RV-Archive.digest.vol-ur
March 13, 2011 - June 03, 2011
last time I checked, I believe at 1400 hours the Emag folks wanted you to
return the unit for a check up.- So for some, this benefit may be worth t
he
cost over time.
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.eicommander.com
--------------------------------------------------
| From: | "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 1:54 PM
;
>
> I was browsing the P-Mag web site this week.- They look pretty cool, bu
t
> the web site really makes no mention of whether there's any real
> performance/economy benefit to them.- Does anyone have any real world
> experience along these lines?
>
> I've got two standard Slick mags on my IO-390.- If I dumped $2200 on a
> pair of P-Mags, would I really notice any difference?- The IO-390 alrea
dy
> starts and runs great.- More- power and better economy are always wel
come,
> though...
>
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
> At 10:36 AM 3/9/2011- Wednesday, you wrote:
>>Do they even still make the E-mag, the non self powered version?
>>
>>I wonder what the performance differences are between E/P-Mags and the
>>competing LSE- Systems in terms of additional power output as well as fue
l
>>savings?
>>
>>I wonder if anyone has ever run a single LSE in conjunction with not a
>>Magneto, but rather an E/P-Mag for two truly redundant electronic
>>ignitions?
>>
>>Hmm, I wonder how they would work together, i.e. if both competing EI
>>systems would be mixed on one engine???- Hmm...?
>>
>>Konrad
>>
>>
>>On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>>
>>>I think the early problems are behind them. I have one on my 8A based on
>>>some recommendations of RV pilots I trust that have had no issues in
>>>years of use. I plan to place on eon my -10 when they finally release th
e
>>>6 cylinder version.
>>>Like most systems I prefer diversity so I would never run two PMags but
I
>>>would never run two Light speed either.
>>>
>>>
>>>Robin
>>>
>>>
>>>From:
>>>owner-rv6-list-server@matron
ics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-rv6-list-serve
r(at)matronics.com]
>>>On Behalf Of HCRV6(at)comcast.net
>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:45 AM
>>>To: rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>
>>>
>>>HI Konrad,
>>>
>>>Well, the evidence seems to be accumulating that they have.- More and
>>>more of them are in use in RV's in my area, KLVK, and so far it looks
>>>like they may have worked through those early problems.- I remain
>>>somewhat cautious but thinking about starting with one and see how it
>>>goes.
>>>
>>>Harry Crosby
>>>RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Konrad/Conny" <<mailto:klwerner(at)comcast.net>klwerner(at)comcast.net>
>>>To: rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 8:25:25 PM
>>>Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>
>>>Hi Harry,
>>>
>>>
>>>Talking about P-Mags.- Have they ironed out their infancy-/ teething
>>>problems in the few years that I was not paying much attention to it all
?
>>>
>>>
>>>Konrad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:58 PM, HCRV6(at)comcast.net
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm still here.- My RV-6 has been flying for six+ years (805 hours and
>>>counting) but I follow several of the lists most of the time and reply i
f
>>>a question comes up that I can help with.
>>>
>>>BTW,- someone recently posted on one of the lists something about putt
ing
>>>together group purchases of P-Mags.- I didn't think I was interested w
hen
>>>I saw it but I am rethinking it.- I would appreciate it if anyone coul
d
>>>tell me who it was and how to get in touch with him,- Thanks.
>>>
>>>Harry Crosby
>>>RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
>
>
>
________________________________- Message 5- __________________________
___________
| From: | "Panama Red" <panamared505(at)brier.net> |
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: PMag
Wait until the slick mags need to be replaced/OH then go for the P-mag.
There are a lots of extra upgrades that you will probably do over the life
of the airplane, you do not have to do all them now!
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linn Walters" <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: PMag
>
> Matt.- If it ain't broke ......
> $2200- will buy a couple tanks of avgas ....
> Linn
> On 3/9/2011 1:54 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>> -->- RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>>
>> I was browsing the P-Mag web site this week.- They look pretty cool, b
ut
>> the web site really makes no mention of whether there's any real
>> performance/economy benefit to them.- Does anyone have any real world
>> experience along these lines?
>>
>> I've got two standard Slick mags on my IO-390.- If I dumped $2200 on a
>> pair of P-Mags, would I really notice any difference?- The IO-390 alre
ady
>> starts and runs great.- More- power and better economy are always
>> welcome, though...
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>>
>>
>> At 10:36 AM 3/9/2011- Wednesday, you wrote:
>>> Do they even still make the E-mag, the non self powered version?
>>>
>>> I wonder what the performance differences are between E/P-Mags and the
>>> competing LSE- Systems in terms of additional power output as well as
>>> fuel savings?
>>>
>>> I wonder if anyone has ever run a single LSE in conjunction with not a
>>> Magneto, but rather an E/P-Mag for two truly redundant electronic
>>> ignitions?
>>>
>>> Hmm, I wonder how they would work together, i.e. if both competing EI
>>> systems would be mixed on one engine???- Hmm...?
>>>
>>> Konrad
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the early problems are behind them. I have one on my 8A based
>>>> on some recommendations of RV pilots I trust that have had no issues i
n
>>>> years of use. I plan to place on eon my -10 when they finally release
>>>> the 6 cylinder version.
>>>> Like most systems I prefer diversity so I would never run two PMags bu
t
>>>> I would never run two Light speed either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:owner-rv6-list-server
@matronics.com
>>>> [mailto:owner-rv6-list-ser
ver(at)matronics.com]
>>>> On Behalf OfHCRV6(at)comcast.net
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:45 AM
>>>> To:rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HI Konrad,
>>>>
>>>> Well, the evidence seems to be accumulating that they have.- More an
d
>>>> more of them are in use in RV's in my area, KLVK, and so far it looks
>>>> like they may have worked through those early problems.- I remain
>>>> somewhat cautious but thinking about starting with one and see how it
>>>> goes.
>>>>
>>>> Harry Crosby
>>>> RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Konrad/Conny"<<mailto:klwerner(at)comcast.net>klwerner(at)comcast.net
>
>>>> To:rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 8:25:25 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>>
>>>> Hi Harry,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Talking about P-Mags.- Have they ironed out their infancy-/ teething
>>>> problems in the few years that I was not paying much attention to it
>>>> all?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Konrad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:58 PM,HCRV6(at)comcast.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm still here.- My RV-6 has been flying for six+ years (805 hours a
nd
>>>> counting) but I follow several of the lists most of the time and reply
>>>> if a question comes up that I can help with.
>>>>
>>>> BTW,- someone recently posted on one of the lists something about
>>>> putting together group purchases of P-Mags.- I didn't think I was
>>>> interested when I saw it but I am rethinking it.- I would appreciate
it
>>>> if anyone could tell me who it was and how to get in touch with him,
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Harry Crosby
>>>> RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________- Message 6- __________________________
___________
From: "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: FOR SALE
Yes, I am interested. Do you have a website with more information?- I sha
ll
call also.
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA
530-756-7791 home
916-396-7702 cell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert Murillo
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:02 PM
Subject: RV-List: FOR SALE
Lost My medical:
I have to sell my beautiful RV6A..
A steal at $36,000 FIRM has all the goodies...
Plane at Deland Airport, Florida
Nick picking,, tire kicking, need not apply.. If you have the money and are
serious about, you got yourself e nice plane....have references friends
pilots, who know my plane and me, for a long time.
beautiful Yellow white and blue trim
150 HP Lyc. total time 100 hrs.
call; 407.878.3491 after 7PM
Bert
- - -
________________________________- Message 7- __________________________
___________
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: PMag
The principal improvements of EIs over magnetos are a much hotter spark
over a larger plug gap, spark advance as well as more reliability. A
hotter spark will ignite a leaner mixture more reliably. It should start
easier, too. Magnetos stay at the same timing whatever the RPM and
manifold pressure, until the points wear anyway. They were made with no
advance to avoid the possibility of detonation at high power settings.-
EIs advance at lower manifold pressure, where detonation margins are
increased, to gain back some of the lost power that occurs as the flame
front takes longer to make it's way across the bore. This puts the
timing of the maximum cylinder pressure at the proper angle for the
connecting rod to do it's best work. With one EI and one mag and when
the EI is advanced, the magneto fires much later than the EI and much of
the burn is over before the magneto contributes. If I turn mine off at
altitude, it's barely noticeable, if at all. We have a Lightspeed and a
Bendix on an O-320, so you know.
There shouldn't be a problem with mixing brands of EIs. The advance
curves aren't likely to be exactly the same and that probably won't
matter much, especially if the maximum advance is the same for both.
There should be a measurable fuel savings with the use of EIs. I can't
document that as our plane has always been equipped like this. The
Lightspeed has no moving parts which can be a consideration for
reliability. The P-mag will run if electrical power to it is lost.
Here's a link to an article from Sport Aviation that covers some of the
basics of ignition systems:
http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/Technicalities/sport_aviation95.html
I've flown for more than six years behind an EI and I do like it better
than the magneto and trust it more. I've never had a fouled plug on the
EI and the plugs are cheap enough to throw out every year. Can't say the
same for the aviation plugs fired by magneto. I'm not trying to sell one
EI system over another. Do your own research. With any electronic
ignition, you'll get most of the performance/economy boost with the
first one. A second one will add a little, but not as much. One approach
might be to replace one mag with an EI and save the other mag for when
the first one starts acting up. If and when the second one needs
replaced, you'll probably want a second EI.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 3/9/2011 10:54 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> -->- RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>
> I was browsing the P-Mag web site this week.- They look pretty cool, bu
t the
web site really makes no mention of whether there's any real performance/ec
onomy
benefit to them.- Does anyone have any real world experience along these
lines?
>
> I've got two standard Slick mags on my IO-390.- If I dumped $2200 on a
pair of
P-Mags, would I really notice any difference?- The IO-390 already starts
and
runs great.- More- power and better economy are always welcome, though.
..
>
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
> At 10:36 AM 3/9/2011- Wednesday, you wrote:
>> Do they even still make the E-mag, the non self powered version?
>>
>> I wonder what the performance differences are between E/P-Mags and the c
ompeting
LSE- Systems in terms of additional power output as well as fuel savings?
>>
>> I wonder if anyone has ever run a single LSE in conjunction with not a M
agneto,
but rather an E/P-Mag for two truly redundant electronic ignitions?
>>
>> Hmm, I wonder how they would work together, i.e. if both competing EI sy
stems
would be mixed on one engine???- Hmm...?
>>
>> Konrad
>>
>>
>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
>>
>>> I think the early problems are behind them. I have one on my 8A based o
n some
recommendations of RV pilots I trust that have had no issues in years of us
e.
I plan to place on eon my -10 when they finally release the 6 cylinder vers
ion.
>>> Like most systems I prefer diversity so I would never run two PMags but
I would
never run two Light speed either.
>>>
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> From:owner-rv6-list-server@
matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv6
-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf OfHCRV6@com
cast.net
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:45 AM
>>> To:rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>
>>>
>>> HI Konrad,
>>>
>>> Well, the evidence seems to be accumulating that they have.- More and
more
of them are in use in RV's in my area, KLVK, and so far it looks like they
may
have worked through those early problems.- I remain somewhat cautious but
thinking
about starting with one and see how it goes.
>>>
>>> Harry Crosby
>>> RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Konrad/Conny"<<mailto:klwerner(at)comcast.net>klwerner(at)comcast.net>
>>> To:rv6-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 8:25:25 PM
>>> Subject: Re: RV6-List: Anyone here?
>>>
>>> Hi Harry,
>>>
>>>
>>> Talking about P-Mags.- Have they ironed out their infancy-/ teething
problems
in the few years that I was not paying much attention to it all?
>>>
>>>
>>> Konrad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:58 PM,HCRV6(at)comcast.net
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm still here.- My RV-6 has been flying for six+ years (805 hours an
d counting)
but I follow several of the lists most of the time and reply if a question
comes up that I can help with.
>>>
>>> BTW,- someone recently posted on one of the lists something about put
ting together
group purchases of P-Mags.- I didn't think I was interested when I saw
it but I am rethinking it.- I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me
who
it was and how to get in touch with him,- Thanks.
>>>
>>> Harry Crosby
>>> Rsp;---> http://forumssp; - - - - ---- List Contributio
n Web Sbsp; - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Matt Drall
e, List m/contribution" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion===========
=0A=0A=0A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RICHARD MILLER <rickpegser(at)yahoo.com> |
Guys:
yolo flyin march 12
It has been reported that several of the RVs that attended this flyin did not communicate
on unicom and flew thru the parachute landing zone. Also i know a pilot
that was cut off by one of the RVs in the pattern that did not say a word
on unicom. This crap has to stop and will stop if the feds have to get involved.
This flyin resulted in multiple incursions into the parachute landing zone
and one pilot was reported to get lost while taxing on the field to the point
the he even taxied out to the road to get back to another area of the airport.
We are professionals act like it!
While it is common for a group of this nature to use a common comm freq that does
not relieve them of the responsibility to communicate with every one else.
An apology from the organizer of this flyin would go a long way toward patching
relations with the yolo field locals.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
And yolo would be where in this world?
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:54 PM, RICHARD MILLER wrote:
>
> Guys:
>
> yolo flyin march 12
>
> It has been reported that several of the RVs that attended this flyin did not
communicate on unicom and flew thru the parachute landing zone. Also i know a
pilot that was cut off by one of the RVs in the pattern that did not say a word
on unicom. This crap has to stop and will stop if the feds have to get involved.
This flyin resulted in multiple incursions into the parachute landing zone
and one pilot was reported to get lost while taxing on the field to the point
the he even taxied out to the road to get back to another area of the airport.
We are professionals act like it!
>
> While it is common for a group of this nature to use a common comm freq that
does not relieve them of the responsibility to communicate with every one else.
>
> An apology from the organizer of this flyin would go a long way toward patching
relations with the yolo field locals.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
Yolo County Airport, Northern California.
I forwarded the original message to the president of the local RV club.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bobby Hester
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: yolo Fly-in
-->
And yolo would be where in this world?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | RV Document Status |
Folks,
The response to my offer of emailing my RV POH, Test Plan and Checklist was
very much greater than anticipated - and requests came in at various times
through various means. Since the compiled files were 11 MB and I did multi
ple sends, my computer jammed and refused to process emails until cleared.
I think I have accommodated all who requested the documents, but some may h
ave been lost in cyberspace.
Let me know if you requested but failed to receive the files.
Also, please don't accept the material in those files as chiseled in stone.
There was a lot of cutting and pasting - and for the checklist, a very det
ailed response to "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?" brainstorming. The intent
was to assemble as much information as practicable without reinventing the
wheel, then sort it out later - and time for later hasn't been found yet.
Booger
N192NM
Final checks before the DAR inspection
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | davcor(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV Document Status |
Paul,
I would like a copy as I am crafting my own right now. Hope to enter Phase
I early this summer
Dave Cordner
RV7 - N898RV (rsvd)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Valovich" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:57:55 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV Document Status
Folks,
The response to my offer of emailing my RV POH, Test Plan and Checklist was
very much greater than anticipated =93 and requests came in at vario
us times through various means. Since the compiled files were 11 MB and I d
id multiple sends, my computer jammed and refused to process emails until c
leared.
I think I have accommodated all who requested the documents, but some may h
ave been lost in cyberspace.
Let me know if you requested but failed to receive the files.
Also, please don=99t accept the material in those files as chiseled i
n stone. There was a lot of cutting and pasting =93 and for the check
list, a very detailed response to =9CWhat Could Possibly Go Wrong?
=9D brainstorming. The intent was to assemble as much information as pra
cticable without reinventing the wheel, then sort it out later =93 an
d time for later hasn=99t been found yet.
Booger
N192NM
=======================
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RV Document Status |
Paul,
I'd like a copy .. but .. would encourage you to find a place to store
it where folks could download the document and not force you to push out
multiple copies by hand. I'd also be willing to help you find a place to
post it as well, if that would help. Someone else suggested putting it
up on VAF with Doug's assistance, and that might be the best alternative.
That said, I _do_ want a copy. Thanks for sharing!
-- Dwight
On 03/16/2011 10:57 AM, Valovich, Paul wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> The response to my offer of emailing my RV POH, Test Plan and
> Checklist was very much greater than anticipated -- and requests came
> in at various times through various means. Since the compiled files
> were 11 MB and I did multiple sends, my computer jammed and refused to
> process emails until cleared.
>
> I think I have accommodated all who requested the documents, but some
> may have been lost in cyberspace.
>
> Let me know if you requested but failed to receive the files.
>
> Also, please don't accept the material in those files as chiseled in
> stone. There was a lot of cutting and pasting -- and for the
> checklist, a very detailed response to "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"
> brainstorming. The intent was to assemble as much information as
> practicable without reinventing the wheel, then sort it out later --
> and time for later hasn't been found yet.
>
> Booger
>
> N192NM
>
> Final checks before the DAR inspection
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 Insurance... |
I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is up
on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Matt-
You might also want to call Bev Gassen at Chaparral 800-339-5736. I'm on my second
year with Global (after previously being with those slimy pond scum sucking
dogs AIG beginning in 1998) and my rate actually went down.
-GV (RV-6A Flying 962hrs)
In a message dated 03/18/11 18:57:01 Pacific Daylight Time, dralle(at)matronics.com
writes:
I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is up
on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
You need to try NationAir. Mine has always been cheaper through them.
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Mar 18, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is
up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
hadn't done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom & Cathy Ervin <tcervin(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Bobby,
I have Global through NationAir also and my premium goes down every year.
Tom-in-Ohio (RV6-A)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:25:33 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
You need to try NationAir. Mine has always been cheaper through them.
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Mar 18, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is
up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
hadn't done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
I originally insured with AVEMCO with my rotary powered RV-6A back in 1996.
They were not cheap but at least I obtained coverage for my alternative
powered aircraft.
However, as my pilot time and time in make/model increased so did my
premiums - just the opposite of what I would have expected. After a few
years of steady increases in premiums, I switched to SKYSMITH who acquire
coverage from the AIG aviation underwriter (can't recall who it was), my
premiums for the same coverage was approx 1/2 of AVEMCO. Been with Skysmith
for over 5 years and very satisfied with the premiums.
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 9:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
> is up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon).
> The quotes from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in
> $500 cheaper than the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker.
> Avemco's quote was 2.3 times higher than the AOPA's quote! I called
> Avemco to make sure that they just hadn't done something wrong. It was
> right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco doesn't really want to write
> Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cheathco" <cheathco(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/18/11 |
Yes, avemco quote of 2 years ago thru Eaa was a shocker. I told them they
were WAY above aopa and another. They shot back with how extra good there
policy was. Frankly I dont see how they stay in business, any pilot in my
view would be a fool to go with them. charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: RV-List Digest Server
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 1:59 AM
Subject: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/18/11
*
=================================================
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 11-03-18&Archive=RV
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 11-03-18&Archive=RV
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
RV-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Fri 03/18/11: 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:56 PM - RV-8 Insurance... (Matt Dralle)
2. 07:22 PM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (vanremog)
3. 07:33 PM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (Bobby Hester)
________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
is up
on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
From: vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
Matt-
You might also want to call Bev Gassen at Chaparral 800-339-5736. I'm on my
second
year with Global (after previously being with those slimy pond scum sucking
dogs AIG beginning in 1998) and my rate actually went down.
-GV (RV-6A Flying 962hrs)
In a message dated 03/18/11 18:57:01 Pacific Daylight Time,
dralle(at)matronics.com
writes:
I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
is up
on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net>
You need to try NationAir. Mine has always been cheaper through them.
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Mar 18, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
> is
up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The
quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
hadn't done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently
Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/18/11 |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Not to stick up for them, but I think they are high on experimentals, but competitive
on certified planes. At least that is what I found a few years back when
I sold my Cherokee and finished my RV-4....
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:14 AM, "cheathco" wrote:
>
> Yes, avemco quote of 2 years ago thru Eaa was a shocker. I told them they
> were WAY above aopa and another. They shot back with how extra good there
> policy was. Frankly I dont see how they stay in business, any pilot in my
> view would be a fool to go with them. charlie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RV-List Digest Server
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 1:59 AM
> To: RV-List Digest List
> Subject: RV-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 03/18/11
>
> *
>
> =================================================
> 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 11-03-18&Archive=RV
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 11-03-18&Archive=RV
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> RV-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 03/18/11: 3
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:56 PM - RV-8 Insurance... (Matt Dralle)
> 2. 07:22 PM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (vanremog)
> 3. 07:33 PM - Re: RV-8 Insurance... (Bobby Hester)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
>
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
> is up
> on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
> from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
> than
> the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
> times
> higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
> hadn't
> done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
> doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
>
> Matt-
>
> You might also want to call Bev Gassen at Chaparral 800-339-5736. I'm on my
> second
> year with Global (after previously being with those slimy pond scum sucking
> dogs AIG beginning in 1998) and my rate actually went down.
>
> -GV (RV-6A Flying 962hrs)
>
>
> In a message dated 03/18/11 18:57:01 Pacific Daylight Time,
> dralle(at)matronics.com
> writes:
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
> is up
> on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
> from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
> than
> the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
> times
> higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
> hadn't
> done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
> doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
> From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net>
>
>
> You need to try NationAir. Mine has always been cheaper through them.
>
> Sent from my Verizon iPhone
>
> On Mar 18, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy
>> is
> up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The
> quotes
> from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper
> than
> the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3
> times
> higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just
> hadn't done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently
> Avemco
> doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>>
>> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Matt Dralle
>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Yeah, you can't beat EAA/Falcon for the first year because they will cover the
Test Flight and the First Ten Hours. Avemco made a point of the fact that they
didn't cover either. Okay, I get that, but a year later and with 153 hours
on the RV-8, 153 hours in my logbook in type, and with no incidents, I would have
expected a significant drop. Falcon only came down $100 from last year.
Avemco when UP by $2k.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
At 03:50 AM 3/19/2011 Saturday, you wrote:
>Matt,
>
>I had a similar experience . . . when I asked the agent she got kind of snippy
with me and told me thats what they needed to cover their expenses? Not when
everyone else can do it for less!
>
>Mines for first flight and in type experience becomes an issue and Avemco had
the most liberal restrictions there follow by EAA. Im waiting on some paperwork
and the airworthiness inspection . . . I believe Im going to go with EAA (Falcon).
>
>Regards,
>Bob Christensen N83RC . . . still waiting!
>
>From: <mailto:dralle(at)matronics.com>Matt Dralle
>Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 8:53 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com ; rv8-list(at)matronics.com ; rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV8-List: RV-8 Insurance...
>
>--> RV8-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>
>
>I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is
up on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
>Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carpet Source |
Talk with Luke Doughton luked(at)classic.aero at Classic Aero. They did the upholstery
and carpet on my RV-8 and I couldn't be more pleased. On the carpet for
the RV-8, I did spend a good deal of time laying out exactly what I wanted on
CAD, printing it on a plotter, adjusting the fit, then updating the CAD, etc.
But when I finished that process, I just emailed the CAD file to Luke, and he
converted it into a carpet that literally fits like a glove. I was very impressed.
Quality of the carpet is excellent and Luke makes sure it is fire treated
as well.
http://www.classic.aero
Best upholstery and carpet available for RV's in my opinion.
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
At 07:51 AM 3/19/2011 Saturday, you wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Michael Kraus
>
>Has anyone purchased just a carpet kit for the RV-10? I'm looking for a nice,
drop in kit, something that will cover the tunnel (standard layout) and all floors
including the baggage area. Not just floor mats.
>
>I know I can get carpet from Airtex and do it myself, but I was hoping to find
something alittle more drop in.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks
>-Mike Kraus
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Murillo <murillo1099(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | how to delete posting |
Hi Martt:
I Posted my rv6a for sale.....It has been sold...
How I do to remove the posting now?
I look everywhere, could not find the how to, I am missing something?
thanks
bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RV-8 Insurance... |
Try Nationair. Cheapest I found for my RV-6Ak and its been that way
for five years. Talk to Jenny Estes at 877-475-5860. Avemco quote was
$1,500+ higher for exactly the same coverage.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
--------------------------------------------
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
>
>
> I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current
> policy is up
> on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon).
> The quotes
> from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500
> cheaper than
> the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was
> 2.3 times
> higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that
> they just hadn't
> done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently
> Avemco
> doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
>
> Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
>
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HCRV6(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
My experience also. I have been with Nationair for14 years and they have always
been the lowest by a substantial amount every year.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brame" <chasb(at)satx.rr.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 2:17:58 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
Try Nationair. Cheapest I found for my RV-6Ak and its been that way for five years.
Talk to Jenny Estes at 877-475-5860. Avemco quote was $1,500+ higher for
exactly the same coverage.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
--------------------------------------------
From: Matt Dralle < dralle(at)matronics.com >
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Insurance...
I've been shopping for a new year of insurance on the RV-8 (current policy is up
on 3/20) and got quotes from Avemco, AOPA, and the EAA (Falcon). The quotes
from the AOPA and EAA were close, although the AOPA came in $500 cheaper than
the EAA's this year. But here was the shocker. Avemco's quote was 2.3 times
higher than the AOPA's quote! I called Avemco to make sure that they just hadn't
done something wrong. It was right. That's just crazy. Apparently Avemco
doesn't really want to write Experimental polices.
Anyway, thought I'd share my experiences.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Carpet Source |
Hey Matt,
I have seen the photos of your interior carpet. Very slick. Do you
suppose that Luke kept the files and could make a duplicate set? I should
imagine all RV-8's are about the same size. Would you be willing to share your
CAD file?
Regards,
Michael Wynn
In a message dated 3/19/2011 10:31:59 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dralle(at)matronics.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
Talk with Luke Doughton luked(at)classic.aero at Classic Aero. They did the
upholstery and carpet on my RV-8 and I couldn't be more pleased. On the
carpet for the RV-8, I did spend a good deal of time laying out exactly what
I wanted on CAD, printing it on a plotter, adjusting the fit, then updating
the CAD, etc. But when I finished that process, I just emailed the CAD
file to Luke, and he converted it into a carpet that literally fits like a
glove. I was very impressed. Quality of the carpet is excellent and Luke
makes sure it is fire treated as well.
http://www.classic.aero
Best upholstery and carpet available for RV's in my opinion.
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 150+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
At 07:51 AM 3/19/2011 Saturday, you wrote:
>--> RV10-List message posted by: Michael Kraus
>
>Has anyone purchased just a carpet kit for the RV-10? I'm looking for a
nice, drop in kit, something that will cover the tunnel (standard layout)
and all floors including the baggage area. Not just floor mats.
>
>I know I can get carpet from Airtex and do it myself, but I was hoping to
find something alittle more drop in.
>
>Any ideas?
>
>Thanks
>-Mike Kraus
-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Skirt Buzz... |
At 10:25 AM 3/22/2011 Tuesday, you wrote:
>Matt,
>Did you settle on a material that you preferred for deadening the canopy buzz
[on your RV-8]? We are experiencing the same thing but at a very narrow speed
range. Before we reinvent the wheel I figured I would ask.
>
>Thanks,
>Robin
Hi Robin,
Yes, solved mostly. Here the stuff to get:
http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive?forward=1
This is black UHMW table with a rubber adhesive (good to 150F). I got the .020"
stuff.
Its not very bendable sideways, so don't try to get the .5" kind and wrap it around
the s-curve in the back. It definitely won't stick for very long.
Get the 6" wide stuff - Part number <http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa//item/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive/anti-stat-uhmw-19-20blk-6-5?>19-20BLK-6-5 (5 yards) or 19-20BLK-6-18 (18 yards) - and lay it flat over the skirt on the inside and then trace the contour. Move it up by about .75" and then trace again. Then cut out the piece which should be a perfect fit around the inside edge of the canopy skirt. I forgot to take any pictures of the process! That's so not like me! :-)
I also used the .5" stuff (<http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa//item/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive/anti-stat-uhmw-19-20blk-5-5?>19-20BLK-.5-5) for along the straight left and right side of the skirt. Although, I wish I'd used the .75 stuff.
Seems to dampen the vibration and also doesn't mark the paint/metal due to its
low co-efficient of friction. Its basically the same stuff that Van's sells for
the flaps, but much thicker and black. I also like the high-temp rubber adhesive.
We'll see how it holds up over the Summer.
My only complaint is that I wish they made a .040" thick version.
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 153+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | max gross weight test |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
72.5".
Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
$1m/$100k Liability
$5000-$10000 Medical
$0 Deductible
$150k Hull Ground/Air
153 Hours, Aircraft
153 Hours in Type, Pilot
450 Hours Total, Pilot
242 Hours TW, Pilot
Avemco: $5811
EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year included Test & 1st 10 hours)
NationAir/Chartis $2888
AOPA/AIG $2475
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
RV-7A unpainted
1st year 2007
0 hrs TT (Hobbs), 5 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1702
2nd year 2008
About 150 hrs TT, 135 (Tach) hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1621
3rd year 2009
About 250 hrs TT, 200 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1465
4th year 2010
About 320 hrs TT, 270 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1465
5th year 2008 still unpainted :-(
About 400 hrs TT, 320 hrs in type, $70,000 hull = $1297
Global Aerospace though NationAir
----
Surfing the web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site:
http://home.newwavecomm.net/bobbyhester/RVSite.htm
On 3/22/2011 8:05 AM, Gene Lee wrote:
>
> In the interest of seeing what others pay I'll offer mine.
>
> RV-7a
>
> 1^st year...
>
> 260hr TT, 0 in type, $95k hull = $2,200
>
> 2^nd year...
>
> 420hr TT, 130hr in type, $95k hull = $1,440
>
> Chartis Aerospace Ins.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kyle Boatright" <kboatright1(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Thomas,
I recommend approaching the gross weight and aft CG gradually. IIRC, I
was right in the envelope expansion process about 10 years ago. What I
did was ballast the airplane about 50 lbs at a time to increase the
weight up to gross. Then I adjusted ballast to move the CG rearward in
~1/2" increments. What I found was that the last 75 pounds of weight
and the last inch or two of CG travel were very noticeable.
One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's
published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage,
etc.) you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit. Better
to know test under those conditions (how much trim will you need? How
will the stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a
passenger on board.
My $0.02
Kyle Botright
----- Original Message -----
From: thomas sargent
To: rv-list
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at
1720lbs and will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight
was 1076.) I know some planes have significantly higher max gross
weights. So far in my tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change
behavior very much.
Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so
it's still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't
flown it that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than
about 72" or 72.5".
Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
I'll take the obvious cheap shot here (because I can) about taking advice from
a guy who can't even spell his own name, but Kyle is correct about sneaking up
on it. ;o)
I would go further and suggest that you take a big guy with you who can also reposition
the moment arm of the sand bags in the baggage area while you fly the
plane.
-GV
In a message dated 03/22/11 15:56:24 Pacific Daylight Time, kboatright1(at)comcast.net
writes:
One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's published aft
CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage, etc.) you will probably
find the airplane near that aft limit. Better to know test under those conditions
(how much trim will you need? How will the stall behave?), than to experience
it for the first time with a passenger on board.
My $0.02
Kyle Botright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Matt-
Tell me you didn't go with those slimy AIG dudes...
-GV
In a message dated 03/22/11 15:00:30 Pacific Daylight Time, dralle(at)matronics.com
writes:
Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
$1m/$100k Liability
$5000-$10000 Medical
$0 Deductible
$150k Hull Ground/Air
153 Hours, Aircraft
153 Hours in Type, Pilot
450 Hours Total, Pilot
242 Hours TW, Pilot
Avemco: $5811
EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year included Test & 1st 10 hours)
NationAir/Chartis $2888
AOPA/AIG $2475
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Henderson" <wf-k(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RV7-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Good Grief, I paid half that on $100,000 RV-7. I have the same amount of
hours in type and total. I suggest you contact my agent and ask her for a
quote: klehman(at)andreini.com Direct 650-378-4310 No harm in at least asking.
Dave Henderson RV-7
N925LW (Lord Willing)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 5:56 PM
rv10-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV7-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance...
--> RV7-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my
RV-8. Can you guess which one I went with?
$1m/$100k Liability
$5000-$10000 Medical
$0 Deductible
$150k Hull Ground/Air
153 Hours, Aircraft
153 Hours in Type, Pilot
450 Hours Total, Pilot
242 Hours TW, Pilot
Avemco: $5811
EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year included Test & 1st
10 hours)
NationAir/Chartis $2888
AOPA/AIG $2475
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo. It would be nice to
take a fat friend for a ride!!!!
Linn
On 3/23/2011 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
>
> I did mine in stages.
>
> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: thomas sargent<sarg314(at)gmail.com>
>> Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>> To: rv-list
>> Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>>
>> I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>> will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>> know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>> tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>>
>> Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>> still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>> that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>> 72.5".
>>
>> Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>> reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sargent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
| From: | "jfogarty tds.net" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
Great post Kyle. Thanks for sharing this information.
Jim
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Kyle Boatright wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> I recommend approaching the gross weight and aft CG gradually. IIRC, I was
> right in the envelope expansion process about 10 years ago. What I did was
> ballast the airplane about 50 lbs at a time to increase the weight up to
> gross. Then I adjusted ballast to move the CG rearward in ~1/2" increments.
> What I found was that the last 75 pounds of weight and the last inch or two
> of CG travel were very noticeable.
>
> One thing I would recommend would be to go ahead and test to Van's
> published aft CG limit. One day (light fuel, big pax, lotsa luggage, etc.)
> you will probably find the airplane near that aft limit. Better to know
> test under those conditions (how much trim will you need? How will the
> stall behave?), than to experience it for the first time with a passenger on
> board.
>
> My $0.02
>
> Kyle Botright
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* thomas sargent
> *To:* rv-list
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> *Subject:* RV-List: max gross weight test
>
> I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
> will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
> know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
> tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
> Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
> 72.5".
>
> Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
> *
>
> 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*
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight
from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane
because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be
a
handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:
-Higher takeoff speed.
-Longer takeoff run.
-Reduced rate and angle of climb.
-Lower maximum altitude.
-Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel requi
red).
-Reduced cruising speed.
-Reduced maneuverability.
-Higher stalling speed.
-Higher landing speed.
-Longer landing roll.
-Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=92s
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the
pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you ca
n
watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends,
instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces)
can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen wro
te:
>
> I did mine in stages.
>
> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com>
> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> >To: rv-list
> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
> >
> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs
> and
> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.)
I
> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in
> my
> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
> >
> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
or
> >72.5".
> >
> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
> >
> >--
> >Tom Sargent
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave
us your "day job" description. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since
many members on this list have so much more
experience than I have. However, as a 12 year
RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG
guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the effects
of extra gross weight each time we take off after
refueling, or take off or land with a
passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as
often is the effects of pushing close to the CG
limits. We are constantly making small
adjustments in trim while always
remaining within the envelope. It would be a
shock to most of us if we made these adjustments
to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with
a passenger who weighed 240#. I don't know how he
even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was
stupid). When landing, I failed to add extra
speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped
a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this,
in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a
novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the
ground but you would have thought I was two feet
high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This
problem is probably more acute in the -4's and
-8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to
advise anyone how to fly their RV. I just thought
I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens
the stick feel under some circumstances (when you
are already slow and trimmed forward) and can
help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. :-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7,
>but I have a little insight from my day job.
>
>We approach weight and CG changes with great
>care and in many small steps. Generally, someone
>like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the
>airplane because outside of those limits, some
>limit may be exceeded (this could be a handling
>requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>
> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft:
>
>Higher takeoff speed.
>Longer takeoff run.
>Reduced rate and angle of climb.
>Lower maximum altitude.
>Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required).
>Reduced cruising speed.
>Reduced maneuverability.
>Higher stalling speed.
>Higher landing speed.
>Longer landing roll.
>Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
>
>The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>
>FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can
>reduce the airplanes capability to recover from
>stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
>moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
>AFT CG also yields very light control forces.
>(This makes it easy for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>
>Anyway, the point is that by expanding the
>envelopes during testing, you can watch for
>these effects. If you do it slowly, you can
>watch for trends, instead of just going to the
>endpoint all in one go and getting yourself into
>a situation where something (like light
>longitudinal control forces) can get you into
>trouble if you aren't expecting it.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>-az
>
>On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen
><recapen(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
><recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>
>I did mine in stages.
>
>It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: thomas sargent <<mailto:sarg314(at)gmail.com>sarg314(at)gmail.com>
> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
> >To: rv-list <rv-list(at)matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
> >
> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
> >
> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
> >72.5".
> >
> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
> >
> >--
> >Tom Sargent
>
>
>=======================
>get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>==========
>http://forums.matronics.com
>==========
>le, List Admin.
>="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>==========
>
>
>--
>Andrew Zachar
>andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Good post Louis. If you're gonna push the CG limits, don't push the aft
one. When things get hairy an aft CG is the worst to recover from, and
unfortunately it gets hairy close to the ground. Having said that, when
you find what loading gets you close to aft CG ...... make a note in
your aircraft manual what those weights are, and when you have large
passengers/baggage, take the time to check. Oh, and use your calibrated
eye .... all us overweight people lie about our weight. :-P
As for your 'plop' .... it was an educational experience ..... and we
re-learn all to frequently. Embarrassing? Shouldn't have been ..... you
get to use the plane again.
Here's a video of a bad landing ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aydbBl6_W0... Feel better???
Linn
On 3/23/2011 2:09 PM, Louis Willig wrote:
>
>
> Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
> description. It sounds interesting.
>
> I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this
> list have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year
> RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us
> quickly feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off
> after refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't
> "feel" as quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the
> CG limits. We are constantly making small adjustments in trim while
> always remaining within the envelope. It would be a shock to most of
> us if we made these adjustments to a plane that was loaded near the
> edge to start with.
>
> I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who
> weighed 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he
> did. And I didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When
> landing, I failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled
> sharply, dropped a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, in
> the blink of an eye, with no telltale to a novice like me. I was only
> 6 inches off the ground but you would have thought I was two feet
> high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is probably more
> acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
>
> Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to
> fly their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG
> lightens the stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already
> slow and trimmed forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer"
> routine very quickly. :-)
>
> Louis
>
>
> At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>> I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
>> insight from my day job.
>>
>> We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small
>> steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on
>> the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be
>> exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified
>> airplane, etc.).
>>
>> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
>> aircraft:
>>
>> Higher takeoff speed.
>> Longer takeoff run.
>> Reduced rate and angle of climb.
>> Lower maximum altitude.
>> Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
>> required).
>> Reduced cruising speed.
>> Reduced maneuverability.
>> Higher stalling speed.
>> Higher landing speed.
>> Longer landing roll.
>> Excessive weight on the nosewheel.
>>
>> The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>>
>> FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>> AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplanes
>> capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and
>> elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control
>> surfaces).
>> AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for
>> the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>> FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>>
>> Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing,
>> you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch
>> for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and
>> getting yourself into a situation where something (like light
>> longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't
>> expecting it.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
| From: | Andrew Zachar <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com> |
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys who
are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledge
comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in
Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before
embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a
litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a
test) for which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience,
data, or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test
are a bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm
actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did
they expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig wrote:
>
>
> Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
> description. It sounds interesting.
>
> I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list
> have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4
> veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly
> feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after
> refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as
> quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We
are
> constantly making small adjustments in trim while always remaining withi
n
> the envelope. It would be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustme
nts
> to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start with.
>
> I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed
> 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
> didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I
> failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wi
ng,
> and raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no
> telltale to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you
> would have thought I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing.
> This problem is probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more
> attention to CG.
>
> Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly
> their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens t
he
> stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimme
d
> forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly.
> :-)
>
> Louis
>
>
> At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>> I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
>> insight from my day job.
>>
>> We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small step
s.
>> Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airpl
ane
>> because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could
be a
>> handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>>
>> From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
>> aircraft:
>>
>> =B5=D9igher takeoff speed.
>> =B2onger takeoff run.
>>
>> =AF=C3educed rate and angle of climb.
>> =B2ower maximum altitude.
>>
>> =CAhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
>> =AF=C3educed cruising speed.
>> =AF=C3educed maneuverability.
>> =B5=D9igher stalling speed.
>> =B5=D9igher landing speed.
>> =B2onger landing roll.
>>
>> =C0hxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
>>
>> The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
>>
>> FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
>> AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=B7=F6
>> capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevat
or
>> moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
>>
>> AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for th
e
>> pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
>> FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
>>
>> Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you
>> can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for tren
ds,
>> instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
>> into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces
)
>> can get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> -az
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen <> recapen(at)earthlink.net>recapen(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
>> recapen(at)earthlink.net>recapen(at)earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>> I did mine in stages.
>>
>> It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> >From: thomas sargent <<mailto:sarg314(at)gmail.com>sarg314(at)gmail.com>
>> >Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>> >To: rv-list <rv-list(at)matronics.com>
>> >Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>> >
>> >I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs
>> and
>> >will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.)
I
>> >know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far i
n
>> my
>> >tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>> >
>> >Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it'
s
>> >still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown i
t
>> >that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
>> or
>> >72.5".
>> >
>> >Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>> >reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Tom Sargent
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================
>> get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Zachar
>> andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
>>
>>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Especially one you could jettison overboard if things go South ;)
On 3-23-2011 14:27, Linn Walters wrote:
>
>
> Too bad we have to do the phase 1 testing solo. It would be nice to
> take a fat friend for a ride!!!!
> Linn
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HCRV6(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
My own experience with aft CG loading was an eye opener and scary. After a
long day of reassembling a friends RV-7A after painting, a friend in the ov
er 200 lb class and I tossed all our tool boxes and several jugs of gallons
of liquid speed polish in the back of my RV-6. I was down to less than 10
gallons of fuel and with a light Catto prop up front I have to be aware of
potential for aft CG loading, but that day I was tired and not thinking. We
took off for a less than 5 minute flight to a nearby airport where fuel wa
s cheaper and I did not notice anything particularly different about my RV'
s handling until I slowed for landing. I very quickly realized that the nor
mal light stick force in pitch had become close to zero or possibly even ne
gative. I added power and made a fast wheel landing, and vowed to never get
beyond Van's aft CG again. I later calculated that while we were well unde
r max gross, the CG was almost a inch aft of Van's specified range.
In short , I highly recommend approaching aft CG loading very cautiously.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Zachar" <andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 2:38:15 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: max gross weight test
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys who
are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledge c
omes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in Flig
ht Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before embar
king on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a litiga
tion attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a test) f
or which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience, data,
or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test are a
bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm actu
ally most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did they
expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig < larywil(at)comcast.net > wrote
:
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job" descript
ion. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list ha
ve so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4 veteran,
I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly feel the
effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after refueling, or tak
e off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as often
is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We are constantly making
small adjustments in trim while always remaining within the envelope. It w
ould be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustments to a plane that
was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed 24
0#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I didn't
realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I failed to a
dd extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wing, and raise
d my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no telltale to
a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you would have tho
ught I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This problem is
probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly the
ir RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens the st
ick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimmed fo
rward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly. :-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little insight
from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the airplane
because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this could be
a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the aircraft
:
=E8=8F=B1igher takeoff speed.
=E7-=A2onger takeoff run.
=E7=B4=90educed rate and angle of climb.
=E7-=A2ower maximum altitude.
=E7=99=BEhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
=E7=B4=90educed cruising speed.
=E7=B4=90educed maneuverability.
=E8=8F=B1igher stalling speed.
=E8=8F=B1igher landing speed.
=E7-=A2onger landing roll.
=E9=AB=ADxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=E7=97=B4
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the p
ilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you ca
n watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends, i
nstead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself int
o a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces) can
get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen < recapen(at)earthlink.net > wrote:
.net > recapen(at)earthlink.net >
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <<mailto: sarg314(at)gmail.com > sarg314(at)gmail.com >
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list < rv-list(at)matronics.com >
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs and
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72" or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
========================
get="_blank"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
http://forums.matronics.com
===========
le, List Admin.
="_blank"> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
===========
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
===========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
===========
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HCRV6(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
Matt,
Just to put your mind at ease I was informed by Nationair a year ago that the AIG
that carried my insurance was a completely separate group from the AIG that
received the bailout. I assume that was the truth but who knows?
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 805 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 7:59:20 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-8 Insurance...
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-8 Insurance... |
The linked article would seem to support this viewpoint as factual.
http://www.gwbaa.com/news060615.pdf
-GV
In a message dated 03/23/11 20:03:48 Pacific Daylight Time, dralle(at)matronics.com
writes:
Just to follow up on the insurance information I posted, I got an email from EAA/Falcon
this morning indicating that they had quoted this year's policy based
on last year's flight time numbers (basically 0). They re-quoted on my current
hours (153 TTSN) and their quote came more into line at $2490.00. I just wanted
to set the record straight.
Also, the AOPA coverage for $2475 is really with USAIG (United States Aviation
Insurance Group), which is not the bailout "AIG" (American International Group).
At least I don't think so. Here are their respective web sites:
United Status Aviation Insurance Group
http://www.usau.com/usau.nsf/doc/index
American International Group
http://www.aigcorporate.com/index.html
FYI
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left To Do...
>
>Here's this year's Insurance Quotes along with the coverage details on my RV-8.
Can you guess which one I went with?
>
>$1m/$100k Liability
>$5000-$10000 Medical
>$0 Deductible
>$150k Hull Ground/Air
>
>153 Hours, Aircraft
>153 Hours in Type, Pilot
>450 Hours Total, Pilot
>242 Hours TW, Pilot
>
> Avemco: $5811
> EAA/Falcon: $2975 ($3075 last year + Test & 1st 10 hours)
> NationAir/Chartis $2888
> AOPA/AIG $2475
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV6 fuel tank sealant |
New subject---
Does anyone have experience with the sloshing agent used to seal the fuel
tanks prior to about 1994? I have heard of the agent sloughing off and
blocking fuel pickup. Is this a sudden occurrence without any warning? Sho
uld
all the sloshed tanks be replaced with Prosealed tanks? This is not a prob
lem
with my RV7A, but the tanks in a friend's RV6A.
John Greaves
RV7A N781JG
Redding, CA
In a message dated 3/23/2011 2:44:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com writes:
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of guys
who are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my knowledg
e
comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in
Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences before
embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like being a
litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the courtroom (fly a
test)
for which we don't already know the answer (have previous experience, data
,
or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during any type of flight test are a
bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm
actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions. Did t
hey
expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig <_larywil(at)comcast.net_
(mailto:larywil(at)comcast.net) > wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <_larywil(at)comcast.net_
(mailto:larywil(at)comcast.net) >
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
description. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this list
have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year RV-4
veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us quickly
feel the
effects of extra gross weight each time we take off after refueling, or
take off or land with a passenger. What we don't "feel" as quickly or as
often is the effects of pushing close to the CG limits. We are constantly
making small adjustments in trim while always remaining within the envelo
pe.
It would be a shock to most of us if we made these adjustments to a plane
that was loaded near the edge to start with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who weighed
240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did. And I
didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When landing, I fa
iled
to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply, dropped a wing, and
raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of an eye, with no tellta
le
to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off the ground but you would hav
e
thought I was two feet high. No damage, but very embarrassing. This
problem is probably more acute in the -4's and -8's. So we pay more attent
ion to
CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to fly
their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG lightens th
e
stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already slow and trimmed
forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer" routine very quickly.
:-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a little
insight from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many small steps.
Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits on the
airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be exceeded (this
could
be a handling requirement if it's a certified airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
aircraft:
=E8=8F=B1igher takeoff speed.
=E7-=A2onger takeoff run.
=E7=B4=90educed rate and angle of climb.
=E7-=A2ower maximum altitude.
=E7=99=BEhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel
required).
=E7=B4=90educed cruising speed.
=E7=B4=90educed maneuverability.
=E8=8F=B1igher stalling speed.
=E8=8F=B1igher landing speed.
=E7-=A2onger landing roll.
=E9=AB=ADxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the airplane=E7=97
=B4
capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased rudder and elevator
moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy for the
pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during testing, you
can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can watch for trends
,
instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go and getting yourself
into a situation where something (like light longitudinal control forces)
can
get you into trouble if you aren't expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen
<_recapen@e
arthlink.net_
(mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net) > wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
<_recapen@e
arthlink.net_
(mailto:recapen(at)earthlink.net) >
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent <<mailto:_sarg314(at)gmail.com_
(mailto:sarg314(at)gmail.com) >_sarg314(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:sarg314(at)gmail.com)
>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list <_rv-list(at)matronics.com_ (mailto:rv-list@mat
ronics.com) >
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at 1720lbs an
d
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was 1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So far in
my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range), so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than about 72"
or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
=======================
get="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List_
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
_http://forums.matronics.com_ (http://forums.matronics.com/)
le, List Admin.
="_blank">_http://www.matronics.com/contribution_
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
--
Andrew Zachar
_andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com)
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Andrew Zachar
_andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com_ (mailto:andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | links to common aviation insurers |
http://www.insurancestates.com/aviation.html
-GV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6 fuel tank sealant |
John, I have been flying with the sloshed tanks in an RV-6A since 1998
using both Mogas and 100LL with no problem (so far). My understanding
is that if the tanks surfaces were properly prepared and the slosh
properly apply there is no problem. However, with less "perfect"
application, the slosh can and has broken away from the tank surfaces
and blocked filters. This apparently can happen suddenly, although a
number of folks have reported finding white flakes in their fuel
filters before it got to that point.
There used to be some folks who would take your tanks and clean out the
slosh - but the cost was not cheap and I think they finally decided
better in the long run just to build new tanks with proseal only.
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
From: N81JG(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV6 fuel tank sealant
New subject---
Does anyone have experience with the sloshing agent used to seal the
fuel tanks prior to about 1994? I have heard of the agent sloughing off
and blocking fuel pickup. Is this a sudden occurrence without any
warning? Should all the sloshed tanks be replaced with Prosealed tanks?
This is not a problem with my RV7A, but the tanks in a friend's RV6A.
John Greaves
RV7A N781JG
Redding, CA
In a message dated 3/23/2011 2:44:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com writes:
Flight Test Engineer. Worked in Kansas and North Carolina.
But, I'm a young guy and don't have as much experience as a lot of
guys who are probably reading this list, so full disclosure, most of my
knowledge comes from various advisory circulars and flight test guides.
Being a CFI has reinforced that I need to be conservative and being in
Flight Test has reinforced that I need to seek other's experiences
before embarking on stuff on my own. Modern flight test is a little like
being a litigation attorney. We don't ever ask a question in the
courtroom (fly a test) for which we don't already know the answer (have
previous experience, data, or windtunnel predictions.) Surprises during
any type of flight test are a bad, bad thing.
I think with aft-CG testing of RVs, going slow is good advice, but I'm
actually most interested in hearing the data from others' expansions.
Did they expand slow or fast, what results did they see?
Your shared experience is a good one to keep in mind.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Louis Willig
wrote:
Andrew, this is an excellent post. Wish you gave us your "day job"
description. It sounds interesting.
I wasn't going to post on this question, since many members on this
list have so much more experience than I have. However, as a 12 year
RV-4 veteran, I just want to re-enforce your CG guidelines. Most of us
quickly feel the effects of extra gross weight each time we take off
after refueling, or take off or land with a passenger. What we don't
"feel" as quickly or as often is the effects of pushing close to the CG
limits. We are constantly making small adjustments in trim while always
remaining within the envelope. It would be a shock to most of us if we
made these adjustments to a plane that was loaded near the edge to start
with.
I had an "aft CG" experience many years ago with a passenger who
weighed 240#. I don't know how he even fit in the back seat, but he did.
And I didn't realize what I was doing ( yes, I was stupid). When
landing, I failed to add extra speed, and the aircraft stalled sharply,
dropped a wing, and raised my blood pressure. All this, in the blink of
an eye, with no telltale to a novice like me. I was only 6 inches off
the ground but you would have thought I was two feet high. No damage,
but very embarrassing. This problem is probably more acute in the -4's
and -8's. So we pay more attention to CG.
Look, I am not experience or capable enough to advise anyone how to
fly their RV. I just thought I would step in to say that an aft CG
lightens the stick feel under some circumstances (when you are already
slow and trimmed forward) and can help you learn the "Flying Farmer"
routine very quickly. :-)
Louis
At 11:54 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
I'm far from getting into phase 1 with my RV-7, but I have a
little insight from my day job.
We approach weight and CG changes with great care and in many
small steps. Generally, someone like Van's will put weight and CG limits
on the airplane because outside of those limits, some limit may be
exceeded (this could be a handling requirement if it's a certified
airplane, etc.).
>From some guidance material, the effects of higher weights on the
aircraft:
=E8=8F=B1igher takeoff speed.
=E7-=A2onger takeoff run.
=E7=B4=90educed rate and angle of climb.
=E7-=A2ower maximum altitude.
=E7=99=BEhorter range (more weight lifted = more work done =
more fuel required).
=E7=B4=90educed cruising speed.
=E7=B4=90educed maneuverability.
=E8=8F=B1igher stalling speed.
=E8=8F=B1igher landing speed.
=E7-=A2onger landing roll.
=E9=AB=ADxcessive weight on the nosewheel.
The effects of adverse CG conditions can be:
FWD CG causes problems in controlling and raising the nose
AFT CG affects longitudinal stability, and can reduce the
airplane=E7=97=B4 capability to recover from stalls and spins (decreased
rudder and elevator moments due to shorter arm (distance) from CG to
control surfaces).
AFT CG also yields very light control forces. (This makes it easy
for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the airplane.)
FWD CG is also limited by elevator effectiveness at slow speeds.
Anyway, the point is that by expanding the envelopes during
testing, you can watch for these effects. If you do it slowly, you can
watch for trends, instead of just going to the endpoint all in one go
and getting yourself into a situation where something (like light
longitudinal control forces) can get you into trouble if you aren't
expecting it.
Hope this helps.
-az
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Ralph E. Capen
<recapen(at)earthlink.net> wrote:
<recapen(at)earthlink.net>
I did mine in stages.
It was pretty weird strapping in a bag of sand......
-----Original Message-----
>From: thomas sargent
<sarg314(at)gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 22, 2011 4:06 PM
>To: rv-list <rv-list(at)matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: max gross weight test
>
>I am just about done testing my 6A. I specified a max gross at
1720lbs and
>will fly it at that weight in a couple days. (Empty weight was
1076.) I
>know some planes have significantly higher max gross weights. So
far in my
>tests (all solo), weight doesn't seem to change behavior very
much.
>
>Fully loaded the CG will be at 74.6" (in the 68.7 - 76.8 range),
so it's
>still more than 2" forward of the aft limit, although I haven't
flown it
>that far aft before. I think I've had it no further aft than
about 72" or
>72.5".
>
>Should I approach the max gross configuration in a few steps or
is it
>reasonable to just go for it in one flight?
>
>--
>Tom Sargent
=======================
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
==========
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
==========
MS -
k">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
e -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
t="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Andrew Zachar
andrew.d.zachar(at)gmail.com
="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/
Navigator?RV-List
s.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV6 fuel tank sealant |
I followed the recommendations of Van's Aircraft that were in effect at the
time of construction. I used the WHITE slosh painted over the Pro-Seal an
d sloshed the rear baffle per the directions at the time.
After 13.5 years of flying and 2=2C480 flying hours=2C there has been NO is
sues. NONE has come off=2C flaked=2C or got into my gascolator.
I know of one RV-4 that had a leak in the tank. A yellow slosh was added ov
er the white slosh. The yellow slosh acted adversely on the white slosh an
d crinkled everything up requiring that the tank be taken apart=2C cleaned
=2C and resealed.
The White Slosh is alcohol resistant and the Yellow Slosh is not. They are
NOT compatible with each other.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C484+ Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
From: N81JG(at)aol.com
Date: Wed=2C 23 Mar 2011 23:53:36 -0400
Subject: RV-List: RV6 fuel tank sealant
New subject---
Does anyone have experience with the sloshing agent used to seal the fuel
tanks prior to about 1994? I have heard of the agent sloughing off and bloc
king
fuel pickup. Is this a sudden occurrence without any warning? Should all th
e
sloshed tanks be replaced with Prosealed tanks? This is not a problem with
my
RV7A=2C but the tanks in a friend's RV6A.
John Greaves
RV7A N781JG
Redding=2C CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RV6 fuel tank sealant |
I followed the recommendations of Van's Aircraft that were in effect at the
time of construction. I used the WHITE slosh painted over the Pro-Seal an
d sloshed the rear baffle per the directions at the time.
After 13.5 years of flying and 2=2C480 flying hours=2C there has been NO is
sues. NONE has come off=2C flaked=2C or got into my gascolator.
I know of one RV-4 that had a leak in the tank. A yellow slosh was added ov
er the white slosh. The yellow slosh acted adversely on the white slosh an
d crinkled everything up requiring that the tank be taken apart=2C cleaned
=2C and resealed.
The White Slosh is alcohol resistant and the Yellow Slosh is not. They are
NOT compatible with each other.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C484+ Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
From: N81JG(at)aol.com
Date: Wed=2C 23 Mar 2011 23:53:36 -0400
Subject: RV-List: RV6 fuel tank sealant
New subject---
Does anyone have experience with the sloshing agent used to seal the fuel
tanks prior to about 1994? I have heard of the agent sloughing off and bloc
king
fuel pickup. Is this a sudden occurrence without any warning? Should all th
e
sloshed tanks be replaced with Prosealed tanks? This is not a problem with
my
RV7A=2C but the tanks in a friend's RV6A.
John Greaves
RV7A N781JG
Redding=2C CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A. It was at about 1590
lbs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9. Pitch was definitely
light and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still seemed to climb
pretty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off. That is with a fixed
pitch cruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to climb especially fast.
I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns. Nose is
definitely light. It is definitely a little squirrellier at low speed.
Seemed to want to drop the right wing when it stalled, but that was probably
just me.
They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help any.
Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring. Seemed to
roll out for a loooong time too.
Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of the
limit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight. I think I'll try that
next time.
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
As your cg moves aft and you load increases, your pitch will become even mor
e sensitive and you will notice increased sink rates. Carry in a bit more s
peed on final and be ready on the rudder pedals.
Ask any RV-4 pilot with >200 lbs behind the roll bar. Makes landing feel 'n
ew' again :-)
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:30 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A. It was at about 1590 l
bs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9. Pitch was definitely ligh
t and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still seemed to climb pret
ty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off. That is with a fixed pitch c
ruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to climb especially fast.
>
> I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns. Nose is definit
ely light. It is definitely a little squirrellier at low speed. Seemed to w
ant to drop the right wing when it stalled, but that was probably just me.
>
> They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help any.
Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring. Seemed to r
oll out for a loooong time too.
>
> Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of the l
imit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight. I think I'll try that ne
xt time.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
On 3/24/2011 12:30 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> FWIW I did my first "heavy" flight today in the 6A. It was at about
> 1590 lbs (max gross set at 1720) with cg at ablut 73.9. Pitch was
> definitely light and it took a little longer to lift off, but it still
> seemed to climb pretty good - in the 1400 ft/min range on take off.
> That is with a fixed pitch cruise prop (Catto) and I didn't try to
> climb especially fast.
>
> I got up to 8000 and did some stalls and low speed turns. Nose is
> definitely light. It is definitely a little squirrellier at low
> speed. Seemed to want to drop the right wing when it stalled, but
> that was probably just me.
>
> They landed me (KRYN) with a quartering tail wind, which didn't help
> any. Definitely had to watch that pitch very carefully when flaring.
> Seemed to roll out for a loooong time too.
>
> Full gross wt. in my plane puts the cg at 74.8, still well forward of
> the limit and only 0.9 further aft than today's flight. I think I'll
> try that next time.
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
Hi Tom,
I'm a little uncomfortable with telling you this, because of of obvious
'apples/oranges' issues, but here goes.
When I was doing transition training (from one taildragger to another),
the guy doing the training suggested leaving the plane trimmed somewhat
nose down when doing wheel landings. The logic for that a/c was that the
pilot then doesn't need to force himself to *push* the stick when the
mains touch; the nose down trim will do that with just a release of
backpressure.
Again, this is 'apples/oranges', but you might consider re-purposing
that trick; it might buy you a little insurance against inadvertently
pulling the nose up into a stall. If you've run out of trim, I might
think carefully about re-weighing or re-calculating.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: max gross weight test |
Charlie, I had several tailwheel instructors suggest trimming forward
for wheel landings. But I was always afraid to wheel land ( the sight
picture seemed strange). Many years later I tried their advice, and
it worked. I also noticed that the "feel" of the aircraft when
flaring and landing seems more honest and controlled.
Many of the posts, so far, have shown consistent descriptions with
what I felt when I flew overloaded and close to aft CG limits upon
landing. I guess we all have tricks to make a nice landing. Mine is
to keep the throttle a hair forward, and the nose trimmed forward of
neutral when I wheel land and when I have my sweetheart aboard.
This thread is what the RV-list is about. Thanks, guys.
Louis
>I'm a little uncomfortable with telling you this, because of of
>obvious 'apples/oranges' issues, but here goes.
>
>When I was doing transition training (from one taildragger to
>another), the guy doing the training suggested leaving the plane
>trimmed somewhat nose down when doing wheel landings. The logic for
>that a/c was that the pilot then doesn't need to force himself to
>*push* the stick when the mains touch; the nose down trim will do
>that with just a release of backpressure.
>
>Again, this is 'apples/oranges', but you might consider re-purposing
>that trick; it might buy you a little insurance against
>inadvertently pulling the nose up into a stall. If you've run out of
>trim, I might think carefully about re-weighing or re-calculating.
>
>Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Supercharged @ Sun-n-Fun |
| From: | "G3i Ignition" <mail(at)g3ignition.com> |
Russ is flying his Supercharged 7 to Sun-n-Fun to show the blower set-up and I,
Thomas, G3i guy, will be coming along also. We will be there talking performance
mods, ignitions, and what-ever else we been up to on the go fast power stuff.
Were leaving Wednesday morning and if we can skate into Lakeland before the
air show @ 2:00 we will be on the field. If not, we will be hanging out at Cross
City Airport (CTY) until we can get in. Find us on the field and ck it out,
Russs cell, 970-215-3383, Thomass 303-906-6846 See ya there!
(http://img827.imageshack.us/i/g3iignition01450x300.jpg/)
--------
Thomas S.
[url]www.G3ignition.com
[/url][I]Follow G3i on Facebook.
[/I]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=334977#334977
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: NAV/COM/GS Antenna |
>At 02:53 PM 1/26/2011 Wednesday, you wrote:
>Gday all,
>I bought a Comant CI-121 NAV/COM/GS Antenna (V dipole) to install on my VS but
I have discovered that it wont fit.
>The diameter of the mounting base is 2.5 inches and that will not fit into the
Fibreglass Fairing on top of the VS.
>Which V dipoles have other people used on their VS?
>
>Cheers
>
>John MacCallum
>Builder 41016
>
>Rydal NSW Australia
Hi John,
I realize you posted about this a few months old, but I thought I'd comment on
your VOR antenna mounting conundrum. You called out a "CI-121 Nav/COM/GS", but
I think you really meant something like a CI-158C which is a Di-pole VOR/GS/Loc
antenna. The CI-121 is a fiberglass COM antenna only.
Here is the Cheif web page on NAV/GS/Loc antennas:
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Aircraft/Antennas/ComantIndustries-NAV.html
In any case, I mounted a CI-158C in the fin of my RV-8 and it works very nicely
there. Here are some pictures of the installation:
Finished Installation:
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&log=67041&row=1
Installation Techniques:
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&log=66967&row=49
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&log=66968&row=48
Best regards,
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint Job Is All That's Left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Murillo <murillo1099(at)yahoo.com> |
Lost medical has to sell my rv6a
$37,000 firm..
Engine Aero Sport 150 H>P> E2DE
Electric Trim, Electric Flaps
Engine Monitor "Grand Rapids"
CHT 7 GHT ALL Cylinders
Rocker Switch Electrical Panel
King Radio, 120 & Micro Air
Mode C. Transponder
Intercom, push to talk, both pilot/copilot
Total Time Engine and frame approximately 130 hrs.
on 3/26/11. Completed Annual Plane is white & yellow with blue trim, always
hangared, located in Deland Florida
contact 407.878.3491
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ev6a for sale |
| From: | Dane Sheahen <fastpilotrv8(at)aol.com> |
Hey Robert
Is that The RV6a that had the prop strike then a new prop and there are no log
books ?
On Mar 26, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Robert Murillo wrote:
>
> Lost medical has to sell my rv6a
>
> $37,000 firm..
>
> Engine Aero Sport 150 H>P> E2DE
> Electric Trim, Electric Flaps
> Engine Monitor "Grand Rapids"
> CHT 7 GHT ALL Cylinders
> Rocker Switch Electrical Panel
> King Radio, 120 & Micro Air
> Mode C. Transponder
> Intercom, push to talk, both pilot/copilot
> Total Time Engine and frame approximately 130 hrs.
>
> on 3/26/11. Completed Annual Plane is white & yellow with blue trim, always
> hangared, located in Deland Florida
>
> contact 407.878.3491
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rveighta(at)comcast.net |
I'm listing this for a friend who has an RV-10 Tail Kit for sale. The eleva
tors, vertical stab and rudder are done, the rest is in Van's original box.
He's asking $2800=C2- or best offer. He prefers pickup, but could ship.
=C2- Contact Ed Athey=C2- (423) 863-4466.=C2- Owner is located in Lim
estone, TN.
Thanks,
Walt Shipley
RV-8, RV-8A,=C2- RV-12 under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern" <verdixbo(at)sisqtel.net> |
How you ever noticed how clicky some the people are on vaf. If you post something
it just might get deleted. if your not one of the gang.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=335533#335533
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph&Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: vans airforce |
Proudly "Banned For Life" on VAF. Guess I wasn't part of the
moderators clique either.
RF
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Vern wrote:
>
> How you ever noticed how clicky some the people are on vaf. If you post something
it just might get deleted. if your not one of the gang.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: vans airforce |
| From: | John Trollinger <john(at)trollingers.com> |
I am sorry to hear you have had problems on VAF, but I have always
gotten and answer to my questions there, where every time I ask
something on Matronics it is crickets.. so maybe you all have a click
here too?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Ralph&Maria Finch
wrote:
>
> Proudly "Banned For Life" on VAF. Guess I wasn't part of the
> moderators clique either.
> RF
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Vern wrote:
>>
>> How you ever noticed how clicky some the people are on vaf. If you post something
it just might get deleted. if your not one of the gang.
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Panama Red" <panamared505(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: vans airforce |
I never was banned, I just wasn't allowed to join.
Bob
RV6
>> Proudly "Banned For Life" on VAF. Guess I wasn't part of the
> moderators clique either.
> RF
>
>>
>> How you ever noticed how clicky some the people are on vaf. If you post
>> something it just might get deleted. if your not one of the gang.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David <dmaib(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: vans airforce |
I've had my wrist slapped on VAF, but I enjoy the forum, so I
continue to participate. Doug's rules about what will be deleted are
crystal clear, but I think sometimes the moderators are kind of like
inspectors at different FSDO's. ^_^
David Maib
RV-10 Transition Trainer
On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Vern wrote:
>
> How you ever noticed how clicky some the people are on vaf. If you
> post something it just might get deleted. if your not one of the gang.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=335533#335533
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich(at)dcscorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: vans airforce |
No - I have never noticed that. Do you have examples? I've never had anythi
ng deleted - and usually get rapid, knowledgeable answers.
If it bothers you enough to post on this forum, why in the hell do you even
open the VAF link? Seems like your only interested in igniting a pro/con V
AF debate.
Why?
Paul Valovich
N192NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Heavy Right Wing... |
Dear Listers,
Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with the
heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed I
have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge. I
wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add a
bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
Thanks!
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Dear Listers,
With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and 25-26
MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are down
low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that much,
but starts dropping the speed.
In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described above?
Thanks,
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
Before you squeeze either, take your airfoil template and make sure the leading
edge of the aileron isn't sticking up in to the airstream. Mine was by just
a little bit. I reset the aileron and haven't found the need to squeeze....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:10 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Heavy Right Wing...
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed I
have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Matt
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Matt,
I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that combination as outside
of the suggested area of continuous operation - yes it was a quick look
and I didn't purely run the numbers.
I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are a bugger
to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and
25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are
down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
>
>Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that much,
but starts dropping the speed.
>
>In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
>
>Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described
above?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Senegal <ssenegal(at)sanbrunocable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Matt,
I'm curious as to what model 72" Hartzell prop you're running?
Steve
(650) 346 6967
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:21 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and
25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are
down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
>
> Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that much,
but starts dropping the speed.
>
> In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
>
> Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described
above?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Ralph,
I looked at your attached chart and didn't see any warning about
operation limits. These type charts are just used to predict what
various RPM/MP/Altitude combinations will result in a given airspeed. As
long as he stays in his engine/prop allowed range it's fine. Those
numbers can be found on the props TC certificate or by a call to the
props manufacturer. Low RPM, high MP has been used for years, every
turbo-charged engine does it.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
Matt,
I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that
combination as outside of the suggested area of continuous operation -
yes it was a quick look and I didn't purely run the numbers.
I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are
a bugger to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com,
rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150
RPM and 25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH.
These number are down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower
GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit is pretty quiet too.
>
>Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH
that much, but starts dropping the speed.
>
>In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest
cylinder. Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about
28-29.
>
>Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as
described above?
>
>Thanks,
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV10-List: This could be bad....(storms in S-N-F) |
Re: RV10-List: This could be bad....(storms in S-N-F)
MARCH 31, 2011
*Strong Storms Batter Sun 'n
Fun*<http://links.bonniermarinegroup.com/ctt?kn=18&m=4803797&r=NDc4NjIxOTY5OQS2&b=0&j=MTc1MDkzMTk2S0&mt=1&rt=0>
**
[image: SNF damage]<http://links.bonniermarinegroup.com/ctt?kn=18&m=4803797&r=NDc4NjIxOTY5OQS2&b=0&j=MTc1MDkzMTk2S0&mt=1&rt=0>
*Damage to total hundreds of millions of dollars.* *(Photo: Pia Bergqvist)*
The scene at Sun 'n Fun at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport turned to chaos
on Thursday as strong storms hammered the show site, flipping airplanes,
knocking out power to the exhibit halls and collapsing a building, trapping
dozens of people inside. The National Weather Service reported confirmed
tornadoes in the area, and said more than 70 people were trapped inside the
collapsed building at the Sun 'n Fun show site. Even though the first couple
of days of the show were largely storm free, the week continued to be
defined by heavy rain that soaked the grounds the day before the festivities
started and kept thousands of airplanes from arriving in Lakeland. Despite
the slow start to the week, some vendors reported doing good business even
with the smaller crowds. Launch events by Aspen, Piper, Garmin and Cessna
generated a good deal of buzz at the show, and as the week progressed and
the scattered areas of decent weather surfaced, the mood of show goers
seemed decidedly upbeat. But on Thursday morning show goers awoke to heavy
rains and threatening skies before a massive storm cell swept through the
area late in the morning. A tornado warning for the area remained in effect
on Thursday afternoon.
*From:* owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Dj Merrill
*Sent:* Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:06 AM
*To:* rv10-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* Re: RV10-List: This could be bad....(storms in S-N-F)
--> RV10-List message posted by: Dj Merrill
On 03/31/2011 01:11 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
> If you hear anything with good links, I'd love to hear
> that nothing happened to all the airplanes....
There is more news on the Sun n Fun Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/SunNFunFlyIn
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)suddenlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
I did the same thing as Ralph. It worked.
Sent via DROID on Verizon Wireless
-----Original message-----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 16:48:32 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: RV-List: Heavy Right Wing...
Before you squeeze either, take your airfoil template and make sure the
leading edge of the aileron isn't sticking up in to the airstream. Mine was
by just a little bit. I reset the aileron and haven't found the need to
squeeze....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:10 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Heavy Right Wing...
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm
trying to get all the little things that need doing done before then.
Dealing with the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently,
at low speed I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more
LEFT trim I need. Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron
is noticeably "up", maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at
the trailing edge. I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the
RIGHT aileron will add a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully
neutralize the issue?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Matt
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
Hey Matt,
When I sent in my pledge, I got a great book called something like Airplane
Rigging. It was an excellent read and a reference I plan to return to
when I actually get my bird airborn. I am certainly no expert in this, but
reviewing that book might give you some really good ideas.
I wonder what is happening to your slip indicator as the airspeed goes up.
Is the airplane going straight? If the issue is in yaw and is getting
compensated by roll, then the aileron is probably not the place to start. If
the issue is the prop wash affecting the wing ( I can't remember from the
book which roll this affects) then I think they said something about
changing the angle the engine sits (washer under the motor mount).
I am probably just broadcasting my ignorance here, but I thought I would
mention what a great book it was and how much it helped my understanding of
the complexities of the rigging process.
Good luck and let us know how this comes out.
Regards,
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wiring
San Ramon, CA
In a message dated 3/31/2011 10:11:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
dralle(at)matronics.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
Dear Listers,
Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm
trying to get all the little things that need doing done before then.
Dealing with the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at
low speed I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT
trim I need. Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is
noticeably "up", maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at
the trailing edge. I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the
RIGHT aileron will add a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully
neutralize the issue?
Thanks!
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
There's a place just to the left of the dividing line towards the bottom that says
"LIMITING MAN. PRESS FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION". It points to both the left
and right portions of the chart.
That is what I was referring to - and that is what I try to go by. I would think
it is even more critical if you're turbocharged.
Or am I really misinterpreting the charts.....maybe Bart (Lalonde) or Rhonda (Barrett)
or Mahlon (Russell) will chime in here and keep us honest.
I'll take an education....
-----Original Message-----
>From: Bruce <BGray(at)glasair.org>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 2:54 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>
>
>Ralph,
>
>I looked at your attached chart and didn't see any warning about
>operation limits. These type charts are just used to predict what
>various RPM/MP/Altitude combinations will result in a given airspeed. As
>long as he stays in his engine/prop allowed range it's fine. Those
>numbers can be found on the props TC certificate or by a call to the
>props manufacturer. Low RPM, high MP has been used for years, every
>turbo-charged engine does it.
>
>Bruce
>WWW.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
>Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:07 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>
>Matt,
>
>I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that
>combination as outside of the suggested area of continuous operation -
>yes it was a quick look and I didn't purely run the numbers.
>
>I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
>
>YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are
>a bugger to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
>
>Ralph
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com,
>rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>
>>
>>Dear Listers,
>>
>>With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150
>RPM and 25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH.
>These number are down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower
>GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit is pretty quiet too.
>>
>>Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH
>that much, but starts dropping the speed.
>>
>>In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest
>cylinder. Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about
>28-29.
>>
>>Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as
>described above?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>-
>>Matt Dralle
>>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Denis Walsh <denis.walsh(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
Matt there are lots of good pieces of advice available, and most of
what I've seen are worthwhile.
I just want to add: If you do get around to squeezing a trailing
edge, your technique is backwards. The wing whose aileron you squeeze
will become heavier.
Check everything else first.
DW
On Mar 31, 2011, at 10:10 , Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and
> I'm trying to get all the little things that need doing done before
> then. Dealing with the heavy right wing is the next thing on the
> list. Currently, at low speed I have about neutral aileron trim.
> The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need. Above 200mph, I run out
> of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up", maybe .125" or
> so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge. I
> wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron
> will add a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize
> the issue?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
Seems to be very common on 7's and 8's for the rt aileron outer hinge to
be high, allowing outer leading edge to stick up, while inner hinge is
perfect.
On 3/31/2011 9:48 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
>
> Before you squeeze either, take your airfoil template and make sure the leading
edge of the aileron isn't sticking up in to the airstream. Mine was by just
a little bit. I reset the aileron and haven't found the need to squeeze....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Dralle<dralle(at)matronics.com>
>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:10 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Heavy Right Wing...
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>>
>>
>> Dear Listers,
>>
>> Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed
I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> -
>> Matt Dralle
>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
There is a difference between the early IO-360s that did not have
dynamic counterweights on the crank and the later versions used in the
Cardinal RG and Mooney 201 that have the dynamic counterweights. I am
pretty sure the IO-390 does have the dynamic counterweights. Point being
that the solid crank models have harmonic ranges between the Hartzell
prop and the engine that restrict operations, usually in the 2100-2350
range. The later models do not have those restrictions but do have
cautions against low MP and low rpm. So it is the prop and crank
combination that matters.
On 3/31/2011 12:46 PM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen"
>
>
> There's a place just to the left of the dividing line towards the bottom that
says "LIMITING MAN. PRESS FOR CONTINUOUS OPERATION". It points to both the left
and right portions of the chart.
>
> That is what I was referring to - and that is what I try to go by. I would think
it is even more critical if you're turbocharged.
>
> Or am I really misinterpreting the charts.....maybe Bart (Lalonde) or Rhonda
(Barrett) or Mahlon (Russell) will chime in here and keep us honest.
>
>
> I'll take an education....
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bruce<BGray(at)glasair.org>
>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 2:54 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce"
>>
>> Ralph,
>>
>> I looked at your attached chart and didn't see any warning about
>> operation limits. These type charts are just used to predict what
>> various RPM/MP/Altitude combinations will result in a given airspeed. As
>> long as he stays in his engine/prop allowed range it's fine. Those
>> numbers can be found on the props TC certificate or by a call to the
>> props manufacturer. Low RPM, high MP has been used for years, every
>> turbo-charged engine does it.
>>
>> Bruce
>> WWW.Glasair.org
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
>> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:07 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that
>> combination as outside of the suggested area of continuous operation -
>> yes it was a quick look and I didn't purely run the numbers.
>>
>> I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
>>
>> YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are
>> a bugger to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Matt Dralle<dralle(at)matronics.com>
>>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com,
>> rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>>> Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Matt Dralle
>>>
>>> Dear Listers,
>>>
>>> With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150
>> RPM and 25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH.
>> These number are down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower
>> GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit is pretty quiet too.
>>> Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH
>> that much, but starts dropping the speed.
>>> In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest
>> cylinder. Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about
>> 28-29.
>>> Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as
>> described above?
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -
>>> Matt Dralle
>>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>>> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>>> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>>> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
That RPM/MP combo might very well be detonation prone at 50 to 100 deg ROP. But,
I'm guessing (big emphasis on the word guessing) that it should be fine as
long as you are well LOP, and all CHTs are not too hot.
I'm no engine expert, so this advice is worth what you paid for it.
Kevin Horton
On 2011-03-31, at 13:07 , Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that combination as
outside of the suggested area of continuous operation - yes it was a quick look
and I didn't purely run the numbers.
>
> I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
>
> YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are a bugger
to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
>
> Ralph
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>> Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>
>>
>> Dear Listers,
>>
>> With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and
25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are
down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
>>
>> Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that
much, but starts dropping the speed.
>>
>> In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
>>
>> Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described
above?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -
>> Matt Dralle
>> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
On 2011-03-31, at 12:10 , Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed
I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
Matt,
Given that the out of trim changes so much with speed, I doubt a simple squeeze
of an aileron trailing edge is the answer. You'd end up with a heavy left wing
at slow speed, and a heavy right wing at high speed. Study the info that Van's
has published on this before you do any squeezing.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/Wing_Heavy.pdf
I'm guessing you've either got a misrigged flap, or an aileron hinge that needs
to be moved vertically.
If you do squeeze an aileron, you squeeze the one on the light wing, i.e. you'd
squeeze the left one.
--
Kevin Horton
RV-8
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
> a combination of 2150 RPM and 25-26 MP
The Lycoming engine plots say to me that operation at full power, full
throttle, full rich (but with zero RAM air boosting) down to 2400 RPM is
OK. But the limit line is clearly saying that if the RPM is set below
2400 RPM the maximum power has to be dialed back.
This is not unreasonable since the engines are rated at max RPM. Power
is the product of RPM and Torque. To retain the same HP at reduced RPM
requires increasing the Torque output - increasing the peak forces
withing the engine. Both the max RPM and max Torque define the
operating limits of the engine from a mechanical point of view. (You
need to hit the cylinders harder to get the same HP at lower RPM)
The max RPM and the lines marked 'Limiting man pressure for continuous
operation.' is how these limits are conveyed to the operator. What the
limiting factor for the torque is really not generally known - perhaps
detonation is a factor - peak cylinder pressures or perhaps it is
something else. Talk to the design authority for this engine - if you
can find one.
For the few Lycoming engines I have looked at the max power is limited
to somewhere between 65 and70% at 2150 RPM.
My question is for the propeller manufacturers, when they test for
suitability on the respective engines do they take this secondary
limitation into consideration? If you are operating your engine
outside this range you may also be operating the propeller outside its
tested and approved range as well. (Bigger hitting cylinders will
augment their tendency to resonance.)
Just my thoughts on the matter - worth just exactly what you paid.
Doug
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... |
Thanks to everyone for the great feedback on this issue!!
I went out after work tonight and had a look at the aileron alignment and sure
enough, the outboard edge of the right aileron was high by about 1/16-3/32 of
an inch. I took the hinge off the aileron and elongated the holes slightly and
reassembled, dropping the outboard side by about 1/16". I went out and took
it up to about 220mph and now - are you ready for this - it requires full RIGHT
trim! Completely the opposite from before. So, obviously I need to reduce
the drop by 50% and I should be dead-on neutral trim! Its amazing to me how
such a little movement had such a HUGE impact on the trim. No, aileron edge smooshing
necessary, by the way! Whew!
Best,
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
At 09:10 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
>Dear Listers,
>
>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed I
have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Hum, interesting. In that graph, albeit for the IO-360, the "Limiting MP For Continuous
Ops" at 26 MP is 2100 RPM. 27 MP is 2200. Assuming the IO-390 is similar,
2150 at 26.5 ought to be good to go. BTW, I flew tonight and at 26/2150
I was seeing about 10.2-10.5 GPH @ 2500ft. Better than I recalled.
Where can I get a sweet chart like that for my IO-390? I looked quickly though
the manuals that came with the engine, and I didn't see one.
Thanks for the feedback everyone!
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
At 10:07 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>Matt,
>
>I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that combination as outside
of the suggested area of continuous operation - yes it was a quick look
and I didn't purely run the numbers.
>
>I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
>
>YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are a bugger
to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
>
>Ralph
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>
>>
>>Dear Listers,
>>
>>With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and
25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are
down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
>>
>>Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that much,
but starts dropping the speed.
>>
>>In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
>>
>>Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described
above?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>-
>>Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP... |
Matt,
I did some research and came up with another 390 user.....:
http://www.io-390.com/IO-390.com/GRT_Perf_Tables.html
Maybe that'll help.
Meanwhile - you should already know how much value these lists add to our ventures.....
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 11:54 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>
>Hum, interesting. In that graph, albeit for the IO-360, the "Limiting MP For
Continuous Ops" at 26 MP is 2100 RPM. 27 MP is 2200. Assuming the IO-390 is
similar, 2150 at 26.5 ought to be good to go. BTW, I flew tonight and at 26/2150
I was seeing about 10.2-10.5 GPH @ 2500ft. Better than I recalled.
>
>Where can I get a sweet chart like that for my IO-390? I looked quickly though
the manuals that came with the engine, and I didn't see one.
>
>Thanks for the feedback everyone!
>
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
>At 10:07 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>>Matt,
>>
>>I don't have an IO390 but the manual for my IO360B shows that combination as
outside of the suggested area of continuous operation - yes it was a quick look
and I didn't purely run the numbers.
>>
>>I would guess that combination might be detonation-prone.
>>
>>YMMV - see if you can get the appropriate chart for the IO390. They are a bugger
to figure out too - but there are some guidelines.
>>
>>Ralph
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>>>Sent: Mar 31, 2011 12:21 PM
>>>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: RV-List: Low RPM/High MP vs. High RPM/Low MP...
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Listers,
>>>
>>>With the IO-390 and Hartzell 72" CS on my RV-8, a combination of 2150 RPM and
25-26 MP gives me nice 200MPH True and about 10.5-10.8 GPH. These number are
down low, maybe 3000ft. Higher altitude gives lower GPHs. At 2150, the cockpit
is pretty quiet too.
>>>
>>>Increasing the RPM and Decreasing the MP doesn't really change the GPH that
much, but starts dropping the speed.
>>>
>>>In all configurations, I'm running LOP at about 1360 on the hottest cylinder.
Oil temps are about 178 F. Max MP at low altitude is about 28-29.
>>>
>>>Are there any issues running in a low-RPM, high-MP configuration as described
above?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>-
>>>Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... (Additional Thoughts) |
After a good night's rest I got to thinking about these most recent observations.
Dropping the RIGHT aileron a 1/16" caused the trim requirement at high speed
to go from the previous full-LEFT to a full-RIGHT setting. Wouldn't this
imply that now the LEFT aileron needs a similar adjustment perhaps? Maybe only
a 1/32" on the left side? Seems that if a given aileron that was too HIGH was
dropped too much it would still cause the same drag/trim problem if its too
LOW? So the fact that now my trim is completely the opposite implies that the
RIGHT aileron is probably now exactly on and moreover, it was TWICE as much
too high as the LEFT aileron still is.
Does any of this make sense?
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
At 08:47 PM 3/31/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Thanks to everyone for the great feedback on this issue!!
>
>I went out after work tonight and had a look at the aileron alignment and sure
enough, the outboard edge of the right aileron was high by about 1/16-3/32 of
an inch. I took the hinge off the aileron and elongated the holes slightly and
reassembled, dropping the outboard side by about 1/16". I went out and took
it up to about 220mph and now - are you ready for this - it requires full RIGHT
trim! Completely the opposite from before. So, obviously I need to reduce
the drop by 50% and I should be dead-on neutral trim! Its amazing to me how
such a little movement had such a HUGE impact on the trim. No, aileron edge
smooshing necessary, by the way! Whew!
>
>Best,
>-
>Matt Dralle
>
>At 09:10 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>>
>>
>>Dear Listers,
>>
>>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed
I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... (Additional Thoughts) |
Makes sense for the same reasons as the original......
Measure the other side - adjust if necessary...if it's not out of rig, you need
to look elsewhere.....
My .02...
-----Original Message-----
>From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
>Sent: Apr 1, 2011 12:27 PM
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com, rv7-list(at)matronics.com, rv8-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Re: Heavy Right Wing... (Additional Thoughts)
>
>
>After a good night's rest I got to thinking about these most recent observations.
Dropping the RIGHT aileron a 1/16" caused the trim requirement at high speed
to go from the previous full-LEFT to a full-RIGHT setting. Wouldn't this
imply that now the LEFT aileron needs a similar adjustment perhaps? Maybe only
a 1/32" on the left side? Seems that if a given aileron that was too HIGH
was dropped too much it would still cause the same drag/trim problem if its too
LOW? So the fact that now my trim is completely the opposite implies that the
RIGHT aileron is probably now exactly on and moreover, it was TWICE as much
too high as the LEFT aileron still is.
>
>Does any of this make sense?
>
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>RV-8 #82880 N998RV
>http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
>http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
>Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
>At 08:47 PM 3/31/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>>
>>Thanks to everyone for the great feedback on this issue!!
>>
>>I went out after work tonight and had a look at the aileron alignment and sure
enough, the outboard edge of the right aileron was high by about 1/16-3/32 of
an inch. I took the hinge off the aileron and elongated the holes slightly
and reassembled, dropping the outboard side by about 1/16". I went out and took
it up to about 220mph and now - are you ready for this - it requires full RIGHT
trim! Completely the opposite from before. So, obviously I need to reduce
the drop by 50% and I should be dead-on neutral trim! Its amazing to me how
such a little movement had such a HUGE impact on the trim. No, aileron edge
smooshing necessary, by the way! Whew!
>>
>>Best,
>>-
>>Matt Dralle
>>
>>At 09:10 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Listers,
>>>
>>>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed
I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... (Additional Thoughts) |
Hi Matt,
I want to thank you again for the 'List". I've been on it almost
forever and still look at it everyday to see what's going on and what
I can get or give to others. The list works well. The VAF forum is
probably suitable for many as well. It does get a little complicated
though. What is truly interesting is the way this list has been self
monitoring and self correcting for so many years. Like a good autopilot.
That said, I have compassion for your heavy wing predicament. Check
your other aileron, adjust if needed. I think it won't be a final
answer ( just thinking, not predicting). Now, remember you are still
working with many variables. some can be disregarded. Others are
essential. I have found on several occasions with -4's that the first
place to start is "yaw". Does your baby fly with the ball centered in
the area between ~160 - to - 210 mph? If you don't pay strict
attention to the ball in hands off flight, you may think your wing is heavy.
Next. did your remove the main gear fairings recently? I' don't know
how the -8 works, but the fairings on the -4 have to be aligned
perfectly and should have index marks applied to the gear leg and
the fairing tabs. Even a little bit of misalignment knocks off the
yaw. I was chasing a heavy wing problem for several months by
squeezing and trim tabbing. I couldn't solve my problem. I read on
the list that adjustment to those two huge rudders under my legs can
cause all sorts of trim problems. A minor repair to my left gear
fairing left it with a small twist. When I replaced the fairing and
indexed it to the previous index marks, I assumed it was good-to-go.
Wrong! the little bit of twist screwed up the aerodynamic balance of
the aircraft. I don't know exactly why this manifested itself in a
"heavy wing" condition, but a small adjustment in the alignment of
the gear leg fairing immediately fixed my problem. Good luck.
Louis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Fordham" <fconsult(at)telus.net> |
Hi Matt
Another trick to try before you start squeezing ailerons is to cut a V
block of dense wood or plastic to the shape of the trailing edge of the
ailerons from the plans.Place this block along the trailing edge of the
ailerons at various positions and it will give you a very good idea if
your ailerons are the same or if they are the least bit distorted. But
as everyone has said make sure everything else is trued up first, flaps
included.
Good Luck
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Heavy Right Wing... (Follow Up) |
Last night I went out and measured the position of the left aileron and found it
to be pretty darn close to perfect on both inboard and outboard edges. I measured
the right aileron and noted that the outboard edge was about 1/32 lower
than the inboard edge. So, I thought I'd try splitting the different between
the original location and the current one. I went out test this new setting
and to my amazement and jubilation, the trim is almost dead center across the
speed range of 170-230mph. A little tap either way easily accounts for fuel burn
on a given side. I also noted that the skid ball is nicely dead center across
those speed ranges. Yahoo! One less thing to worry about!
Thanks to everyone on the List for their input! Very much appreciated!
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
At 09:27 AM 4/1/2011 Friday, you wrote:
>
>After a good night's rest I got to thinking about these most recent observations.
Dropping the RIGHT aileron a 1/16" caused the trim requirement at high speed
to go from the previous full-LEFT to a full-RIGHT setting. Wouldn't this
imply that now the LEFT aileron needs a similar adjustment perhaps? Maybe only
a 1/32" on the left side? Seems that if a given aileron that was too HIGH
was dropped too much it would still cause the same drag/trim problem if its too
LOW? So the fact that now my trim is completely the opposite implies that the
RIGHT aileron is probably now exactly on and moreover, it was TWICE as much
too high as the LEFT aileron still is.
>
>Does any of this make sense?
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
>
>At 08:47 PM 3/31/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>>
>>Thanks to everyone for the great feedback on this issue!!
>>
>>I went out after work tonight and had a look at the aileron alignment and sure
enough, the outboard edge of the right aileron was high by about 1/16-3/32 of
an inch. I took the hinge off the aileron and elongated the holes slightly
and reassembled, dropping the outboard side by about 1/16". I went out and took
it up to about 220mph and now - are you ready for this - it requires full RIGHT
trim! Completely the opposite from before. So, obviously I need to reduce
the drop by 50% and I should be dead-on neutral trim! Its amazing to me how
such a little movement had such a HUGE impact on the trim. No, aileron edge
smooshing necessary, by the way! Whew!
>>
>>Best,
>>-
>>Matt Dralle
>>
>>At 09:10 AM 3/31/2011 Thursday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Dear Listers,
>>>
>>>Well, taking the RV-8 in for paint is getting closer and closer and I'm trying
to get all the little things that need doing done before then. Dealing with
the heavy right wing is the next thing on the list. Currently, at low speed
I have about neutral aileron trim. The faster I go, the more LEFT trim I need.
Above 200mph, I run out of left trim and the left aileron is noticeably "up",
maybe .125" or so. Both of my ailerons are "chubby" at the trailing edge.
I wanted to confirm with the List that "squeezing" the RIGHT aileron will add
a bit of lift on the RIGHT side and hopefully neutralize the issue?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Canopy Skirt Buzz... (Follow Up) |
Since I wrote the message below, the ambient temps have gone up quite a bit and
I started opening the air vents in the cabin again. Well, the combination of
the warmer canopy parts and the extra pressure inside the cabin because of the
vents, the buzz returned and was pretty loud. At cruse, the buzz was louder
than the engine!
So yesterday I took a look at where the buzz might actually becoming from. Closer
inspection showed that, about right in the middle of the fiberglass skirt
"curve" behind the rear seat it wasn't quite lying flush against the top fuselage
skin. I found that I could kind of hammer on the skirt with my finger at
the high point and make a sound similar to what I was hearing in flight.
Last Summer, I had put a strip of Velcro "loops" all the way around the base of
the canopy skirt which definitely deaden the noise. BUT, after sitting out in
the 110 degree sun, the glue on the Velcro got all melty and the tape started
to slide do to the side "stress" of applying the tape on the curve.
I noticed during a trip to Lowes last night that they have a "Heavy Duty" version
of the Velcro tape that is suppose to hold up to outdoor conditions. I bought
a roll and headed out to the airport.
I didn't really want to put tape all the way around the base of the skirt like
before in case this new Heavy Duty stuff didn't hold up in the sun either. So,
I found the aforementioned high spots on the left and right sides, and simply
applied a 3" long strip at the "transition" area between where the skirt was
touching the skin and the high-point of the skirt above the skin. I noted that
tapping on the area didn't yield nearly the buzz as before.
I went out and flew and I'm extremely happy to report that the buzzing is completely
gone!! I feel its kind of the perfect solution in that now I have a nice
layer of UHMW all the way around the canopy skirt to minimize the top skin abrasion,
and have stopped the buzzing with a simple and easily replaceable solution.
Matt's $.02.
Best regards,
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
At 12:15 PM 3/22/2011 Tuesday, Matt Dralle wrote:
>At 10:25 AM 3/22/2011 Tuesday, you wrote:
>>Matt,
>>Did you settle on a material that you preferred for deadening the canopy buzz
[on your RV-8]? We are experiencing the same thing but at a very narrow speed
range. Before we reinvent the wheel I figured I would ask.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Robin
>
>
>Hi Robin,
>
>Yes, solved mostly. Here the stuff to get:
>
>http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive?forward=1
>
>This is black UHMW table with a rubber adhesive (good to 150F). I got the .020"
stuff.
>
>Its not very bendable sideways, so don't try to get the .5" kind and wrap it around
the s-curve in the back. It definitely won't stick for very long.
>
>Get the 6" wide stuff - Part number <http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa//item/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive/anti-stat-uhmw-19-20blk-6-5?>19-20BLK-6-5 (5 yards) or 19-20BLK-6-18 (18 yards) - and lay it flat over the skirt on the inside and then trace the contour. Move it up by about .75" and then trace again. Then cut out the piece which should be a perfect fit around the inside edge of the canopy skirt. I forgot to take any pictures of the process! That's so not like me! :-)
>
>I also used the .5" stuff (<http://cshyde.thomasnet.com/viewitems/tapes-with-psa//item/tapes-with-psa/uhmw-tape--black-anti-stat-rubber-adhesive/anti-stat-uhmw-19-20blk-5-5?>19-20BLK-.5-5) for along the straight left and right side of the skirt. Although, I wish I'd used the .75 stuff.
>
>Seems to dampen the vibration and also doesn't mark the paint/metal due to its
low co-efficient of friction. Its basically the same stuff that Van's sells
for the flaps, but much thicker and black. I also like the high-temp rubber adhesive.
We'll see how it holds up over the Summer.
>
>My only complaint is that I wish they made a .040" thick version.
>
>-
>Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | d wntzl <dwntzl(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which battery are you using? |
Listers,
-- I have been using an SVR Sealed battery for the past 5 or 6 years ba
sed an a lister recomendation way back then. First the SVR 14,- then the
SVR 20, and for the past year or so the SVR 30 (30 amp hr, 350CCA).- Even
this latest one just barely turns the engine over (O320 with a SkyTec star
ter), and when it's hot, it is even worse.- Fortunately, my engine starts
easily and I've only had problems once or twice over these past 550+ hours
. However, I've decided to make a change - so my question is. . . What are
you using, and, are you happy with it's performance??
-- Thank you in advance.
----- David Wentzell- -- RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which battery are you using? |
Dave-
Many of us are using the PC680 Odyssey VRLA type batteries with good results.
It has quite good CCA but is only a 14Ah battery weighing about 12 lbs IIRC.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV flying 970hrs)
In a message dated 04/04/11 18:25:42 Pacific Daylight Time, dwntzl(at)yahoo.com writes:
Listers,
I have been using an SVR Sealed battery for the past 5 or 6 years based an a
lister recomendation way back then. First the SVR 14, then the SVR 20, and for
the past year or so the SVR 30 (30 amp hr, 350CCA). Even this latest one just
barely turns the engine over (O320 with a SkyTec starter), and when it's hot,
it is even worse. Fortunately, my engine starts easily and I've only had
problems once or twice over these past 550+ hours. However, I've decided to make
a change - so my question is. . . What are you using, and, are you happy with
it's performance??
Thank you in advance.
David Wentzell - RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which battery are you using? |
David, I have used the Odyssey PC680 in my RV-6A for the last 10 years
and am very happy with price and performance.
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
From: d wntzl
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Which battery are you using?
Listers,
I have been using an SVR Sealed battery for the past 5 or 6
years based an a lister recomendation way back then. First the SVR 14,
then the SVR 20, and for the past year or so the SVR 30 (30 amp hr,
350CCA). Even this latest one just barely turns the engine over (O320
with a SkyTec starter), and when it's hot, it is even worse.
Fortunately, my engine starts easily and I've only had problems once or
twice over these past 550+ hours. However, I've decided to make a change
- so my question is. . . What are you using, and, are you happy with
it's performance??
Thank you in advance.
David Wentzell - RV6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which battery are you using? |
Your bigger issue is the Skytec starter. If it is one of the original PM
series, it has a very high current draw to over come the compression
stroke. The later NL series (inline) have much less draw, as do other
brands like B&C or Kelly E series.
The PM series need a good battery, excellent battery cables, excellent
connections and grounds to work well. Be sure all your ground cables
from engine to airframe and airframe to battery are top notch.
On 4/4/2011 6:16 PM, d wntzl wrote:
>
> Listers,
> I have been using an SVR Sealed battery for the past 5 or 6 years based
> an a lister recomendation way back then. First the SVR 14, then the SVR
> 20, and for the past year or so the SVR 30 (30 amp hr, 350CCA). Even
> this latest one just barely turns the engine over (O320 with a SkyTec
> starter), and when it's hot, it is even worse. Fortunately, my engine
> starts easily and I've only had problems once or twice over these past
> 550+ hours. However, I've decided to make a change - so my question is.
> . . What are you using, and, are you happy with it's performance??
> Thank you in advance.
> David Wentzell - RV6
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Which battery are you using? |
Check the voltage at the starter. My similar problem turned out to be
the 'bendix' on the starter.
John Morgensen
RV4 - purchased flying
RV9A - soon
On 4/4/2011 6:16 PM, d wntzl wrote:
>
> Listers,
> I have been using an SVR Sealed battery for the past 5 or 6 years
> based an a lister recomendation way back then. First the SVR 14, then
> the SVR 20, and for the past year or so the SVR 30 (30 amp hr,
> 350CCA). Even this latest one just barely turns the engine over (O320
> with a SkyTec starter), and when it's hot, it is even worse.
> Fortunately, my engine starts easily and I've only had problems once
> or twice over these past 550+ hours. However, I've decided to make a
> change - so my question is. . . What are you using, and, are you happy
> with it's performance??
> Thank you in advance.
> David Wentzell - RV6
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Any history on N369DP? |
Anyone know anything about an RV-8A for sale in Manitowoc, WI? It was
built by Doug Peterson and has since changed hands.
I'm doing a pre-purchase and just looking for any show-stoppers.
Please contact me off-list if there's anything we should know.
Many thanks,
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | DP At Guntersville |
| From: | MLE <rv6awingman(at)gmail.com> |
GUNTERSVILLE, AL
GUNTERSVILLE MUNI-JOE STARNES FIELD
TAKE-OFF MINIMUMS: Rwy 3, std. w/ min. climb of 334'
per NM to 2500 or 1100-2=BD for climb in visual conditions.
Rwy 21, std. w/ min. climb of 496' per NM to 2500, or 300-
1=BC w/ min. climb of 274' per NM to 1600, or 1100-2=BD for
climb in visual conditions.
DEPARTURE PROCEDURE: Rwy 3, climb heading 027=B0
to 2500 before proceeding on course or for climb in visual
conditions cross Guntersville Muni-Joe Starnes Field
Airport at or above 1600 before proceeding on course.
Rwy 21, climb heading 207=B0 to 2500 before proceeding on
course or for climb in visual conditions cross Guntersville
Muni-Joe Starnes Field Airport at or above 1600 before
proceeding on course.
NOTE: Rwy 3, multiple trees beginning 2299' from
departure end of runway, 27' left of centerline, up to 100'
AGL/1399' MSL. Tower 1.6 NM from departure end of
runway, 2465' left of centerline, 208' AGL/851' MSL. Rwy
21, multiple trees beginning 151' from departure end of
runway, 362' left of centerline, up to 100' AGL/759' MSL.
Multiple trees beginning 3613' from departure end of
runway, 152' right of centerline, up to 100' AGL/859' MSL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Folks,
Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
standard RV-6 fuel tank?
Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ronburnett(at)charter.net |
| Subject: | RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
I have been working on one with a paint stick and painted ruler, but
haven't finished it yet.
Ron Burnett
RV-6A Subaru owered
M71Greensfield, MO
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
Folks,
Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
standard RV-6 fuel tank?
Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
I could get them to you for a 6A. 6 will be different, of course, due to
pitch attitude at rest.
Bill B
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Dale Ensing <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
I have one but presently out of town. Will send info next week if no else responds.
Dale Ensing
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a standard
RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
I use a chunk of 1/4" wooden dowel. Start with empty tank, add gas in
your desired increments (ie 2 gallons, 5 gallons, etc.) and use a black
sharpie to mark a ring around the stick at each fuel measurement.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Doug Gray > wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick
> for a standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
Can't help with the measurements but,
I use a FuelHawk
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/fuelhawkuniv11.php
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a standard
RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
I am using a universal clear stick marked 1-14 on an RV4. The number
measured + 5 equals the fuel in the tank. In other words, it measures 10
to 11 when the 16 gal tank is full.
John Morgensen
RV4 - purchased
RV9A - soon
On 4/11/2011 6:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
Hi Doug,
I did tank calibrations for my RV-6A in the normal attitude on the gear.
It will be somewhat different for at tail dragger because of attitude.
Anyway, I have attached my plot in two different forms: as a jpg file
and as a pdf file. Hope it is of some use to you. It is a simple but
tedious process. At the same time, I calibrated a "Fuel Hawk" dipstick
which I used because of its convenience. It is a hollow plastic tube
with arbitrary markings that you can calibrate for your aircraft. It
works by dipping it in to touch the bottom of the tank holding your
thumb over the top open end to keep the fuel in and reading fuel level
on the calibration marks.
Regards,
Rich Dudley
On 4/11/2011 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
Hi again, Doug,
Since my calibrations are sort of ancient history, I merely scanned old
copies. I have since found the originals and extracted them. They are
better copies. I've attached a pdf file of both the Fuel Hawk and the
inches calibration curves.
Regards,
Rich
On 4/11/2011 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Thanks for the responses everyone. Dale, I look forward to seeing your
figures.
As noted the 6a figures would differ, but it is good to have the data in
the archive.
The normal fill and mark procedure is rather difficult at our local
airport because the delivery system resets according to its own rules.
Others have tried and given up. I can if necessary do the procedure
myself.
Doug Gray
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
You could decant 5 gal gas cans into 5 milk jugs that you've calibrated
by marking the jug for a known gallon. I've used a 'turkey baster' to
fine tune the contents to the line. Tedious, yes, but you should only
have to do it once.
Linn
On 4/11/2011 5:52 PM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Thanks for the responses everyone. Dale, I look forward to seeing
> your figures.
>
> As noted the 6a figures would differ, but it is good to have the data
> in the archive.
>
> The normal fill and mark procedure is rather difficult at our local
> airport because the delivery system resets according to its own
> rules. Others have tried and given up. I can if necessary do the
> procedure myself.
>
> Doug Gray
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for
>> a standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>>
>> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | d wntzl <dwntzl(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV6 Fuel dipstick |
Doug,
-- I made up my dipstick about 6 years ago. I used an acrylic tube for
a cessna, washed / buffed out those markings and added mine. I kept it simp
le - I mark at 5, 10, and 15 gallons. It's quite accurate. If you don't get
what you need, I'll measure mine next time I get to the airport and send t
hem.
DW
--- On Tue, 4/12/11, RV-List Digest Server wrote:
From: RV-List Digest Server <rv-list(at)matronics.com>
Subject: RV-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 04/11/11
Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2:59 AM
*
========================
---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 11-04-11&Archive=RV
Text Version:
- - http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View
=txt&Chapter 11-04-11&Archive=RV
========================
=======================
---EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
========================
=======================
- - - - -----------------------------------------------------
--------
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---RV-List Digest Arc
hive
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---
- - - - - - - - - ---Total Messages Posted Mon 04/1
1/11: 11
- - - - -----------------------------------------------------
--------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
- ---1. 06:06 AM - RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Doug Gray)
- ---2. 06:28 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (ronbur
nett(at)charter.net)
- ---3. 06:29 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Bill B
oyd)
- ---4. 06:37 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Dale E
nsing)
- ---5. 06:46 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Scott)
- ---6. 07:26 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Bobby
Hester)
- ---7. 07:26 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (John M
orgensen)
- ---8. 07:41 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Richar
d Dudley)
- ---9. 11:44 AM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Richar
d Dudley)
- - 10. 02:56 PM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Doug Gray)
- - 11. 03:10 PM - Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings- (Linn Walte
rs)
________________________________- Message 1- __________________________
___________
Subject: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
From: Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
Folks,
Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
standard RV-6 fuel tank?
Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 2- __________________________
___________
From: ronburnett(at)charter.net
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
I have been working on one with a paint stick and painted ruler, but
haven't finished it yet.
Ron Burnett
RV-6A Subaru owered
M71Greensfield, MO
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
- Folks,
Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
standard RV-6 fuel tank?
Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 3- __________________________
___________
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
I could get them to you for a 6A. 6 will be different, of course, due to
pitch attitude at rest.
Bill B
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
>- Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
>
________________________________- Message 4- __________________________
___________
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
From: Dale Ensing <densing(at)carolina.rr.com>
I have one but presently out of town. Will send info next week if no else r
esponds.
Dale Ensing
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 11, 2011, at 6:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a st
andard
RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 5- __________________________
___________
From: Scott <acepilot(at)bloomer.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
I use a chunk of 1/4" wooden dowel.- Start with empty tank, add gas in
your desired increments (ie 2 gallons, 5 gallons, etc.) and use a black
sharpie to mark a ring around the stick at each fuel measurement.
>
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Doug Gray > wrote:
>
>- ---Folks,
>
>- ---Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipst
ick
>- ---for a standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
>- ---Doug Gray
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
--
________________________________- Message 6- __________________________
___________
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
From: Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net>
Can't help with the measurements but,
I use a FuelHawk
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/fuelhawkuniv11.php
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On Apr 11, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a st
andard
RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 7- __________________________
___________
From: John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
I am using a universal clear stick marked 1-14 on an RV4. The number
measured + 5 equals the fuel in the tank. In other words, it measures 10
to 11 when the 16 gal tank is full.
John Morgensen
RV4 - purchased
RV9A - soon
On 4/11/2011 6:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 8- __________________________
___________
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
Hi Doug,
I did tank calibrations for my RV-6A in the normal attitude on the gear.
It will be somewhat different for at tail dragger because of attitude.
Anyway, I have attached my plot in two different forms: as a jpg file
and as a pdf file. Hope it is of some use to you. It is a simple but
tedious process. At the same time, I calibrated a "Fuel Hawk" dipstick
which I used because of its convenience. It is a hollow plastic tube
with arbitrary markings that you can calibrate for your aircraft. It
works by dipping it in to touch the bottom of the tank holding your
thumb over the top open end to keep the fuel in and reading fuel level
on the calibration marks.
Regards,
Rich Dudley
On 4/11/2011 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 9- __________________________
___________
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
Hi again, Doug,
Since my calibrations are sort of ancient history, I merely scanned old
copies. I have since found the originals and extracted them. They are
better copies. I've attached a pdf file of both the Fuel Hawk and the
inches calibration curves.
Regards,
Rich
On 4/11/2011 9:02 AM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 10- _________________________
___________
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
From: Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au>
Thanks for the responses everyone.- Dale, I look forward to seeing your
figures.
As noted the 6a figures would differ, but it is good to have the data in
the archive.
The normal fill and mark procedure is rather difficult at our local
airport because the delivery system resets according to its own rules.
Others have tried and given up.- I can if necessary do the procedure
myself.
Doug Gray
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________- Message 11- _________________________
___________
From: Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
You could decant 5 gal gas cans into 5 milk jugs that you've calibrated
by marking the jug for a known gallon.- I've used a 'turkey baster' to
fine tune the contents to the line.- Tedious, yes, but you should only
have to do it once.
Linn
On 4/11/2011 5:52 PM, Doug Gray wrote:
> Thanks for the responses everyone.- Dale, I look forward to seeing
> your figures.
>
> As noted the 6a figures would differ, but it is good to have the data
> in the archive.
>
> The normal fill and mark procedure is rather difficult at our local
> airport because the delivery system resets according to its own
> rules.- Others have tried and given up.- I can if necessary do the
> procedure myself.
>
> Doug Gray
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for
>> a standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>>
>> Doug Gray
le, List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Mills" <rvmills(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
Doug,
I made a 1/2" wood dowel with markings for my -6. It may be slightly
different that standard, as its a Super Six with slightly longer Harmon
Rocket gear legs. However, I have a Flyboys Accessories tailwheel, which
lifts the tail a bit, and I have standard tanks, so it may be close. When I
go out to the hangar tomorrow, I'll take a picture of it next to a ruler and
forward it here and on VAF for ya (saw your post there too), and put the
measurements for each mark in my post as well. Low tech, but another data
point for ya.
Cheers,
Bob Mills
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Gray
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings
Thanks for the responses everyone. Dale, I look forward to seeing your
figures.
As noted the 6a figures would differ, but it is good to have the data in the
archive.
The normal fill and mark procedure is rather difficult at our local airport
because the delivery system resets according to its own rules. Others have
tried and given up. I can if necessary do the procedure myself.
Doug Gray
Folks,
Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
standard RV-6 fuel tank?
Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Today I had a response on VAF from Rob Prior (in Canada) with the answer
to my question. I have reproduced this here because it should be the
same for any standard RV-6 tank.
Doug
"I meant to post this a while ago after working it out, but kept
forgetting. Here are my dimensions:
On a 1/4" OD, 1/8" ID clear plastic dipstick, measured from the bottom
end:
1.14" - 22L
2.12" - 32L
3.08" - 42L
4.06" - 52L
4.97" - 62L
6.59" - 72L (or full)
This is measured with the stick vertical when viewed from the front, and
with the bottom end pushed to the bottom of the tank and then slid back
to the first obstruction... I think it's an angle bracket of some kind.
The tube stands about 5 degrees off vertical, tilted towards the front
of the aircraft, when it's in position.
Drop the tube in, put my thumb over the top, lift it out, and read off
the level."
> Folks,
>
> Does anyone have a record of the measurements to make a dipstick for a
> standard RV-6 fuel tank?
>
> Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Schaefer <n142ds(at)gmail.com> |
Slightly off topic .. but with the large Texas contingent on here .. what
does anyone know about McAllen? Have a possible opportunity there .. it's a
lot farther South than I know about in Texas. Any RVs? Airparks? Please
email me off-line.
David W. Schaefer
RV-6A N142DS "Nerdgasm"
TMX-IO360 Dual-LightSpeed Plasma IIIs, Hartzell Blended Airfoil, GRT HX EFIS
Now building N383DS - Zenith CH-750!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 fuel tank dip stick markings |
To Doug Grey
FWIW
I have 6A and using a "Fualhawk C-172" plastic tube that I remarked in 2 ga
l increments. I didnt worry about being exact to the less than a 1/16 as I
rarely take off with less than 8 gals on each side and usually fill the tan
ks after a flight
Dale Ensing.
6 gals 1 1/2 in
8 gals 2 in
10 gals 2 1/2 in
12 gals 3 1/8 in
14 gals 3 3/4 in
16 gals 4 5/8 in
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Redmond <mdredmond(at)gmail.com> |
Too darn close to the border and all its crime problems if you ask me.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 13, 2011, at 6:00 PM, David Schaefer wrote:
Slightly off topic .. but with the large Texas contingent on here .. what
does anyone know about McAllen? Have a possible opportunity there .. it's a
lot farther South than I know about in Texas. Any RVs? Airparks? Please
email me off-line.
David W. Schaefer
RV-6A N142DS "Nerdgasm"
TMX-IO360 Dual-LightSpeed Plasma IIIs, Hartzell Blended Airfoil, GRT HX EFIS
Now building N383DS - Zenith CH-750!
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Dear Listers,
At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more difficult
to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle have worked fine
and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green" control cables
from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and made
sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly lubed up
the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so difficult to
move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I pulled the whole throttle
quadrant installation apart today to have a look. I got the cable completely
out of the airplane and there are NO outward signs of wear or abuse of
*any kind*. But even with the cable completely out of the plane and nothing
connected to either end, it is almost impossible to move the cable!! I have a
new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my front-mounted governor installation and I'm
going to install that next.
But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These things
are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure out why they
would wear out like this.
If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not going
to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue! Not a big deal
on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a serious concern.
Best regards,
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Cantrell" <kcflyrv(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Matt,
I had a similar experience with my prop cable and talked to my local A&P. He
suggested the following:
Take a short piece of rubber tubing with an I.D. the same as the O.D. of the
prop cable.
Slip it over the disconnected cable (governor end) and put a small hose
clamp on it to make it a snug fit.
Spray some Gunk spray lube in the short piece of rubber tubing. Hold the end
up so a small amount of liquid lube is in the tubing.
Take your compress air supply and spray it into the end of rubber tubing,
holding it tight in your hands; forcing the lube into the prop cable
housing.
Be sure to put a rag around the other end to avoid a big mess.
I did this and my prop cable operates like new now.
Ken Cantrell
RV-6, 1054 hours.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:23 PM
Subject: RV-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
Dear Listers,
At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more
difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle have
worked fine and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green"
control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and
made sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly
lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so
difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I
pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today to have a look.
I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there are NO outward
signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with the cable completely
out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is almost
impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my
front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to install that next.
But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These
things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure
out why they would wear out like this.
If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not
going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue! Not
a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a
serious concern.
Best regards,
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Kuss <chaskuss(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!) |
Matt,
If you would like a cleaner method to accomplish what Ken suggested below, simply
buy a motorcycle cable oiler from your local motorcycle shop or online. See
http://www.jpcycles.com/product/9100065
These work great and are inexpensive.
Charlie Kuss
--- On Sun, 4/17/11, Ken Cantrell wrote:
> From: Ken Cantrell <kcflyrv(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sunday, April 17, 2011, 6:52 PM
> "Ken Cantrell"
>
> Matt,
> I had a similar experience with my prop cable and talked to
> my local A&P. He
> suggested the following:
> Take a short piece of rubber tubing with an I.D. the same
> as the O.D. of the
> prop cable.
> Slip it over the disconnected cable (governor end) and put
> a small hose
> clamp on it to make it a snug fit.
> Spray some Gunk spray lube in the short piece of rubber
> tubing. Hold the end
> up so a small amount of liquid lube is in the tubing.
> Take your compress air supply and spray it into the end of
> rubber tubing,
> holding it tight in your hands; forcing the lube into the
> prop cable
> housing.
> Be sure to put a rag around the other end to avoid a big
> mess.
> I did this and my prop cable operates like new now.
>
> Ken Cantrell
> RV-6, 1054 hours.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of Matt Dralle
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:23 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com;
> rv3-list(at)matronics.com;
> rv4-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly
> (Warning!)
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become
> increasing more
> difficult to move starting around 100 hours. The
> Mixture and Throttle have
> worked fine and continue to. All three controls use
> the standard "Green"
> control cables from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of
> the assembly and
> made sure that there was no binding or issues on that
> end. I even lightly
> lubed up the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop
> control became so
> difficult to move that I had trouble cycling the prop
> during run up. I
> pulled the whole throttle quadrant installation apart today
> to have a look.
> I got the cable completely out of the airplane and there
> are NO outward
> signs of wear or abuse of *any kind*. But even with
> the cable completely
> out of the plane and nothing connected to either end, it is
> almost
> impossible to move the cable!! I have a new CT-Q67
> cable assembly for my
> front-mounted governor installation and I'm going to
> install that next.
>
> But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q
> controls. These
> things are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so
> I can't figure
> out why they would wear out like this.
>
> If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight,
> its probably not
> going to get any better. Replace it before it becomes
> a safety issue! Not
> a big deal on the Prop control, but on a throttle or
> mixture it could be a
> serious concern.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction
> Blog
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV
> YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test
> Flight!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 04/17/11 |
| From: | Mark Frederick <f1boss(at)gmail.com> |
________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: "Worn Out" CT-Q67 Cable Assembly (Warning!)
>
>
> Dear Listers,
>
> At 170 hours on my RV-8 now, the Prop control had become increasing more
> difficult
> to move starting around 100 hours. The Mixture and Throttle have worked
> fine
> and continue to. All three controls use the standard "Green" control
> cables
> from Vans, typically a "CT-Qxx" part.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I disassembled the Governor end of the assembly and
> made
> sure that there was no binding or issues on that end. I even lightly lubed
> up
> the various moving bits. Yesterday, the Prop control became so difficult
> to
> move that I had trouble cycling the prop during run up. I pulled the whole
> throttle
> quadrant installation apart today to have a look. I got the cable
> completely
> out of the airplane and there are NO outward signs of wear or abuse of
> *any kind*. But even with the cable completely out of the plane and
> nothing
> connected to either end, it is almost impossible to move the cable!! I
> have a
> new CT-Q67 cable assembly for my front-mounted governor installation and
> I'm
> going to install that next.
>
> But, I wanted to give everyone a heads up on these CT-Q controls. These
> things
> are built like they go on a Caterpillar Tractor, so I can't figure out why
> they
> would wear out like this.
>
> If one of these controls starts getting stiff and tight, its probably not
> going
> to get any better. Replace it before it becomes a safety issue! Not a big
> deal
> on the Prop control, but on a throttle or mixture it could be a serious
> concern.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Blog
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours Total Time Since May 2 2010 Test Flight!
>
>
> Hey Fellas:
I have seen this too many times - looks like heat is the killer. Move the
cables away from the killer exh system, then you can wrap the cables with
spark plug wire insulation - - a smaller version of the normal hose type
heat protective stuff. Lube will not work, as the nylon inner wrap is balled
around the wire - hanging on for dear life! If this persists, you can try
the 920 cables from ACS, or buy replacement cables from Cablecraft -
certified stuff, thus very expensive.
Carry on!
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
| Subject: | sticking engine control cables and engine heat problems |
SNIP I have seen this too many times - looks like heat is the killer. Move the
cables away from the killer exh system, then you can wrap the cables with spark
plug wire insulation - - a smaller version of the normal hose type heat protective
stuff. Lube will not work, as the nylon inner wrap is balled around the
wire - hanging on for dear life! If this persists, you can try the 920 cables
from ACS, or buy replacement cables from Cablecraft - certified stuff, thus very
expensive.
Carry on!
Mark SNIP
Mark is correct. When your engine control cables begin binding, it is usually
heat related. We carry several types of insulation, Rocket proven, for these
type of problems. We have firewall insulation to keep your feet from roasting,
Heat Shield mat to keep exhaust heat from burning the paint off of your cowling,
sleeve insulation for fuel lines (or control cables), and intake insulation
kits to keep the exhaust heat away from the induction pipes and rubber
parts. And we have it in large and small sizes at a price that beats ACS by
a wide margin.... and it's better stuff too!
There is no excuse to have heat problems with your engine. None. Us old dogs
have been there, done that and we know how to fix the problems!
Thx,
Vince
www.flyboyaccessories.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | sticking engine control cables and engine heat problems |
At 06:41 AM 4/19/2011 Tuesday, Frazier, Vincent A wrote:
>
>SNIP I have seen this too many times - looks like heat is the killer. Move the
cables away from the killer exh system, then you can wrap the cables with spark
plug wire insulation - - a smaller version of the normal hose type heat protective
stuff. Lube will not work, as the nylon inner wrap is balled around the
wire - hanging on for dear life! If this persists, you can try the 920 cables
from ACS, or buy replacement cables from Cablecraft - certified stuff, thus
very expensive.
>
>Carry on!
>Mark SNIP
>
>Mark is correct. When your engine control cables begin binding, it is usually
heat related. We carry several types of insulation, Rocket proven, for these
type of problems. We have firewall insulation to keep your feet from roasting,
Heat Shield mat to keep exhaust heat from burning the paint off of your
cowling, sleeve insulation for fuel lines (or control cables), and intake insulation
kits to keep the exhaust heat away from the induction pipes and rubber
parts. And we have it in large and small sizes at a price that beats ACS by
a wide margin.... and it's better stuff too!
>
>There is no excuse to have heat problems with your engine. None. Us old dogs
have been there, done that and we know how to fix the problems!
>
>Thx,
>Vince
>www.flyboyaccessories.com
Hi Vince,
I was checking out your web site. This stuff looks like it might do the trick
for my Prop cable issues:
http://www.flyboyaccessories.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=264
My IO-390 has a front mounted governor and I brought the control cable over the
top of the engine. The closest point is probably about 6" from the top of the
cylinders.
Here are some pictures of my installation:
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2972&log=89715&row=118
http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2972&log=89716&row=117
Best regards,
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cruise Performance |
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
On 2011-04-22, at 17:30 , mr.gsun(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Hey Guys, I'm in the process of working out the new Dynon Skyview setup in my
7 year old, somewhat heavy and totally stock RV-7. I'm at 1150# empty and have
an Aerosport IO-360 with horizontal fuel injection and the Hartzell c/s prop.
I recently recorded the following numbers in cruise flight: Altitude 8500'
, 19F OAT, 8.0 gph, 2400 rpm, 22.3" mp, 161 kts TAS and 144 kts indicated.
The Skyview claims that I was producing 66% power according to it's internal
database of Lycoming IO-360 engines.
>
> Do these numbers sound right?
Do you have a 180 hp IO-360, or a 200 hp IO-360?
If you have the 180 hp engine, Van's performance claims at gross weight, adjusted
to 66% power, would be about 166 kt. If you have the 200 hp engine, Van's
perf, adjusted to 66%, would be about 172 kt.
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Schaefer <n142ds(at)gmail.com> |
One last try at it .. so there are NO RV'ers in McAllen? I think I'm going
to get lonely! Please email me off-line.
Regards,
David W. Schaefer
RV-6A N142DS "Nerdgasm"
TMX-IO360 Dual-LightSpeed Plasma IIIs, Hartzell Blended Airfoil, GRT HX EFIS
Now building N383DS - Zenith CH-750!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: sticking engine control cables and engine heat problems |
| From: | Richard Martin <martinaerodrome(at)gmail.com> |
Vans aircraft makes some good deflectors that can be attached to the exhaust
pipes that will deflect radiated heat from heat sensitive parts (ignition
lines, hoses etc). I used them when I first test flew my RV8 and
experienced heat problems. I also had the exphaust pipes ceramic coated
which considerablhy reduced the radiated heat within the cowl. Note, it is
best to ceramic coat the pipes before use, however they can be cleaned
internaly .
Dick Martin
RV8 N233m
the fast one
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
> At 06:41 AM 4/19/2011 Tuesday, Frazier, Vincent A wrote:
> >
> >SNIP I have seen this too many times - looks like heat is the killer. Move
> the cables away from the killer exh system, then you can wrap the cables
> with spark plug wire insulation - - a smaller version of the normal hose
> type heat protective stuff. Lube will not work, as the nylon inner wrap is
> balled around the wire - hanging on for dear life! If this persists, you can
> try the 920 cables from ACS, or buy replacement cables from Cablecraft -
> certified stuff, thus very expensive.
> >
> >Carry on!
> >Mark SNIP
> >
> >Mark is correct. When your engine control cables begin binding, it is
> usually heat related. We carry several types of insulation, Rocket proven,
> for these type of problems. We have firewall insulation to keep your feet
> from roasting, Heat Shield mat to keep exhaust heat from burning the paint
> off of your cowling, sleeve insulation for fuel lines (or control cables),
> and intake insulation kits to keep the exhaust heat away from the induction
> pipes and rubber parts. And we have it in large and small sizes at a price
> that beats ACS by a wide margin.... and it's better stuff too!
> >
> >There is no excuse to have heat problems with your engine. None. Us old
> dogs have been there, done that and we know how to fix the problems!
> >
> >Thx,
> >Vince
> >www.flyboyaccessories.com
>
>
> Hi Vince,
>
> I was checking out your web site. This stuff looks like it might do the
> trick for my Prop cable issues:
>
>
> http://www.flyboyaccessories.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=264
>
> My IO-390 has a front mounted governor and I brought the control cable over
> the top of the engine. The closest point is probably about 6" from the top
> of the cylinders.
>
> Here are some pictures of my installation:
>
>
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2972&log=89715&row=118
>
>
> http://www.mattsrv8.com/users/display_log.php?user=MattsRV8&project=638&category=2972&log=89716&row=117
>
> Best regards,
>
> -
> Matt Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 160+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another RV takes to the sky |
| From: | Don Mack <donwmack(at)gmail.com> |
After nearly 20 years, N708CM, RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
RV-Grin.
don mack
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another RV takes to the sky |
| From: | sportflying(at)yahoo.com |
Way to go it is a great achievement no matter how long it takes. We took 11 years
for our RV3
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mack <donwmack(at)gmail.com>
Sender: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 00:08:50
After nearly 20 years, N708CM, RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
RV-Grin.
don mack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another RV takes to the sky |
Congrats Don - now the fun begins.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Mack" <donwmack(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:08 AM
Subject: RV-List: Another RV takes to the sky
>
> After nearly 20 years, N708CM, RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
> been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
> RV-Grin.
>
> don mack
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another RV takes to the sky |
Congratulations, Don
A long time coming, but what a day when it does arrive! Any photos posted
yet?
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Don Mack" <donwmack(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:08 AM
Subject: RV-List: Another RV takes to the sky
>
> After nearly 20 years, N708CM, RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
> been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
> RV-Grin.
>
> don mack
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Rowbotham <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Another RV takes to the sky |
Hi Don=2C
CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !!!
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A
> Date: Mon=2C 25 Apr 2011 00:08:50 -0500
> Subject: RV-List: Another RV takes to the sky
>
>
> After nearly 20 years=2C N708CM=2C RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
> been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
> RV-Grin.
>
> don mack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another RV takes to the sky |
Congrats,Don! That is great news, and an inspiration for those of us whose lives
keep getting in the way-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another RV takes to the sky |
| From: | Doug Gray <dgra1233(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Don,
Congratulations! I'm sure the experience is even more sweet and surreal
after such a long build. If you think building was fun - flying it is
even better.
It is amazing how the RV-6 counter just keeps increasing. In July last
year mine was around the 2400 th RV-6 to fly, now yours is 2435. That
is 35 in 10 months - close to one a week!
Doug Gray
http://bypass.dyndns-free.com/
>
> After nearly 20 years, N708CM, RV-6A made it to the sky today! Its
> been a long time in coming. I wasn't flying but I do have that
> RV-Grin.
>
> don mack
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Ivan Haecker" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
| Subject: | Cleveland Wheels |
Does anyone know if the 5" Cleveland wheels supplied by Van's are an
aluminum or a magnesium alloy?
Thanks,
Ivan Haecker -4 1680 hrs. S. Cen. TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleveland Wheels |
Ivan-
It is my understanding that the main gear wheel that came with my 6A kit back in
the mid '90s was Cleveland P/N 199-102. Looking at Cleveland's datasheet 50-76
Rev G, this is a Magnesium alloy wheel assy P/N 40-788 bundled with an Aluminum
brake assy P/N 30-9.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV Flying 971 hrs)
In a message dated 04/26/11 10:57:19 Pacific Daylight Time, baremetl(at)gvtc.com writes:
Does anyone know if the 5" Cleveland wheels supplied by Van's are an aluminum or
a magnesium alloy?
Thanks,
Ivan Haecker -4 1680 hrs. S. Cen. TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | For Sale-Low Oil Sensor for Lycomings |
Hi all:
I bought a low oil level sensor to for my 0-360 powered RV but never
installed it. It's a very well made unit that takes the place of one of the
drain plugs in the sump. It's made by aircraft extras and is shown on their
website here: http://www.aircraftextras.com/LowOilSensor.htm I'll sell
this one for $55.00 US which includes shipping inside the US. Includes
installation and wiring instructions. Contact me off list if interested.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
2.5 years of flying fun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners... |
After washing the 'ol RV-8 last night, I noticed that there is about a .5" crack
in the .02" skin of the rudder in the *front* of two of the angle stiffeners
(towards the leading edge of the rudder). The skin is a little "bulgy" right
there, and its possible that I gave that area a good push with my thumb at some
point to see if I could get it to flatten out.
Obviously I need to keep an eye on this, but is it anything to worry about, really?
I'm just about ready to take the plane in for paint, so if I have to do
something about it, I'd rather do it *before* the paint.
Thanks in advance for the feedback,
-
Matt "Fox" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | West Coast Formation Clinic (WCFC) This Weekend... |
Any listers planning on attending the WCFC this weekend in Madera California?
I'm planning on being there with the 'ol RV-8. Come up and say 'hi' and introduce
yourself; I'd love to meet some of the Listers in person!
-
Matt "Fox" Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners... |
I'd rebuild it before paint - my .016 rudder skin had a hangar bump which I
covered with microballoons. It got a second bump and I rebuilt it with a
.020 skin - I have on IO360B1F6 so it was recommended anyway.
No regrets and it was a weekend job...the first part I built and the last
part I built.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:04 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners...
>
>
> After washing the 'ol RV-8 last night, I noticed that there is about a .5"
> crack in the .02" skin of the rudder in the *front* of two of the angle
> stiffeners (towards the leading edge of the rudder). The skin is a little
> "bulgy" right there, and its possible that I gave that area a good push
> with my thumb at some point to see if I could get it to flatten out.
>
> Obviously I need to keep an eye on this, but is it anything to worry
> about, really? I'm just about ready to take the plane in for paint, so if
> I have to do something about it, I'd rather do it *before* the paint.
>
> Thanks in advance for the feedback,
>
> -
> Matt "Fox" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners... |
I also have some cracks on my 6A rudder. Cracks are on the first rivets of
the stiffeners. Next to the area where the skin is not supported be either
the stiffener or the leading edge spar of the rudder. It appears the skin is
allowed to flex a bit because the stiffeners are not attached to the spar. I
stop drilled each crack when I first discovered them and they have not
progress further in 5 years. It is on my walk around check list and I look
at them every time I fly.
NOTE when I first found the cracks, I called Van's ....before I completed
the explanation of my problem I was stopped by the 'friendly' tech help guy
who said "you must have a big engine on your 6A don't you" I admitted I have
an O-360 with high compression pistons, electronic ignition and constant
speed prop. His next statement "there is your problem!"
I suggest you stop drill the cracks and watch them. If you build a new
rudder before you paint, with no change in the rudder design, you will
probably experience cracks again.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:04 PM
Subject: RV-List: Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners...
>
>
> After washing the 'ol RV-8 last night, I noticed that there is about a .5"
> crack in the .02" skin of the rudder in the *front* of two of the angle
> stiffeners (towards the leading edge of the rudder). The skin is a little
> "bulgy" right there, and its possible that I gave that area a good push
> with my thumb at some point to see if I could get it to flatten out.
>
> Obviously I need to keep an eye on this, but is it anything to worry
> about, really? I'm just about ready to take the plane in for paint, so if
> I have to do something about it, I'd rather do it *before* the paint.
>
> Thanks in advance for the feedback,
>
> -
> Matt "Fox" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RV6 Flyer <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | West Coast Formation Clinic (WCFC) This Weekend... |
See you there Matt. This will be the 3rd year in a row that we are at Made
ra.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell=2C
2=2C491+ Flying Hours So. CA=2C USA
> Date: Thu=2C 28 Apr 2011 15:12:16 -0700
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com=3B rv8-list(at)matronics.com=3B rv7-list@matronics
.com=3B rv10-list(at)matronics.com
> From: dralle(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: West Coast Formation Clinic (WCFC) This Weekend...
>
>
>
> Any listers planning on attending the WCFC this weekend in Madera Califor
nia?
>
> I'm planning on being there with the 'ol RV-8. Come up and say 'hi' and
introduce yourself=3B I'd love to meet some of the Listers in person!
>
>
> -
> Matt "Fox" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cracks Around Rudder Stiffeners... |
| From: | "jfogarty tds.net" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
Matt, Do you have a photo?
Jim Fogarty
RV9A building
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> After washing the 'ol RV-8 last night, I noticed that there is about a .5"
> crack in the .02" skin of the rudder in the *front* of two of the angle
> stiffeners (towards the leading edge of the rudder). The skin is a little
> "bulgy" right there, and its possible that I gave that area a good push with
> my thumb at some point to see if I could get it to flatten out.
>
> Obviously I need to keep an eye on this, but is it anything to worry about,
> really? I'm just about ready to take the plane in for paint, so if I have
> to do something about it, I'd rather do it *before* the paint.
>
> Thanks in advance for the feedback,
>
> -
> Matt "Fox" Dralle
> RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
> http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
> http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
> Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Paint job is all that's left...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Judge <bjudge(at)gmail.com> |
Greetings,
I saw note below on the RV-10 list and figured it should get passed around
to the wider RV audience with a few amplifying remarks.
There a great book out there, which any of my remarks related to
national security in this email come from:
http://www.amazon.com/Watchers-Rise-Americas-Surveillance-State/dp/1594202451
Since 9/11 the government got serious about using some new intelligence
tools. Initially Poindexter tried to do this in the "sunshine" if you will,
and tried to get privacy advocates to help him put in privacy controls. The
program, or group of programs, was called "Total Information Awareness" and
became a political football and was subsequently pushed to the NSA where the
privacy advocates had no influence whatsoever.
The intentions are good. I believe these are good people doing good work but
surprise, surprise the new technologies don't work as advertised 100% of the
time. Even old technology, say finger prints, are not fool proof, check out:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2010/10/biometrics
and who could forget:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/John_Martha_King_Held_At_Gunpoint_203205-1.html
So what is the answer?
Come down like a tons of bricks when transgressions happen to force the
users of the technology to be aware of it's limitations and use it
appropriately.
So letters to our reps are certainly warranted: Congress and the advocacy
groups like AOPA and EAA. Get the story out to all of the influential people
who love and participate in aviation. There are lots of them.
VR,
Bill Judge
N84WJ, RV-8, 600 hrs.
RV-8.blogspot.com
----- Original Message -----
From: vtailjeff(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 10:00 AM
Subject: [LML] Re: Beware update
As most of you on the list know we had an incident in April here in St.
Louis where one of our own was "stopped" by local police based on a
"tip" from Customs and Border Patrol. Here is an update to that story:
Bob Rickard (who was the individual stopped) and I have received more
emails from other Lancair pilots who have been stopped as well based on
"tips" from CBP. So this is not an isolated incident. I contacted AOPA,
my congressman's staff, and CBP themselves. AOPA's Craig Spence is
presently working this issue on our behalf. He already had ascheduled
meeting with CBP on Wednesday, so he brought this subject up. He said
that CBP wants to be the new "skycop". He conveyed our concerns to them
--targeting GA for poloce searches and the issue of the fax that is sent
to police agencies justifying detaining pilots. Mr. Spence told them
that the fax has errors on it and agreed to help them correct those. On
the issue of tracking GA flights and detaining pilots, Mr. Spence said
the CBP is not budging. He believes we need to take this to
Congressional leaders --he said we are in for a long battle with CBP.
The day after Mr. Spence's meeting I received two phone calls from CBP
(so it is true about smelly stuff rolling downhill). The first call was
from "Carlos" at CBP HQ. Carlos works in Gen. Mike Kostelnik's office in
DC. Kostelnik, a retired AF two star, is the head of the CBP Air and
Marine Center. Carlos wanted to know what our concerns were and I
repeated that we did not like getting stopped based on bogus
information. He wanted to know how I was certain CBP was behind these
stops (he implied they had nothing to do with it) and I said it was from
information from the local police and the fax AMOC sent to them. (Ah,
the truth and evidence is so great) He was pretty agitated during our
conversation and said if we were stopped and the police questioned us
then we should tell them what they wanted to know. I said I disagreed
(Fifth Amendment) . I gave him the specifics of Bobaloos stop two weeks
ago and he agreed to look into it. I said that in the best light their
intell is either unvetted or their analyis is poor. He disagreed (of
course) and gave many other reasons (all bogus) as to why their intel
was good. He said it could have been because the aircraft was a prior
drug aircraft. I replied that would be pretty difficult since I built
it, flew it and then sold it to Col. Rickard. I said that in the worst
light --their folks are making up stories to get the local police to
stop GA pilots--for the crime of ....flying. Of course he about blew a
gasket. I asked him to tell me where CBP got this information about Bob
carrying a fugitive. He replied that is a matter of national security
and could not tell me.
A couple of hours later I receive a phone call from Tony C. at the CBP
AMOC in Riverside, CA asking again about my concerns. Again I expressed
the same and while he was very polite and cordial and appears to be a
dedicated public servant doing a tough job I reiterated that law abiding
GA pilots do not enjoy getting stopped by law enforcement based on
seemingly bogus information. Tony said they are just trying to "put
their eyes on people"--meaning us. I remarked that there has to be a
better way of doing that than surrounding a pilot with 6 police cars and
ten officers. He said they have tough job catching bad guys. I said
that that they need to do a better job screening their intel. It seemed
both he and Carlos went back and forth on whether the intel came from
internal sources or external ones. At one point he said people were
calling their hotline with tips -- so I challenged him as to how someone
would know the Mr. McCrae was on Bob's airplane and then called them in
Riverside to report it. The story seemed to change to they had strong
intel internally. Never an admission that they screwed up. Just more
reasons why their intel is solid. Even at one point denying it is their
intel-- "it comes from somewhere else-- they are just the middle man."
Tony said they are all ex military and are all pilots so I pointed oujt
that the fax has numerous errors and the FARs contains no language
allowing detention of a pilot for failing to have his medical or
logbook on his person (look for that to change as CBP will probably
write criminal regulations re: pilots) . The whole time I could hear a
beep every ten seconds or so probably indicating I was being recorded.
Althoug Tony was pleasant there was no progress on this issue. None.
I spoke with my congressman's senior staffer as well. I relayed the
details of the issue to her and she seemed sincerely interested. She
said it is best to generate a letter from our organizations (we are) and
forward that with a personal note to all of our congressmen. She said I
should be carefull so that I don't become a target.
All for now.
Jeff "Bullseye" Edwards
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <Robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Fuel Injection Choices |
I have an older Bendex FI system in my 8A that I am going to either have
rebuilt or replaced. Is there a preferred modern FI system including flow
divider for these 2 place RV=92s in a Lycoming IO-360 200 Hp?
Thanks,
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injection Choices |
Depends what you want to spend. Your existing system can have a quality
rebuild for about $1500. Any new system like AFS is likely to cost you
more. The Bendix system generally will go 2000 hrs or 12 yrs (aka tBO)
between overhauls.
If you overhaul it, suggest you send to shop servo, flow divider,
injection lines and the injectors. That way they can assure you have
uniform flow to all cylinders and all works as designed.
On 5/4/2011 7:35 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> I have an older Bendex FI system in my 8A that I am going to either have
> rebuilt or replaced. Is there a preferred modern FI system including
> flow divider for these 2 place RVs in a Lycoming IO-360 200 Hp?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injection Choices |
| From: | Dale Ellis <rv8builder.kd0m(at)gmail.com> |
The fine folks at AFP can overhaul your Bendix components. And Don
Rivera's (the AFP brains) normally suggests that for simplicity, in a
situation as yours that you overhaul the Bendix and not install AFP.
Dale
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> I have an older Bendex FI system in my 8A that I am going to either have
> rebuilt or replaced. Is there a preferred modern FI system including flow
> divider for these 2 place RVs in a Lycoming IO-360 200 Hp?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dwight Frye <dwight(at)openweave.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Injection Choices |
I thought I'd do a "me too" post and agree with what Dale said. I had a
friend (RV-7 builder) who had an old Bendix system and was trying to
decide whether to overhaul that, or buy a new Airflow system. The Bendix
fuel controller was in _rough_ shape. Real rough. In fact, it looked
like it had been through a fire.
Don worked through the numbers for him and from a $$$ perspective
encouraged my friend to go the overhaul route since it would be cheaper.
Airflow is a FAA certified Bendix repair and overhaul center and
absolutely know what they are doing with these systems.
Ya just can't go wrong with Don and Airflow Performance. I say that
having no affiliation with AFP than as a very happy customer.
-- Dwight
On 05/05/2011 06:53 AM, Dale Ellis wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dale Ellis
>
> The fine folks at AFP can overhaul your Bendix components. And Don
> Rivera's (the AFP brains) normally suggests that for simplicity, in a
> situation as yours that you overhaul the Bendix and not install AFP.
>
> Dale
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:35 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
>> I have an older Bendex FI system in my 8A that I am going to either have
>> rebuilt or replaced. Is there a preferred modern FI system including flow
>> divider for these 2 place RVs in a Lycoming IO-360 200 Hp?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chuck Weyant" <chuck(at)chuckdirect.com> |
| Subject: | Email name change |
Please delete cweyant(at)impulse.net
Please delete chuck(at)chuckdirect.com
Please Add chuckweyant(at)impulse.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Colm O'Reilly" <colm.oreilly(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Email name change |
Done
Sent from my iPhone
On May 9, 2011, at 4:55 PM, "Chuck Weyant" wrote:
> Please delete cweyant(at)impulse.net
>
> Please delete chuck(at)chuckdirect.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Please Add chuckweyant(at)impulse.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Bowmar <paul(at)bwbco.com> |
| Subject: | Flight Data Logging on Dynon FD-180 |
I have a Dynon FD-180 and want to do some flight data logging. Does anyone out
there have experience with this and is there a good computer program to analyze
the data? Please call me at (435) 826-4662 or contact me offlist with information.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flight Data Logging on Dynon FD-180 |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
I import mine to excel...
Sent from my iPhone
On May 10, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Paul Bowmar wrote:
>
> I have a Dynon FD-180 and want to do some flight data logging. Does anyone out
there have experience with this and is there a good computer program to analyze
the data? Please call me at (435) 826-4662 or contact me offlist with information.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | EAA 21 Club Fly-In Lunch |
**EAA Chapter 21 is pleased to announce the season opening of EAA 21
Club. We will be preparing Hamburgers and Brats for all that fly-in.
Just as New York's 21 Club has become known as the HAPPENING PLACE to be
and be seen, EAA 21 Club is the place to be on the first Saturday of
each month.
Due to the heavy rains in the Midwest we delayed the opening of our 21
Club until Saturday May 21, 2011. Fly-In and help us celebrate EAA 21
Club's second season.
When: May 21, June 4, July 2, August 6, September 3, October 1
10:00 AM till 2:00 PM
Lunch served
11:00 AM till 1:00 PM Central time
Where: Henderson Kentucky City-County Airport (KEHR)
If KEHR is VFR then we are grilling the best gourmet hamburgers and
brats this side of Sporty's for all that fly or drive in..
Steve Eberhart
President
EAA Chapter 21
Evansvile, IN
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I have
a repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any guidance
as to where to look to see a list of things that should be done/checked.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
Tom-
Here is a list I use.
-GV
In a message dated 05/16/11 11:46:47 Pacific Daylight Time, sarg314(at)gmail.com writes:
I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I have a
repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any guidance as to
where to look to see a list of things that should be done/checked.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Tom,
Here=99s what I=99ve doneit=99s based on
someone else=99s =93 but adapted for me.
Ralph
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas sargent
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: annual
I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I
have a repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any
guidance as to where to look to see a list of things that should be
done/checked.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
I see Ralph ripped mine off. I'm honored.
-GV
In a message dated 05/16/11 11:55:59 Pacific Daylight Time, recapen(at)earthlink.net
writes:
Tom,
Heres what Ive doneits based on someone elses but adapted for me.
Ralph
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas sargent
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: annual
I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I have a
repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any guidance as to
where to look to see a list of things that should be done/checked.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
I knew yours looked familiar.thanks Gary
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of vanremog
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: annual
I see Ralph ripped mine off. I'm honored.
-GV
In a message dated 05/16/11 11:55:59 Pacific Daylight Time,
recapen(at)earthlink.net writes:
Tom,
Here=99s what I=99ve doneit=99s based on
someone else=99s =93 but adapted for me.
Ralph
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas sargent
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: annual
I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I
have a repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any
guidance as to where to look to see a list of things that should be
done/checked.
Thanks,
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Jessen <n212pj(at)gmail.com> |
Look at EAA 105 web site. They have one there for RVs. It's under Useful Inf
o, I believe.
... by phone
On May 16, 2011, at 11:43 AM, thomas sargent wrote:
> I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july. I ha
ve a repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me any guidanc
e as to where to look to see a list of things that should be done/checked.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
Well, those Friendly Feds Against Aviating, publish a list in Part 43,
Appendix D, which is the minimum for a certified plane. 99% will apply
to OBAM aircraft.
On 5/16/2011 11:58 AM, vanremog wrote:
> I see Ralph ripped mine off. I'm honored.
> -GV
> In a message dated 05/16/11 11:55:59 Pacific Daylight Time,
> recapen(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
> Tom,
>
> Heres what Ive doneits based on someone elses but adapted for
> me.
>
> Ralph
>
> *From:*owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *thomas
> sargent
> *Sent:* Monday, May 16, 2011 2:43 PM
> *To:* rv-list
> *Subject:* RV-List: annual
>
> I am facing the annual on my plane already at the beginning of july.
> I have a repairman's certificate for this plane. Can anyone give me
> any guidance as to where to look to see a list of things that should
> be done/checked.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A N811WT
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | thomas sargent <sarg314(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will
definitely use those lists.
I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of
the timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was
granted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is
there a "grace period"?
Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
Thanks
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Engine Operation |
Hi gang,
I have had a question about the operation of my RV-4, IO-360, with
old style Hartzell prop for the past ten years. I posed this question
to the list once before, but received little response. I talked to
Lycoming yesterday, and got an interesting, but not definitive, response.
So here goes: The older Hartzell prop has a limitation of 2100 - 2350
continuous RPM ( due to harmonics), and I have always kept the RPM in
the 2400+ range when slow cruising at 18"-21" MP. A very experienced
co-pilot felt this was a "sweet spot" when flying my plane. Only
recently, have I experimented with 18"- 21" x 2100 RPM. Yes, its
quieter. But it feels strange. Lycombing assures me that this is
perfectly fine. They also say that my original 2400 RPM settings are
fine, and do not impair the life of the engine. It feels as though I
am lugging the engine. Lycoming assures me I am not. My gauges assure
me I am not.
I just want to know what other RV pilots have experienced, and how
they like to fly behind this engine/prop combination.
Thank you, and good flying.
Louis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Mine was actually spelled out in my operating limitations =93 see
attached.
I didn=99t steal these from Garybut I
didn=99t write them either
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of thomas sargent
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 1:33 PM
Subject: RV-List: annual again
Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I
will definitely use those lists.
I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description
of the timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate
was granted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july
7? Is there a "grace period"?
Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
Thanks
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Alley <n320wt(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
Your condition inspection is due the
last day of the month. Most pilots I
know like to have the books signed
on the first day of the month so you
really get thirteen months
Sent from my iPhone
Brian Alley
carbonfibercomposites.net
304-395-4932
On May 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will d
efinitely use those lists.
>
> I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of t
he timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was gra
nted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is there
a "grace period"?
>
> Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
| From: | Bobby Hester <bobbyhester(at)newwavecomm.net> |
You have till the end of the month and the logbook entry is in your operatin
g limitations, I believe.
Sent from my Verizon iPhone
On May 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will d
efinitely use those lists.
>
> I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of t
he timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was gra
nted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is there
a "grace period"?
>
> Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Mine too was input by the FAA inspector in my log book and operating limitat
ions. He gave me 13 months for the first year. A/W received 5/2/2011, con
ditional inspection due 6/30/12...
Sent from my iPhone
On May 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
> Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will d
efinitely use those lists.
>
> I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of t
he timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was gra
nted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is there
a "grace period"?
>
> Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
Appendix D to part 43 contains the minimum inspection requirements. The
log entry should reference appendix D. The exact verbiage should be in
you oplims.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
On 5/17/2011 10:32 AM, thomas sargent wrote:
> Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I
> will definitely use those lists.
>
> I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description
> of the timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness
> certificate was granted July 7, do I have to have the inspection
> completed by july 7? Is there a "grace period"?
>
> Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
Sorry to do this to you=2C but your inspector cannot "give" you 13 months a
s the requirement to do the condition inspection every 12 xcalendar months
is in FAR 91 as well as clearly called out in the aircraft operating limita
tions. As your a/w was received on 5/2/2011 then you will need to inspect
but the end of May=2C 2012=2C which effectively gives you almost 13 months.
Idealy=2C do the condition inspection the last week of may and sign it of
f on June 1. Then the next year the condition inpsection won't be due unti
l June 30.
For Tom=2C
A really good place to find POHs and inspeciton checklists is on the Van's
Air Force website. Several people=2C myself included=2C have posted RV POH
's there. And almost every one of them includes a section with a condition
inpseciton checklist.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
Repeat Offender
Subject: Re: RV-List: annual again
From: n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net
Date: Tue=2C 17 May 2011 15:55:35 -0400
Mine too was input by the FAA inspector in my log book and operating limita
tions. He gave me 13 months for the first year. A/W received 5/2/2011=2C
conditional inspection due 6/30/12...
Sent from my iPhone
On May 17=2C 2011=2C at 1:32 PM=2C thomas sargent wrote
:
Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will d
efinitely use those lists.
I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of t
he timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was gr
anted July 7=2C do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is t
here a "grace period"?
Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
Thanks
--
Tom Sargent
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
| From: | Michael Kraus <n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net> |
Not going to argue with you, but the FAA did my A/W inspection and gave me m
y op limits. He specifically stated in my op limits the 1st conditional ins
pection is due 6/30/2012. He told me he always gives 13 months the first ye
ar. He did the same thing when he certified my RV-4 in 2002...
Sent from my iPhone
On May 19, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Mike Robertson wrote:
> Sorry to do this to you, but your inspector cannot "give" you 13 months as
the requirement to do the condition inspection every 12 xcalendar months is
in FAR 91 as well as clearly called out in the aircraft operating limitatio
ns. As your a/w was received on 5/2/2011 then you will need to inspect but t
he end of May, 2012, which effectively gives you almost 13 months. Idealy, d
o the condition inspection the last week of may and sign it off on June 1. T
hen the next year the condition inpsection won't be due until June 30.
>
> For Tom,
>
> A really good place to find POHs and inspeciton checklists is on the Van's
Air Force website. Several people, myself included, have posted RV POH's t
here. And almost every one of them includes a section with a condition inps
eciton checklist.
>
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
> Repeat Offender
>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: annual again
> From: n223rv(at)wolflakeairport.net
> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 15:55:35 -0400
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Mine too was input by the FAA inspector in my log book and operating limit
ations. He gave me 13 months for the first year. A/W received 5/2/2011, c
onditional inspection due 6/30/12...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 17, 2011, at 1:32 PM, thomas sargent wrote:
>
> Thanks for those great responses to my question about the annual. I will d
efinitely use those lists.
>
> I read thru section FAR 43. I didn't see anywhere a clear description of t
he timing of the annual inspection. If my airworthiness certificate was gra
nted July 7, do I have to have the inspection completed by july 7? Is there
a "grace period"?
>
> Is there a special logbook entry to be made?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tom Sargent
>
>
>
>
>
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> -List
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: annual again |
Mike R is correct. Not even an FAA employee can break the rules. 12
months is the rule. Now if he did your airworthiness inspection on the
last day of the month, I suppose he could date it for the next day.
Kelly
A&P/IA
Tech Counselor
FAAST Team
On 5/19/2011 8:49 AM, Michael Kraus wrote:
> Not going to argue with you, but the FAA did my A/W inspection and gave
> me my op limits. He specifically stated in my op limits the 1st
> conditional inspection is due 6/30/2012. He told me he always gives 13
> months the first year. He did the same thing when he certified my RV-4
> in 2002...
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 19, 2011, at 10:55 AM, Mike Robertson > wrote:
>
>> Sorry to do this to you, but your inspector cannot "give" you 13
>> months as the requirement to do the condition inspection every 12
>> xcalendar months is in FAR 91 as well as clearly called out in the
>> aircraft operating limitations. As your a/w was received on 5/2/2011
>> then you will need to inspect but the end of May, 2012, which
>> effectively gives you almost 13 months. Idealy, do the condition
>> inspection the last week of may and sign it off on June 1. Then the
>> next year the condition inpsection won't be due until June 30.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Officialdom's lattitude, was Re: annual again |
Hi Guys-
I'm aware of a fellow that had a 15 hr phase one that involved a Rotax. Go
figure-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | EAA 21 Club Fly-In Lunch |
**EAA Chapter 21 is pleased to announce the season opening of EAA 21
Club. We will be preparing Hamburgers and Brats for all that fly-in.
Just as New York's 21 Club has become known as the HAPPENING PLACE to be
and be seen, EAA 21 Club is the place to be on the first Saturday of
each month.
Due to the heavy rains in the Midwest we delayed the opening of our 21
Club until Saturday May 21, 2011. Fly-In and help us celebrate EAA 21
Club's second season.
When: May 21, June 4, July 2, August 6, September 3, October 1
10:00 AM till 2:00 PM
Lunch served
11:00 AM till 1:00 PM Central time
Where: Henderson Kentucky City-County Airport (KEHR)
If KEHR is VFR then we are grilling the best gourmet hamburgers and
brats this side of Sporty's for all that fly or drive in..
Steve Eberhart
President
EAA Chapter 21
Evansvile, IN
*
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Officialdom's lattitude, was Re: annual again |
On 5/20/2011 7:57 AM, glen matejcek wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek"
>
> Hi Guys-
>
> I'm aware of a fellow that had a 15 hr phase one that involved a Rotax. Go
> figure-
Ah, it's nice to have friends in high places!
Linn
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Anyone have a manual for a KT76A transponder in electronic format?
I don't trust any of the download sites - especially when they want you to
sign up for their membership services.
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks Stein!
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: RV-List: KT76A manual
Anyone have a manual for a KT76A transponder in electronic format?
I don't trust any of the download sites - especially when they want you to
sign up for their membership services.
Thanks,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV on the news (built in basement) |
| From: | Matt <mattreeves(at)yahoo.com> |
http://whtm.videodownload.worldnow.com/WHTM_20110523194542857AA.mp4
Sent from my iPod
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eberhart <steve(at)newtech.com> |
| Subject: | ULTIMATE UFO - Fly in the same program with the Blue Angels |
June 10, 11 and 12 - Evansville, Indiana EVV and 3EV
Our EAA Chapter agreed to be one of the warm up acts for our local,
Evansville Indiana, Shriners Fest Featuring the Blue Angels. We were
gong to do a parade of homebuilts flying through the BOX in front of the
crowd while Danny Clisham described each pilot and aircraft. The
homebuilt parade is sandwiched between the Stearman's and the AT-6's and
preceeding the Blue Angels performance. All looked good; then I went on
a long planned vacation and upon returning yesterday it had all fallen
apart. Most all that we had planned on flying passed because of the
waivered arspace. If all of your paperwork is in order and you have
liability insurance it shouldn't be an issue.
Long story short - If you are within a reasonable flyng distance of
Evansville, Indiana and would enjoy sharing the ramp with the Blue
Angels and flying in a homebuilt parade as one of the warm up acts for
the Blue's I need to hear from you TODAY. The waiver has to be filed
tomorrow and if you are not on the waiver you don't fly when the box is hot.
http://www.shrinersfest.org/
I don't have a lot of incentives to offer but the Shriners are helping
out with the fuel and our EAA Chapter along with the Shriners will make
sure there is plenty to eat and a good area for camping.
Please consider our plea for help, it should be a lot of fun
Steve Eberhart, W9BOJ
3EV - Evansville, IN
RV-7A Slider, O-360 A1A, Catto 3 blade, VFR panel, Garmin 696 and Icom
A210, Bionics APRS. FLYING since June 24, 2009
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ULTIMATE UFO |
Hi Steve-
EAA 1311 outside Indy has a lot of homebuilts, and especially RV's.
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Superior engines, shipping again |
Howdy All,
Avweb announced today that Superior is shipping XP engines, again. I
called Brent at Superior and he said he could put together an IO-360 kit
engine package, SL series, and ship within 4 business days. The kit
engine has to be bought through a distributor and the assembled engine
can be bought direct. I didn't inquire as to how long it would take to
get an assembled XP engine, but they have all the parts to do it.
Choice of fuel injection is limited to the Airhawk, for now. You can buy
the engine (or engine kit) without accessories and roll your own
package. Cold air sumps are available. 9:1 pistons are available.
The parts are manufactured in Texas, as before, even though the company
is now owned by the Chinese.
If anybody out there is interested in a group buy, please e-mail me
direct. We might be able to negotiate in the neighborhood of another 10%
off with 5 engines or better.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
A&P
RV-6A N79WH
RV-6 N86ED (waiting patiently for an engine)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ULTIMATE UFO |
| From: | Steve Senegal <ssenegal(at)sanbrunocable.com> |
Hi Glen,
It sounds like fun and I'd to help out, but Hayward CA to Indy is just a tad to
far this year.
Maybe another time.
Thanks for the invite.
Steve
(650) 346 6967
Sent from my iPhone
On May 26, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi Steve-
> EAA 1311 outside Indy has a lot of homebuilts, and especially RV's.
>
> Glen Matejcek
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <Robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion drill
driver. I looked in the archives but could not find the thread. Anyone out
there with a preference on this type of tool?
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HCRV6(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
I recently picked up a small Li Ion driver made by Ryobi (sp?) from Home Depot.
The pluses are small compact size, two speeds, excellent torgue adjustment and
easily interchangeable battery , spare batteries available for about 12 bucks.
The minus is it has a hex chuck only so if you want to drill with it you will
need hex shank drill bits.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 830 hours
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Marks" <Robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2011 2:43:10 PM
Subject: RV-List: Small Drill Driver Recommendation
About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion drill driver.
I looked in the archives but could not find the thread. Anyone out there with
a preference on this type of tool?
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | vanremog <vanremog(at)aol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
I really like the 12V Milwaukee Li Ion Driver Kit. You can get the kit for less
than $100 at Grainger.
http://www.amazon.com/Milwaukee-2401-22-12-Volt-Li-Ion-Compact/dp/B000WI9CIG/ref=pd_bxgy_hi_img_c
-GV
In a message dated 05/28/11 14:47:36 Pacific Daylight Time, Robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com
writes:
About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion drill driver.
I looked in the archives but could not find the thread. Anyone out there with
a preference on this type of tool?
Robin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
The Panasonics are mostly NiMH, but are great drills. The balance is
very good, high torque, great chuck, great clutch, charge fast. I like
to have a half inch chuck 'cos you can chuck up pieces of tubing and
square up the end on the scotchbrite wheel when you're making spacers
and such. Not a small drill, but very useful.
Pax,
Ed
On 5/28/2011 2:43 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
>
> About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion
> drill driver. I looked in the archives but could not find the thread.
> Anyone out there with a preference on this type of tool?
>
> Robin
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
| From: | Chris Colohan <rv10(at)colohan.com> |
Personally, I have one of these Makita drivers:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=makita+fd01w&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15995060857694302261&sa=X&ei=tSTkTfHTAob0swOkwqEW&ved=0CFgQ8wIwAQ
It works great. The only thing which I'd do differently is have an option
for adding a chuck -- having to use hex bits for everything gets old.
(Recently I acquired a set of collets for this, perhaps this will make me
happier.)
Chris
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
> About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion drill
> driver. I looked in the archives but could not find the thread. Anyone out
> there with a preference on this type of tool?
>
>
> Robin
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ciolino" <johnciolino(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV10-List: Small Drill Driver Recommendation |
Chris,
You can buy a hex drive chuck to convert this drill to a regular chuck.
Google "hex drive chuck" for examples.
John Ciolino
RV-8
N894Y
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Colohan
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2011 7:16 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV10-List: Small Drill Driver Recommendation
Personally, I have one of these Makita drivers:
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=makita+fd01w
<http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=makita+fd01w&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=sho
p&cid=15995060857694302261&sa=X&ei=tSTkTfHTAob0swOkwqEW&ved=0CFgQ8wIwAQ>
&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15995060857694302261&sa=X&ei=tSTkTfHTAob0swOkwqE
W&ved=0CFgQ8wIwAQ
It works great. The only thing which I'd do differently is have an option
for adding a chuck -- having to use hex bits for everything gets old.
(Recently I acquired a set of collets for this, perhaps this will make me
happier.)
Chris
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Robin Marks wrote:
About a year ago someone on the RV list recommended a small Li Ion drill
driver. I looked in the archives but could not find the thread. Anyone out
there with a preference on this type of tool?
Robin
get="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | 7A maingear legs on 6A |
Noticing that the 6A sits pointed kinda nose-high.....also, mine seems to
try to take off before it is really ready. Maybe because I'm putting
backpressure on the stick to keep weight off the nose. I operate mainly
from grass strips and have already made a couple of changes to enhance the
take-off/landing safety - namely larger tires all around and upgraded brake
calipers/rotors. I already have the nose gear leg mod for the shortened
thread - and newer style front fork to fit the larger nose wheel.
The 7A sits straighter - I'm thinking because it has longer main gear legs.
Will the 7A main gear legs fit in the 6A mounts? Any reason not to change
over if they do fit? My reasoning here would be less backpressure to
lighten the nose and it wouldn't be rotated enough to try to fly early.
Ralph Capen
60431
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | 7A maingear legs on 6A |
Here's what Van's responded with:
It won't work - the 7A gear legs are larger diameter and won't fit. Try
trimming more nose down prior to takeoff so the force to pull the nose up is
higher, that will give a better feel than if it is neutral with little force
required.
Vans
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:19 AM
Subject: RV-List: 7A maingear legs on 6A
Noticing that the 6A sits pointed kinda nose-high.....also, mine seems to
try to take off before it is really ready. Maybe because I'm putting
backpressure on the stick to keep weight off the nose. I operate mainly
from grass strips and have already made a couple of changes to enhance the
take-off/landing safety - namely larger tires all around and upgraded brake
calipers/rotors. I already have the nose gear leg mod for the shortened
thread - and newer style front fork to fit the larger nose wheel.
The 7A sits straighter - I'm thinking because it has longer main gear legs.
Will the 7A main gear legs fit in the 6A mounts? Any reason not to change
over if they do fit? My reasoning here would be less backpressure to
lighten the nose and it wouldn't be rotated enough to try to fly early.
Ralph Capen
60431
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 7A maingear legs on 6A |
| From: | Ollie Washburn <ollie6a(at)embarqmail.com> |
I do just the opposite; as soon as I can after full power I lift the
nose wheel off and just let the plane fly off when it is ready.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ralph E. Capen wrote:
> Heres what Vans responded with:
>
>
> It won't work - the 7A gear legs are larger diameter and won't fit. Try
> trimming more nose down prior to takeoff so the force to pull the nose up is
> higher, that will give a better feel than if it is neutral with little force
> required.
>
>
> Vans
>
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:19 AM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: 7A maingear legs on 6A
>
>
> Noticing that the 6A sits pointed kinda nose-high.....also, mine seems to
> try to take off before it is really ready. Maybe because I'm putting
> backpressure on the stick to keep weight off the nose. I operate mainly
> from grass strips and have already made a couple of changes to enhance the
> take-off/landing safety namely larger tires all around and upgraded brake
> calipers/rotors. I already have the nose gear leg mod for the shortened
> thread and newer style front fork to fit the larger nose wheel.
>
>
> The 7A sits straighter - I'm thinking because it has longer main gear legs.
> Will the 7A main gear legs fit in the 6A mounts? Any reason not to change
> over if they do fit? My reasoning here would be less backpressure to
> lighten the nose and it wouldn't be rotated enough to try to fly early.
>
>
> Ralph Capen
>
> 60431
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
--
>From Central Florida,
Ollie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 7A maingear legs on 6A |
| From: | Shannon Miller <apebiz(at)gmail.com> |
I've no experience taking off RVs (yet!), but the traditional method for a
soft-field takeoff with a tricycle-gear aircraft is to hold the nose off th
e
ground (stick full back as you start your roll, gradually releasing as you
pick up speed), then as soon as the plane lifts off hold it in ground effec
t
until you've reached at least Vx (won't take long in an RV!). As for trim
setting, it seems the safest would be a setting that gets the airplane in a
climb (perhaps at Vy or faster), so that if you get distracted right after
take-off and relax the control for some reason, the plane will continue to
climb up at a nice rate rather than pitch back down towards the ground.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Ollie Washburn wrot
e:
>
> I do just the opposite; as soon as I can after full power I lift the
> nose wheel off and just let the plane fly off when it is ready.
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Ralph E. Capen
> wrote:
> > Here=92s what Van=92s responded with:
> >
> >
> >
> > It won't work - the 7A gear legs are larger diameter and won't fit. Try
> > trimming more nose down prior to takeoff so the force to pull the nose
up
> is
> > higher, that will give a better feel than if it is neutral with little
> force
> > required.
> >
> >
> >
> > Vans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:19 AM
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RV-List: 7A maingear legs on 6A
> >
> >
> >
> > Noticing that the 6A sits pointed kinda nose-high.....also, mine seems
to
> > try to take off before it is really ready. Maybe because I'm putting
> > backpressure on the stick to keep weight off the nose. I operate mainl
y
> > from grass strips and have already made a couple of changes to enhance
> the
> > take-off/landing safety ' namely larger tires all around and upgraded
> brake
> > calipers/rotors. I already have the nose gear leg mod for the shortene
d
> > thread ' and newer style front fork to fit the larger nose wheel.
> >
> >
> >
> > The 7A sits straighter - I'm thinking because it has longer main gear
> legs.
> > Will the 7A main gear legs fit in the 6A mounts? Any reason not to
> change
> > over if they do fit? My reasoning here would be less backpressure to
> > lighten the nose and it wouldn't be rotated enough to try to fly early.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ralph Capen
> >
> > 60431
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> >From Central Florida,
> Ollie
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Sears" <jmsj(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 7A maingear legs on 6A |
I found the -7A mains are too tall for me. Same for the -9A. I prefer the
stance of my -6A. I've not found it to be a problem, after hundreds of
take-offs and landings since its maiden flight in 1999. I'm still using the
original gear set, to include the original nose gear fork that some have
bent back under the firewall and prompted "mandatory" service bulletins. I
start my take-off rolls with the elevator trim at neutral. If I've done a
good landing, the trim is in the neutral position at the end of the flight.
On the take-off roll, I apply just a little back pressure on the stick and
not force it off. The nose will come up, when it's ready. As soon as it
breaks ground, I spin in a little down trim to stabilize the climb. I use
the same technique on hard surface and grass.
I hope this gets to the RV-list. It's been years since I've responded.
Jim Sears
RV-6A 22220
EAA Technical Counselor.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 7A maingear legs on 6A |
Ralph, I had exactly the same situation with my Rv-6A with the tail
squat. Then I had a rather hard landing that bent one of the gears
(actually both), when I got my replacement gears from Harmon Lang
http://www.langair.com/
and installed them, I found my RV-6A set a bit higher overall and the
tail was now considerably higher than previous. When I park next to
other Rv-6As the difference is quite noticeable. I called Lang and
asked if the new gear were longer than the old gear and he stated the
dimensions were the same. Well, perhaps they are but they are either
using a stronger alloy or my Rv-6A has lost considerable weight {:>)
Ed
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com
From: Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:48 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: 7A maingear legs on 6A
Here's what Van's responded with:
It won't work - the 7A gear legs are larger diameter and won't fit. Try
trimming more nose down prior to takeoff so the force to pull the nose
up is higher, that will give a better feel than if it is neutral with
little force required.
Vans
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:19 AM
Subject: RV-List: 7A maingear legs on 6A
Noticing that the 6A sits pointed kinda nose-high.....also, mine seems
to try to take off before it is really ready. Maybe because I'm putting
backpressure on the stick to keep weight off the nose. I operate mainly
from grass strips and have already made a couple of changes to enhance
the take-off/landing safety - namely larger tires all around and
upgraded brake calipers/rotors. I already have the nose gear leg mod
for the shortened thread - and newer style front fork to fit the larger
nose wheel.
The 7A sits straighter - I'm thinking because it has longer main gear
legs. Will the 7A main gear legs fit in the 6A mounts? Any reason not
to change over if they do fit? My reasoning here would be less
backpressure to lighten the nose and it wouldn't be rotated enough to
try to fly early.
Ralph Capen
60431
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-Listhttp://forums.matronics.comhttp
://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robin Marks <robin(at)PaintTheWeb.com> |
| Subject: | High Oil Temp Issues - RV-8A |
After 20+ hours of flying in which time we were resolving a Fuel Injector
issue and a few avionics/electrical issues we are in good shape everywhere
but Oil Temperatures which are also driving up our Cylinder Head Temps.
We are running:
=B7 IO-360 200 Hp standard compression
=B7 James Cowl
=B7 Metal Plenum (home built)
=B7 New RV-10 size oil cooler (designed for 260 Hp)
=B7 Custom oil cooler plenum
Photo below.
The issue is we are seeing oil temps up to 225 when OAT=92s are in the low
80=92s running about 23/2300, 3,000=92. The CHT=92s are being driven up by
the
high OAT=92s to mid 390=92s.
The oil cooler plenum is a BIG 4=94 inlet with a smooth ramp down to the
oversized (260 Hp) oil cooler.
While we have not been trying to resolve this for very long on the 8A but w
e
have a great deal of experience with oil temp issues (and the James Cowl) o
n
our RV-10. The long & short of the -10 issue is the inlet rings are too
small to properly cool the CHT/Oil. The only reason I went with the James
cowl AGAIN on the 8A was the MUCH larger fleet of flying 6/7/8/9=92s with
James cowls & few reports of cowl design issues for these models.
We have toyed with the idea of swapping out this oversized oil cooler for a
Niagara unit but I don=92t see how we are going to find 25 degrees with tha
t
swap as this is already an oversized cooler to begin with.
It would be pretty tight but doable to relocate the oil cooler closer to th
e
rear baffle area but again I don=92t see getting 25 degrees from that.
The temp issues are the only remaining issues to resolve. Any thoughts woul
d
be appreciated.
Robin Marks
RV-4 Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp Issue
s
RV-6A Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp Issues
RV-10 225 Hours James Cowl & Plenum ' Significant Temp
Issues
RV-4 25 Hours James Cowl & Metal Plenum ' Signific
ant
Temp Issues
[image: Oil cooler inlet plenum 001.jpg]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp Issues - RV-8A |
Robin,
The first thing that comes to mind is to add some outlet area. Maybe a
louver under the oil cooler?
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Robin Marks wrote:
> After 20+ hours of flying in which time we were resolving a Fuel Injector
> issue and a few avionics/electrical issues we are in good shape everywher
e
> but Oil Temperatures which are also driving up our Cylinder Head Temps.
>
>
> We are running:
>
>
> =C2=B7 IO-360 200 Hp standard compression
>
> =C2=B7 James Cowl
>
> =C2=B7 Metal Plenum (home built)
>
> =C2=B7 New RV-10 size oil cooler (designed for 260 Hp)
>
> =C2=B7 Custom oil cooler plenum
>
>
> Photo below.
>
>
> The issue is we are seeing oil temps up to 225 when OAT=99s are in
the low
> 80=99s running about 23/2300, 3,000=99. The CHT=99s are
being driven up by the
> high OAT=99s to mid 390=99s.
>
> The oil cooler plenum is a BIG 4=9D inlet with a smooth ramp down t
o the
> oversized (260 Hp) oil cooler.
>
> While we have not been trying to resolve this for very long on the 8A but
> we have a great deal of experience with oil temp issues (and the James Co
wl)
> on our RV-10. The long & short of the -10 issue is the inlet rings are to
o
> small to properly cool the CHT/Oil. The only reason I went with the James
> cowl AGAIN on the 8A was the MUCH larger fleet of flying 6/7/8/9=99
s with
> James cowls & few reports of cowl design issues for these models.
>
> We have toyed with the idea of swapping out this oversized oil cooler for
a
> Niagara unit but I don=99t see how we are going to find 25 degrees
with that
> swap as this is already an oversized cooler to begin with.
>
> It would be pretty tight but doable to relocate the oil cooler closer to
> the rear baffle area but again I don=99t see getting 25 degrees fro
m that.
>
> The temp issues are the only remaining issues to resolve. Any thoughts
> would be appreciated.
>
>
> Robin Marks
>
> RV-4 Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp
> Issues
>
> RV-6A Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp Issue
s
>
> RV-10 225 Hours James Cowl & Plenum =93 Signific
ant Temp
> Issues
>
> RV-4 25 Hours James Cowl & Metal Plenum =93
> Significant Temp Issues
>
>
> [image: Oil cooler inlet plenum 001.jpg]
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Panama Red" <panamared505(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Oil Temp Issues - RV-8A |
I think you might be getting turbulent airflow through the oil cooler,
maybe too many turns for the airflow. As I recall after 17 degrees the
airflow will seperate and go turbulent.
Bob
The issue is we are seeing oil temps up to 225 when OAT=92s are in the
low 80=92s running about 23/2300, 3,000=92. The CHT=92s are being driven
up by the high OAT=92s to mid 390=92s.
It would be pretty tight but doable to relocate the oil cooler closer
to the rear baffle area but again I don=92t see getting 25 degrees from
that.
The temp issues are the only remaining issues to resolve. Any thoughts
would be appreciated.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <BGray(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | High Oil Temp Issues - RV-8A |
You might check your mag timing. A few degrees of advance will spike the
temps.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 2:38 PM
Subject: RV-List: High Oil Temp Issues - RV-8A
After 20+ hours of flying in which time we were resolving a Fuel
Injector issue and a few avionics/electrical issues we are in good shape
everywhere but Oil Temperatures which are also driving up our Cylinder
Head Temps.
We are running:
* IO-360 200 Hp standard compression
* James Cowl
* Metal Plenum (home built)
* New RV-10 size oil cooler (designed for 260 Hp)
* Custom oil cooler plenum
Photo below.
The issue is we are seeing oil temps up to 225 when OAT's are in the low
80's running about 23/2300, 3,000'. The CHT's are being driven up by the
high OAT's to mid 390's.
The oil cooler plenum is a BIG 4" inlet with a smooth ramp down to the
oversized (260 Hp) oil cooler.
While we have not been trying to resolve this for very long on the 8A
but we have a great deal of experience with oil temp issues (and the
James Cowl) on our RV-10. The long & short of the -10 issue is the inlet
rings are too small to properly cool the CHT/Oil. The only reason I went
with the James cowl AGAIN on the 8A was the MUCH larger fleet of flying
6/7/8/9's with James cowls & few reports of cowl design issues for these
models.
We have toyed with the idea of swapping out this oversized oil cooler
for a Niagara unit but I don't see how we are going to find 25 degrees
with that swap as this is already an oversized cooler to begin with.
It would be pretty tight but doable to relocate the oil cooler closer to
the rear baffle area but again I don't see getting 25 degrees from that.
The temp issues are the only remaining issues to resolve. Any thoughts
would be appreciated.
Robin Marks
RV-4 Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp
Issues
RV-6A Sold Standard Vans Cowl - No Temp
Issues
RV-10 225 Hours James Cowl & Plenum - Significant
Temp Issues
RV-4 25 Hours James Cowl & Metal Plenum -
Significant Temp Issues
Oil cooler inlet plenum 001.jpg
March 13, 2011 - June 03, 2011
RV-Archive.digest.vol-ur