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A
dual brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
Will this stuff eat plastic?
and it doesn't eat any container plastic that I am aware of.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 900hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Slick mags/bendix mags |
There is a known Bendix (S4LN-20) issue on O-360s with certain aluminum
props. Lycoming even made a mag isolator to rubber damp the right mag
from the engine drive gear. This is on some Piper singles. In 1100
hours on my RV6A with an O-360 and Sensenich prop I have had 3 timing
gear faults, 1 Capacitor fault, 1 Mag shaft breaking in half, and
decided to throw in the towel when the mounting ear started to crack. I
had about 200 Hours operation per fix. Believe it or not , the mag
shaft breaking in half still left the unit operational. Can't say that
about the capacitor or timing gears.
The Left Mag has never failed working flawlessly for all 1100 hours.
I would like to know if anyone else has seen this on their RVs and an
FYI to those planning to use this mag with their sensenich prop. I
don't know if there is an issue with my engine or just the same problem
Piper once had.
I now have a lightspeed on the right side with about 70 Hours. It works
about the same as the Bendix Mag on the left.
Rgds
Tom Olson
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Heathco
To: rv-list
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 8:25 AM
Subject: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
My 2 cents. I had bendix on my cherokee, rt failed while truning base,
scared the crap out of me initially, have had 2 bendix go bad on my
initial engine on my 6A, one which had only 20 hrs on overhaul.
Relitivly low time. I have slicks on the relativly low time used engine
I installed 3 anuals back, nary a peap of trouble. timing spot on all
trhee anualls. Guess what my favorite brand is? Charlie Heathco
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Slick mags/bendix mags |
S4LN20 and S4LN21 both ran 2=2C100 hours and were removed working. I am th
e guy that overhauled both of them before putting them on my RV-6 11 years
ago.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C159 + Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
From: tcolson@cedar-rapids.net
Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
Date: Tue=2C 2 Sep 2008 21:31:11 -0500
There is a known Bendix (S4LN-20) issue on O-360s
with certain aluminum props. Lycoming even made a mag isolator to rubber
damp the right mag from the engine drive gear. This is on some Piper
singles. In 1100 hours on my RV6A
with an O-360 and Sensenich prop I have had 3 timing gear faults=2C 1
Capacitor fault=2C 1 Mag shaft breaking in half=2C and decided to throw in
the towel
when the mounting ear started to crack. I had about 200 Hours operation
per fix. Believe it or not =2C the mag shaft breaking in half still
left the unit operational. Can't say that about the capacitor or
timing gears.
The Left Mag has never failed working flawlessly
for all 1100 hours.
I would like to know if anyone else has seen this
on their RVs and an FYI to those planning to use this mag with their sensen
ich
prop. I don't know if there is an issue with my engine or just the same
problem Piper once had.
I now have a lightspeed on the right side with
about 70 Hours. It works about the same as the Bendix Mag on the
left.
Rgds
Tom Olson
----- Original Message -----
From:
Charles Heathco
To: rv-list
Sent: Monday=2C September 01=2C 2008 8:25
AM
Subject: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix
mags
My 2 cents. I had bendix on my cherokee=2C rt
failed while truning base=2C scared the crap out of me initially=2C have
had 2
bendix go bad on my initial engine on my 6A=2C one which had only 20 hrs
on
overhaul. Relitivly low time. I have slicks on the relativly low time
used engine I installed 3 anuals back=2C nary a peap of trouble. timing s
pot on
all trhee anualls. Guess what my favorite brand is? Charlie
Heathco
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.co
m/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be=97learn how to burn a DVD with Win
dows=AE.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Slick mags/bendix mags |
i just rechecked the last ten years of bendix service bulletins, and not counting
the known inpluse problem, and cap problems both that where solved and paid
for by tmc, there was a couple of installation issues, but that was not a tmc/bendix
fault. slick has yet to pay for any of the problems that has been created
by thier issues and they have known about the problem for the last two years,
yet still keep selling a defective product.
individual airframes and equipment can cause a harmonic issue, if a vibration is
introduced into the airframe that is at the natural resonant freq, of the part,
the part will explode. is this a problem of the engine manufacture, yes and
no. the engine manufacture knows what freqs have to be avoided. and the airframe
manufacture is given this info. it is not up to the engine manufacturer to
test all installs that the airframe types do. tmc went after this harmonic and
solved it. it was not a magneto problem, it was a system vibration problem.
it was limited a unique installation, that was poorly tested by the manufacturer.
so this is not a problem to blame on tmc it is a problem to blame on piper.
so before you start to throw blame around know what caused the failure.
rick
--- On Tue, 9/2/08, RV6 Flyer wrote:
> From: RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 8:15 PM
> S4LN20 and S4LN21 both ran 2,100 hours and were removed
> working. I am the guy that overhauled both of them before
> putting them on my RV-6 11 years ago.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
>
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
>
> 2,159 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
>
> From: tcolson@cedar-rapids.net
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
> Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:31:11 -0500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There is a known Bendix (S4LN-20) issue on O-360s
> with certain aluminum props. Lycoming even made a mag
> isolator to rubber
> damp the right mag from the engine drive gear. This is on
> some Piper
> singles. In 1100 hours on my RV6A
> with an O-360 and Sensenich prop I have had 3 timing gear
> faults, 1
> Capacitor fault, 1 Mag shaft breaking in half, and decided
> to throw in the towel
> when the mounting ear started to crack. I had about 200
> Hours operation
> per fix. Believe it or not , the mag shaft breaking in
> half still
> left the unit operational. Can't say that about the
> capacitor or
> timing gears.
>
> The Left Mag has never failed working flawlessly
> for all 1100 hours.
>
> I would like to know if anyone else has seen this
> on their RVs and an FYI to those planning to use this mag
> with their sensenich
> prop. I don't know if there is an issue with my engine
> or just the same
> problem Piper once had.
>
> I now have a lightspeed on the right side with
> about 70 Hours. It works about the same as the Bendix Mag
> on the
> left.
>
> Rgds
> Tom Olson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> Charles Heathco
>
> To: rv-list
> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 8:25
> AM
> Subject: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix
> mags
>
>
> My 2 cents. I had bendix on my cherokee, rt
> failed while truning base, scared the crap out of me
> initially, have had 2
> bendix go bad on my initial engine on my 6A, one which
> had only 20 hrs on
> overhaul. Relitivly low time. I have slicks on the
> relativly low time
> used engine I installed 3 anuals back, nary a peap of
> trouble. timing spot on
> all trhee anualls. Guess what my favorite brand is?
> Charlie
> Heathco
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the filmmaker you always wanted to belearn how to
> burn a DVD with Windows.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mr.gsun(at)gmail.com |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
I've got a big can of this Hi temp brake fluid and was wondering the same
thing. Now I know what to do. Thanks...
While I'm waiting for my annual to roll around (which is when I was going to
replace caliper o-rings and flush out the original fluid), I notice that my
reservoir is low. Can I top it off with the hi temp stuff and then flush it
all out in a few months?
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:59 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 9/2/2008 5:39:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> hooverra(at)verizon.net writes:
>
> I have my can of brake fluid and am ready to at least put some in the brake
> system.
> It came in a bigger than coffee can sized container - without a spout or
> way
> to reseal after opening. I know I won't use the entire gallon for my 6A
> dual brake system so I need to figure out what to do with the rest.
>
> Will this stuff eat plastic?
>
> and it doesn't eat any container plastic that I am aware of.
>
>
> *N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 900hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)*
>
>
> ------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where *you* want to go. Find your travel deal *
> here* <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Storing unused MIL-PRF-83282 |
In a message dated 9/2/2008 9:41:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
mr.gsun(at)gmail.com writes:
While I'm waiting for my annual to roll around (which is when I was going to
replace caliper o-rings and flush out the original fluid), I notice that my
reservoir is low. Can I top it off with the hi temp stuff and then flush it
all out in a few months?
The new MIL-PRF is fully compatible with the MIL-H although a combination of
the two will result in degraded temperature performance from the full
MIL-PRF.
Stock Nitrile (Buna-n) seals are also compatible with the MIL-PRF although
Viton are superior for high temp performance and should be installed in the
caliper pistons for best results when switching to the MIL-PRF.
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 900hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Gottschalk" <miranda(at)tartan30.org> |
RV6A for sale
Baltimore / Washington D.C. area
Gene Gottschalk
Work: 301 286-0151
Mobile: 410 303-2839
Non-prepunched. Complete documentation, photo album and builders logbook.
Registered N700RV.
Empennage:
Completed except for some fiberglass.
Wings:
Left wing completed except for fiberglass.
Right wing completed except for fiberglass and main skins, inverted fuel
option, electric and manual flap actuator, Whalen wing-tip strobes and
wiring harness, heated pitot, tie down rings, taxi and landing light kit.
Fuselage:
Completed in jig, ready to fit wings and gear and remove from jig to finish
top and cockpit. Includes dual brake assemblies, two five-point Hooker
aerobatic harnesses (including mounting details finished), dual entry steps,
NACA vent kits, plumbing, and eyeball vents, sliding canopy, Panel circuit
breaker/switches (with spares), all flight instruments, accelerometer, fuel
gauges, firewall recess kit (installed). Includes custom-made metal fuselage
jig.
Finishing kit:
Inventoried, not started.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick mags/bendix mags |
I sure wish you lived near me!!! My mag overhaul guys (locally) are
dwindling due to old age. It looks like overhauling mags is a dying art.
Linn
RV6 Flyer wrote:
> S4LN20 and S4LN21 both ran 2,100 hours and were removed working. I am
> the guy that overhauled both of them before putting them on my RV-6
> 11 years ago.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 2,159 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
Richard
I have been reading your posts for a while now. You do have a
predisposition against homebuilt aircraft, regardless of who built
it. I am not an A&P/IA, but what forces you to sign off a
barstool that uses autozone parts? And if you are forced to do so,
why do you buckle to the pressure?
Futhermore, what is wrong with autozone parts? The halogen light
bulb I use for a landing light from autozone has never failed in 6
years of flying. But the landing light on the Citabria I used to
fly would burn out every 25 hours?
The parts that have failed on my aircraft have been certified parts,
seldom if ever does a non certified part fail. Just my
experience. For the record, never have I had an autozone part fail
(landing lights, cockpit lights, fuses, wire terminals, battery
terminals, solenoids, paint, fiberglass, resin, weatherseal, velcro,
RTV, Locktite, primer, fusebox, etc (like anything else, they wear
out, but don't fail prematurely). There probably is certified
Velcro, but really, what's the point?
And by your own posts, the Slick Mags, a certified part, is a piece
of junk? If autozone sells an alternative that in the automobile
field seldom if ever fails, why then would I want to put a certified
piece of junk on my aircraft?
In numerous posts you have mentioned how difficult your job is
because of homebuilts that use non standard or non certified
parts. I understand your concern. But, you are on what is mostly a
homebuilt list telling us that the FAA should not allow homebuilts
that are not certified to FAA standards, since they will eventually
be sold to non-builders who will not be able to maintain them. You
might find a more agreeable audience on a certified aircraft list
rather than on a homebuilt list.
Just my opinion, for what is that is worth, probably not much.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
At 11:40 PM 9/2/08, you wrote:
>
>.... if you are, look at it from my point of view. if i have to sign
>off the aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and since i have no
>rules that tell me autozone parts are ok or not for flight i am
>stuck in the possition of approving a flying bar stool for flight.
>i think the faa screwed the pooch here. Second owner on an
>experimental aicraft puts the i/a in an almost imposible
>position. we are not jealous, we just want to keep our tickets. and
>not get sued.
rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
Bob,
I am assuming that Richard is referring to inspecting homebuilt or OBAM
aircraft that do not meet the standards of AC43-13. My feeling is that any
aircraft that do not meet the minimum standards should NOT be signed-off,
whether homebuilt or certificated.
Bret Smith
RV-9A "Wiring & FWF"
Blue Ridge, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <panamared5(at)brier.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Builder Available!
>
> Richard
>
> I have been reading your posts for a while now. You do have a
> predisposition against homebuilt aircraft, regardless of who built it. I
> am not an A&P/IA, but what forces you to sign off a barstool that uses
> autozone parts? And if you are forced to do so, why do you buckle to the
> pressure?
>
> Futhermore, what is wrong with autozone parts? The halogen light bulb I
> use for a landing light from autozone has never failed in 6 years of
> flying. But the landing light on the Citabria I used to fly would burn
> out every 25 hours?
>
> The parts that have failed on my aircraft have been certified parts,
> seldom if ever does a non certified part fail. Just my experience. For
> the record, never have I had an autozone part fail (landing lights,
> cockpit lights, fuses, wire terminals, battery terminals, solenoids,
> paint, fiberglass, resin, weatherseal, velcro, RTV, Locktite, primer,
> fusebox, etc (like anything else, they wear out, but don't fail
> prematurely). There probably is certified Velcro, but really, what's the
> point?
>
> And by your own posts, the Slick Mags, a certified part, is a piece of
> junk? If autozone sells an alternative that in the automobile field
> seldom if ever fails, why then would I want to put a certified piece of
> junk on my aircraft?
>
> In numerous posts you have mentioned how difficult your job is because of
> homebuilts that use non standard or non certified parts. I understand
> your concern. But, you are on what is mostly a homebuilt list telling us
> that the FAA should not allow homebuilts that are not certified to FAA
> standards, since they will eventually be sold to non-builders who will not
> be able to maintain them. You might find a more agreeable audience on a
> certified aircraft list rather than on a homebuilt list.
>
> Just my opinion, for what is that is worth, probably not much.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
> At 11:40 PM 9/2/08, you wrote:
>>
>>.... if you are, look at it from my point of view. if i have to sign off
>>the aircraft, it has to follow the rules, and since i have no rules that
>>tell me autozone parts are ok or not for flight i am stuck in the
>>possition of approving a flying bar stool for flight. i think the faa
>>screwed the pooch here. Second owner on an experimental aicraft puts the
>>i/a in an almost imposible position. we are not jealous, we just want to
>>keep our tickets. and not get sued.
> rick
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Saylor" <Dave(at)AirCraftersLLC.com> |
| Subject: | Composite class correct dates |
I'm posting the correct dates again. Composites for RV-10s will be Saturday
and Sunday, November 15 and 16.
This course will provide an overview of the composite parts and techniques
used on Van's Aircraft RV-10 kits. We will focus on correct materials and
processes, fitting the composite top and doors, cowl, spinner, fairings, and
other composite parts. You will recieve hands-on training to identify and
use all necessary materials. Examples of completed and in-process assemblies
will be available to view. We will be fitting and installing a cabin top.
Weather permitting, we'll be giving RV-10 demo flights to as many interested
parties as possible--indicate when you sign up if you're interested, first
come, first served, no additional charge.
Who:
Harold Bunyi and Dave Saylor. Harold holds a BS in Aeronautical Engineering
and built kitplane parts in the Phillipines for many years. He has worked at
AirCrafters for 6 years and spends most of his day working with composites.
I started working with composite kitplanes in 1998. I am an A&P/IA, and I
have finished my personal RV-10 project, along with many other composite and
aluminum projects. I recieved my BS in Aeronautics from San Jose State.
When:
November 15 & 16, 2008
8AM-4PM Saturday
8AM-3PM Sunday
Where:
AirCrafters LLC
Watsonville Airport (KWVI)
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141
www.AirCraftersLLC.com
Class size is limited to 15 builders
Cost for the course is $350 payable by cash, check or credit card. Please
call or email to register. A 50% deposit is required before November 7.
Balance due before class starts.
Nearest major airport is San Jose International. 45 minute drive to KWVI.
Best Lodging is Watsonville Comfort Inn: 831-728-2300. Ask for the airport
discount. Other lodging is available nearby. Aircraft parking is available
at AirCrafters. Please call if we can help with logistics.
Many thanks for your interest,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
<http://www.aircraftersllc.com/> www.AirCraftersLLC.com
****************************************************************************
****************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Slick mags/bendix mags |
send them to savage magneto in hayward,ca. he does mine, or bench checks them after
i do them in house. rick
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, linn Walters wrote:
> From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Slick mags/bendix mags
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 5:53 AM
>
>
> I sure wish you lived near me!!! My mag overhaul guys
> (locally) are
> dwindling due to old age. It looks like overhauling mags
> is a dying art.
> Linn
>
>
> RV6 Flyer wrote:
> > S4LN20 and S4LN21 both ran 2,100 hours and were
> removed working. I am
> > the guy that overhauled both of them before putting
> them on my RV-6
> > 11 years ago.
> >
> > Gary A. Sobek
> > "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> > 2,159 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net> |
>... but what standard are A&P's taught to expect when signing off an
>annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow for experimental
>aircraft?
Yes!! Use the same standard that the repairman uses to sign off of
the annual conditional inspection. A good A&P should review the
previous years inspection checklist.
Part of the manufactures responsibility for either a certified
aircraft or a homebuilt is to develop an annual or conditional
inspection checklist. If the A&P can not get one from the aircraft
documents, then get one from another builder/repairman/owner. Or use
a generic inspection checklist that is found in the some of the FAA
circulars on how to inspect a homebuilt (there is an FAA circular on
how to inspect homebuilts). By the way there are numerous RV
inspection checklist examples on the World Wide Web.
Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an excuse to
get rid of homebuilts.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
bob
to start with a+p's don't not sign off annuals, for this inspection we are required
to do in accordance with the appendix. we can use check list as developed
by the manufacturer that comply with the appendix, we can use check list as
developed by the i/a that comply with the appendix, or just use the appendix.
the problem with using certified aircrafts check lists is that most require
compliance with all outstanding service bulletins. and as we all know that is
not required. in order to get around this most sign of inspection as per the appendix.
but we get hit with the bs cya service bulletins, and we also get hit with the
real service bulletins. the trick here is to know the difference.
depending on the airframe i have a list of service bulletins that i feel are required,
and will not sign-off an annual if they are not done. i make all owners
aware of this prior to start of annual. i find it makes thing alot easier in
the end.
so you are going to have an a+p not an i/a do your conditional. go for it. what
you have basically asked is an apprentice, that has little experience with the
airframe or engine to say that everything is all right. he has no experience
with a/d research, does not not where to find the service bulletins on experimental
parts. and has seen a lot less of the field failures that we deal with.
so at this point we have an amateur
build aircraft , inspected by amateurs. owned by idoits. if you have an a+p and
are to lasy to take the test, then don't do inspections.
rick
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Bob wrote:
> From: Bob <panamared5(at)brier.net>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: A&P Standard
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 2:38 PM
>
>
>
> >... but what standard are A&P's taught to
> expect when signing off an
> >annual for instance? Do they have a standard to follow
> for experimental
> >aircraft?
>
> Yes!! Use the same standard that the repairman uses to
> sign off of
> the annual conditional inspection. A good A&P should
> review the
> previous years inspection checklist.
>
> Part of the manufactures responsibility for either a
> certified
> aircraft or a homebuilt is to develop an annual or
> conditional
> inspection checklist. If the A&P can not get one from
> the aircraft
> documents, then get one from another
> builder/repairman/owner. Or use
> a generic inspection checklist that is found in the some of
> the FAA
> circulars on how to inspect a homebuilt (there is an FAA
> circular on
> how to inspect homebuilts). By the way there are numerous
> RV
> inspection checklist examples on the World Wide Web.
>
> Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an
> excuse to
> get rid of homebuilts.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> guys
>
> to say that i don't like experimental aircraft is wrong, a properly
> built rv is one hell of an aircraft, and damn fun to fly. where i
> have most of my problems with conditionals is wiring,
It's *CONDITION* inspection....not conditionals, or conditional
inspection........or annual......
If we are going to set ourselves up as an authority, let's get the
terminology correct.
Thank you. :-)
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
No problem with your suggestions. But until you have all of your
certificates at risk, don't tell an A&P it isn't an issue. We have to
live with whatever happens to the aircraft from the time of inspection
until the next inspection. With homebuilts we have no way of knowing
what is done to the plane the minute after we sign it off.
At least with a certified aircraft we know anything done has to follow
the regs and be done by authorized individuals. I'm all for OBAM
airplanes, have one under construction for myself...yes, it is an RV.
Bob wrote:
>
> Guys, this is really not an issue. It seems more like an excuse to
> get rid of homebuilts.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Also zero requirement to comply with service bulletins, unless they are
incorporated into an AD.
Remember, owner can refuse to do service bulletins, can tell you to sign
the inspection as unairworthy if you insist, and you give a list of
discrepancies. The owner himself can dismiss everyone you cite as
service bulletin not complied with, and get any old A&P to repair
anything else and return the aircraft to service.
It IS after all, only an inspection. Repair is up to the owner.
Kelly
A&P/IA
RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> ed
> under part 91 we are not requiired to use the manufactures inspection.
> rick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Well, then you should know there is no such rating of AI. It is
Inspection Authorization, or IA. Everyone is different. I hold my plane
to a standard that I don't want any other A&P to find fault with.
Doesn't mean it is perfect, but it is airworthy. After all, I fly myself
and my family in it, behind the engine that I assembled and signed off.
Just as you find in certified aircraft, there are huge variations in
quality and maintenance between aircraft, perhaps larger in homebuilt
aircraft...from fantastic museum piece, to accident waiting to happen.
KM
A&P/IA
jvanlaak(at)aol.com wrote:
> I feel the need to say something here.
>
> I
> Despite the rant from rick, I am not an amateur or an apprentice. My
> day job is managing aerospace programs for NASA and I have hands on
> experience from ultralights to the Shuttle. But since I do not make
> my living with my A&P I do not need to aggravation and liability
> exposure of the AI ticket. I choose to limit my FAA rating to the A&P.
>
> Signing the books of any airplane is an adventure. It is also a
> choice. If the A&P or AI is not comfortable with the condition of the
> airplane they should not sign. But I can also tell you that some of
> the worst airplanes I have seen belonged to mechanics and inspectors.
> I went to buy an airplane owned by a senior inspector for American
> Airlines one time and was horrified by its condition. 20I would not
> even fly it let alone buy it despite its "fresh annual."
>
> But just as a lousy AI can be dangerous, a good conscientious builder
> can be the best maintainer you will ever find.
> *
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vinnfizz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
In a message dated 9/4/2008 6:36:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: RICHARD MILLER
ed
under part 91 we are not required to use the manufactures inspection.
rick
Rick,
I don't agree with that statement!
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific here. Part 91 Sec
91.409 says aircraft (read all aircraft under part 91) must have undergone an
annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter within the
preceding 12 calendar months. That means all of 43. That means specifically 43.16
is applicable. Therefore an inspection or other maintenance specified in an
Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, IS Mandatory!
Here are the sections quoted, underline, italics,bold, emphasis mine.
Federal Aviation Regulation
Sec. 91.409
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart E--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
Sec. 91.409
Inspections.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person may
operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar months, it has had--
(1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter and has
been approved for return to service by a person authorized by Sec. 43.7 of
this chapter;
Sec. 43.16
Airworthiness Limitations.
Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an
Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other
maintenance in accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations
specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or 135, or an
inspection program approved under Sec. 91.409(e).
(e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet
multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and
turbine-powered rotorcraft.
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
Once again you left out part of the regs that say
"c) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do not apply to--
[(1) An aircraft that carries a special flight permit, a current
experimental certificate, or a light-sport or provisional airworthiness
certificate;]"
Vinnfizz(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 9/4/2008 6:36:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rickpegser(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> ed
> under part 91 we are not required to use the manufactures inspection.
> rick
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I don't agree with that statement!
>
>
> Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific here. Part 91
> Sec 91.409 says aircraft (read all aircraft under part 91) must have
> undergone an annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this
> chapter within the preceding 12 calendar months. That means all of 43.
> That means specifically 43.16 is applicable. Therefore an inspection
> or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section
> of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
> Airworthiness, IS Mandatory!
>
> Here are the sections quoted, underline, italics,bold, emphasis mine.
>
>
>
> Federal Aviation Regulation
>
>
> Hide details for Sec. 91.409Sec. 91.409
>
> Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
> Subpart E--Maintenance, Preventive Maintenance, and Alterations
>
>
> Sec. 91.409
>
> Inspections.
>
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, no person
> may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12 calendar
> months, it has had--
> (1) An annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this
> chapter and has been approved for return to service by a person
> authorized by Sec. 43.7 of this chapter;
>
>
>
>
> Sec. 43.16
>
> Airworthiness Limitations.
>
> Each person performing an inspection or other maintenance
> specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a
> manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued
> Airworthiness shall perform the inspection or other maintenance in
> accordance with that section, or in accordance with operations
> specifications approved by the Administrator under part 121 or
> 135, or an inspection program approved under Sec. 91.409(e).
> (e) Large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable),
> turbojet multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine
> airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal
> here <http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
The standard for a condition inspection of an experimental, amateur
built aircraft is :
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the
scope and detail of Part 43, appendix D and found to be in a condition
for safe flight."
If an A&P or better does the inspection, and is not comfortable with
non-aviation parts/hardware, and/or doesn't think that it is in a
condition for safe flight, he should provide the owner with a list of
discrepancies or withdraw from the process. If not willing to sign the
log, in my opinion, he shouldn't charge for the inspection.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vinnfizz(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
EXACTLY The Standard Ed Holyoke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In a message dated 9/5/2008 2:08:26 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke
The standard for a condition inspection of an experimental, amateur
built aircraft is :
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the
scope and detail of Part 43, appendix D and found to be in a condition
for safe flight."
If an A&P or better does the inspection, and is not comfortable with
non-aviation parts/hardware, and/or doesn't think that it is in a
condition for safe flight, he should provide the owner with a list of
discrepancies or withdraw from the process. If not willing to sign the
log, in my opinion, he shouldn't charge for the inspection.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Do Not Archive
**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Judge" <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Anyone at Brighton Van-Aire? |
Hello:
I'm planning visiting a friend in Denver on my way back to the east
coast from the Reno Air Races. He lives very near the Brighton
Van-Aire Private airport. Beyond the data listed on airnav, Does
anyone have the inside track on getting parking at this field?
Thanks,
Bill
N84WJ, RV-8
rv-8.blogspot.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
Rick, you are way out of line, yur attitude has been dispicable, and you
should be kicked off the list. Charles heathco Fayetteville Ar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
My hat is off to any A&P or IA who is willing to inspect and sign off on a non
builder owned experimental aircraft.
For them the risk and liability are huge and the financial reward small.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2719#202719
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A&P Standard |
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
rickpegser(at)yahoo.com wrote:
> Tim
>
> i don't know what you do for NASA but if you don't turn wrenches or supervise
those that do, your a+p is void. engineering does not count. your shitty in
house quality control has caused to loss of two shuttles, if you can show me a
nasa manager in jail, and then you can tell me how good your quality is. i can
show you a/i's that are in jail, for screwing up but i guess if you work for
nasa it does not count.
>
> rick
> --
Rick,
Where you born an asshole or is this a newly acquired skill?
Are you a certified asshole or an experimental asshole?
Actually it doesn't matter for it is certain you are an asshole the type irrelevant.
The quality of the people at NASA have put men on the moon and given us much of
the technology that today makes our lives much better.
They had some accidents along the way the 2 of which you mention probably had more
to do with politics and political appointees than with quality control, NASA
engineers or A&Ps. The folks at NASA are some of the the brightest most dedicated
people in this country. Who the fuck are you to question them you low life
little piece of shit.
You would make an excellent adviser for OBAMA he seems to like to spout nonsense
and bullshit without concern for facts or truth.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2721#202721
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/thunderstorm_105.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Builder Available! |
N395V wrote:
>
> My hat is off to any A&P or IA who is willing to inspect and sign off on a non
builder owned experimental aircraft.
>
> For them the risk and liability are huge and the financial reward small.
>
I agree with the small financial reward, but question the risk and
liability. I think they are perceived. How many A&Ps or IAs do you
know of that have been sued because they signed off on an experimental
airplane??? Just sued, not ruled against. Just my thought.
Linn
> --------
> Milt
> 2003 F1 Rocket
> 2006 Radial Rocket
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 2719#202719
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
Please don't forget a valuable point here. What you state is exactly corre
ct for Standard category aircraft.=2C but does not apply to experimental ai
rcraft. The Operating Limitations assigned to each aircraft rule. And tha
t limitation states that you will conduct the condition inspection in accor
dance with the scope and detail of Appendix D of Part 43=2C or other approv
ed program (which rules for turbine aircraft).
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
In a message dated 9/4/2008 6:36:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time=2C rickpegse
r(at)yahoo.com writes:
part 91 we are not required to use the manufactures inspection.rick
Rick=2C
I don't agree with that statement!
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific here. Part 91 Sec 9
1.409 says aircraft (read all aircraft under part 91) must have undergone a
n annual inspection in accordance with part 43 of this chapter within the p
receding 12 calendar months. That means all of 43. That means specifically
43.16 is applicable. Therefore an inspection or other maintenance specified
in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance ma
nual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness=2C IS Mandatory!
Here are the sections quoted=2C underline=2C italics=2Cbold=2C emphasis min
e.
August 23, 2008 - September 05, 2008
RV-Archive.digest.vol-tq