RV7-Archive.digest.vol-ak

October 18, 2005 - February 09, 2006



      >>>                 powerplant do you WANT?
      >>>                  
      >>>                 )_( Dan
      >>>                  
      >>>
      >>>                     ----- Original Message -----
      >>>                     From: Paul Walter <mailto:pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
      >>>                     To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
      >>>                     
      >>>                     Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM
      >>>                     Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling
      >>>
      >>>                     Thanks Dan,
      >>>                     I have studied your site so it was nice to hear
      >>>                     from the man him self.
      >>>                     I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting
      >>>                     to trade down here in Australia, how ever if
      >>>                     need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to
      >>>                     big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine
      >>>                     would be you choice for my 7A ?.
      >>>                      
      >>>                      
      >>>                     Paul Walter
      >>>
      >>>                         ----- Original Message -----
      >>>                         From: Dan Checkoway <mailto:dan(at)rvproject.com>
      >>>                         To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
      >>>                         
      >>>                         Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM
      >>>                         Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling
      >>>
      >>>                         Charlie already covered the mount thing.
      >>>                          
      >>>                         I suspect you could sell or trade the
      >>>                         cowling if you didn't want to get into
      >>>                         modifications.  Seems like I see a cowling
      >>>                         trade mentioned about once a month or so on
      >>>                         the lists & forums.  Try posting to the
      >>>                         forums at http://www.vansairforce.net.
      >>>                          
      >>>                         )_( Dan
      >>>                         RV-7 N714D
      >>>                         http://www.rvproject.com
      >>>
      >>>                             ----- Original Message -----
      >>>                             From: Paul Walter
      >>>                             
      >>>                             To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com
      >>>                             
      >>>                             Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM
      >>>                             Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling
      >>>
      >>>                             Hi guys,
      >>>                              
      >>>                             Glad to post my first question to the
      >>>                             group, and is as follows.
      >>>                              
      >>>                             When ordering my kit I selected the
      >>>                             engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io
      >>>                             360. My question is can I at this point
      >>>                             choose to change to the 200 hp model and
      >>>                             then alter the cowling to remove air
      >>>                             intake snorkel later and glass repair.
      >>>                             Or is the whole engine mount for the
      >>>                             200hp a different configuration.
      >>>                              
      >>>                              
      >>>                             Thanks guys
      >>>                              
      >>>                             Paul Walter
      >>>
      >>
      >
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Right Elevator
Date: Oct 18, 2005
Paul, The elevators, and in particular the counterweights, have changed since I built mine. I recommend following the drawings and the construction sequence laid out in the manual. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 AM Subject: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Hi Dan, When preparing the right elevator I have dimpled skin. I then intern dimpled all holes in E-703 end rib and E - 704 counter balance rib. How ever as the E - 713 counter balance skin fits over these holding the counterweight, I am not sure if this was the correct construction method. Do I intern dimple the counter balance skin and use flush head rivets ?. I'm having some grief with this and I have to tackle the left elevator complete with trim tab next !!. thanks Dan Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling My 200hp angle valve injected engine is easy to hot start. No, it's not as easy as a carb'd engine, that's for sure. It definitely takes more blades to kick. But it's no problem, assuming you know the technique. I use the Airflow Performance purge valve. I also have a single Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition. These things can't hurt. A 200hp injected engine versus a 180hp injected engine...they should behave identically with respect to hot start traits. Did you have balanced injectors on your Cardinal when you ran LOP? Were they balanced so that EGTs peaked on all 4 cylinders within about 0.1gph of each other? Was the prop dynamically balanced? Seems like you're confident that LOP operation was the cause of the crank case fracture...curious about that. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: TylerB To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I don't intend to run mogas in my engine. And the 180 will be a std. compression which will keep the CHT more in line. Also probably will not run lean of peak either. Did that on a Cardinal with the 200 angle valve and it did not last to 2000TBO. Fractured at 1250 hrs at the same spot the crank case did before. When I said tuned for best performance I meant flow matched , Horizontal cold air, dual electronic ignitions, injectors done by AirFlow. Dan, do you have to say a little prayer and do a little rain dance before cranking hot on your 200. I sure had to on the Cardinal Tyler N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: Rocket...240 knots? Not. The HR-II drivers I know get around 180 KTAS burning 11-12gph. I get 180 KTAS on ~10gph. But I agree with the rest of your points. The angle valve engine is more efficient at every turn. Worth the extra bucks? To me, absolutely. But obviously not to most people, who are content running a less efficient powerplant which has less cooling fin area. Which one is gonna make it to TBO and beyond...the hopped-up 180hp parallel valve running around 400F on CHT for its life, or the kicked-back 8.7:1 angle valve running at or below 300F on the CHTs? Savings, schmavings. What compression ratio are you gonna run on your IO-360 with auto fuel? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I think the idea that the bigger engines burn more fuel is not quite right. Essentially an engine in say 120HP cruise will burn the same amount of fuel set up at the same mixture point. You have to look at the BFSC numbers which tell you how much fuel is burned for how much HP is produced at various mixture and power settings. Think you'll find they are all about the same. Note Dan Checkoway gets avout 7.5 GPH on an angle Valved IO360 when trimmed lean of peak. Even the HArmon rocket guys get like 240knots at very low fuel consumption when trimmed to LOP cruise and that is an IO540. So I think the idea that a bigger engine equals more fuel is only true for cars, airplanes have a choice..:) As for me I went with and IO360 (180HP plus FF induction). The idea is to run the motor on autofuel (I have a bit different pumping system) and there is a $1 per gallon saving right there. Frank From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TylerB Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:40 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling As I am now evaluating engines for my RV7A build, I would appreciate advice on this selection. The questions are more about weight than horsepower. If I compare the IO360M1XX 180 HP to the IO360 - 200 HP and the IO390 -210 HP in the terms of Weight, actual produced HP, fuel consumption, hot starting tendencies, and overall performance in climb, airspeed etc. I cannot see a reason to spend $5000-$10000 more for anything beyond the 180 HP built to maximize perfomance. All three engines will take the airplane past Vne, the bigger two use significantly more fuel, and if have ever tried to hot start one of the angle valve engines you understand. The 200 HP weighs 30 # more and the 390-210 weighs 40 # more than that. Both burn 10-13 GPH at cruise where the 180 burns 8 or less. Even at $4.10 a gallon the cost savings alone are significant. Am I missing something here? Tyler, N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage/pressReleases/july02/mostPowerfulFourCylinder.html http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189629-1.html There are apparently 11 shops which are now approved by Lycoming to do 390 build-ups. I would definitely talk to AeroSport Power (www.aerosportpower.com) and Mattituck (www.mattituck.com), and shop around to other build-up shops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Dan, This is of course true, the cowling can be replaced being the least expensive item. Being new to he building process I've not heard of the 390 version. Where can I get some info ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Paul, My personal choice for an engine is exactly what I have on my plane, the IO-360-A1B6. I'm studying the IO-390 as well, and I look forward to seeing whether it really lives up to the claims. I wonder whether the 390 will be capable of achieving the same degree of economy as the IO-360-A1B6. In any case, if you have the 180hp cowling, the angle valve engine most likely won't fit, so I'd recommend using a parallel valve 180hp variant. But to me it seems kinda silly to pick an engine based on which cowling you have, rather than vice versa. So it's hard for me to make a recommendation. Which powerplant do you WANT? )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Thanks Dan, I have studied your site so it was nice to hear from the man him self. I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting to trade down here in Australia, how ever if need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine would be you choice for my 7A ?. Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Charlie already covered the mount thing. I suspect you could sell or trade the cowling if you didn't want to get into modifications. Seems like I see a cowling trade mentioned about once a month or so on the lists & forums. Try posting to the forums at http://www.vansairforce.net. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Hi guys, Glad to post my first question to the group, and is as follows. When ordering my kit I selected the engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io 360. My question is can I at this point choose to change to the 200 hp model and then alter the cowling to remove air intake snorkel later and glass repair. Or is the whole engine mount for the 200hp a different configuration. Thanks guys Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il>
Subject: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 18, 2005
Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both of kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il>
Subject: Re: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 18, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:46 PM Subject: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter DeCraene" <peterdecraene(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 18, 2005
we used the x-bus and also bought the electric wiring kit from van's. I was able to use most of what came with the wiring kit and it served as a good starting point for the wiring. I t also had some basic wiring diagrams that helped. I did take the wiring harness apart but used all of the wire, and bought alot more. Pete DeCraene N526PD ----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both of kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 18, 2005
From: "Jon Elford" <rmkelfords(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Right Elevator
<96ECC502D2678A4192F48386A524718D02CF0E43(at)cacexc07.americas.cpqcorp.net> <006001c5d33c$034e78a0$0700a8c0@hole> <43540C1E.3030903(at)infoave.net> <002001c5d35f$83aa3110$0700a8c0@hole> <000c01c5d3bd$90a46620$0100000a@PDWALTER> Paul, Yes, the counterbalance skin is dimpled for flush head rivets as well as dimpled for the bolts that hold the counterweight in place. The counterweight is countersunk to accomodate the large dimples for the bolts. You're doing fine... Jon Elford RV-7 N294CD Reserved ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 AM Subject: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Hi Dan, When preparing the right elevator I have dimpled skin. I then intern dimpled all holes in E-703 end rib and E - 704 counter balance rib. How ever as the E - 713 counter balance skin fits over these holding the counterweight, I am not sure if this was the correct construction method. Do I intern dimple the counter balance skin and use flush head rivets ?. I'm having some grief with this and I have to tackle the left elevator complete with trim tab next !!. thanks Dan Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling My 200hp angle valve injected engine is easy to hot start. No, it's not as easy as a carb'd engine, that's for sure. It definitely takes more blades to kick. But it's no problem, assuming you know the technique. I use the Airflow Performance purge valve. I also have a single Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition. These things can't hurt. A 200hp injected engine versus a 180hp injected engine...they should behave identically with respect to hot start traits. Did you have balanced injectors on your Cardinal when you ran LOP? Were they balanced so that EGTs peaked on all 4 cylinders within about 0.1gph of each other? Was the prop dynamically balanced? Seems like you're confident that LOP operation was the cause of the crank case fracture...curious about that. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: TylerB To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I don't intend to run mogas in my engine. And the 180 will be a std. compression which will keep the CHT more in line. Also probably will not run lean of peak either. Did that on a Cardinal with the 200 angle valve and it did not last to 2000TBO. Fractured at 1250 hrs at the same spot the crank case did before. When I said tuned for best performance I meant flow matched , Horizontal cold air, dual electronic ignitions, injectors done by AirFlow. Dan, do you have to say a little prayer and do a little rain dance before cranking hot on your 200. I sure had to on the Cardinal Tyler N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: Rocket...240 knots? Not. The HR-II drivers I know get around 180 KTAS burning 11-12gph. I get 180 KTAS on ~10gph. But I agree with the rest of your points. The angle valve engine is more efficient at every turn. Worth the extra bucks? To me, absolutely. But obviously not to most people, who are content running a less efficient powerplant which has less cooling fin area. Which one is gonna make it to TBO and beyond...the hopped-up 180hp parallel valve running around 400F on CHT for its life, or the kicked-back 8.7:1 angle valve running at or below 300F on the CHTs? Savings, schmavings. What compression ratio are you gonna run on your IO-360 with auto fuel? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I think the idea that the bigger engines burn more fuel is not quite right. Essentially an engine in say 120HP cruise will burn the same amount of fuel set up at the same mixture point. You have to look at the BFSC numbers which tell you how much fuel is burned for how much HP is produced at various mixture and power settings. Think you'll find they are all about the same. Note Dan Checkoway gets avout 7.5 GPH on an angle Valved IO360 when trimmed lean of peak. Even the HArmon rocket guys get like 240knots at very low fuel consumption when trimmed to LOP cruise and that is an IO540. So I think the idea that a bigger engine equals more fuel is only true for cars, airplanes have a choice..:) As for me I went with and IO360 (180HP plus FF induction). The idea is to run the motor on autofuel (I have a bit different pumping system) and there is a $1 per gallon saving right there. Frank From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TylerB Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:40 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling As I am now evaluating engines for my RV7A build, I would appreciate advice on this selection. The questions are more about weight than horsepower. If I compare the IO360M1XX 180 HP to the IO360 - 200 HP and the IO390 -210 HP in the terms of Weight, actual produced HP, fuel consumption, hot starting tendencies, and overall performance in climb, airspeed etc. I cannot see a reason to spend $5000-$10000 more for anything beyond the 180 HP built to maximize perfomance. All three engines will take the airplane past Vne, the bigger two use significantly more fuel, and if have ever tried to hot start one of the angle valve engines you understand. The 200 HP weighs 30 # more and the 390-210 weighs 40 # more than that. Both burn 10-13 GPH at cruise where the 180 burns 8 or less. Even at $4.10 a gallon the cost savings alone are significant. Am I missing something here? Tyler, N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage/pressReleases/july02/mostPowerfulFourCylinder.html http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189629-1.html There are apparently 11 shops which are now approved by Lycoming to do 390 build-ups. I would definitely talk to AeroSport Power (www.aerosportpower.com) and Mattituck (www.mattituck.com), and shop around to other build-up shops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Dan, This is of course true, the cowling can be replaced being the least expensive item. Being new to he building process I've not heard of the 390 version. Where can I get some info ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Paul, My personal choice for an engine is exactly what I have on my plane, the IO-360-A1B6. I'm studying the IO-390 as well, and I look forward to seeing whether it really lives up to the claims. I wonder whether the 390 will be capable of achieving the same degree of economy as the IO-360-A1B6. In any case, if you have the 180hp cowling, the angle valve engine most likely won't fit, so I'd recommend using a parallel valve 180hp variant. But to me it seems kinda silly to pick an engine based on which cowling you have, rather than vice versa. So it's hard for me to make a recommendation. Which powerplant do you WANT? )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Thanks Dan, I have studied your site so it was nice to hear from the man him self. I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting to trade down here in Australia, how ever if need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine would be you choice for my 7A ?. Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Charlie already covered the mount thing. I suspect you could sell or trade the cowling if you didn't want to get into modifications. Seems like I see a cowling trade mentioned about once a month or so on the lists & forums. Try posting to the forums at http://www.vansairforce.net. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Hi guys, Glad to post my first question to the group, and is as follows. When ordering my kit I selected the engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io 360. My question is can I at this point choose to change to the 200 hp model and then alter the cowling to remove air intake snorkel later and glass repair. Or is the whole engine mount for the 200hp a different configuration. Thanks guys Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Right Elevator
Date: Oct 19, 2005
Thanks Jon, Also, when taping the broom handle the skin to roll trailing edge. How far back from edge to the centre of circumference point. Does it require a small, maybe 1/2 inch of flat surface for the rivet join ?. The plan does not show in great detail. Thank you - Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Elford To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Paul, Yes, the counterbalance skin is dimpled for flush head rivets as well as dimpled for the bolts that hold the counterweight in place. The counterweight is countersunk to accomodate the large dimples for the bolts. You're doing fine... Jon Elford RV-7 N294CD Reserved ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 AM Subject: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Hi Dan, When preparing the right elevator I have dimpled skin. I then intern dimpled all holes in E-703 end rib and E - 704 counter balance rib. How ever as the E - 713 counter balance skin fits over these holding the counterweight, I am not sure if this was the correct construction method. Do I intern dimple the counter balance skin and use flush head rivets ?. I'm having some grief with this and I have to tackle the left elevator complete with trim tab next !!. thanks Dan Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling My 200hp angle valve injected engine is easy to hot start. No, it's not as easy as a carb'd engine, that's for sure. It definitely takes more blades to kick. But it's no problem, assuming you know the technique. I use the Airflow Performance purge valve. I also have a single Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition. These things can't hurt. A 200hp injected engine versus a 180hp injected engine...they should behave identically with respect to hot start traits. Did you have balanced injectors on your Cardinal when you ran LOP? Were they balanced so that EGTs peaked on all 4 cylinders within about 0.1gph of each other? Was the prop dynamically balanced? Seems like you're confident that LOP operation was the cause of the crank case fracture...curious about that. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: TylerB To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I don't intend to run mogas in my engine. And the 180 will be a std. compression which will keep the CHT more in line. Also probably will not run lean of peak either. Did that on a Cardinal with the 200 angle valve and it did not last to 2000TBO. Fractured at 1250 hrs at the same spot the crank case did before. When I said tuned for best performance I meant flow matched , Horizontal cold air, dual electronic ignitions, injectors done by AirFlow. Dan, do you have to say a little prayer and do a little rain dance before cranking hot on your 200. I sure had to on the Cardinal Tyler N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: Rocket...240 knots? Not. The HR-II drivers I know get around 180 KTAS burning 11-12gph. I get 180 KTAS on ~10gph. But I agree with the rest of your points. The angle valve engine is more efficient at every turn. Worth the extra bucks? To me, absolutely. But obviously not to most people, who are content running a less efficient powerplant which has less cooling fin area. Which one is gonna make it to TBO and beyond...the hopped-up 180hp parallel valve running around 400F on CHT for its life, or the kicked-back 8.7:1 angle valve running at or below 300F on the CHTs? Savings, schmavings. What compression ratio are you gonna run on your IO-360 with auto fuel? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I think the idea that the bigger engines burn more fuel is not quite right. Essentially an engine in say 120HP cruise will burn the same amount of fuel set up at the same mixture point. You have to look at the BFSC numbers which tell you how much fuel is burned for how much HP is produced at various mixture and power settings. Think you'll find they are all about the same. Note Dan Checkoway gets avout 7.5 GPH on an angle Valved IO360 when trimmed lean of peak. Even the HArmon rocket guys get like 240knots at very low fuel consumption when trimmed to LOP cruise and that is an IO540. So I think the idea that a bigger engine equals more fuel is only true for cars, airplanes have a choice..:) As for me I went with and IO360 (180HP plus FF induction). The idea is to run the motor on autofuel (I have a bit different pumping system) and there is a $1 per gallon saving right there. Frank From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TylerB Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:40 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling As I am now evaluating engines for my RV7A build, I would appreciate advice on this selection. The questions are more about weight than horsepower. If I compare the IO360M1XX 180 HP to the IO360 - 200 HP and the IO390 -210 HP in the terms of Weight, actual produced HP, fuel consumption, hot starting tendencies, and overall performance in climb, airspeed etc. I cannot see a reason to spend $5000-$10000 more for anything beyond the 180 HP built to maximize perfomance. All three engines will take the airplane past Vne, the bigger two use significantly more fuel, and if have ever tried to hot start one of the angle valve engines you understand. The 200 HP weighs 30 # more and the 390-210 weighs 40 # more than that. Both burn 10-13 GPH at cruise where the 180 burns 8 or less. Even at $4.10 a gallon the cost savings alone are significant. Am I missing something here? Tyler, N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage/pressReleases/july02/mostPowerfulFourCylinder.html http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189629-1.html There are apparently 11 shops which are now approved by Lycoming to do 390 build-ups. I would definitely talk to AeroSport Power (www.aerosportpower.com) and Mattituck (www.mattituck.com), and shop around to other build-up shops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Dan, This is of course true, the cowling can be replaced being the least expensive item. Being new to he building process I've not heard of the 390 version. Where can I get some info ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Paul, My personal choice for an engine is exactly what I have on my plane, the IO-360-A1B6. I'm studying the IO-390 as well, and I look forward to seeing whether it really lives up to the claims. I wonder whether the 390 will be capable of achieving the same degree of economy as the IO-360-A1B6. In any case, if you have the 180hp cowling, the angle valve engine most likely won't fit, so I'd recommend using a parallel valve 180hp variant. But to me it seems kinda silly to pick an engine based on which cowling you have, rather than vice versa. So it's hard for me to make a recommendation. Which powerplant do you WANT? )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Thanks Dan, I have studied your site so it was nice to hear from the man him self. I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting to trade down here in Australia, how ever if need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine would be you choice for my 7A ?. Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Charlie already covered the mount thing. I suspect you could sell or trade the cowling if you didn't want to get into modifications. Seems like I see a cowling trade mentioned about once a month or so on the lists & forums. Try posting to the forums at http://www.vansairforce.net. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Hi guys, Glad to post my first question to the group, and is as follows. When ordering my kit I selected the engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io 360. My question is can I at this point choose to change to the 200 hp model and then alter the cowling to remove air intake snorkel later and glass repair. Or is the whole engine mount for the 200hp a different configuration. Thanks guys Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Right Elevator
Date: Oct 19, 2005
From: "Gary Dwinal" <GDwinal(at)fisherplows.com>
If you start right at the edge you will end up with a flat surface where the rivets go. Also, I used a section of 1" electrical conduit after breaking an old broom handle I used first. The broom handle seemed to twist a lot and not roll the edge evenly from end to the other. The electrical conduit worked great! Gary Dwinal -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:24 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Thanks Jon, Also, when taping the broom handle the skin to roll trailing edge. How far back from edge to the centre of circumference point. Does it require a small, maybe 1/2 inch of flat surface for the rivet join ?. The plan does not show in great detail. Thank you - Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Elford <mailto:rmkelfords(at)verizon.net> To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Paul, Yes, the counterbalance skin is dimpled for flush head rivets as well as dimpled for the bolts that hold the counterweight in place. The counterweight is countersunk to accomodate the large dimples for the bolts. You're doing fine... Jon Elford RV-7 N294CD Reserved ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 AM Subject: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Hi Dan, When preparing the right elevator I have dimpled skin. I then intern dimpled all holes in E-703 end rib and E - 704 counter balance rib. How ever as the E - 713 counter balance skin fits over these holding the counterweight, I am not sure if this was the correct construction method. Do I intern dimple the counter balance skin and use flush head rivets ?. I'm having some grief with this and I have to tackle the left elevator complete with trim tab next !!. thanks Dan Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling My 200hp angle valve injected engine is easy to hot start. No, it's not as easy as a carb'd engine, that's for sure. It definitely takes more blades to kick. But it's no problem, assuming you know the technique. I use the Airflow Performance purge valve. I also have a single Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition. These things can't hurt. A 200hp injected engine versus a 180hp injected engine...they should behave identically with respect to hot start traits. Did you have balanced injectors on your Cardinal when you ran LOP? Were they balanced so that EGTs peaked on all 4 cylinders within about 0.1gph of each other? Was the prop dynamically balanced? Seems like you're confident that LOP operation was the cause of the crank case fracture...curious about that. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: TylerB To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I don't intend to run mogas in my engine. And the 180 will be a std. compression which will keep the CHT more in line. Also probably will not run lean of peak either. Did that on a Cardinal with the 200 angle valve and it did not last to 2000TBO. Fractured at 1250 hrs at the same spot the crank case did before. When I said tuned for best performance I meant flow matched , Horizontal cold air, dual electronic ignitions, injectors done by AirFlow. Dan, do you have to say a little prayer and do a little rain dance before cranking hot on your 200. I sure had to on the Cardinal Tyler N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: Rocket...240 knots? Not. The HR-II drivers I know get around 180 KTAS burning 11-12gph. I get 180 KTAS on ~10gph. But I agree with the rest of your points. The angle valve engine is more efficient at every turn. Worth the extra bucks? To me, absolutely. But obviously not to most people, who are content running a less efficient powerplant which has less cooling fin area. Which one is gonna make it to TBO and beyond...the hopped-up 180hp parallel valve running around 400F on CHT for its life, or the kicked-back 8.7:1 angle valve running at or below 300F on the CHTs? Savings, schmavings. What compression ratio are you gonna run on your IO-360 with auto fuel? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I think the idea that the bigger engines burn more fuel is not quite right. Essentially an engine in say 120HP cruise will burn the same amount of fuel set up at the same mixture point. You have to look at the BFSC numbers which tell you how much fuel is burned for how much HP is produced at various mixture and power settings. Think you'll find they are all about the same. Note Dan Checkoway gets avout 7.5 GPH on an angle Valved IO360 when trimmed lean of peak. Even the HArmon rocket guys get like 240knots at very low fuel consumption when trimmed to LOP cruise and that is an IO540. So I think the idea that a bigger engine equals more fuel is only true for cars, airplanes have a choice..:) As for me I went with and IO360 (180HP plus FF induction). The idea is to run the motor on autofuel (I have a bit different pumping system) and there is a $1 per gallon saving right there. Frank ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TylerB Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:40 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling As I am now evaluating engines for my RV7A build, I would appreciate advice on this selection. The questions are more about weight than horsepower. If I compare the IO360M1XX 180 HP to the IO360 - 200 HP and the IO390 -210 HP in the terms of Weight, actual produced HP, fuel consumption, hot starting tendencies, and overall performance in climb, airspeed etc. I cannot see a reason to spend $5000-$10000 more for anything beyond the 180 HP built to maximize perfomance. All three engines will take the airplane past Vne, the bigger two use significantly more fuel, and if have ever tried to hot start one of the angle valve engines you understand. The 200 HP weighs 30 # more and the 390-210 weighs 40 # more than that. Both burn 10-13 GPH at cruise where the 180 burns 8 or less. Even at $4.10 a gallon the cost savings alone are significant. Am I missing something here? Tyler, N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage/pressReleases/july02/ mostPowerfulFourCylinder.html http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189629-1.html There are apparently 11 shops which are now approved by Lycoming to do 390 build-ups. I would definitely talk to AeroSport Power (www.aerosportpower.com) and Mattituck (www.mattituck.com), and shop around to other build-up shops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Dan, This is of course true, the cowling can be replaced being the least expensive item. Being new to he building process I've not heard of the 390 version. Where can I get some info ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Paul, My personal choice for an engine is exactly what I have on my plane, the IO-360-A1B6. I'm studying the IO-390 as well, and I look forward to seeing whether it really lives up to the claims. I wonder whether the 390 will be capable of achieving the same degree of economy as the IO-360-A1B6. In any case, if you have the 180hp cowling, the angle valve engine most likely won't fit, so I'd recommend using a parallel valve 180hp variant. But to me it seems kinda silly to pick an engine based on which cowling you have, rather than vice versa. So it's hard for me to make a recommendation. Which powerplant do you WANT? )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Thanks Dan, I have studied your site so it was nice to hear from the man him self. I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting to trade down here in Australia, how ever if need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine would be you choice for my 7A ?. Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Charlie already covered the mount thing. I suspect you could sell or trade the cowling if you didn't want to get into modifications. Seems like I see a cowling trade mentioned about once a month or so on the lists & forums. Try posting to the forums at http://www.vansairforce.net. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Hi guys, Glad to post my first question to the group, and is as follows. When ordering my kit I selected the engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io 360. My question is can I at this point choose to change to the 200 hp model and then alter the cowling to remove air intake snorkel later and glass repair. Or is the whole engine mount for the 200hp a different configuration. Thanks guys Paul Walter NOTICE: The information contained in this communication is intended solely for use by the designated recipient(s). This communication may also contain confidential or proprietary information and may be subject to confidentiality protection under the law. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy, or distribute this message. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender and destroy your copy. Thank you for your cooperation. Fisher Engineering, a subsidiary of Douglas Dynamics, LLC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il>
Subject: Re: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 19, 2005
Hi pete !Can you be more accurate regarding integration betweenEXP2v BUS.. and ESWH7 kits. Thanks Ilan perry. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter DeCraene To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:10 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load we used the x-bus and also bought the electric wiring kit from van's. I was able to use most of what came with the wiring kit and it served as a good starting point for the wiring. I t also had some basic wiring diagrams that helped. I did take the wiring harness apart but used all of the wire, and bought alot more. Pete DeCraene N526PD ----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both of kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il>
Subject: Re: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 19, 2005
----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:08 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi peter !Can you be more accurate regarding integration betweenEXP2v BUS.. and ESWH7 kits. Thanks Ilan perry. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter DeCraene To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:10 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load we used the x-bus and also bought the electric wiring kit from van's. I was able to use most of what came with the wiring kit and it served as a good starting point for the wiring. I t also had some basic wiring diagrams that helped. I did take the wiring harness apart but used all of the wire, and bought alot more. Pete DeCraene N526PD ----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both of kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 19, 2005
From: "Jon Elford" <rmkelfords(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Right Elevator
<96ECC502D2678A4192F48386A524718D02CF0E43(at)cacexc07.americas.cpqcorp.net> <006001c5d33c$034e78a0$0700a8c0@hole> <43540C1E.3030903(at)infoave.net> <002001c5d35f$83aa3110$0700a8c0@hole> <000c01c5d3bd$90a46620$0100000a@PDWALTER> <001801c5d46c$882b9040$2f01a8c0@LAPTOP> <003d01c5d47e$217bb390$0100000a@PDWALTER> Paul, Use whatever works for you. I used a piece of broom handle that I cannibalized from around the shop. I cut it down so that it was a little more manageable. One thing I did was to do only one section at a time. I started with the section farthest to the tip, rolled it, clecoed it and moved to the next section inboard. I just taped the handle along the entire length of the section of skin overhang I was going to work with. Make sure to determine which section overlaps the other one and do the underlying section first. I used two layers of duct tape, which held just fine. It will be nearly impossible to leave a flat area due to the way the skin rolls around the handle. It's not necessary anyway, so don't worry about it. Two things come to mind: 1) don't "overcurl" the skins - roll it too much and you'll spend twice as much time trying to "uncurl" it so it fits without stress inward and 2) don't make too big a deal out of it - just get in there and do it. I paced back and forth trying to surmise the best way to do it flawlessly, only to determine that it wasn't going to do itself, so I just jumped in there and did it. It came out just fine. The nice consolation is that once it's installed on the HS, the leading edge is largely hidden from view. :-) Jon Elford RV-7 N294CD Reserved ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:24 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Thanks Jon, Also, when taping the broom handle the skin to roll trailing edge. How far back from edge to the centre of circumference point. Does it require a small, maybe 1/2 inch of flat surface for the rivet join ?. The plan does not show in great detail. Thank you - Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Jon Elford To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 3:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Paul, Yes, the counterbalance skin is dimpled for flush head rivets as well as dimpled for the bolts that hold the counterweight in place. The counterweight is countersunk to accomodate the large dimples for the bolts. You're doing fine... Jon Elford RV-7 N294CD Reserved ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 1:25 AM Subject: RV7-List: Re: Right Elevator Hi Dan, When preparing the right elevator I have dimpled skin. I then intern dimpled all holes in E-703 end rib and E - 704 counter balance rib. How ever as the E - 713 counter balance skin fits over these holding the counterweight, I am not sure if this was the correct construction method. Do I intern dimple the counter balance skin and use flush head rivets ?. I'm having some grief with this and I have to tackle the left elevator complete with trim tab next !!. thanks Dan Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling My 200hp angle valve injected engine is easy to hot start. No, it's not as easy as a carb'd engine, that's for sure. It definitely takes more blades to kick. But it's no problem, assuming you know the technique. I use the Airflow Performance purge valve. I also have a single Lightspeed Plasma II electronic ignition. These things can't hurt. A 200hp injected engine versus a 180hp injected engine...they should behave identically with respect to hot start traits. Did you have balanced injectors on your Cardinal when you ran LOP? Were they balanced so that EGTs peaked on all 4 cylinders within about 0.1gph of each other? Was the prop dynamically balanced? Seems like you're confident that LOP operation was the cause of the crank case fracture...curious about that. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: TylerB To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 1:39 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I don't intend to run mogas in my engine. And the 180 will be a std. compression which will keep the CHT more in line. Also probably will not run lean of peak either. Did that on a Cardinal with the 200 angle valve and it did not last to 2000TBO. Fractured at 1250 hrs at the same spot the crank case did before. When I said tuned for best performance I meant flow matched , Horizontal cold air, dual electronic ignitions, injectors done by AirFlow. Dan, do you have to say a little prayer and do a little rain dance before cranking hot on your 200. I sure had to on the Cardinal Tyler N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: Rocket...240 knots? Not. The HR-II drivers I know get around 180 KTAS burning 11-12gph. I get 180 KTAS on ~10gph. But I agree with the rest of your points. The angle valve engine is more efficient at every turn. Worth the extra bucks? To me, absolutely. But obviously not to most people, who are content running a less efficient powerplant which has less cooling fin area. Which one is gonna make it to TBO and beyond...the hopped-up 180hp parallel valve running around 400F on CHT for its life, or the kicked-back 8.7:1 angle valve running at or below 300F on the CHTs? Savings, schmavings. What compression ratio are you gonna run on your IO-360 with auto fuel? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:14 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine - cowling I think the idea that the bigger engines burn more fuel is not quite right. Essentially an engine in say 120HP cruise will burn the same amount of fuel set up at the same mixture point. You have to look at the BFSC numbers which tell you how much fuel is burned for how much HP is produced at various mixture and power settings. Think you'll find they are all about the same. Note Dan Checkoway gets avout 7.5 GPH on an angle Valved IO360 when trimmed lean of peak. Even the HArmon rocket guys get like 240knots at very low fuel consumption when trimmed to LOP cruise and that is an IO540. So I think the idea that a bigger engine equals more fuel is only true for cars, airplanes have a choice..:) As for me I went with and IO360 (180HP plus FF induction). The idea is to run the motor on autofuel (I have a bit different pumping system) and there is a $1 per gallon saving right there. Frank From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of TylerB Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:40 AM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling As I am now evaluating engines for my RV7A build, I would appreciate advice on this selection. The questions are more about weight than horsepower. If I compare the IO360M1XX 180 HP to the IO360 - 200 HP and the IO390 -210 HP in the terms of Weight, actual produced HP, fuel consumption, hot starting tendencies, and overall performance in climb, airspeed etc. I cannot see a reason to spend $5000-$10000 more for anything beyond the 180 HP built to maximize perfomance. All three engines will take the airplane past Vne, the bigger two use significantly more fuel, and if have ever tried to hot start one of the angle valve engines you understand. The 200 HP weighs 30 # more and the 390-210 weighs 40 # more than that. Both burn 10-13 GPH at cruise where the 180 burns 8 or less. Even at $4.10 a gallon the cost savings alone are significant. Am I missing something here? Tyler, N537TM Dan Checkoway wrote: http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage/pressReleases/july02/mostPowerfulFourCylinder.html http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189629-1.html There are apparently 11 shops which are now approved by Lycoming to do 390 build-ups. I would definitely talk to AeroSport Power (www.aerosportpower.com) and Mattituck (www.mattituck.com), and shop around to other build-up shops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:18 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Dan, This is of course true, the cowling can be replaced being the least expensive item. Being new to he building process I've not heard of the 390 version. Where can I get some info ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Paul, My personal choice for an engine is exactly what I have on my plane, the IO-360-A1B6. I'm studying the IO-390 as well, and I look forward to seeing whether it really lives up to the claims. I wonder whether the 390 will be capable of achieving the same degree of economy as the IO-360-A1B6. In any case, if you have the 180hp cowling, the angle valve engine most likely won't fit, so I'd recommend using a parallel valve 180hp variant. But to me it seems kinda silly to pick an engine based on which cowling you have, rather than vice versa. So it's hard for me to make a recommendation. Which powerplant do you WANT? )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 12:33 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Thanks Dan, I have studied your site so it was nice to hear from the man him self. I'm not sure that there would be to many wanting to trade down here in Australia, how ever if need be I may purchase a new cowl if it is to big a task to alter the one I have. Which engine would be you choice for my 7A ?. Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:11 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Charlie already covered the mount thing. I suspect you could sell or trade the cowling if you didn't want to get into modifications. Seems like I see a cowling trade mentioned about once a month or so on the lists & forums. Try posting to the forums at http://www.vansairforce.net. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RV7-List: Engine - cowling Hi guys, Glad to post my first question to the group, and is as follows. When ordering my kit I selected the engine mount and cowl for the 180 hp io 360. My question is can I at this point choose to change to the 200 hp model and then alter the cowling to remove air intake snorkel later and glass repair. Or is the whole engine mount for the 200hp a different configuration. Thanks guys Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter DeCraene" <peterdecraene(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: exp2v bus dc load
Date: Oct 20, 2005
Ilan The x-bus simply replaces the circuit breakers shown in the wiring diagrams from Van's. Power to the x-bus is supplied from the alternator to the x-bus the same as it would be to a bus bar or fuse block. The over current protection is provided by the x-bus elimanating fuses and breakers with the exception of the main breaker from the source. x-bus has outputs for each of the loads you will need to serve. On my panel I removed the switches from the x-bus pc board so that I could mount the switches in my panel where I wanted them. I have never had an overload or any condition that would cause the x-bus to trip, but I did while I was testing things prior to flight and the x-bus worked fine. I have a couple of pictures of my panel on my web site and I'm sure I have more if you need them, let me know. Pete 526PD http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~decraene/index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:08 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi pete !Can you be more accurate regarding integration betweenEXP2v BUS.. and ESWH7 kits. Thanks Ilan perry. ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter DeCraene To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:10 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load we used the x-bus and also bought the electric wiring kit from van's. I was able to use most of what came with the wiring kit and it served as a good starting point for the wiring. I t also had some basic wiring diagrams that helped. I did take the wiring harness apart but used all of the wire, and bought alot more. Pete DeCraene N526PD ----- Original Message ----- From: i.perry(at)lipogen.co.il To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:46 PM Subject: RV7-List: exp2v bus dc load Hi !there is anyone with an experience with EXP2VBUS dc load center kit,and van's -es wh7kit (wire harness).integration between both of kits.Best regards i.perry. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: wrong capacitive kit?
Date: Oct 22, 2005
Van's sent me an rv9 capacitive fuel qty sender kit. The drawing is for an rv9 wing. The plates don't line up right. This seems clearly wrong. All I'm wondering if this is one of those deals where I just might be expected to make it work with a lot of trimming. I'll call Van's on Monday, but maybe I can get some confirmation on the list for the weekend... Gosh dernit. ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings <http://donka.net/rv7project.html> http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: wrong capacitive kit?
Date: Oct 22, 2005
Hello Don, Send them back and get the correct plates. The proper plates will match the wing contour and the only trimming necessary is the area around the stiffener. Have a great day, Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall Subject: RV7-List: wrong capacitive kit? Van's sent me an rv9 capacitive fuel qty sender kit. The drawing is for an rv9 wing. The plates don't line up right. This seems clearly wrong. All I'm wondering if this is one of those deals where I just might be expected to make it work with a lot of trimming. I'll call Van's on Monday, but maybe I can get some confirmation on the list for the weekend... Gosh dernit. ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings <http://donka.net/rv7project.html> http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JohnCClarkVA(at)cs.com
Date: Oct 22, 2005
Subject: Re: wrong capacitive kit?
Also, the GRT converters are set up differently for the -9 and -7. There is a potential for problems is the plates are not as expected by GRT. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: wrong capacitive kit?
Date: Oct 22, 2005
Call or email Vans builder support. You should have gotten a return form with your parts. They will replace free of charge and should pay all postage. Their fault unless you specifically ordered the wrong part that is. Vans is vary fair on things like this. Good support. Indiana Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Hall To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:17 AM Subject: RV7-List: wrong capacitive kit? Van's sent me an rv9 capacitive fuel qty sender kit. The drawing is for an rv9 wing. http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Canopy
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Hi group, just wodering if anyone has been able to get a good seal from the sliding canopy on the 7 that does not leak at all. I have been told the tip up canopy provides a far better seal for both leaks and wind noise. Any thoughts P. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Canopy
Date: Oct 24, 2005
http://www.rvproject.com/owens_seals.html )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (tip-up...I guess the grass is always greener) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 8:40 PM Subject: RV7-List: Canopy Hi group, just wodering if anyone has been able to get a good seal from the sliding canopy on the 7 that does not leak at all. I have been told the tip up canopy provides a far better seal for both leaks and wind noise. Any thoughts P. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 25, 2005
The force applied by the squeezer results in a limit of how long the jaw can be. Make it too long and it will bend and lose its shape after so many uses and be harmful to your plane. You can find a offering of jaw lengths from several suppliers. I used Avery tools but others offer similar products. None are too long for the reason stated. Indiana Larry in Evansville, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:37 AM Subject: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Paul, I have a 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke that I use in cases like the one you mentioned. It's not the squeezer, it's the YOKE that you want to look into. FWIW, I have three yokes, none of which I'd want to live without: 1) 3" standard C yoke 2) Longeron yoke 3) 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke They are interchangeable on my pneumatic squeezer and Avery hand squeezer. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:37 AM Subject: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 26, 2005
Thanks Dan, As a first time builder and learning all the time, at this point I only have an aviaquip RV basic tool pack. Would you please supply me with the name and model of your pneumatic and hand squeezer and I will chase up who imports these here in Australia. Thank you Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:03 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Paul, I have a 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke that I use in cases like the one you mentioned. It's not the squeezer, it's the YOKE that you want to look into. FWIW, I have three yokes, none of which I'd want to live without: 1) 3" standard C yoke 2) Longeron yoke 3) 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke They are interchangeable on my pneumatic squeezer and Avery hand squeezer. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:37 AM Subject: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ed clegg" <edwclg(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: flap swich
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Does anyone know of a flap sw with a cessna type handle. Thanks, Ed Clegg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Mine is a Chicago Pneumatic #214 *style* squeezer, made in the USA and sold by Avery Tools. http://www.averytools.com )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Thanks Dan, As a first time builder and learning all the time, at this point I only have an aviaquip RV basic tool pack. Would you please supply me with the name and model of your pneumatic and hand squeezer and I will chase up who imports these here in Australia. Thank you Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:03 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Paul, I have a 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke that I use in cases like the one you mentioned. It's not the squeezer, it's the YOKE that you want to look into. FWIW, I have three yokes, none of which I'd want to live without: 1) 3" standard C yoke 2) Longeron yoke 3) 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke They are interchangeable on my pneumatic squeezer and Avery hand squeezer. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:37 AM Subject: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 25, 2005
Forgot to answer the 2nd part of your question. I have a Tatco hand squeezer and an Avery Tools hand squeezer. I really like the feel of the Tatco, but its yoke is NOT interchangeable with the Avery hand squeezer or 214 pneumatic. )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:25 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Mine is a Chicago Pneumatic #214 *style* squeezer, made in the USA and sold by Avery Tools. http://www.averytools.com )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 3:40 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Thanks Dan, As a first time builder and learning all the time, at this point I only have an aviaquip RV basic tool pack. Would you please supply me with the name and model of your pneumatic and hand squeezer and I will chase up who imports these here in Australia. Thank you Paul Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:03 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Paul, I have a 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke that I use in cases like the one you mentioned. It's not the squeezer, it's the YOKE that you want to look into. FWIW, I have three yokes, none of which I'd want to live without: 1) 3" standard C yoke 2) Longeron yoke 3) 4" thin-nose no-hole yoke They are interchangeable on my pneumatic squeezer and Avery hand squeezer. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 2:37 AM Subject: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. Thanks guys p. Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: flap swich
Date: Oct 25, 2005
If it's the handle style you're after, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/7m7p4 If it's the behavior you're after, i.e. set & forget, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/9cpb8 I'm partial to having my simple thumb-rocker flap switch on the stick...love not having to move my hands for "critical" functions. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "ed clegg" <edwclg(at)adelphia.net> Subject: RV7-List: flap swich > > > Does anyone know of a flap sw with a cessna type handle. > Thanks, > Ed Clegg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2005
From: Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
On 10/26 8:40, Paul Walter wrote: > As a first time builder and learning all the time, at this point I only > have an aviaquip RV basic tool pack. Would you please supply me with the > name and model of your pneumatic and hand squeezer and I will chase up who > imports these here in Australia. http://www.rivettools.com Great prices and really really good rivet sets. -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2005
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: flap swich
<000f01c5d9bc$795faec0$0500a8c0@inspinc.ad> Gecko/20050511 Also check this product out. I do not have one yet, but it sure looks like it might be a good solution. http://www.aircraftextras.com/FPS-Plus.htm Dick Tasker Dan Checkoway wrote: > >If it's the handle style you're after, check this out: > >http://tinyurl.com/7m7p4 > >If it's the behavior you're after, i.e. set & forget, check this out: > >http://tinyurl.com/9cpb8 > >I'm partial to having my simple thumb-rocker flap switch on the stick...love >not having to move my hands for "critical" functions. > >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D >http://www.rvproject.com > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 25, 2005
From: Dave Nellis <truflite(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Rivet squeezer
Being of limited resources, I squeezed what I could reach and bucked the rest. All came out well. An easy job. Dave Nellis N410DN (Res.) --- Paul Walter wrote: > Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific > type of hand rivet squeezers to that have a longer > jaw for extended reach for some of the more awkward > rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading > edge. > > Thanks guys > > > p. Walter __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: Rivet squeezer
Date: Oct 29, 2005
I highly recommend the "Main Squeeze" from Cleaveland. It uses yokes that are interchangeable with a pneumatic if you ever decide to get a pneumatic. The "Main Squeeze" has a cam action that makes squeezing real pleasing. In fact, it's so pleasin' that you probably won't see any reason to get a pneumatic. You definitely want the same yokes Dan mentions. I think you'll also want another squeezer to reach tight areas where the bigger yokes can't go. That's no yoke. A picture and a tale of my Main Squeeze http://donka.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=rv7tools&id=DSC04353 My other squeezer, which has come in quite handy for squeezing in smaller openings. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/topages/handrivetsqueezer.php And you just gotta get this doo-hickey. (I got mine from Aircraft Spruce) 12-00611 AVERY VISE GRIP DIMPLER 3/32" -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Nellis Subject: Re: RV7-List: Rivet squeezer Being of limited resources, I squeezed what I could reach and bucked the rest. All came out well. An easy job. Dave Nellis N410DN (Res.) --- Paul Walter wrote: > Hi group, can anyone tell me if there is a specific type of hand rivet > squeezers to that have a longer jaw for extended reach for some of the > more awkward rivets. i.e. elevator prior to rolling the leading edge. > > Thanks guys > > > p. Walter __________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: fuel access plate sealing
Date: Oct 29, 2005
I'm about to the point of not being able to avoid pro-seal any longer. I have a question. The directions do not say that it is mandatory to seal around the cork gasket on the access plate, but that some builders choose to. I'm thinking of choosing NOT to. I figure I can always change my mind later, like at least waiting till after fully testing the tank... Once the plane is built and flying, is opening the access plate ever done for anything but repair? IOW, not ever for inspection? How many years might a cork gasket be expected to last? I know automobiles use flimsy cork gaskets for all sorts of tanks and they work well for a long time assuming the bolts are all evenly tightened. Also, the directions for sealing the screws on the access plate just say to put some sealant on the threads. What's the point of getting the platenut all gunked with proseal? Seems the only think you're trying to seal at that point is the circumference of the screw hole. I'm assuming you could just glob some proseal around the last few threads, near the screw head? I wouldn't see the point of putting seal on the threads that actually go into the platenut. Thoughts? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings <http://donka.net/rv7project.html> http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: fuel access plate sealing
Date: Oct 28, 2005
The cork alone may eventually leak. Proseal without cork most likely won't. I used proseal+cork on mine (no leaks after many hours) but next time would just use proseal. Just my 2 cents. cork-only + proseal-only + both 3 different opinions you're likely to get. ;-) )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Hall To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: RV7-List: fuel access plate sealing I'm about to the point of not being able to avoid pro-seal any longer. I have a question. The directions do not say that it is mandatory to seal around the cork gasket on the access plate, but that some builders choose to. I'm thinking of choosing NOT to. I figure I can always change my mind later, like at least waiting till after fully testing the tank... Once the plane is built and flying, is opening the access plate ever done for anything but repair? IOW, not ever for inspection? How many years might a cork gasket be expected to last? I know automobiles use flimsy cork gaskets for all sorts of tanks and they work well for a long time assuming the bolts are all evenly tightened. Also, the directions for sealing the screws on the access plate just say to put some sealant on the threads. What's the point of getting the platenut all gunked with proseal? Seems the only think you're trying to seal at that point is the circumference of the screw hole. I'm assuming you could just glob some proseal around the last few threads, near the screw head? I wouldn't see the point of putting seal on the threads that actually go into the platenut. Thoughts? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: fuel access plate sealing
Date: Oct 29, 2005
Don, A while back I spoke with Vans about the cork gasket and Proseal. There explanation was that the gap created by the cork will allow a tool to be wedged in the joint when prying the panel off the tank (if needed). If you coat the mating surfaces of the cork, the perimeter of the joint, and under the screw heads with Proseal then you should be OK. Proseal is a very good flexible adhesive. Once two parts are properly cleaned and sealed with Proseal, it is very difficult to separate them. I recently did a repair on both fuel tanks on an RV-4 (not mine). We had to remove the access plates which only had Proseal on them. They were extremely difficult to remove. The cork would have made a difficult job much easier. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Hall To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: RV7-List: fuel access plate sealing I'm about to the point of not being able to avoid pro-seal any longer. I have a question. The directions do not say that it is mandatory to seal around the cork gasket on the access plate, but that some builders choose to. I'm thinking of choosing NOT to. I figure I can always change my mind later, like at least waiting till after fully testing the tank... Once the plane is built and flying, is opening the access plate ever done for anything but repair? IOW, not ever for inspection? How many years might a cork gasket be expected to last? I know automobiles use flimsy cork gaskets for all sorts of tanks and they work well for a long time assuming the bolts are all evenly tightened. Also, the directions for sealing the screws on the access plate just say to put some sealant on the threads. What's the point of getting the platenut all gunked with proseal? Seems the only think you're trying to seal at that point is the circumference of the screw hole. I'm assuming you could just glob some proseal around the last few threads, near the screw head? I wouldn't see the point of putting seal on the threads that actually go into the platenut. Thoughts? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2005
From: GMC <gmcnutt(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Aux Fuel Question
<018d01c5dc9f$b7fb55e0$6400a8c0@fastburner> A friend has installed nice tip tanks in a RV-7A he is building, however he is having second thoughts about the planned gravity fuel transfer method to the main tanks and wonders if he needs to install a transfer pump. He would like feedback from anyone who has auxiliary wingtip tanks using a gravity transfer (3/8 lines) to the mains. He is running the fuel from tip tanks to cockpit valve then back to main tanks. Thanks George in Langley BC ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Imken" <skikrazi(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: fuel access plate sealing
Date: Oct 30, 2005
It all depends on whether one uses the float sender or capacitive sender. Using float, I would be inclined to use cork AND Proseal. I have seen leaks at cork only (no Proseal) on different RVs and helped repair a couplenot fun. I built in capacitive fuel senders.no moving parts like a float sender. Therefore, I threw the cork away and used pro-seal only. Also, I did not use Phillips-head screws on the plate (too hard to remove later if you need to)..used Allen-heads instead just in case I ever have to remove the plate. But then, ToEHO, Chuck Imken RV-7A N735RV -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Hall Subject: RV7-List: fuel access plate sealing I'm about to the point of not being able to avoid pro-seal any longer. I have a question. The directions do not say that it is mandatory to seal around the cork gasket on the access plate, but that some builders choose to. I'm thinking of choosing NOT to. I figure I can always change my mind later, like at least waiting till after fully testing the tank... Once the plane is built and flying, is opening the access plate ever done for anything but repair? IOW, not ever for inspection? How many years might a cork gasket be expected to last? I know automobiles use flimsy cork gaskets for all sorts of tanks and they work well for a long time assuming the bolts are all evenly tightened. Also, the directions for sealing the screws on the access plate just say to put some sealant on the threads. What's the point of getting the platenut all gunked with proseal? Seems the only think you're trying to seal at that point is the circumference of the screw hole. I'm assuming you could just glob some proseal around the last few threads, near the screw head? I wouldn't see the point of putting seal on the threads that actually go into the platenut. Thoughts? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html <http://donka.net/rv7project.html> ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 30, 2005
From: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Aux Fuel Question
Hi George: I looked at what Rolly is doing and there is a bit of an engineering challenge. Although I have no experience with what he is doing, as always I have an opinion. I always look at the failure modes... what can go wrong? Electric transfer pumps can quickly pump a lot of fuel overboard through the main tank vent lines if not designed properly. A limit switch in the main tank activated by a float or optical sensor would help... but it's more complexity. Alternatively, the main tank vent could be passed through the aux tank. A 4-way fuel selector is ideal, but expensive, and he'd need to add fuel level sensors and fuel gauges for the aux tanks to be 'legal'. The gravity system may seem fine, but I would not want to be on a climb in this configuration... fuel starvation is an issue because fuel may tend to back flow from the main tank to the aux tank (note to the list... this aux tank is a spanwise tubular tank running through the rib the lightening holes behind the main tank + wing tip tank). You can have lots of fuel in the aux tank, but since the fuel pickup is 'uphill' in the main tank during climb, you have a problem. A check valve would stop back-feed from the main tank, but not help with accessing fuel from the aux tank during climb. A placard describing the limitations for take-off and climb attitudes would be useful. If there is some level of uncertainty, it's quite easy for Rolly to run a fuel flow test with his setup and some mocked-up fuel lines connecting the tanks. Check out this fuel system http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm Thanks, Vern GMC wrote: > > > A friend has installed nice tip tanks in a RV-7A he is building, > however he is having second thoughts about the planned gravity fuel > transfer method to the main tanks and wonders if he needs to install a > transfer pump. > > He would like feedback from anyone who has auxiliary wingtip tanks > using a gravity transfer (3/8 lines) to the mains. He is running the > fuel from tip tanks to cockpit valve then back to main tanks. > > Thanks > > George in Langley BC > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: fuel access plate sealing
Date: Oct 30, 2005
Don, I agree with Dan on using only proseal. Throw the cork gasket away. Proseal will not weaken or leak later. Vans should be contacted on this if further info is felt needed. Indiana Larry in Evansville, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:21 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: fuel access plate sealing The cork alone may eventually leak. Proseal without cork most likely won't. I used proseal+cork on mine (no leaks after many hours) but next time would just use proseal. Just my 2 cents. cork-only + proseal-only + both 3 different opinions you're likely to get. ;-) )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Hall To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:32 PM Subject: RV7-List: fuel access plate sealing I'm about to the point of not being able to avoid pro-seal any longer. I have a question. The directions do not say that it is mandatory to seal around the cork gasket on the access plate, but that some builders choose to. I'm thinking of choosing NOT to. I figure I can always change my mind later, like at least waiting till after fully testing the tank... Once the plane is built and flying, is opening the access plate ever done for anything but repair? IOW, not ever for inspection? How many years might a cork gasket be expected to last? I know automobiles use flimsy cork gaskets for all sorts of tanks and they work well for a long time assuming the bolts are all evenly tightened. Also, the directions for sealing the screws on the access plate just say to put some sealant on the threads. What's the point of getting the platenut all gunked with proseal? Seems the only think you're trying to seal at that point is the circumference of the screw hole. I'm assuming you could just glob some proseal around the last few threads, near the screw head? I wouldn't see the point of putting seal on the threads that actually go into the platenut. Thoughts? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "b.e.isham" <b.e.isham(at)cox.net>
Subject: RV Tool Kit
Date: Oct 30, 2005
For those who may have missed the September special, PlaneTools.com now has the DRDT-2 Dimpler as a FREE upgrade on the RV tool kit. This is a great tool that reflects the quality of the RV tool kit. In addition to the sheet metal tool kit, mechanic tools are being added. The website address is HYPERLINK "http://www.planetools.com"http://www.planetools.com <http://www.planetools.com> Shane Isham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "b.e.isham" <b.e.isham(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rivet Squeezer
Date: Oct 30, 2005
Paul, The TATCO is really a GREAT hand squeezer both in quality and it is easy to squeeze, assuming you are only going to hand squeeze. The best option is the CP-214 or equivelant pneumatic squeezer with a 3-inch C-Yoke and a 4-inch thin nose C-Yoke. You can find both of these at http://www.planetools.com and in the pneumatic squeezers you can go with a new CP USA made clone or a rebuilt which will save quite a bit of money. Shane Isham -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2005
From: Gordon Arbeitman <gordona23(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RV-7A in the daytona area
Hi; I'm looking for an RV-7 owner in the Daytona Beach area who might be willing to give me a ride (in exchange for lunch ?). I'm currently flying a Grumman Tiger and have started thinking about moving away from the "certified" world. I'd also appreciate thoughts from anyone who has experience with both airplanes. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronald Grover" <rv8grover(at)bwdmail.net>
Subject: Lasar Ignition Horror Story
Date: Nov 02, 2005
Listers: If you own or are considering the Lasar Ignition System for your airplane, read this and beware. Lasar Ignition came on my new Lycoming Engine from the factory. A screw on the distributor cap backed out of my left magneto and it took 364 hours of working back and forth to destroy the magneto. Unisons service manual doesn't even have you look at the points until 500 hours. After sending him pictures of the Magneto, the Service Representative at Unison said that it was beyond the warranty period and couldn't possibility be a manufacturing defect and they wouldn't pay for anything. This all started with a 300+ mag drop on the Left Magneto. While looking for the cause of the Mag drop, I removed the ignition lead caps and found the left magneto distributor cap moving up and down. Danny King and I took the magneto apart and found that one of the screws on the distributor had backed out and had been working in the hole in the case. There was plastic, carbon, and aluminum dust all over in the magneto. Lessons learned: Unison doesn't stand behind their top of the line Ignition System. None of their dealers stock the 4771 magneto meaning minimum of 3 weeks to get one. The only way you can get one sooner is say A.O.G. and the distributor can have it drop shipped from the factory overnight for another $45. Aircraft Spruce had the lowest price of $601 plus $150 core charge. I have bought my last Unison Product. If anything else goes wrong with the Lasar system, I will remove it from the airplane and install P-Mags. A P-Mag system is less than half the cost of the Lasar system and being a new company, I'll bet you they would be very interested in a premature failure of one of their components. Ron Grover ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dynon AOA Pitot tubing conundrum
From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Nov 02, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912 1.66 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) 1.28 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) 1.36 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr 1) Using the Dynon AOA pitot in a Gretz mount, running 1/4 nylon tubing through the wing to the instrument panel ... - what type tubing do folks recommend - Spruce lists Nylo-Seal, Nylaflow, Poly-Flo and Polyurethane. - what fittings have others used to transition from the 3/16 alum tube on the pitot to the 1/4" nylon tube - is anyone aware of a good reference for the various fittings available/appropriate ? And now for the optional rhetorical whining question ... why does Van's have you run the pitot tube right next to the spar so that it slams right into the center section bulkhead ??? It would make sense just about any place but there. __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com Tel: 415 203 9177 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 02, 2005
From: Norman Younie <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net>
Subject: Re: Dynon AOA Pitot tubing conundrum
Go to the aviation department of home depot. They have poly-flo or similar tubing. The unions that they sell will also accept AL tubing for the transition. Norman Gerry Filby wrote: > > >Using the Dynon AOA pitot in a Gretz mount, running 1/4 nylon >tubing through the wing to the instrument panel ... > >- what type tubing do folks recommend - Spruce lists Nylo-Seal, >Nylaflow, Poly-Flo and Polyurethane. > >- what fittings have others used to transition from the 3/16 >alum tube on the pitot to the 1/4" nylon tube > >- is anyone aware of a good reference for the various fittings >available/appropriate ? > >And now for the optional rhetorical whining question ... why >does Van's have you run the pitot tube right next to the spar >so that it slams right into the center section bulkhead ??? It >would make sense just about any place but there. > >__g__ > >========================================================== >Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com > Tel: 415 203 9177 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Dynon AOA Pitot tubing conundrum
Date: Nov 02, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
The other thing you can do is use "vacuum tubing" This is a relatively thin walled flexible tube that pushes nicely over the outside of 1/4" PVC or nylon tubing (probably just right for Alu tube as well, just havent tried it)...Push it over a good inch and it makes a nice seal. Its also just the right size to push over 1/4" barbed fittings. This is a good way to avoid trying to heat up unflexible PVC or nylon and squeezing over a barbed fitting nwhich never seems to seal right. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Norman Younie Subject: Re: RV7-List: Dynon AOA Pitot tubing conundrum Go to the aviation department of home depot. They have poly-flo or similar tubing. The unions that they sell will also accept AL tubing for the transition. Norman Gerry Filby wrote: > > >Using the Dynon AOA pitot in a Gretz mount, running 1/4 nylon tubing >through the wing to the instrument panel ... > >- what type tubing do folks recommend - Spruce lists Nylo-Seal, >Nylaflow, Poly-Flo and Polyurethane. > >- what fittings have others used to transition from the 3/16 alum tube >on the pitot to the 1/4" nylon tube > >- is anyone aware of a good reference for the various fittings >available/appropriate ? > >And now for the optional rhetorical whining question ... why does Van's >have you run the pitot tube right next to the spar so that it slams >right into the center section bulkhead ??? It would make sense just >about any place but there. > >__g__ > >========================================================== >Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com > Tel: 415 203 9177 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom
skin curve
Date: Nov 02, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912 Fellow builders, I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin during riveting. Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in this area? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom
skin curve
Date: Nov 02, 2005
What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a distant memory. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com ; rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve Fellow builders, I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin during riveting. Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in this area? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom
skin curve
Date: Nov 03, 2005
Dan, Maybe we are talking about different locations? These rivets are the ones the F-770 forward side skin get attached to the F-773 aft side skin and baggage bulkhead. There are tabs on the F-773 and bulkhead that get bent out to contact the conical bend (builder bends) in the forward side skins (section D on DWG 28). The rivets are 1/4-5/16" offset from the edge. The swivel flush set is over 1" diameter which places it way off center to the rivet, my 1" flush set still has the same problem. I do have another smaller flush set that should center on the rivet better. With that said, I can see these rivets being a "dent magnet" location. Does this explain my concerns better? Shooting these locations on Friday. Flipping the fuselage hopefully Friday night. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a distant memory. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com ; rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve Fellow builders, I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin during riveting. Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in this area? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
bulkhead/bottom skin curve
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage
bulkhead/bottom skin curve
Date: Nov 03, 2005
Paul Finished this part two weeks ago. My rivet buddy, Don brought a small, 3/4 inch dia. mushroom..non swival, set that did this area perfectly. Low pressure, steady hand, free hand held the end of the set so it wouldn't waqlk away from the rivet .....fired away. No dents, bruises, swearing........etc...just a perfectly set rivet. Frank @ SGU and SLC.......Flipped and heading for finish kit >From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net> >Reply-To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage >bulkhead/bottom skin curve >Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 06:00:21 -0700 > >Dan, > >Maybe we are talking about different locations? These rivets are the ones >the F-770 forward side skin get attached to the F-773 aft side skin and >baggage bulkhead. There are tabs on the F-773 and bulkhead that get bent >out to contact the conical bend (builder bends) in the forward side skins >(section D on DWG 28). The rivets are 1/4-5/16" offset from the edge. The >swivel flush set is over 1" diameter which places it way off center to the >rivet, my 1" flush set still has the same problem. I do have another >smaller flush set that should center on the rivet better. With that said, >I can see these rivets being a "dent magnet" location. > >Does this explain my concerns better? Shooting these locations on Friday. >Flipping the fuselage hopefully Friday night. > >Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan Checkoway > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the >baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve > > > What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along >the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? > > You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. >at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or >F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The >difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it >will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air >pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a >distant memory. > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Merems > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com ; >rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:25 PM > Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage >bulkhead/bottom skin curve > > > Fellow builders, > > I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I >am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins >to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend >near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from >experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin >during riveting. > > Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in >this area? > > Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2005
From: Frank Stringham <fstringham7a(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom
skin curve Paul Finished this part two week ago. My rivet buddy, Don brought a small, 3/4 inch dia. mushroom..non swival, set that did this area perfect. Low pressure, steady hand, free hand held the end of the set so it wouldn't away from the rivet .....fired away. No dents, bruises, swearing........etc...just a perfectly set rivet. Frank @ SGU and SLC.......Flipped and heading for finish kit Merems wrote: Dan, Maybe we are talking about different locations? These rivets are the ones the F-770 forward side skin get attached to the F-773 aft side skin and baggage bulkhead. There are tabs on the F-773 and bulkhead that get bent out to contact the conical bend (builder bends) in the forward side skins (section D on DWG 28). The rivets are 1/4-5/16" offset from the edge. The swivel flush set is over 1" diameter which places it way off center to the rivet, my 1" flush set still has the same problem. I do have another smaller flush set that should center on the rivet better. With that said, I can see these rivets being a "dent magnet" location. Does this explain my concerns better? Shooting these locations on Friday. Flipping the fuselage hopefully Friday night. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a distant memory. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve Fellow builders, I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin during riveting. Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in this area? Paul --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom
skin curve
Date: Nov 03, 2005
Having the flush set slightly off center is not a problem imho. Done that hundreds of times. Just don't use a zillion pounds of air pressure. The swivel flush set with rubber guard is a pretty forgiving animal -- you almost have to TRY to get dents with that thing. FWIW, I didn't use any special rivet set there. Used my flush swivel rubber guard set like I did on nearly every exterior rivet on the plane (there were probably so few exceptions I can count them on one hand). My conical bend rivets at F-706 came out fine. No dents or flats. I wouldn't want to rivet that area solo, since I don't feel I have the coordination wth that big a reach to stabilize the gun well enough, but that's your call. I tend to lean toward always riveting with a partner. I like the results better. Press on! )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 5:00 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve Dan, Maybe we are talking about different locations? These rivets are the ones the F-770 forward side skin get attached to the F-773 aft side skin and baggage bulkhead. There are tabs on the F-773 and bulkhead that get bent out to contact the conical bend (builder bends) in the forward side skins (section D on DWG 28). The rivets are 1/4-5/16" offset from the edge. The swivel flush set is over 1" diameter which places it way off center to the rivet, my 1" flush set still has the same problem. I do have another smaller flush set that should center on the rivet better. With that said, I can see these rivets being a "dent magnet" location. Does this explain my concerns better? Shooting these locations on Friday. Flipping the fuselage hopefully Friday night. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:52 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a distant memory. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com ; rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:25 PM Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve Fellow builders, I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin during riveting. Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets in this area? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
bulkhead/bottom skin curve
Subject: Re: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage
bulkhead/bottom skin curve
Date: Nov 03, 2005
I agree with Dan...get a partner for the best shoot out possible Frank @ SGU and SLC >From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> >Reply-To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the baggage >bulkhead/bottom skin curve >Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:11:12 -0800 > >Having the flush set slightly off center is not a problem imho. Done that >hundreds of times. Just don't use a zillion pounds of air pressure. The >swivel flush set with rubber guard is a pretty forgiving animal -- you >almost have to TRY to get dents with that thing. > >FWIW, I didn't use any special rivet set there. Used my flush swivel >rubber guard set like I did on nearly every exterior rivet on the plane >(there were probably so few exceptions I can count them on one hand). My >conical bend rivets at F-706 came out fine. No dents or flats. I wouldn't >want to rivet that area solo, since I don't feel I have the coordination >wth that big a reach to stabilize the gun well enough, but that's your >call. I tend to lean toward always riveting with a partner. I like the >results better. > >Press on! > >)_( Dan >RV-7 N714D >http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Merems > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 5:00 AM > Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the >baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve > > > Dan, > > Maybe we are talking about different locations? These rivets are the >ones the F-770 forward side skin get attached to the F-773 aft side skin >and baggage bulkhead. There are tabs on the F-773 and bulkhead that get >bent out to contact the conical bend (builder bends) in the forward side >skins (section D on DWG 28). The rivets are 1/4-5/16" offset from the >edge. The swivel flush set is over 1" diameter which places it way off >center to the rivet, my 1" flush set still has the same problem. I do have >another smaller flush set that should center on the rivet better. With >that said, I can see these rivets being a "dent magnet" location. > > Does this explain my concerns better? Shooting these locations on >Friday. Flipping the fuselage hopefully Friday night. > > Paul > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dan Checkoway > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the >baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve > > > What are you worried about exactly, the skin developing "flats" along >the curve of the F-706 bulkhead, or something else? > > You obviously already riveted the bottom corners of the tailcone, i.e. >at F-707, F-708, etc. The rivets along the "conical bend" at F-706 (or >F-906 in your case?) are just like the ones you've already shot. The >difference is that there's even more material thickness in this case, so it >will only be easier. Keep the rivet gun stable, don't use too much air >pressure (i.e. 30-40 psi), use a swivel flush set, and this will soon be a >distant memory. > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Merems > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com ; >rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:25 PM > Subject: RV7-List: Tips? Riveting the RV-7/9 side skins to the >baggage bulkhead/bottom skin curve > > > Fellow builders, > > I am going to be riveting the side skins on in the next day or so. >I am a little concerned about the 5 or so rivets that attach the side skins >to the bulkhead at the bottom skin of the bulkhead where you form the bend >near the F-623 rib. I have bent the tabs as best I can and I know from >experience this could be on of those areas that you may dent the skin >during riveting. > > Any tips for riveting this area? How many of you used bind rivets >in this area? > > Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: Test tank for leaks before closing it?
Date: Nov 09, 2005
I'm doing the wonderful fun job of prosealing my first tank. Happy happy joy joy. Before I put the baffle in place to fully enclose the tank, I'm thinking about filling the tank with water and letting it sit in the cradle for a day or so to observe leaks. I figure it's going to be real dang hard to fix leaks once the baffle is in place. Any cons to doing that? It seems like an obvious step but I haven't heard of it being done. I suppose I'd have to go through some trouble to make sure to dry it out. I think just dumping the water and maybe applying a little hair dryer action would be enough. Another thought: Is there anyway to test the capacitive senders before closing it in? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 09, 2005
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Test tank for leaks before closing it?
Don Hall wrote: > >I'm doing the wonderful fun job of prosealing my first tank. Happy happy >joy joy. > >Before I put the baffle in place to fully enclose the tank, I'm thinking >about filling the tank with water and letting it sit in the cradle for a day >or so to observe leaks. I figure it's going to be real dang hard to fix >leaks once the baffle is in place. Any cons to doing that? It seems like >an obvious step but I haven't heard of it being done. I suppose I'd have to >go through some trouble to make sure to dry it out. I think just dumping >the water and maybe applying a little hair dryer action would be enough. > >Another thought: Is there anyway to test the capacitive senders before >closing it in? > >****************************************** > Don Hall > N517DG (registered) > rv7 wings > http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html >****************************************** > I tried it with the aux tanks I built into the leading edge of my wings. Problem is, gas can find its way through places the water can't.... I toyed with the idea of using gas, but the thought of 20+ gal of gas in a *very* open container stopped even me. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Test tank for leaks before closing it?
Date: Nov 09, 2005
Don't bother, follow the instructions, put a little dab on each shop head and a you'll be fine. I did and have no leaks. Most that have leaks that I remember reading about has to do with not putting a big enough bead on the skins prior to installing the final baffle. If I had to do it again, I would counter sink the skin where the tank baffle meets a little deeper to better allow for proseal between the rivet and the skin. Some of my rivets did not end up nice and flush, but they don't leak so I'm called it good. Bevan RV7A fuselage plumbing in progress. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall Subject: RV7-List: Test tank for leaks before closing it? I'm doing the wonderful fun job of prosealing my first tank. Happy happy joy joy. Before I put the baffle in place to fully enclose the tank, I'm thinking about filling the tank with water and letting it sit in the cradle for a day or so to observe leaks. I figure it's going to be real dang hard to fix leaks once the baffle is in place. Any cons to doing that? It seems like an obvious step but I haven't heard of it being done. I suppose I'd have to go through some trouble to make sure to dry it out. I think just dumping the water and maybe applying a little hair dryer action would be enough. Another thought: Is there anyway to test the capacitive senders before closing it in? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 11, 2005
From: Stephen Reynolds <stephen.j.reynolds(at)talk21.com>
Subject: Re: RV7-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 11/09/05
Hi Don, I did this last week, from what I can see it didn't hurt & will show up any obvious leaks, I was partcuarly concerned about the rivets in the nose of the rib. My top tank tip is this, I used a toothpick to run proseal around the rivet hole, when you insert the rivet only push it enough for it to stay in place, the important thing is to not let your gloved finger come into contact with the proseal, if you do this the whole process is much neater, you don't get proseal on your gloves & then it doesn't get on the rivet gun & everything else. Also a gloved finger dipped in MEK is good for smoothing the proseal out. have fun Stephen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Fuel Tank Construction
Date: Nov 11, 2005
Having built tanks on a couple of RVs I feel qualified to jump in and give some advice on the tanks. I think Stephen has very good intentions, but I think the approach is much too time consuming and tedious. I am sure it will work. None the less, I would do the following to ensure you have a leak proof tank. 1- Soak rivets in MKE for about 5 minutes. Slosh them around in it and spread them out on a clean paper towel and allow to air dry real good for 15 minutes or longer. Keep these uncompromisingly clean. If any doubt about whether they are clean, recline them. 2- Look at the ribs and plates how they contact the tank skins inside the tank. You have straightened the rib flanges to 90 degrees, right? They fit well, right? If not, get this taken care of first. Now, think of yourself as a molecule of fuel. If you wanted to get out how would you do it. Of course, you would have to slip out a rivet hole or one of the end ribs or the bottom plate. So, you want to super clean both parts of those areas. Get a maroon colored scotch brute pad and Dawn with water and go to cleaning the rib and tank skin area where they contact each other real good. Rinse well and dry it and then wipe the contact surfaces with a clean rag and MKE. Do this a couple of times until you know it is super clean and oil free. You wear rubber gloves so your skin oils do not contact the surfaces you have super cleaned. 3- Mix up prosily to the 10 to 1 ratio. Be sure to mix the black activator all by itself to start with to make sure some of the stuff has not settled. 4- Get a heavy (not a cheap thin one) freezer bag and turn it inside out. Use a dull knife, ice cream stick, or spoon and spread the prosily from your mixing container onto the inside out freezer bag near one of the bottom corners. When it is all on there, turn the freezer bag right side out so the prosily is on the inside. Lay bag on flat surface and work the prosily all into one corner. You are ready to cut the corner so you can squeeze out a bit in a small bead. 5- Start working on the inner most rib. Have your tank skin in a form to hold it in the desired shape. Have a helper as an extra set of hands is needed to do a really neat and good job. Take the rib and make a small circling motion in and around each rivet hole on the rib using the prosily freezer bag by squeezing it and then continue with just a connecting line of prosily along the rib to the next hole. This is for all internal (not the end ribs as they require more prosily) ribs. It does not take much prosily on the internal ribs. You need enough prosily to prevent fuel from seeping between the rib and the skin. Anything more is just not needed and makes the job messy. Don't worry about having much prosily near the front, leading edge of the internal ribs. Some up there is ok as it adds strength to the leading edge. 6- Have your helper slightly spread the tank skin apart while carefully moving the rib into place without smearing prosily where you do not want it. Cleo every third hole to hold rib in place. You should and will see prosily oozing out of the tank skin holes. Rivet as usual using MKE cleaned rivets. Repeat steps 5 and 6 working from inside to end ribs. 7- On end ribs you need to have extra prosily on rib edge especially in the corners and leading edge. You can really smear extra on the end ribs. 8- When done, go back and put a dab of prosily on top of each rivet shop head. This is just added protection that fuel can not seep around the shaft of the rivet. You can use a ice cream stick when done to smoothe any excess prosily that may be there oozing out from seam of ribs and skin. If you have any tiny thin strands of prosily in areas it is not needed, now is a good time to clean it up with MKE. 9- You are now very good and the tank bottom plate will be more of the same. Just make sure you have everything inside the tank you want (vent line for instance) before putting the plate on. When it is done and before it cures and sets up, put the tank on the wing and position it with its attachment screws. Leave this for a few days until the prosily is cured. After a few months depending on temperature, you can test with air pressure. This is adequately detailed in the archives. This process works perfectly. Cleanliness is next to Godliness when it comes to fuel tanks. I would not put water in my tank for testing because it does not test the entirety of the tank and I do not like getting water into any parts of the fuel delivery system. Best wishes. Indiana Larry ----- Original Message ----- > > > Hi Don, I did this last week, from what I can see it > didn't hurt & will show up any obvious leaks, I was > partcuarly concerned about the rivets in the nose of > the rib. My top tank tip is this, I used a toothpick > to run proseal around the rivet hole, when you insert > the rivet only push it enough for it to stay in place, > the important thing is to not let your gloved finger > come into contact with the proseal, if you do this the > whole process is much neater, you don't get proseal on > your gloves & then it doesn't get on the rivet gun & > everything else. Also a gloved finger dipped in MEK is > good for smoothing the proseal out. > > have fun > > Stephen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment
Date: Nov 11, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0017 1.0000 -4.4666 Fellow RV-9/7 fuselage builders, I am just about complete with my riveting of my RV-7 fuselage (upside down). I am having troubles setting the forward most AN426AD4 rivet that joins the side skin, bottom skin, longeron and firewall weldment. I have tried several different bucking bars. Most of them are lighter then I would normally use to set 1/8 rivets, but due to the flanges on the weldment I can't use my larger and heavier bucking bars. I believe most of the energy is going into the structure and not the rivet. I am using a 3X gun and running 50 psi. Any thoughts? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment
Date: Nov 11, 2005
Paul, What I did was to use the avery "long backriveting set" I used a heavy hand held back rivet bucking bar on the outside and the long rivet set in the gun. This will send all energy into the rivet. Don -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Merems Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:47 PM To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv7-list(at)matronics.com; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Subject: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Fellow RV-9/7 fuselage builders, I am just about complete with my riveting of my RV-7 fuselage (upside down). I am having troubles setting the forward most AN426AD4 rivet that joins the side skin, bottom skin, longeron and firewall weldment. I have tried several different bucking bars. Most of them are lighter then I would normally use to set 1/8 rivets, but due to the flanges on the weldment I can't use my larger and heavier bucking bars. I believe most of the energy is going into the structure and not the rivet. I am using a 3X gun and running 50 psi. Any thoughts? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment
Date: Nov 12, 2005
Don, I never considered backriveting. I have been shooting them from the outside. I don't own a long backrivet. The other 4 or so rivets shot fine the conventional way. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: DonVS To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Paul, What I did was to use the avery "long backriveting set" I used a heavy hand held back rivet bucking bar on the outside and the long rivet set in the gun. This will send all energy into the rivet. Don -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Merems Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:47 PM To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv7-list(at)matronics.com; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Subject: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Fellow RV-9/7 fuselage builders, I am just about complete with my riveting of my RV-7 fuselage (upside down). I am having troubles setting the forward most AN426AD4 rivet that joins the side skin, bottom skin, longeron and firewall weldment. I have tried several different bucking bars. Most of them are lighter then I would normally use to set 1/8 rivets, but due to the flanges on the weldment I can't use my larger and heavier bucking bars. I believe most of the energy is going into the structure and not the rivet. I am using a 3X gun and running 50 psi. Any thoughts? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment
Date: Nov 12, 2005
Or just try running 80-90psi. The bucker is gonna feel it for sure, but it'll set much more quickly and the rivet won't tend to work harden as quickly. When shooting 1/8" rivets through "thick" structure, I always crank the pressure up. I'd rather hit hard for less time than "soft" for more time -- I believe it's less of a beating for everything around it. Just my 2 cents. In this area, I used the "L" shaped bucking bar from Avery. It's lighter than I would like for the given task, but like you, I was constrained with respect to the bucking bars I was able to get in there. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 7:07 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Don, I never considered backriveting. I have been shooting them from the outside. I don't own a long backrivet. The other 4 or so rivets shot fine the conventional way. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: DonVS To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:08 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Paul, What I did was to use the avery "long backriveting set" I used a heavy hand held back rivet bucking bar on the outside and the long rivet set in the gun. This will send all energy into the rivet. Don -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Merems Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:47 PM To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv7-list(at)matronics.com; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Subject: RV7-List: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment Fellow RV-9/7 fuselage builders, I am just about complete with my riveting of my RV-7 fuselage (upside down). I am having troubles setting the forward most AN426AD4 rivet that joins the side skin, bottom skin, longeron and firewall weldment. I have tried several different bucking bars. Most of them are lighter then I would normally use to set 1/8 rivets, but due to the flanges on the weldment I can't use my larger and heavier bucking bars. I believe most of the energy is going into the structure and not the rivet. I am using a 3X gun and running 50 psi. Any thoughts? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuselage riveting help? Firewall mount weldment
From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2005
I use around 65 psi on AD4 rivets ... particularly the longer ones. g > Fellow RV-9/7 fuselage builders, > > I am just about complete with my riveting of my RV-7 fuselage > (upside down). I am having troubles setting the forward most > AN426AD4 rivet that joins the side skin, bottom skin, longeron > and firewall weldment. I have tried several different bucking > bars. Most of them are lighter then I would normally use to > set 1/8 rivets, but due to the flanges on the weldment I can't > use my larger and heavier bucking bars. I believe most of the > energy is going into the structure and not the rivet. I am > using a 3X gun and running 50 psi. > > Any thoughts? > > Paul -- __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com Tel: 415 203 9177 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Flunker" <RFlunker(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Muffled Exhaust System
Date: Nov 14, 2005
My wife had the good fortune of winning a Vetterman Muffled Exhaust system at the LOE5 fly-in. Since the exhaust we have on our RV-6A is working just fine we'd like to sell the new muffled exhaust system. The system we have is for a Lyc O-360 for an RV-6/6A/7/7A. It includes one heat muff. Larry valued the LOE prize at $1150. If you are interested make us an offer. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "W Boyter" <boyter(at)mcsi.net>
Subject: Re: Muffled Exhaust System
Date: Nov 14, 2005
Dick Will the exhaust fit on a 0-320 I think they are the same? What part of the country do you live in? Wayne 541-679-3831 ----- Original Message ----- From: Dick Flunker To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 6:52 AM Subject: RV7-List: Muffled Exhaust System My wife had the good fortune of winning a Vetterman Muffled Exhaust system at the LOE5 fly-in. Since the exhaust we have on our RV-6A is working just fine we'd like to sell the new muffled exhaust system. The system we have is for a Lyc O-360 for an RV-6/6A/7/7A. It includes one heat muff. Larry valued the LOE prize at $1150. If you are interested make us an offer. Dick ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Test tank for leaks before closing it?
Date: Nov 14, 2005
I did just that - put some red dye in the water and filled the tank to the brim in its cradle - I let it sit for two days - no leaks. I then closed the tank after rinsing it out to remove the dye and tested it with 5 gallons of gasoline. I let it sit for 48 hours each in all possible positions. Did have one minor leak at the purge valve - needed some extra tightening. Michele RV8 - Fuselage -----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Hall Subject: RV7-List: Test tank for leaks before closing it? I'm doing the wonderful fun job of prosealing my first tank. Happy happy joy joy. Before I put the baffle in place to fully enclose the tank, I'm thinking about filling the tank with water and letting it sit in the cradle for a day or so to observe leaks. I figure it's going to be real dang hard to fix leaks once the baffle is in place. Any cons to doing that? It seems like an obvious step but I haven't heard of it being done. I suppose I'd have to go through some trouble to make sure to dry it out. I think just dumping the water and maybe applying a little hair dryer action would be enough. Another thought: Is there anyway to test the capacitive senders before closing it in? ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Lythall" <peter(at)nortech.bc.ca>
Subject: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 15, 2005
Hello, I am working on my RV7 Empennage and have ordered my qb to pickup in mid January. Now I want to minimize the shipping costs and I am going to pickup the QB kit at Vans's. It will give me a nice break from work and we can visit the inlaws on the way (what fun). Now I need to decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy owners that would be fantastic. Peter Lythall Fort St. John, BC Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
Peter, One thing to consider is the value of your plane after it is done. And also if you have a problem while flying cross country and have to land some place unfamiliar. Airports across the country are equipped with mechanics that look at Lycoming type engines all the time, a subby maybe not. The subby has more possible failure modes that is for sure. Only one spark plug per cylinder, for example. That engine will not keep you climbing if it starts running on just 3. Consider where you are flying most of the time and whether climbing is vital to your safety. Reading the Eggenfeltner email is a good thing to do. They are still discovering new things it seems every month (although I have not read it lately). I went this same route three years ago and even ordered a subby at one point. I like the features and ability of the subby but decided that the proven Lycoming type was better for me. In the end, I just decided I really did not want to be a test pilot for Jan. Jan was very fair with me all the way. I like him. I have a friend who is almost ready to start flying his RV6A with Eggenfeltner subby. His installation looks more compact/complicated and totally packed in there than a Lycoming type. Working on it going forward seems like it will be a concern. You cannot get to anything without moving something else out of the way it seems. However, It sounds great and runs smoothly on the ground. Keep in mind It was not designed for putting out 80 percent power at 3,500 rpm as it will be doing in the air. Jan says no one has met the TBO yet. I wish he would run one to that point and know the answer! (The longest running engine of his still has only about 1,000 hours on it and at that point, it is not a value yet). Although he thought so getting into it, I am not sure my friend's total cost is any cheaper than something like a TMX-O360. If you must have fuel injection in the Lycoming type, that is more of course and you got that with the subby. With my TMX engine, I can burn 92 octane unleaded after 200 hours. It is good you are looking into this early. Lots of stuff to consider and most folks have a slightly different slant on priorities and risk. I recommend you visit Jan's place of business if you can make a trip out of it. I think a guy named Morris visited Jan about 3-4 years ago. It might be in the RV7-List archives or the RV-List archives. His posting influenced my decision. But all things change -- and as I said, I like the features of the subby engine. AND -- I'd talk with Vans before deciding on a 390. Best wishes. Indiana Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Lythall To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:52 AM Subject: RV7-List: Engine Choices Hello, Snip.......Now I need to decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy owners that would be fantastic. Peter Lythall Fort St. John, BC Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
Peter Check out www.attawayair.com (robbie attaway) for info on the IO360 and http://brian76.mystarband.net/rv7a/RV-7Ahome.htm (Brian Meyette) on the Subaru. I was at you juncture about 6 months ago and these two sites and calls to Robbie helped me make my choice. Frank @ SGU and SLC.......fuse about done on to finish............. >From: "Peter Lythall" <peter(at)nortech.bc.ca> >Reply-To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: RV7-List: Engine Choices >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:52:49 -0700 > >Hello, > > >I am working on my RV7 Empennage and have ordered my qb to pickup in mid >January. Now I want to minimize the shipping costs and I am going to >pickup >the QB kit at Vans's. It will give me a nice break from work and we can >visit the inlaws on the way (what fun). Now I need to decide on what >powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a >couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have >researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. > > >At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the >Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water >cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). >Another >option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any >comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local >AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for >coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not >entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you >have >installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy >owners that would be fantastic. > > >Peter Lythall > > >Fort St. John, BC Canada > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Why mogas after 200 hours Larry?...I was working more on 50... Thanks Frank ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming Subject: Re: RV7-List: Engine Choices Peter, One thing to consider is the value of your plane after it is done. And also if you have a problem while flying cross country and have to land some place unfamiliar. Airports across the country are equipped with mechanics that look at Lycoming type engines all the time, a subby maybe not. The subby has more possible failure modes that is for sure. Only one spark plug per cylinder, for example. That engine will not keep you climbing if it starts running on just 3. Consider where you are flying most of the time and whether climbing is vital to your safety. Reading the Eggenfeltner email is a good thing to do. They are still discovering new things it seems every month (although I have not read it lately). I went this same route three years ago and even ordered a subby at one point. I like the features and ability of the subby but decided that the proven Lycoming type was better for me. In the end, I just decided I really did not want to be a test pilot for Jan. Jan was very fair with me all the way. I like him. I have a friend who is almost ready to start flying his RV6A with Eggenfeltner subby. His installation looks more compact/complicated and totally packed in there than a Lycoming type. Working on it going forward seems like it will be a concern. You cannot get to anything without moving something else out of the way it seems. However, It sounds great and runs smoothly on the ground. Keep in mind It was not designed for putting out 80 percent power at 3,500 rpm as it will be doing in the air. Jan says no one has met the TBO yet. I wish he would run one to that point and know the answer! (The longest running engine of his still has only about 1,000 hours on it and at that point, it is not a value yet). Although he thought so getting into it, I am not sure my friend's total cost is any cheaper than something like a TMX-O360. If you must have fuel injection in the Lycoming type, that is more of course and you got that with the subby. With my TMX engine, I can burn 92 octane unleaded after 200 hours. It is good you are looking into this early. Lots of stuff to consider and most folks have a slightly different slant on priorities and risk. I recommend you visit Jan's place of business if you can make a trip out of it. I think a guy named Morris visited Jan about 3-4 years ago. It might be in the RV7-List archives or the RV-List archives. His posting influenced my decision. But all things change -- and as I said, I like the features of the subby engine. AND -- I'd talk with Vans before deciding on a 390. Best wishes. Indiana Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Lythall <mailto:peter(at)nortech.bc.ca> To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:52 AM Subject: RV7-List: Engine Choices Hello, Snip.......Now I need to decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy owners that would be fantastic. Peter Lythall Fort St. John, BC Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
One thing you have a hard time pinning down is exactly what is the cooling drag panalty of the water cooled motor. I know one guy who built wo almost identical RV7's one with a 2.5l soob and the other with a o360....the sooby cruised at 172 mph apparently. You can make it go faster but you'll burn a lot more fuel doing so. Note the H6 motor is around 220HP, if you crank it to overcome the cooling drag you'll burn more fuel than an aircooled 360. Note this is all from my desk research and a conglomeration of lots of opinions. As one of my sooby friends said...Put yer Lycoming in your plane and then we will compare lies...:) Why is there more (alleged) drag?...Simple...The cyl heads on an aircooled moter run much hotter than the radiators of an aircooled motor...The heat regection is proportional to the temperature difference between the thing you want cooled (head or rad) and the cooling air multiplied by the air flow rate. So less temp difference means more flowrate for the same power lost as heat...More flow means more drag. Note that Vans has offered to do a back to back flyoff and this has not happened yet. To me this was enough doubt to go with a Mattituck IO360 that I intend (after break in) to run on Mogas. I don't know for sure but I doubt the sooby can be programmed to run Lean of peak...In an IO360 this means 180mph at 7.5 GPH...Not bad! Just in case your wondering if I'm an "airplane motor for airplanes" dude....I already run a small subaru in my Zenair Zodiac...Its runs great! Frank ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Lythall Subject: RV7-List: Engine Choices Hello, I am working on my RV7 Empennage and have ordered my qb to pickup in mid January. Now I want to minimize the shipping costs and I am going to pickup the QB kit at Vans's. It will give me a nice break from work and we can visit the inlaws on the way (what fun). Now I need to decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy owners that would be fantastic. Peter Lythall Fort St. John, BC Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Engine Choices
On 7:21:38 2005-11-16 "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote: > Why is there more (alleged) drag?...Simple...The cyl heads on an > aircooled moter run much hotter than the radiators of an aircooled > motor...The heat regection is proportional to the temperature > difference between the thing you want cooled (head or rad) and the > cooling air multiplied by the air flow rate. So less temp difference > means more flowrate for the same power lost as heat...More flow means > more drag. Not saying it's possible with a Subaru installation (or that it's impossible, either), but it is possible to realize additional *thrust* from your water cooling system. There's at least one person here on the list that flies a P-51 in his spare time (lucky bugger :), he would probably know about that. I remember an article in Sport Aviation a number of years ago about maximizing performance that also mentioned this. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Yes that is definatly a piece of fabled history and in theory it is correct The idea being that as the rad heats the air going thru it, it expands, thus acting like like a mini jet engine, turning some of the waste heat power into thrust. Does this thrust exceed the extra drag?..Maybe...However, in the real world to make that work requires the rad to be in a duct under the plane. Fact of the matter is, noone has successfully designed such a duct (and associated "Thick radiator") in the world of homebuilt aviation. Eggenfelner's (as are others) conversion is designed as a drop in for the Lyc, using the same cowl. My bet would be to realise what might in theory be a great design will take a lot more investment than we have currently. Not saying someone won't do it but it's not a "here today" product that is available. What you will find is the sooby converters simply avoid talking about it...That will work for a while and for those who don't care too much about speed. As someone said, the soob engine is turbine smooth, appaerently much more pleasant to fly behind and compared with the other benefits of low rebuild/parts cost makes it a clear winner. For me, as Dan Checkoway said " performance is 99% of the deal", so a lYC clone wins it. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior (rv7) Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine Choices On 7:21:38 2005-11-16 "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote: > Why is there more (alleged) drag?...Simple...The cyl heads on an > aircooled moter run much hotter than the radiators of an aircooled > motor...The heat regection is proportional to the temperature > difference between the thing you want cooled (head or rad) and the > cooling air multiplied by the air flow rate. So less temp difference > means more flowrate for the same power lost as heat...More flow means > more drag. Not saying it's possible with a Subaru installation (or that it's impossible, either), but it is possible to realize additional *thrust* from your water cooling system. There's at least one person here on the list that flies a P-51 in his spare time (lucky bugger :), he would probably know about that. I remember an article in Sport Aviation a number of years ago about maximizing performance that also mentioned this. -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Engine Choices
On 9:34:02 2005-11-16 "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" wrote: > Yes that is definatly a piece of fabled history and in theory it is > correct The idea being that as the rad heats the air going thru it, it > expands, thus acting like like a mini jet engine, turning some of the > waste heat power into thrust. Does this thrust exceed the extra > drag?..Maybe...However, in the real world to make that work requires > the rad to be in a duct under the plane. I'm not so sure the location is that relevant. I can't find the Sport Aviation article right now, but I seem to recall it involved a conventional looking aircraft, and a conventional cowling (but with highly specialized inlets, exits, baffles, and plenum). Oh, and this was on an air-cooled engine not a water-cooled one. But if they could get thrust out of an air-cooled engine compartment (or at the very least offset a lot of the cooling drag), then surely the same could be possible on a water cooled install. Again, i'm not saying this *is* being done on the existing Subaru installs. It probably isn't. For more info, it's called the Meredith Effect, here's some light reading: Air and Space Museum: <http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Supp/JJ99/Mustang.html> <http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AS/wmtm.html> An archived post from rec.aviation.military: <http://yarchive.net/mil/laminar_flow.html> -Rob ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Choices
Date: Nov 16, 2005
You mentioned 180mph on 7.5gph. On 7.5gph with my IO-360 I get just shy of 200mph TAS (~170-175 KTAS). Your mileage may vary. Literally. Best part about my Lycoming? It doesn't have a computer with the AUTHORITY to shut the engine down on my without my consent. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (680 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:21 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: Engine Choices One thing you have a hard time pinning down is exactly what is the cooling drag panalty of the water cooled motor. I know one guy who built wo almost identical RV7's one with a 2.5l soob and the other with a o360....the sooby cruised at 172 mph apparently. You can make it go faster but you'll burn a lot more fuel doing so. Note the H6 motor is around 220HP, if you crank it to overcome the cooling drag you'll burn more fuel than an aircooled 360. Note this is all from my desk research and a conglomeration of lots of opinions. As one of my sooby friends said...Put yer Lycoming in your plane and then we will compare lies...:) Why is there more (alleged) drag?...Simple...The cyl heads on an aircooled moter run much hotter than the radiators of an aircooled motor...The heat regection is proportional to the temperature difference between the thing you want cooled (head or rad) and the cooling air multiplied by the air flow rate. So less temp difference means more flowrate for the same power lost as heat...More flow means more drag. Note that Vans has offered to do a back to back flyoff and this has not happened yet. To me this was enough doubt to go with a Mattituck IO360 that I intend (after break in) to run on Mogas. I don't know for sure but I doubt the sooby can be programmed to run Lean of peak...In an IO360 this means 180mph at 7.5 GPH...Not bad! Just in case your wondering if I'm an "airplane motor for airplanes" dude....I already run a small subaru in my Zenair Zodiac...Its runs great! Frank From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peter Lythall Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:53 PM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: Engine Choices Hello, I am working on my RV7 Empennage and have ordered my qb to pickup in mid January. Now I want to minimize the shipping costs and I am going to pickup the QB kit at Vans's. It will give me a nice break from work and we can visit the inlaws on the way (what fun). Now I need to decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 engine. At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I haven't really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or happy owners that would be fantastic. Peter Lythall Fort St. John, BC Canada ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 16, 2005
From: Tyler Bryant <tylerii(at)infoave.net>
Subject: Re: Engine Choices
Read the current issue of the rvator There is a good article on engine selection Tyler N442TJ Peter Lythall wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on my RV7 Empennage and have ordered my qb to pickup in > mid January. Now I want to minimize the shipping costs and I am going > to pickup the QB kit at Vanss. It will give me a nice break from work > and we can visit the inlaws on the way (what fun). Now I need to > decide on what powerplant in hang on the front end of this thing and I > am torn between a couple of choices. I am looking for some input from > other builders who have researched and/or installed the Subaru H-6 > engine. > > At this juncture I am looking at either the io-360(tried and true) or > the Eggenfellner H-6(looks sharp and if packed with new type > technology, water cooled, lower op costs, lower tbo costs, and burns > mogas and 100ll). Another option is the new io-390 but I havent > really looked at that. So any comments on the soob. I have discussed > with various folks including a local AME (great guy) and various > pilots at the hanger that I often show up for coffee at. I have > watched the eggenfellner yahoo list but I am still not entirely > certain. So I am looking for some totally biased input. If you have > installed one of these beasts or can direct me to some unhappy or > happy owners that would be fantastic. > > Peter Lythall > > Fort St. John, BC Canada > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stan Bearup" <bearup(at)ida.net>
Subject: MT 3-blade constant-speed propeller for sale
Date: Nov 17, 2005
I have a new three blade electric constant-speed MT propeller for sale. Included are the kevlar spinner assy., electronic controller, circuit breaker, and assembly . The propeller model number is MTV-18-B/183-17. It was purchased new in 2002 and never used on our GlaStar project. We have decided to install an NSI Subaru package which includes a CAP 200 propeller, so we have decided to sell this very nice propeller. It is new and still in its original box. It fits on an SAE #2 flange with 1/2 bolts (Lyc O-360, some O-320, and most Subaru propeller reduction drive set-ups). $7,000. Stan Bearup bearup(at)ida.net (208) 220-0837 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: A very bad day at the airport
Date: Nov 19, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912 Fellow builders, I want to share with you a very bad day at the airport. I was attending a pancake breakfast with our local EAA chapter at La Cholla Airpark just north of Tucson AZ. A dozen or so aircraft arrived and another two dozen or so visitors arrived for a wonderful morning of food and airplanes. One of the aircraft that arrived was a turbine Legend (composite, high performance aircraft). It announced it's arrival with a high speed flyby and landed. However when it went to takeoff, something went wrong, very wrong. It appeared to lift off the runway way too early (about 1/3 what you would have expected) pitch up and roll sharply to the port side. At about 75-100' it was still nose high and rolling sharply to its port side. Then the nose pitched down. The aircraft was now heading towards the ground but my view became obscured by a house and tree line (yes we do have trees in Arizona). A second later was impact followed by smoke. Both soles on board died. No houses or people on the ground were hurt. Since it was a EAA breakfast fly-in there were pilots all around speculating on what had happened. What went wrong. Some are speculating it was a high performance takeoff the pilot lost control due to the torque effect and the 700+ horse power engine. I don't know if we will ever know. 15 years earlier an RV-4 pilot decided to do a roll on takeoff at this same airport and killed himself and his passenger. I hope I never have a day like this again. Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Burns" <burnsm(at)cox.net>
Subject: A very bad day at the airport
Date: Nov 19, 2005
Paul, All you can do is try and not let it upset you too much. Time will take some of the edge off. Things like this just happen. My prayers are with the families involved. Mark _____ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Merems rv7-list(at)matronics.com; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv9-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: A very bad day at the airport Fellow builders, I want to share with you a very bad day at the airport. I was attending a pancake breakfast with our local EAA chapter at La Cholla Airpark just north of Tucson AZ. A dozen or so aircraft arrived and another two dozen or so visitors arrived for a wonderful morning of food and airplanes. One of the aircraft that arrived was a turbine Legend (composite, high performance aircraft). It announced it's arrival with a high speed flyby and landed. However when it went to takeoff, something went wrong, very wrong. It appeared to lift off the runway way too early (about 1/3 what you would have expected) pitch up and roll sharply to the port side. At about 75-100' it was still nose high and rolling sharply to its port side. Then the nose pitched down. The aircraft was now heading towards the ground but my view became obscured by a house and tree line (yes we do have trees in Arizona). A second later was impact followed by smoke. Both soles on board died. No houses or people on the ground were hurt. Since it was a EAA breakfast fly-in there were pilots all around speculating on what had happened. What went wrong. Some are speculating it was a high performance takeoff the pilot lost control due to the torque effect and the 700+ horse power engine. I don't know if we will ever know. 15 years earlier an RV-4 pilot decided to do a roll on takeoff at this same airport and killed himself and his passenger. I hope I never have a day like this again. Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Subject: A very bad day at the airport
Date: Nov 19, 2005
Thank you for sharing this very terrible experience with us. My prayers go out to all the people involved in this tragic accident. May we learn something from it. Franz -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Merems Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 12:49 PM To: RV-8(at)yahoogroups.com; RV10 Group; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv7-list(at)matronics.com; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com; rv9-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: A very bad day at the airport Fellow builders, I want to share with you a very bad day at the airport. I was attending a pancake breakfast with our local EAA chapter at La Cholla Airpark just north of Tucson AZ. A dozen or so aircraft arrived and another two dozen or so visitors arrived for a wonderful morning of food and airplanes. One of the aircraft that arrived was a turbine Legend (composite, high performance aircraft). It announced it's arrival with a high speed flyby and landed. However when it went to takeoff, something went wrong, very wrong. It appeared to lift off the runway way too early (about 1/3 what you would have expected) pitch up and roll sharply to the port side. At about 75-100' it was still nose high and rolling sharply to its port side. Then the nose pitched down. The aircraft was now heading towards the ground but my view became obscured by a house and tree line (yes we do have trees in Arizona). A second later was impact followed by smoke. Both soles on board died. No houses or people on the ground were hurt. Since it was a EAA breakfast fly-in there were pilots all around speculating on what had happened. What went wrong. Some are speculating it was a high performance takeoff the pilot lost control due to the torque effect and the 700+ horse power engine. I don't know if we will ever know. 15 years earlier an RV-4 pilot decided to do a roll on takeoff at this same airport and killed himself and his passenger. I hope I never have a day like this again. Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: A very bad day at the airport
Torque roll would be a good guess (emphisis on guess). An early Glasair III with a turbine did the same thing many years ago. I never flew a turbine Glasair or a North American P-51, but understand the P-51 does the same thing at full power and with a low speed takeoff (early rotation). I am NOT saying this IS what happened but it is a known phenomena. We all can learn or I mean be reminded of is Takeoffs and Landings are critical because the proximity to the ground, Use standard procedures and fly the same numbers every time, at fly-ins and airshows do what you always do and resist the desire to do an airshow, especially a maneuver you never have done at altitude much less close to the ground. (I know I have made my share of mistakes but been blessed that it did not bite my ass, "fate is the hunter".) George :-( >From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net> >Subject: RV7-List: A very bad day at the airport > >Some are speculating it was a high performance takeoff the >pilot lost control due to the torque effect and the 700+ horse >power engine. I don't know if we will ever know. 15 years earlier >an RV-4 pilot decided to do a roll on takeoff at this same airport >and killed himself and his passenger. I hope I never have a day >like this again. Paul --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage
Date: Nov 24, 2005
Happy Thanksgiving, I have just moved my "completed" slow build wings into my neighbors basement and replaced them in the shop with the QB Fuselage that has been waiting for my attention for nearly a year now! After the trip back from the Philippines, truck trip across country, and storage for a year in a residential basement, the inside of the fuselage is a little "grimy". There is no way I could hope to get it "clean" enough for me with a rag and some sort of cleaner. So my question is: What are some thoughts of the wisdom of moving the QB Fuselage outside on a bright sunny day and pressure washing the inside? Not real high pressure washing but the large nozzle designed to apply a soapy solution at relatively low pressure. I have removed all the various parts that need to be removed to expose everything. I have the fuselage mounted on Jeff Bordelon's rotating fuselage stand (http://www.jeffsrv-7a.com/FuselageStandsForSale.htm} so could maneuver the thing quite easily. My thinking is that the only thing that might rust are the plate nuts and if I picked a bright sun shiny day and maybe even used a leaf blower to facilitate the quick drying out of everything, it would be okay. Would this be a good time to paint the interior? It is already wash primed by Van of course. Thoughts/comments please. TIA, Allen Fulmer RV7 QB Fuse in the shop Eggenfellner Subaru H6 on order N808AF reserved Alexander City, AL 256-329-2001 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2005
From: "Daniel Storer" <dstorer(at)okwifi.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage
I would use your sunny day approach with Simplegreen cleaner. Good stuff we ve used it an airplanes, jet engines and shop floors. Look it up on the web Dan Storer Oklahoma City 7A Fuse N700DJ reserved -------Original Message------- From: Allen Fulmer Date: 11/24/05 11:37:14 Subject: RV7-List: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage Happy Thanksgiving, I have just moved my "completed" slow build wings into my neighbors basement and replaced them in the shop with the QB Fuselage that has been waiting for my attention for nearly a year now! After the trip back from the Philippines, truck trip across country, and storage for a year in a residential basement, the inside of the fuselage is a little "grimy". There is no way I could hope to get it "clean" enough for me with a rag and some sort of cleaner. So my question is: What are some thoughts of the wisdom of moving the QB Fuselage outside on a bright sunny day and pressure washing the inside? Not real high pressure washing but the large nozzle designed to apply a soapy solution at relatively low pressure. I have removed all the various parts that need to be removed to expose everything. I have the fuselage mounted on Jeff Bordelon's rotating fuselage stand (http://www.jeffsrv-7a.com/FuselageStandsForSale.htm} so could maneuver the thing quite easily. My thinking is that the only thing that might rust are the plate nuts and if I picked a bright sun shiny day and maybe even used a leaf blower to facilitate the quick drying out of everything, it would be okay. Would this be a good time to paint the interior? It is already wash primed by Van of course. Thoughts/comments please. TIA, Allen Fulmer RV7 QB Fuse in the shop Eggenfellner Subaru H6 on order N808AF reserved Alexander City, AL 256-329-2001 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 24, 2005
Subject: Re: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage
SimpleGreen had samples of their aircraft cleaner compatible with aluminum available at Oshkosh. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 11/24/2005 11:18:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, dstorer(at)okwifi.com writes: I would use your sunny day approach with Simplegreen cleaner. Good stuff we've used it an airplanes, jet engines and shop floors. Look it up on the web. Dan Storer Oklahoma City 7A Fuse N700DJ reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merems" <merems(at)cox.net>
Subject: Tip-up mounting question
Date: Nov 26, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912 Fellow Tip-Up builders, I am in the process of building the roll bar/frame for my RV-7A. The frame halves are very warped and the flanges aren't 90 as needed. It has taken some time to adjust the flanges but the parts are still warped. I haven't drilled the inner supporting strips yet, that's tomorrows adventure. Anyway I have included a photo of the mounting brackets in there approximate position and note the interference with the seat back stop on the top side of the bulkhead (circled area). I believe this is common, but I haven't seen too many photos of this interference. I am considering taking a dremel tool and removing the offending material on the seat back stop. What have you done to correct this? Am I the only one (I doubt it)? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Tip-up mounting question
Date: Nov 26, 2005
Same happened to me: http://www.rvproject.com/20030207.html I just sliced out a chunk of the seat back stops. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (705 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Merems To: rv9-list(at)matronics.com ; RV-9A(at)yahoogroups.com ; rv7-list(at)matronics.com ; RV7and7A(at)yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:09 PM Subject: RV7-List: Tip-up mounting question Fellow Tip-Up builders, I am in the process of building the roll bar/frame for my RV-7A. The frame halves are very warped and the flanges aren't 90 as needed. It has taken some time to adjust the flanges but the parts are still warped. I haven't drilled the inner supporting strips yet, that's tomorrows adventure. Anyway I have included a photo of the mounting brackets in there approximate position and note the interference with the seat back stop on the top side of the bulkhead (circled area). I believe this is common, but I haven't seen too many photos of this interference. I am considering taking a dremel tool and removing the offending material on the seat back stop. What have you done to correct this? Am I the only one (I doubt it)? Paul ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2005
From: Norman Younie <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net>
Subject: Re: Tip-up mounting question
Flute the frame halves as you did the ribs/bulk heads to make them lie flat. Merems wrote: > Fellow Tip-Up builders, > > I am in the process of building the roll bar/frame for my RV-7A. The > frame halves are very warped and the flanges aren't 90 as needed. It > has taken some time to adjust the flanges but the parts are still > warped. I haven't drilled the inner supporting strips yet, that's > tomorrows adventure. > > Anyway I have included a photo of the mounting brackets in there > approximate position and note the interference with the seat back stop > on the top side of the bulkhead (circled area). I believe this is > common, but I haven't seen too many photos of this interference. I am > considering taking a dremel tool and removing the offending material > on the seat back stop. > > What have you done to correct this? Am I the only one (I doubt it)? > > Paul > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Tip-up mounting question
Date: Nov 27, 2005
Sure, flute the flanges on the canopy bow channels, but don't flute the C channels that make up the roll bar. On the cabin frame/roll bar, you do NOT want to flute them. Fluting will prevent the center strip from resting against the flanges. Yes, it'll still work that way, but it's not ideal imho. It takes some work with the hand seamer to get the flanges where you want them, in order to de-warp the C channels enough to make them usable. There will still be a little warp in there when you're done, but the parts can be clamped down to the bench as you drill to the strip, to keep everything as straight as possible. Just my 2 cents, but I wouldn't flute the roll bar channels. And to clarify, I *did* flute the canopy bow channels in a few spots, since they don't mate up with anything on the inside of the flange. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (705 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Younie" <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net> Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tip-up mounting question > > Flute the frame halves as you did the ribs/bulk heads to make them lie > flat. > > Merems wrote: > >> Fellow Tip-Up builders, >> I am in the process of building the roll bar/frame for my RV-7A. The >> frame halves are very warped and the flanges aren't 90 as needed. It has >> taken some time to adjust the flanges but the parts are still warped. I >> haven't drilled the inner supporting strips yet, that's tomorrows >> adventure. >> Anyway I have included a photo of the mounting brackets in there >> approximate position and note the interference with the seat back stop on >> the top side of the bulkhead (circled area). I believe this is common, >> but I haven't seen too many photos of this interference. I am >> considering taking a dremel tool and removing the offending material on >> the seat back stop. >> What have you done to correct this? Am I the only one (I doubt it)? >> Paul >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2005
From: Norman Younie <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net>
Subject: Re: Tip-up mounting question
Sorry for the confusion. I agree with Dann 100% Flute the canopy channel only and clamp the roll over channels to a table top while drilling the flanges to the center strip. Make sure you have radius on the centre strip so that it will lay flat inside the flanges. Dan Checkoway wrote: > > Sure, flute the flanges on the canopy bow channels, but don't flute > the C channels that make up the roll bar. On the cabin frame/roll > bar, you do NOT want to flute them. Fluting will prevent the center > strip from resting against the flanges. Yes, it'll still work that > way, but it's not ideal imho. > > It takes some work with the hand seamer to get the flanges where you > want them, in order to de-warp the C channels enough to make them > usable. There will still be a little warp in there when you're done, > but the parts can be clamped down to the bench as you drill to the > strip, to keep everything as straight as possible. > > Just my 2 cents, but I wouldn't flute the roll bar channels. > > And to clarify, I *did* flute the canopy bow channels in a few spots, > since they don't mate up with anything on the inside of the flange. > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D (705 hours) > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Younie" > > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:51 AM > Subject: Re: RV7-List: Tip-up mounting question > > >> >> Flute the frame halves as you did the ribs/bulk heads to make them >> lie flat. >> >> Merems wrote: >> >>> Fellow Tip-Up builders, >>> I am in the process of building the roll bar/frame for my RV-7A. >>> The frame halves are very warped and the flanges aren't 90 as >>> needed. It has taken some time to adjust the flanges but the parts >>> are still warped. I haven't drilled the inner supporting strips >>> yet, that's tomorrows adventure. >>> Anyway I have included a photo of the mounting brackets in there >>> approximate position and note the interference with the seat back >>> stop on the top side of the bulkhead (circled area). I believe this >>> is common, but I haven't seen too many photos of this interference. >>> I am considering taking a dremel tool and removing the offending >>> material on the seat back stop. >>> What have you done to correct this? Am I the only one (I doubt it)? >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage
Date: Nov 27, 2005
Allen, Your ideas on cleaning sound reasonable to me. I just finished painting the interior on my -7A and have a few thoughts for you: - Since you have a rotating stand, paint your fuse upside down and you will avoid some of the trash and overspray settling on your freshly painted surfaces. I painted right side up and had this problem on the bottom surfaces. It will also be easier to see (and paint) areas under the armrests, side rails, etc. - Paint in sections. I would break the areas into at least three areas (Left side, Right side, Bottom) so you don't have to deal with dragging hoses through or leaning into wet paint. I ended up repainting one section a day later and it was so much easier to paint when I wasn't trying to avoid freshly painted sections. - There is a lot of stuff that is added to the fuselage that will also need to be painted. Things like seat backs, access plates (bunches of these), gear mounts (if you want them to match), Instrument Panel, Aft skin (at least the front part). I waited to paint everything until after most stuff was fabricated. I like this approach and would probably do the same next time. - Painted surfaces dont like to be dimpled. I forgot to dimple a couple coles for a nutplate and dimpled after painting. The paint flaked a little around the hole. This may be related to my paint or prep... I dont know. Anyway, I hope some of my experiences (aka screwups) help you out. Happy building. Greg Vouga RV-7A Fuselage >From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> >Reply-To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com >To: "Rv7-List(at)Matronics. Com" >Subject: RV7-List: Cleaning inside of QB Fuselage >Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:46:50 -0600 > > >Happy Thanksgiving, > >I have just moved my "completed" slow build wings into my neighbors >basement >and replaced them in the shop with the QB Fuselage that has been waiting >for >my attention for nearly a year now! > >After the trip back from the Philippines, truck trip across country, and >storage for a year in a residential basement, the inside of the fuselage is >a little "grimy". There is no way I could hope to get it "clean" enough >for >me with a rag and some sort of cleaner. > >So my question is: What are some thoughts of the wisdom of moving the QB >Fuselage outside on a bright sunny day and pressure washing the inside? Not >real high pressure washing but the large nozzle designed to apply a soapy >solution at relatively low pressure. I have removed all the various parts >that need to be removed to expose everything. > >I have the fuselage mounted on Jeff Bordelon's rotating fuselage stand >(http://www.jeffsrv-7a.com/FuselageStandsForSale.htm} so could maneuver the >thing quite easily. My thinking is that the only thing that might rust are >the plate nuts and if I picked a bright sun shiny day and maybe even used a >leaf blower to facilitate the quick drying out of everything, it would be >okay. > >Would this be a good time to paint the interior? It is already wash primed >by Van of course. > >Thoughts/comments please. > >TIA, > > >Allen Fulmer >RV7 QB Fuse in the shop >Eggenfellner Subaru H6 on order >N808AF reserved >Alexander City, AL >256-329-2001 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Fitting the vertical stabilizer to the fuselage ...
From: Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com>
Date: Dec 01, 2005
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912 1.66 HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (DHCP) 1.28 HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (HCC) 1.36 HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR Relay HELO'd using suspicious hostname (IP addr 1) Hi Folks, I'm in the process of fitting the vertical stabilizer to the fuselage of my RV-9 (taildragger). The rear spar of the stab is supposed to fit flush against the rear-most bulkhead. No problem. However the flanges of the rear spar foul the lower 3 or 4 rivets that connect the fuse side skin to the rearmost bulkhead. You can see it in the following pic. Has anyone else had this issue ? Any thoughts on a solution - just bend the spar flanges until they're out of the way ? http://rascal.gerf.com/BuildLogService/userfiles/d7b30941a79a47b68567721f591657b0.jpg __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com Tel: 415 203 9177 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2005
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
RV list
Subject: -7 aileron belcrank bushings
Just spent some time perusing old messages about bellcrank bushing problems & got a few answers but still have some questions. The bushings I got will slide into the bellcranks fairly easily until they hit the point where the 2nd flange is welded, about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the tube. Either bushing into either bellcrank, same symptom. A 3/8 drill bit will slide through the bellcrank tube without binding; actually, it's fairly loose. In addition, neither bushing will accept an AN4 bolt shaft. The threads will go in with slight binding, but any attempt to go further results in the plating being scraped off the bolt at the thread-shaft transition point. (I've used the deburring tool on the ends of the bushings; no help.) Is everyone having to ream both the bellcrank tube & the bushing? I suppose that I can turn the bushing OD down without too much trouble but trying to drill it to 1/4"+ for the bolt, without a lathe, doesn't strike me as fun. Charlie (feeling like I paid for parts that should fit) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: -7 aileron belcrank bushings
Date: Dec 03, 2005
"Drill" it wiyg a 1/4 inch reamer. Hold the bushing in a vice cery lightly. Works easy. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England Subject: RV7-List: -7 aileron belcrank bushings Just spent some time perusing old messages about bellcrank bushing problems & got a few answers but still have some questions. The bushings I got will slide into the bellcranks fairly easily until they hit the point where the 2nd flange is welded, about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the tube. Either bushing into either bellcrank, same symptom. A 3/8 drill bit will slide through the bellcrank tube without binding; actually, it's fairly loose. In addition, neither bushing will accept an AN4 bolt shaft. The threads will go in with slight binding, but any attempt to go further results in the plating being scraped off the bolt at the thread-shaft transition point. (I've used the deburring tool on the ends of the bushings; no help.) Is everyone having to ream both the bellcrank tube & the bushing? I suppose that I can turn the bushing OD down without too much trouble but trying to drill it to 1/4"+ for the bolt, without a lathe, doesn't strike me as fun. Charlie (feeling like I paid for parts that should fit) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DonVS" <dsvs(at)comcast.net>
Subject: -7 aileron belcrank bushings
Date: Dec 03, 2005
Lets try that again. "Drill" it with a 1/4 inch reamer. Hold the bushing in a vice with a notch for round stock, very light pressure to avoid pinching the reamer. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DonVS Subject: RE: RV7-List: -7 aileron belcrank bushings "Drill" it wiyg a 1/4 inch reamer. Hold the bushing in a vice cery lightly. Works easy. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England Subject: RV7-List: -7 aileron belcrank bushings Just spent some time perusing old messages about bellcrank bushing problems & got a few answers but still have some questions. The bushings I got will slide into the bellcranks fairly easily until they hit the point where the 2nd flange is welded, about 1/3 of the way down from the top of the tube. Either bushing into either bellcrank, same symptom. A 3/8 drill bit will slide through the bellcrank tube without binding; actually, it's fairly loose. In addition, neither bushing will accept an AN4 bolt shaft. The threads will go in with slight binding, but any attempt to go further results in the plating being scraped off the bolt at the thread-shaft transition point. (I've used the deburring tool on the ends of the bushings; no help.) Is everyone having to ream both the bellcrank tube & the bushing? I suppose that I can turn the bushing OD down without too much trouble but trying to drill it to 1/4"+ for the bolt, without a lathe, doesn't strike me as fun. Charlie (feeling like I paid for parts that should fit) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2005
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RV-7 Tip or slide? time to pick
Ok, I need to order the fuselage before the price increase & the operational ups & downs of tip vs slider seem to balance, at least for me. The tipping point (pardon the pun) seems to be installation pains. I know that in the past, slider frames have been really tough for a lot of people. Those of you who have been there recently building the -7/-9 slider, what's it been like fitting the frame, start to finish? The guys at Van's are hinting that the new frames fit with less of a struggle. Thanks, Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: changing props
Date: Dec 07, 2005
Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 07, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props
Hi Beven and All, Normally, when you order a new MT Propeller, your existing spinner diameter and cowl spacing is required. MT Propeller then fabricates the spinner assembly on your propeller at the factory to match your cowl installation. This propeller assembly is then shipped as a custom fitted bolt on product. Bottom line: Fit the cowl to what you need now, MT will match what you have when you want to change. Regards, Jim Ayers Less Drag Products, Inc. - An MT Propeller distributor FAA Propeller Repair Station # LDSR535X In a message dated 12/07/2005 10:05:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net writes: --> RV7-List message posted by: BTomm Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: changing props
Date: Dec 07, 2005
You can always shim the engine mount away from the firewall if it comes to that. Rosie recently did that after 2000+ hours -- switched from a Sensenich fixed-pitch to a Hartzell constant-speed prop. The spinner back edge contacted the cowl. He was gonna have to modify the cowling a bit (build up on the inside and then chop/sand off the outside to increase clearance) when somebody suggested he just offset the engine mount forward with shims. He did that, bingo...clearance issue resolved. No need to chop & repaint. Not saying this will work in your case, but it's an option to keep in mind. Best case scenario -- find somebody who will lend you their prop for a day so you can fit it and see how much clearance you'll need. Then give it back and fly with a mondo gap in there until you buy the real deal. Ugh. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (715 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "BTomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> Subject: RV7-List: changing props > > Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially > fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later > upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make > for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in > this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody > know? > > Bevan > RV7A Fuse > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: changing props (why?)
>" I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch Sensenich prop and spinner and >later upgrade to an MT?" Once you have the Sensenich on your plane, flying, going real fast and having fun, I know you will be hard justify a $8060 (two blade) or $9390 (three blade) MT prop, plus the $1150 for prop governor and misc. parts. I know MT enthusiast will tell you how smoother they are, no doubt, and if that is your only criteria and want a constant speed prop, than the MT may be the way to go, but you will go slower. A fixed pitch Sensenich is faster. If I where in the market for constant speed prop I would put a Hartzell Blended Airfoil PROP C2YR-1BF/F7496. The Hartzell IS about 8 mph faster at 8000 ft. Despite claims this speed gap is closer at altitudes just does not stand-up. The Hartzell will be faster (more efficient) at all altitudes. Van's Aircraft did a test of the MT against the Hartzell (both the F7666 and new Blended AF F7496). The blended airfoil was 8 mph faster. This was a controlled test at 8000ft, 2500rpm, WOT, published in the RVator about a year and 1/2 ago. The Sensenich was only 1 mph slower than the Hartzell C2YK/F7666. So you can expect to be about 7 mph faster than the MT. MT dealer Jim at Less Drag did a flight test of 4 props (Hartzell 2-blade metal, MT-12 (3-blade) composite, MT-15 (2-blade) metal and (2-blade) composite. Jim tested these props at 5 altitudes and 4 RPMs (2300, 2400, 2500 and 2700). This was an ambitious effort and in no way a put down, however I have major disagreement with this data which Jim presents on his web site. http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html Now here is some of Jim's data plotted either by prop model or by altitude. http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg Jim runs "Less Drag" and is a MT prop dealer and says MT prop's gets more efficient at altitude, well that is true, but ALL props tend to get more efficient with altitude (with in the normal range we fly at). A Hartzell, also gets more efficient with altitude. In fact lets say the Hartzell is approx 0.80 efficient at 8000ft, than at 12,500ft it's efficiency is .832. This is just a function of air density, true airspeed changes, which effects all props. Prop efficiency if affected by RPM, airspeed and air density. You are going slower at 12,500 because .....you are making less HP overall. It's a piston engine thing. Also air density is less. So efficiency goes up a little because of these factors, less power, less airspeed and less air density. (BTW the .80 and .822 efficiency for the Hartzell is not a guess, it is derived from actual data from Hartzell, for the C2YK/F7666-2 data and RV-7 aero data.) Also Jim claims that at higher RPM speed will drop off. Well efficiency for all props tends to drop with higher RPM at cruise. (Efficiency may increase with RPM at slow air speeds, such as in a climb.) It's possible speed could drop, but its very much unlikely from my experience and the actual Hartzell prop data. When you increase engine 100 RPM power will increase about 2-5 HP. More HP means more thrust and thus more speed. However it's true that ANY prop's efficiency falls off a little with increased RPM (in cruise). In our case, even at 12,500' a 200 RPM increase will increase speed about 1%. HP alone results in a speed increase of 1.45%, however prop efficiency drops about say 1/2%. So the net gain is small, about 1%. Speed increases despite the props reduced efficiency, because HP overrides the efficiency loss. At worst speed will remain almost the same. These effects apply to ALL props. Why is the MT slower. One is blade thickness. Since the blades are near supersonic speeds (mach .70-.90) thicker blades are less efficient. Wood core composite blades are thicker than metal blades. Second is number of blades. The only reason to go to more blades is to absorb big HP on high speed planes (P-51, C-130, Turboprops). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller To keep tip speed down, while having the needed prop area for the HP, designers add more blades and reduce the diameter. Diameter is critical to prop tip speed obviously. Designers try to minimize blade numbers for performance as much as possible. In general more blades is less efficient (but look cool). When you see 3, 4 or 6 blades there is a reason, big HP and high speeds. In Jim's plotted data, you can see that there is "scatter" in the data. Also the data at 12,500 ft shows the Hartzell drops 6 mph from 2500 to 2700 RPM!! That is just not correct. First you will make about 5 hp more at going from 2500 to 2700 rpm. More HP means more thrust and thus speed. 5 hp will result in about 1.5% more speed. However more RPM at cruise speed will result in slight reduction of prop efficiency, about 0.5%. So the net result will be a very small increase in speed. NEVER a 6 mph drop. Also I am not sure most people fly 2700 rpm in cruise, except to race. I am into racing and believe me, I run full high RPM. The fastest RV, Dave Anders 250 mph RV-4 was turning 2900 rpm, on his Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Some of Jim's results are invalid, no offense to Jim. Some data looks OK. Due to the difficulty in doing flight test on different days and conditions, measuring small speed changes consistently is hard to do. To Jim's credit he took over 100 data points. He tried a wide range of conditions (altitude, RPMs) and several props. However unfortunately inspection of the data plotted shows trend lines crossing, large deviations, reversial of curve slopes (several time) and no consistency between altitudes or RPMs. It just does not compare favorably with the predicted theoretical data and experience of others, at lest for the Hartzell. Van only had to do one altitude (8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is representative of normal flight conditions. Also other builders have observed the same performance loss when switching from a Hartzell to MT. He also had the advantage of running two RV-8's side by side as a cross check. In the future it would be good to just pick the "standard" 8000 density altitude, at 2500 rpm and WOT (wide open throttle). Speed should be calculated with GPS ground speed and using constant TRACKS about 120 degrees apart. (A spread sheet on http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/ can reduce the data for no wind ground speed.) I am not anti-MT just anti-inaccurate data. I think builders should have the accurate data to use. Jim's data does not test the Hartzell blended airfoil which is 3.5 mph faster than the Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Jim does show at 2,500 feet, compared to the MTV-12, the C2YK/F7666 design is 6mph faster at 2300 rpm and 4 mph faster at 2700 rpm. That is fine, but some how he got a total reversal at 12,500 feet, where the MTV-12 is now 6 mph faster at 2700 and 4 mph faster at 2300. This represents a total change of 10 mph? What changed? Air density, engine HP and airspeed (TAS). Please that makes no sense and a 6% change? You measure change in porp's in fractions of a present. 6% is crazy change, plus at the intermediate altitudes Jim tested (5,000 / 7,500 / 10,000 ft) the trends flop back and forth. My only point is if you use a MT for smoothness be happy with that, than fine, but the speed difference is a real factor and should not be discounted and you should know what to realistically expect, about 8 mph across the board. Speed difference between the HC and MT may be a little less at higher altitudes, but you will not see a speed advantage, ever, with a MTV-12, with all do respect to Jim's data. The Sensenich was only 1 mph slower than the Hartzell (F7666) so you will be about 7 mph than the MT. George PS: You did not mention the engine you have, but with a stock O-360XP there are NO restrictions. On Lycoming, stock or modified with electronic ignition: 1) above 22" manifold pressure below 2350 RPM is limited (not an operational issue); 2) above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff, reduce after T/O (which is normal operation anyway). From: BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 08, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props (why?)
Hi George and All, It amazes me, sometimes, on how much can be said just on an opinion, and a scattering of engine and propeller theory. Let's try taking one single point I had hoped to get across from the empirical data obtained. To quote you: "Van only had to do one altitude (8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is representative of normal flight conditions." Regardless of the propeller, my data shows that 2,500 RPM is NOT the best propeller speed to obtain the best performance from the aircraft. 2,300 RPM was 4 mph slower. However, the aircraft was consuming 2 gph less fuel. What do you really want? 203 mph at 10 gph? Or 199 mph at 8 gph? To put this into perspective, after flying for 3 hours at 199 mph, you will have flown 12 miles less distance with 6 gallons of additional fuel on board. 2,500 RPM is an engine thing, not an aircraft system thing. Best Regards, Jim Ayers PS I can hardly wait for your response. :-) In a message dated 12/08/2005 8:25:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: >" I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch Sensenich prop and spinner and >later upgrade to an MT?" Once you have the Sensenich on your plane, flying, going real fast and having fun, I know you will be hard justify a $8060 (two blade) or $9390 (three blade) MT prop, plus the $1150 for prop governor and misc. parts. I know MT enthusiast will tell you how smoother they are, no doubt, and if that is your only criteria and want a constant speed prop, than the MT may be the way to go, but you will go slower. A fixed pitch Sensenich is faster. If I where in the market for constant speed prop I would put a Hartzell Blended Airfoil PROP C2YR-1BF/F7496. The Hartzell IS about 8 mph faste r at 8000 ft. Despite claims this speed gap is closer at altitudes just does not stand-up. The Hartzell will be faster (more efficient) at all altitudes. Van's Aircraft did a test of the MT against the Hartzell (both the F7666 and new Blended AF F7496). The blended airfoil was 8 mph faster. This was a controlled test at 8000ft, 2500rpm, WOT, published in the RVator about a year and 1/2 ago. The Sensenich was only 1 mph slower than the Hartzell C2YK/F7666. So you can expect to be about 7 mph faster than the MT. MT dealer Jim at Less Drag did a flight test of 4 props (Hartzell 2-blade metal, MT-12 (3-blade) composite, MT-15 (2-blade) metal and (2-blade) composite. Jim tested these props at 5 altitudes and 4 RPMs (2300, 2400, 2500 and 2700). This was an ambitious effort and in no way a put down, however I have major disagreement with this data which Jim presents on his web site. _http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html_ (http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html) Now here is some of Jim's data plotted either by prop model or by altitude. _http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg_ (http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg) Jim runs "Less Drag" and is a MT prop dealer and says MT prop's gets more efficient at altitude, well that is true, but ALL props tend to get more efficient with altitude (with in the normal range we fly at). A Hartzell, also gets more efficient with altitude. In fact lets say the Hartzell is approx 0.80 efficient at 8000ft, than at 12,500ft it's efficiency is .832. This is just a function of air density, true airspeed changes, which effects all props. Pr op efficiency if affected by RPM, airspeed and air density. You are going slower at 12,500 because .....you are making less HP overall. It's a piston engine thing. Also air density is less. So efficiency goes up a little because of these factors, less power, less airspeed and less air density. (BTW the .80 and .822 efficiency for the Hartzell is not a guess, it is derived from actual data from Hartzell, for the C2YK/F7666-2 data and RV-7 aero data.) Also Jim claims that at higher RPM speed will drop off. Well efficiency for all props tends to drop with higher RPM at cruise. (Efficiency may increase with RPM at slow air speeds, such as in a climb.) It's possible speed could drop, but its very much unlikely from my experience and the actual Hartzell prop data. When you increase engine 100 RPM power will increase about 2-5 HP. More HP means more thrust and thus more speed. However it's true that ANY prop's efficiency falls off a little with increased RPM (in cruise). In our case, even at 12,500' a 200 RPM increase will increase speed about 1%. HP alone results in a speed increase of 1.45%, however prop efficiency drops about say 1/2%. So the net gain is small, about 1%. Speed increases despite the props reduced efficiency, because HP overrides the efficiency loss. At worst speed will remain almost the same. These effects apply to ALL props. Why is the MT slower. One is blade thickness. Since the blades are near supersonic speeds (mach .70-.90) thicker blades are less efficient. Wood core composite blades are thicker than metal blades. Second is number of blades. The only reason to go to more blades is to absorb big HP on high speed planes (P-51, C-130, Turboprops). < DIV>_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller) To keep tip speed down, while having the needed prop area for the HP, designers add more blades and reduce the diameter. Diameter is critical to prop tip speed obviously. Designers try to minimize blade numbers for performance as much as possible. In general more blades is less efficient (but look cool). When you see 3, 4 or 6 blades there is a reason, big HP and high speeds. In Jim's plotted data, you can see that there is "scatter" in the data. Also the data at 12,500 ft shows the Hartzell drops 6 mph from 2500 to 2700 RPM!! That is just not correct. First you will make about 5 hp more at going from 2500 to 2700 rpm. More HP means more thrust and thus speed. 5 hp will result in about 1.5% more speed. However more RPM at cruise speed will result in slight reduction of prop efficiency, ab out 0.5%. So the net result will be a very small increase in speed. NEVER a 6 mph drop. Also I am not sure most people fly 2700 rpm in cruise, except to race. I am into racing and believe me, I run full high RPM. The fastest RV, Dave Anders 250 mph RV-4 was turning 2900 rpm, on his Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Some of Jim's results are invalid, no offense to Jim. Some data looks OK. Due to the difficulty in doing flight test on different days and conditions, measuring small speed changes consistently is hard to do. To Jim's credit he took over 100 data points. He tried a wide range of conditions (altitude, RPMs) and several props. However unfortunately inspection of the data plotted shows trend lines crossing, large deviations, reversial of curve slopes (several time) and no consistency between altitudes or RPMs. It just does not compare favorably with the predicted theoretical data and experience of oth ers, at lest for the Hartzell. Van only had to do one altitude (8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is representative of normal flight conditions. Also other builders have observed the same performance loss when switching from a Hartzell to MT. He also had the advantage of running two RV-8's side by side as a cross check. In the future it would be good to just pick the "standard" 8000 density altitude, at 2500 rpm and WOT (wide open throttle). Speed should be calculated with GPS ground speed and using constant TRACKS about 120 degrees apart. (A spread sheet on _http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/_ (http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/) can reduce the data for no wind ground speed.) I am not anti-MT just anti-inaccurate data. I think builders should have the accurate data to use. Jim's data does not test the Hartzell blended airfoil which is 3.5 mph faster than the Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Ji m does show at 2,500 feet, compared to the MTV-12, the C2YK/F7666 design is 6mph faster at 2300 rpm and 4 mph faster at 2700 rpm. That is fine, but some how he got a total reversal at 12,500 feet, where the MTV-12 is now 6 mph faster at 2700 and 4 mph faster at 2300. This represents a total change of 10 mph? What changed? Air density, engine HP and airspeed (TAS). Please that makes no sense and a 6% change? You measure change in porp's in fractions of a present. 6% is crazy change, plus at the intermediate altitudes Jim tested (5,000 / 7,500 / 10,000 ft) the trends flop back and forth. My only point is if you use a MT for smoothness be happy with that, than fine, but the speed difference is a real factor and should not be discounted and you should know what to realistically expect, about 8 mph across the board. Speed difference between the HC and MT may be a little less at higher altitudes, but you will not se e a speed advantage, ever, with a MTV-12, with all do respect to Jim's data. The Sensenich was only 1 mph slower than the Hartzell (F7666) so you will be about 7 mph than the MT. George PS: You did not mention the engine you have, but with a stock O-360XP there are NO restrictions. On Lycoming, stock or modified with electronic ignition: 1) above 22" manifold pressure below 2350 RPM is limited (not an operational issue); 2) above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff, reduce after T/O (which is normal operation anyway). -------------------------------- From: BTomm <_fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net_ (http://us.f300.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=fvalarm@rapidnet.net&YY=83194&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b) > --> RV7-List message posted by: BTomm <_fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net_ (http://us.f300.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=fvalarm@rapidnet.net&YY=83194&order=down&sort=da te&pos=0&view=a&head=b) > Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2005
From: Greg Carnforth <greg(at)chesterpools.com>
Subject: changing props (why?)
Whoo-Hoo Here we go! Greg Carnforth, Louisville RV7 Slow, just about to choose a prop. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (why?) (why MT?)
>" I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch Sensenich prop and spinner and >later upgrade to an MT?" Once you have the Sensenich on your plane, flying, going real fast and having fun, I know it will be hard to justify a $8060 (two blade) or $9390 (three blade) MT prop, plus the $1150 for prop governor and misc. parts. I know MT enthusiast will tell you how smoother they are, no doubt, and if that is your only criteria and want a constant speed prop, than the MT may be the way to go, but you will go slower. A fixed pitch Sensenich will cruise is faster than a MT by 7 mph. If I where in the market for constant speed prop I would put a Hartzell Blended Airfoil PROP C2YR-1BF/F7496. The ($5800) Hartzell IS 8 mph faster at 8000 ft. Despite claims that the MT to Hartzell speed gap is closer than that or less at altitudes, it just doesn't or stand-up. The Hartzell will be faster (more efficient) at all altitudes. Van's Aircraft did a test of the MT against the Hartzell (both the F7666 and new Blended AF F7496). The blended airfoil was 8 mph faster. This was a controlled test at 8000ft, 2500rpm, WOT, published in the RVator about a year and 1/2 ago. The Sensenich was about 7 mph faster than the MT. MT dealer Jim at Less Drag did a flight test of 4 props: Hartzell 2-blade metal, MT-12 (3-blade) composite, MT-15 (2-blade) metal and MT-15 (2-blade) composite. Jim tested these props at 5 altitudes and 4 RPMs (2300, 2400, 2500 and 2700) on one RV, changing props. This was an ambitious effort and in no way a put down, however I have major disagreement with this data which Jim presents on his web site, and find too many discrepancies to be considered reliable or usable. http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html Now here is some of Jim's data plotted either by prop model or by altitude. http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg Jim at "Less Drag" says MT prop's gets more efficient at altitude, well that is true, but ALL props tend to get more efficient with altitude (with in the normal range we fly at). A Hartzell, also gets more efficient with altitude on a RV. This is just a function of air density, true airspeed changes, which effects all props. Prop efficiency if affected by engine power, RPM, airspeed and air density. Your TAS is slower at 12,500 because .....you are making less HP overall. It's a piston non-turbo engine. Also air density is less. So efficiency goes up a little because of these factors, less power, less airspeed and less air density. Even though efficiency goes up speed goes down, because of HP; however the % of HP converted to thrust is higher, thus more prop efficiency. Also Jim claims that at higher RPM speed will drop off. Well efficiency for all props tends to drop with higher RPM at cruise. Prop tips speeds are in the area of +0.80 mach (mach = tip speed / speed of sound). Efficiency may increase with RPM at slow air speeds, such as in a climb. It's possible speed could drop RPM, but its very much unlikely from my experience and the actual Hartzell prop data. When you increase engine 100 RPM power will increase about 2-5 HP. More HP means more thrust and thus more speed. However it's true that ANY prop's efficiency falls off a little with increased RPM (in cruise). In our operations HP will outweigh the loss in prop efficiency. Remember we are talking about speed not best gas mileage or range. Why is the MT slower. One is blade thickness. Since the blades are near supersonic speeds (mach .70-.90) thicker blades are less efficient. Wood core composite blades are thicker than metal blades. Second is number of blades. The only reason to go to more blades is to absorb big HP on high speed planes (P-51, C-130, Turboprops). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller To keep tip speed down, while having the needed prop area for the HP, designers add more blades and reduce the diameter. Diameter is critical to prop tip speed obviously. Designers try to minimize blade numbers for performance as much as possible. In general more blades is less efficient (but look cool). When you see 3, 4 or 6 blades there is a reason, big HP and high speeds. In Jim's plotted data, you can see that there is "scatter" in the data. Also the data at 12,500 ft shows the Hartzell drops 6 mph from 2500 to 2700 RPM!! That is just not correct. First you will make about 5 hp more at going from 2500 to 2700 rpm at 8,000 feet. More HP means more thrust and thus speed. 5 hp will result in about 1.5% more speed. HP overrides the efficiency loss which is about 1/2%. Jim in his data shows a 6 mph drop in speed? That is like speed brakes. This is just not going to happen unless there is an engine problem and the engine drops HP with RPM. May be a 100-200 RPM will produce negligible speed increase but NEVER a 6 mph drop, may be no net change but not a drop, much less 6 mph. Also I am not sure most people fly 2700 rpm in cruise, except to race. I am into racing and believe me, I run full high RPM. The fastest RV, Dave Anders 250 mph RV-4 was turning 2900 rpm, on his Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Reno formula racers with O200 continentals, turn into the high 3000's. Some of Jim's results are invalid, no offense to Jim. Some data looks OK. Due to the difficulty in doing flight test on different days and conditions, measuring small speed changes consistently is hard to do. To Jim's credit he took over 100 data points. He tried a wide range of conditions (altitude, RPMs) and several props. However unfortunately inspection of the data plotted shows trend lines crossing, large deviations, reversial of curve slopes (several time) and no consistency between altitudes or RPMs. The data is faulty and of no real use, except as a sales tool. It just does not compare favorably with the predicted theoretical data and experience of others, at least for the Hartzell. Van only concentrated on one altitude (8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is representative of more typical normal flight conditions. Also other builders have observed the same performance loss when switching from a Hartzell to MT. Several MT customers who value speed have switched back to Hartzell. http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm Van also had the advantage an engineering degree/background and +35 years of aircraft design, flight test and pilot experience. plus a crew of talented pilots and mechanics. Also running two like RV-8's side-by-side as a cross check was an advantage. In the future it would be good for pilots/builders to just pick one test parameters, the "standard" 8000 density altitude, at 2500 rpm and WOT (wide open throttle) to compare performance. Speed should be calculated with GPS ground speed and using constant TRACKS about 120 degrees apart. (A spread sheet on http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/ can reduce the data for no wind ground speed.) I am not anti-MT just anti-inaccurate data. I think builders should have the accurate data to use. Jim's data is not accurate. Also it does not show the Hartzell blended airfoil which is 8 mph faster than the MT and the Hartzell C2YK/F7666 is 4 MPH faster than the MT. Jim does show at 2,500 feet, compared to the MTV-12, the C2YK/F7666 design is 6mph faster at 2300 rpm and 4 mph faster at 2700 RPM. At 7,500 ft Jim's data shows the MTV-12 tied or 1 MPH slower from 2,300 to 2,700 RPM. That is fine, but some how he got a total reversal at 12,500 feet, where the MTV-12 is now 6 mph faster at 2700 and 4 mph faster at 2300. This represents a total change of 10 mph? What changed? Air density, engine HP and airspeed (TAS). Please that makes no sense a 6% change? You measure change in prop's by fractions of a percent NOT 6%, which is crazy change; plus at the intermediate altitudes Jim tested (5,000 / 7,500 / 10,000 ft) the trends between the C2YK and MTV-12 flop back and forth? Makes no sense and does not match the design data, nor does it match the flight experience of myself or others. My only point is if you use a MT for smoothness be happy with that, than fine, but the speed difference is a real factor and should not be discounted and you should know what to realistically expect, about 8 mph across the board. Speed difference between the HC and MT may be a little less at higher altitudes, but you will not see a speed advantage, ever, with a MTV-12, with all do respect to Jim's data. The Sensenich will be about 7 mph than the MT and cost $8,000 less!. The Hartzell is of course is over $2,000 cheaper and American made and supported. No matter how you wish it you can't have it all. Yes the MT is smoother, great, but it comes at a cost, performance. As long as MT uses wood core composite blades and chooses to market large diameter 3-bladed props to RV'ers they will suffer less performance. The MT is great on a Pitt special where weight is more important and cruise performance is not. "Total Performance" is the mission RV planes are designed to. Don't get me wrong the German's are good engineers and the workmanship is fine, just in my opinion the Hartzell or Sensenich is a better value and fit on the RV's. Both Sensenich and Hartzell have invested much effort in making products tailored to the RV's, designed and tested on RV's. Both companies in development of their props have tested them on RV's. Hartzell even tested their props with different engines (Lycoming, Superior, both stock, modified and FADEC). Just make an informed choice. George PS: You did not mention the engine you have, but with a stock O-360XP there are NO restrictions. On Lycoming, stock or modified with electronic ignition: 1) above 22" manifold pressure below 2350 RPM is limited (not an operational issue); 2) above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff, reduce after T/O (which is normal operation anyway). From: BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (why?) (why MT?)
>" I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch Sensenich prop and spinner and >later upgrade to an MT?" Once you have the Sensenich on your plane, flying, going real fast and having fun, I know it will be hard to justify a $8060 (two blade) or $9390 (three blade) MT prop, plus the $1150 for prop governor and misc. parts. I know MT enthusiast will tell you how smoother they are, no doubt, and if that is your only criteria and want a constant speed prop, than the MT may be the way to go, but you will go slower. A fixed pitch Sensenich will cruise is faster than a MT by 7 mph. If I where in the market for constant speed prop I would put a Hartzell Blended Airfoil PROP C2YR-1BF/F7496. The Hartzell IS 8 mph faster at 8000 ft. Despite claims that the MT to Hartzell speed gap is closer than that or less at altitudes, it just doesn't or stand-up. The Hartzell will be faster (more efficient) at all altitudes. Van's Aircraft did a test of the MT against the Hartzell (both the F7666 and new Blended AF F7496). The blended airfoil was 8 mph faster. This was a controlled test at 8000ft, 2500rpm, WOT, published in the RVator about a year and 1/2 ago. The Sensenich was about 7 mph faster than the MT. MT dealer Jim at Less Drag did a flight test of 4 props: Hartzell 2-blade metal, MT-12 (3-blade) composite, MT-15 (2-blade) metal and MT-15 (2-blade) composite. Jim tested these props at 5 altitudes and 4 RPMs (2300, 2400, 2500 and 2700) on one RV, changing props. This was an ambitious effort and in no way a put down, however I have major disagreement with this data which Jim presents on his web site, and find too many discrepancies to be considered reliable or usable. http://www.lessdrag.com/lycomingpropeller.html Now here is some of Jim's data plotted either by prop model or by altitude. http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg Jim at "Less Drag" says MT prop's gets more efficient at altitude, well that is true, but ALL props tend to get more efficient with altitude (with in the normal range we fly at). A Hartzell, also gets more efficient with altitude on a RV. This is just a function of air density, true airspeed changes, which effects all props. Prop efficiency if affected by engine power, RPM, airspeed and air density. Your TAS is slower at 12,500 because .....you are making less HP overall. It's a piston non-turbo engine. Also air density is less. So efficiency goes up a little because of these factors, less power, less airspeed and less air density. Even though efficiency goes up speed goes down, because of HP; however the % of HP converted to thrust is higher, thus more prop efficiency. Also Jim claims that at higher RPM speed will drop off. Well efficiency for all props tends to drop with higher RPM at cruise. Prop tips speeds are in the area of +0.80 mach (mach = tip speed / speed of sound). Efficiency may increase with RPM at slow air speeds, such as in a climb. It's possible speed could drop RPM, but its very much unlikely from my experience and the actual Hartzell prop data. When you increase engine 100 RPM power will increase about 2-5 HP. More HP means more thrust and thus more speed. However it's true that ANY prop's efficiency falls off a little with increased RPM (in cruise). In our operations HP will outweigh the loss in prop efficiency. Remember we are talking about speed not best gas mileage or range. Why is the MT slower. One is blade thickness. Since the blades are near supersonic speeds (mach .70-.90) thicker blades are less efficient. Wood core composite blades are thicker than metal blades. Second is number of blades. The only reason to go to more blades is to absorb big HP on high speed planes (P-51, C-130, Turboprops). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller To keep tip speed down, while having the needed prop area for the HP, designers add more blades and reduce the diameter. Diameter is critical to prop tip speed obviously. Designers try to minimize blade numbers for performance as much as possible. In general more blades is less efficient (but look cool). When you see 3, 4 or 6 blades there is a reason, big HP and high speeds. In Jim's plotted data, you can see that there is "scatter" in the data. Also the data at 12,500 ft shows the Hartzell drops 6 mph from 2500 to 2700 RPM!! That is just not correct. First you will make about 5 hp more at going from 2500 to 2700 rpm at 8,000 feet. More HP means more thrust and thus speed. 5 hp will result in about 1.5% more speed. HP overrides the efficiency loss which is about 1/2%. Jim in his data shows a 6 mph drop in speed? That is like speed brakes. This is just not going to happen unless there is an engine problem and the engine drops HP with RPM. May be a 100-200 RPM will produce negligible speed increase but NEVER a 6 mph drop, may be no net change but not a drop, much less 6 mph. Also I am not sure most people fly 2700 rpm in cruise, except to race. I am into racing and believe me, I run full high RPM. The fastest RV, Dave Anders 250 mph RV-4 was turning 2900 rpm, on his Hartzell C2YK/F7666. Reno formula racers with O200 continentals, turn into the high 3000's. Some of Jim's results are invalid, no offense to Jim. Some data looks OK. Due to the difficulty in doing flight test on different days and conditions, measuring small speed changes consistently is hard to do. To Jim's credit he took over 100 data points. He tried a wide range of conditions (altitude, RPMs) and several props. However unfortunately inspection of the data plotted shows trend lines crossing, large deviations, reversial of curve slopes (several time) and no consistency between altitudes or RPMs. The data is faulty and of no real use, except as a sales tool. It just does not compare favorably with the predicted theoretical data and experience of others, at least for the Hartzell. Van only concentrated on one altitude (8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is representative of more typical normal flight conditions. Also other builders have observed the same performance loss when switching from a Hartzell to MT. Several MT customers who value speed have switched back to Hartzell. http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm Van also had the advantage an engineering degree/background and +35 years of aircraft design, flight test and pilot experience. plus a crew of talented pilots and mechanics. Also running two like RV-8's side-by-side as a cross check was an advantage. In the future it would be good for pilots/builders to just pick one test parameters, the "standard" 8000 density altitude, at 2500 rpm and WOT (wide open throttle) to compare performance. Speed should be calculated with GPS ground speed and using constant TRACKS about 120 degrees apart. (A spread sheet on http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/ can reduce the data for no wind ground speed.) I am not anti-MT just anti-inaccurate data. I think builders should have the accurate data to use. Jim's data is not accurate. Also it does not show the Hartzell blended airfoil which is 8 mph faster than the MT and the Hartzell C2YK/F7666 is 4 MPH faster than the MT. Jim does show at 2,500 feet, compared to the MTV-12, the C2YK/F7666 design is 6mph faster at 2300 rpm and 4 mph faster at 2700 RPM. At 7,500 ft Jim's data shows the MTV-12 tied or 1 MPH slower from 2,300 to 2,700 RPM. That is fine, but some how he got a total reversal at 12,500 feet, where the MTV-12 is now 6 mph faster at 2700 and 4 mph faster at 2300. This represents a total change of 10 mph? What changed? Air density, engine HP and airspeed (TAS). Please that makes no sense a 6% change? You measure change in prop's by fractions of a percent NOT 6%, which is crazy change; plus at the intermediate altitudes Jim tested (5,000 / 7,500 / 10,000 ft) the trends between the C2YK and MTV-12 flop back and forth? Makes no sense and does not match the design data, nor does it match the flight experience of myself or others. My only point is if you use a MT for smoothness be happy with that, than fine, but the speed difference is a real factor and should not be discounted and you should know what to realistically expect, about 8 mph across the board. Speed difference between the HC and MT may be a little less at higher altitudes, but you will not see a speed advantage, ever, with a MTV-12, with all do respect to Jim's data. The Sensenich will be about 7 mph than the MT and cost $8,000 less!. The Hartzell is of course is over $2,000 cheaper and American made and supported. No matter how you wish it you can't have it all. Yes the MT is smoother, great, but it comes at a cost, performance. As long as MT uses wood core composite blades and chooses to market large diameter 3-bladed props to RV'ers they will suffer less performance. The MT is great on a Pitt special where weight is more important and cruise performance is not. "Total Performance" is the mission RV planes are designed to. Don't get me wrong the German's are good engineers and the workmanship is fine, just in my opinion the Hartzell or Sensenich is a better value and fit on the RV's. Both Sensenich and Hartzell have invested much effort in making products tailored to the RV's, designed and tested on RV's. Both companies in development of their props have tested them on RV's. Hartzell even tested their props with different engines (Lycoming, Superior, both stock, modified and FADEC). Just make an informed choice. George PS: You did not mention the engine you have, but with a stock O-360XP there are NO restrictions. On Lycoming, stock or modified with electronic ignition: 1) above 22" manifold pressure below 2350 RPM is limited (not an operational issue); 2) above 2600 RPM is limited to takeoff, reduce after T/O (which is normal operation anyway). From: BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> Can anyone tell me if there are cowling (or other ) issues if I initially fit my RV7 cowling for a fixed pitch sensenich prop and spinner and later upgrade to an MT? I suspect that the spinner and backing plate will make for a difference in spacing from the cowling. I would want to build in this difference so I don't have to modify the cowling later. Anybody know? Bevan RV7A Fuse --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2005
Subject: [ Scott Lewis ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: Scott Lewis Lists: RV-List,RV3-List,RV4-List,RV6-List,RV7-List,RV8-List,RV9-List,RV10-List,Rocket-List Subject: PiRep - Deluxe Fuel Caps http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/rv10@tpg.com.au.12.10.2005/index.html o Main Photo Share Index http://www.matronics.com/photoshare o Submitting a Photo Share If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the following information along with your email message and files: 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to: 2) Your Full Name: 3) Your Email Address: 4) One line Subject description: 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic: 6) One-line Description of each photo or file: Email the information above and your files and photos to: pictures(at)matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
>From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com >Date: Dec 08, 2005 >Subject: Re: changing props (why?) >Hi George and All, > >It amazes me, sometimes, on how much can be said >just on an opinion, and a scattering of engine and >propeller theory. First of all Jim it is not opinion it is facts. Second for someone who calculates the drag of one bent whip COM antenna having 30% of the drag of the whole wing needs to be careful whom you say that to. By the way one COM antenna is worth less then 1/2% of the aircraft total drag at 200 mph or about 0.48 mph or 1.25 hp. You just happen to sell a cap for a vertical stabilizer antenna? No thanks I don't want to add 1.5lb of coax to add an antenna that only works in the pattern. I am not criticizing you for trying to make aerodynamic calculations Jim, but engineering is more than just getting an equation and plugging in numbers. You have to understand what you are doing. When you came up with 3 comm. antennas equaled the drag of the WHOLE WING! You should have known something was a miss. Just like the prop data you have on our site. Just coming up with numbers is not the solution; they have to be right and checked. I can tell you with out a doubt your data is way off and not correct. Although I don't work as an aerospace engineer anymore as an airline pilot, I can tell you my opinion is more than "scattering of engine and propeller theory", which I take offense to. I am not trying to sell anything. I am trying to help you. I will be blunt; your data on your web site is incorrect and miss leading. Also when you are told this you make wild claims or impugn the person pointing it out to you. You seem to imply you have some understanding of engineering and aerodynamics, which is clear you do not. I think you try but you don't have the education to apply the math, OK. However like your antenna drag calculations, your prop data seems to have something to do with what you are selling? There is a pattern here. As far as a scattering of engine and propeller theory Jimmy, I have 1000 hrs in RV's. I have raced my old 150HP RV-6 successfully against 160 and a few 180 hp RVs, and believe me when racing I turn my Hartzell +2700 RPM. Also in +10,000 flight hours I have at least another 2000 in props. If you don't know what J, Ct, Cp means and what units they are calculated in, we are at different levels of understanding. Sorry just being honest. J= advance factor and is Airspeed / RPM * Prop diameter Ct = coefficient of thrust = Thrust / (air-density * rpm 2 * dia 4 ) Cp= coefficient of power = Power (watts) / (air-density * rpm 3 * dia 5 ) If you know J and Cp you can find Ct, efficiency with proper theoretical data. I have the data for the Hartzell and can confirm your results don't fit the data or my personal experience or flt data from 3 other sources. It amazes me your data on your web site is invalid but you keep pointing to it with authority. No offense, your data is not correct and does not fit the (empirical) results of others, including Van's aircraft. I know Van's aircraft data has more validity. Sorry :-) Also your data does not match the theoretical either. In fact like your other "calculations" the prop data is several orders of magnitude off. You sell MT props, so does Van and he has compared prop performance and it is very different from your results. Van's is much more meticulous and honest with his data than anyone in the kit plane industry. Look let me simplify if for you. You are trying to draw a favorable comparison of MT props, the MTV-12 and MTV-15 to a Hartzell. THAT was the reason of your data, was it not? That's cool. You want to say your products are great! Also the metal MTV-15 data is also not correct. Lets just look at the MTV-12 vs. the Hartzell. You are also a proponent of this theory or assertion that the MTV-12 prop, although much slower at lower altitudes, any RPM's, some how by magic gets real fast at higher altitudes. The MTV-12 gets so good in fact, it defies the laws of aerodynamics, such as going 6 mph faster with 40 HP less power. Your data also shows the Hartzell just stops flying at 12,500 feet. That is absurd. Actual numbers (data from the manufacture) show the Hartzell gains efficiency with altitude. In fact it LOVES altitude. As far as higher RPM, going from 2500-2700 rpm results in a loss of 1 percent prop efficiency (about 1/2% per 100 rpm). ALL PROPS AT CRUISE SPEED ARE slightly LESS EFFICENT WITH HIGHER RPM, INCLUDING ANY MT PROP MODEL. However higher RPM means more engine power. In this case 200 RPMs at 12,500 ft is 5 hp more. 5 HP will give 1 to 1.5 mph faster speed, even with the 1% efficiency loss. Again all props loose efficiency with RPM at cruise. You will NOT slow down 6 mph like your data shows. What ever you did you did it wrong. The data does not FIT real world predictions and known performance. I know, I raced my RV-4 and ran at 2,700 RPM the whole time. The F7666 loves speed and is certified to 2900 RPM!. In fact the fastest RV, Dave Anders 250MPH RV-4 turns 2900rpm. Now some how the MTV-12 gains SPEED with altitude? You should loose about 10% cruise speed (TAS) with a 10,000 ft change from 2,500 to 12,500 feet, but instead you claim you went 5 mph faster, from 186 to 191 mph, a 2.5% increase. NO WAY. The above will never happen unless you have a turbo-charger. You cannot maintain HP as you climb? Did you measure TAS or ground speed? Again engineering data must pass a test, a test that it is reasonable and repeatable. Your data is a little suspect. Yes airframe drag is less and prop efficiency goes up a little with altitude (lower air density). The down side (and a big one) is less HP. Less HP, means less speed which reduces prop tip speed, but than the speed of sound goes down with altitude. The prop performance is somewhat a wash. Bottom line is you will see a steady loss of speed with altitude until you don't have enough thrust to maintain airspeed and will stall. Engine power is key not the prop. >Let's try taking one single point I had hoped to >get across from the empirical data obtained. Look Jim let me be honest with you and not waste your time and mine, I get that fact that reduced RPM means more miles per gallon. No kidding, this is true for all pistons / props, but it has more to do with the airframe and engine. In fact my one point is the prop is a very small factor. Lower RPM means less HP, less fuel burn and the airframe closer to its best range speed. (Sorry I am using a scattering of engineering theory; I know you don't want to be encumbered with facts, so substitute your reality) Prop efficiency DOES change with air speed, rpm, and altitude, but it's effect on airspeed for a given altitude is small. You data shows incredible (impossible) increase in speed at 12,500 and other wide aberrations is the data. To be blunt your data is useless and at best dubious. A prop that is faster than another at 2,500 and 7,500 feet will not be slower at 12,500. Engine HP or airframe drag dominates. In your "test" you used the same airframe and engine. How do you explain your data? Also if you want to be gas efficient you would fly at best L/D, but no one does that because people want to go fast. The MT is just slower. PERIOD. Slower at all altitudes and claiming the Hartzell goes into "speed brake" mode is just plan silly. OK, the MT is smoother. That is great but don't mitigate the speed penalty with bogus data. The altitude and power you choose for max ECON depends on leg length, winds, gross weight, and temperature. Assuming winds and long leg length, in a RV 8,000 ft is the base line (+/-500ft) is a good starting point. However higher altitudes from 12,500 ft to 15,000 ft will provide best miles per gal (no wind, long leg, lighter weight)? What RPM? Well in general as slow as you can turn it with WOT, typically 2300-2400 RPM works. The downside of high altitude is the need for supp O2.Also your average speed will be less. There fore the getting out of town going somewhere makes 75% power at 8000ft a good base line in most piston planes (high perf, piston). Flying higher really just reduces HP with the lower air density while allowing wide- open throttle. However with big head winds flying 1000 ft AGL at wide open may be the best way to go, but the above assumes, standard atmosphere, no wind. Jim, MT's have FAT (thick) blades and three blades on some models are one too many for best efficiency (you know that right?). For other reasons the wood blades and 3 -blades have advantages but speed is not one of them. Their low mass and gyroscopic inertia is great for hard-core aerobatics, like with a Pitts, where top speed or cruise efficiency is important. In my opinion MT markets to the US home-built market as an after though with props they make for other planes. To be fair Hartzells C2YK/F7666 was made for high Perf retracts like the Mooney and Comanche. However Hartzell and Sensenich makes props specifically for the experimental market and specifically for RV's, like the Hartzell Blended air foil and the Sensenich Fixed pitch prop, which also outperforms the MT. Sorry this is FACT not opinion. Unless MT starts to make props just for the RV's they will never make more then a small dent in the market. On Pitts Special the MT is a great prop, where top speed is not an issue and would not hesitate to buy one for a Pitts special. On a "fast" RV it is not as desirable (and that is an opinion), and you are not going to convince me at some low RPM or high altitude the MT becomes hyper-efficient beyond all belief. In fact I estimate to make your data work the MT would be theoretically be 99% efficient. This is a miracle. I hope it's true because I will sell my house, cars, and plane, empty my 401K's and buy MT prop stock. Unfortunately it is just wishful thinking. It does not matter what conclusion you think your data shows. There is no way the MTV-12 matches the speed of a Hartzell at 7,500' and 2500 RPM, on the same 180HP RV-6. The data is clear from Van and others the Hartzell's are 5-8 mph faster than the MTV-12. How do you think your data is more valid than Van's aircraft flight test? Van sells MT props as well as Hartzell. He has no agenda but engineering data. I do value Van's flight test data more than yours, I am sorry just being honest. REF: Van's Aircraft: RVator 1st issue 2004 page 5 HC-C2YR-1BF/F7496; 208.9 MPH HC-C2YK/F7666A-4; 205.4 mph MT MTV12B/183-59; 200.7 mph (WOT, 2,500 RPM, 8,000 feet, RV-8 with 180HP) "Over the 8 runs, the AC averaged 4.4 kts faster than the MT." http://www.lazy8.net/proptest.htm Even Randy Lervold verified and collaborated with Van's Aircraft. A third source that confirms your 7,500 ft data is not correct. LETS FORGET 2,500 feet and 7,500 RPM. Your data at 7,500 is off by 5-8 mph, compared to other data (Van's, Randy's and my data). Here is YOUR mystery data? You seem to think there is some magic that at low RPM or higher altitudes the affect makes the MT oh so much better than a Hartzell. All props are affected in similar ways by RPM and altitude. The Hartzell gets VERY efficient with altitude and lower RPM. In fact from actual analytical models from Hartzell the HC2YK/F7666 is seeing efficiency of about 0.83! That is approaching about as good as you can get, BUT get this, the NEW Blended is even better. WHY? Because it was engineered specifically for the RV's with 180-200HP engines. Look at your data for 2,500 feet and 12,500. Look at the 2300-RPM data for the HC and MT. What you see there is IMPOSSIBLE. You show the Hartzell going 7 mph faster at 2,500 feet than the MTV-12, but at the same 2300 RPM, at 12,500 feet, the MTV-12 is going 4 MPH faster, for a total 11 MPH change! JIM, that is impossible. That represents a 6% change in speed difference? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? If it where true it would be FANTATASTIC. Sadly it is not true, wish it was, I'd buy a MT prop tomorrow. No doubt that is the intent of your data, to sell props, but be honest. Don't misrepresent the data. SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! WOW. I don't give a gosh darn how great you think the MT prop is, this will never happen. Not only that you show the Hartzell is like going in reverse. I know that is not true and from both my flight test, which match the actual analytical data, going form 2500rpm to 2700 rpm will produce may be 1 mph increase. 4 mph faster on 40 HP less. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT to YOU JIM? If it is true I will buy 20 MT props. It is so wrong it is hard to believe you did not notice and still you post the data on your site. You are doing yourself, MT and your customers a disservice. Ask the MT engineers if a MTV-12 will go 4 mph faster at 12,500 on 40 HP less. AIRSPEED WILL DECREASE WITH ALTITUDE ON A RV -6 WITH A NORMALLY ASPERATED ENGINE! Fact. Yes airframe drag does down and prop efficiency goes up (a little), but the HP is the big factor, not the props. AIRSPEED WILL INCREASE WITH RPM INCREASE. In general: more RPM = more HP = more Thrust = more speed. Despite less efficiency with higher RPM again HP makes the plane go (thrust). HP will in general overcome prop efficiency loss. Jim you got to look at your data and realize it is not correct by now. I don't know how you did it, when, where, why you went wrong, but the results are not cutting the REASONABLE or SANITY checks. I suggest you take the data off your web site, but that is your business. I don't think it is doing you or MT any good creditability wise. I have pointed out just a few discrepancies, there are many more inconsistencies. Just look at a few of the plots. Lines never cross like this for the same prop, and the trends between props don't flop back and forth by altitude and RPM. http://img203.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jimspropdata2qe.jpg *1st chart: HC-Bogus, especially 2700 rpm is bogus *2nd chart: MT-2300 rpm some how "magic" happens *2,500 ft: between 2500-2700 rpm "the wall" (impossible) *7,500 ft: Vans data HC 4.7mph faster than MT at 2500rpm *12,500 ft: HC takes a 6mph dump, from 2500-2700rpm (Should result in about 1 mph gain not a 6 mph loss) I have the actual data for the Hartzell HC-C2YK/F7666 produced by Hartzell (no I don't work for them). The Hartzell LOVES 12,500 feet and 2300 RPM. IN fact the prop efficiency goes up about 3% from sea level. Why, well because you are going slower (TAS) and thus have slower tip speeds. Even though prop efficiency is better you are still going slower because the engine is making less power. It does not matter as much how efficient the prop is if the engine is making a lot less power. So for your MTV-12 to gain and pass the Hartzell speed by a total delta (difference) of 11 mph, also considering the Hartzell is 3% more efficient (from actual data), means the MT is gaining getting more efficient. The MTV-12 would have to produce a 19% gain in efficiency!!!!! Basically 110% efficiency. Did I say that is impossible yet. Well it is impossible. Most props are lucky to be 80% efficient. The Hartzell is in the ballpark of 0.75 to 0.85 in typical range of RV-6 flight conditions. BTW the .83 is fantastic and happens to be the Hartzells efficiency at 12,500ft and 2,500 rpm. The Hartzell is good but the new Blended airfoil Hartzell is even better and designed specifically for the RV series of aircraft. Efficiency is even better Please ask MT engineering if that is possible. Props LIVE in a narrow band or efficiency from .75% to about .85%, mostly around 0.80 +/- 2.5%, and that is if you are lucky and have a good prop. For a prop to do what your data says means a 19% efficiency gain. It's not possible. I know you want to say to customers the MT props are not slower or have some advantage high-up but that is not correct. They may have less of a speed disadvantage, but not an advantage. Your data has this strange increase in at 12,500 ft for the MT and this huge loss for the Hartzell? Makes no sense if they props where bolted to the same airplane and flown in the same conditions. The reason the Hratzell wins is the thin metal blades and it's designed for high-speed flight. Analytically prop data is easy to compare. You can calculate efficiency for a given J, Cp. J and Cp are functions of airspeed, air density, RPM, prop diameter and engine power. Do you have the MT prop performance data for Ct, Blade angle and efficiency for given J's and Cp's? I have it for the Hartzell. >To quote you: "Van only had to do one altitude >(8000) and one RPM (2,500), which is >representative of normal flight conditions." > >Regardless of the propeller, my data shows that >2,500 RPM is NOT the best propeller speed to >obtain the best performance from the aircraft. No one said 2500 RPM it was BEST. It is just a STANDARD Jim. A standard we all can use to compare, not a BEST of any kind. Why 8000 feet. Well it is the typical altitude that you can fly WOT and make 75% power or less. Why is 75% a good thing? Because you can lean at 75% pwr. Why is WOT good, because there are less pumping losses in the engine (easier for the engine to suck air past an open throttle vs. partially closed throttle.) Why not higher? Leaning becomes CRITICAL and no doubt one reason your data is off at 10,000 and 12,500 feet. Every time you make a power (RPM) change above 8000 ft you need to re-lean for best power. Why 2500 rpm? No reason it is just the typical high cruise RPM on would choose. It could be 2400 rpm would be fine to. ITS A STANDARD. For most flying, the let's get out of town base-line altitude is 7500-8500 feet, 75% power (which is about 2400 rpm on a O-360). 8000 feet is where you get a good compromise between speed and economy. This is why we use 8000 ft, 2500 rpm, WOT, full rich or lean to best power for a BASE LINE or Bench mark. It has nothing to do with what it best ECON. IT is too difficult to measure 100 data points on different days and hope that it will be accurate. WE SHOULD ALL CONSENTRATE ON THE BENCH MARK. The best benchmark to compare performance is 8,000 feet (density altitude), WOT at 2,500 RPM. It has nothing to do with the props BEST or the airframes BEST or the engines BEST. From the above condition you can draw conclusions. There is no magic change in prop efficiency with altitude or RPM. A fast efficient prop is efficient all the time when comparing props. If the prop was not designed properly you could have a big drop off with RPM but that does not apply to the Hartzell's and I have the data to show it. I know you think there is some magic for the MT prop at 12,500 feet but that is just wishful thinking. The lack of speed (efficiency) at 2,500 or 8,000 ft will not magically disappear at 12,500 feet. Your data has miss led you. Confer with MT engineering and show them the data. If you can get me the MT prop data I can run the numbers for you. >2,300 RPM was 4 mph slower. However, the aircraft >was consuming 2 gph less fuel. What do you really >want? 203 mph at 10 gph? Or 199 mph at 8 gph? >To put this into perspective, after flying for 3 >hours at 199 mph, you will have flown 12 miles >less distance with 6 gallons >of additional fuel on board. I agree with you 100%. I get it. Lower RPM means less fuel burn for a little reduction in speed. It is not the prop it is the airframe drag and engine that goes into the mix. However apples and apples Jim. Efficiency at the "BENCH MARK" is a good indicator of all performance. That is why most flight test pilots use 8000 feet and 2500 rpm. >2,500 RPM is an engine thing, not an aircraft >system thing. Jim I have no idea what you are talking about. Prop tip speed is a one of the critical factors in prop efficiency. Obviously RPM is a big factor in tip speed. Prop analysis is way more complicated because the interrelated factors. Engine power vs. altitude vs. rpm/map is a known. The best L/D and drag characteristic vs. airspeed is known for the airframe. The prop efficiency is known (to engineers) thru models and flight test. Equations or tables are provided to calculate efficiency from the following: RPM, ENGINE POWER, FORWARD AIRCRAFT SPEED, PROP DIAMETER, AIR DENSITY Change one of the above, changes several other things. Since many of these are interrelated and complex. With the Hartzell data I have, it takes me 12 interpolations of the prop data and three calculations (engine pwr, tip speed and air density) to come up with the prop efficiency for that one point. I would suggest you concentrate on ONE CONDITIION (the "bench mark" one RPM, one altitude) and may be just two props, tested early in the morning on the same day as close to the same time as possible, or in two consecutive days. You would have a direct comparison. From the analytical data (MT should provide you) you can do a sanity check. With the Hartzell data I have I can mathematically predict any condition I want, and adjusted it to the test condition. Can you get the data for the MT? All I need is to calculate air density, engine power, tip speeds, J and Cp. The tables will have efficiency vs. Cp and J. (Coefficient of power and advance factor J). If MT will not give you that, have them predict speed vs. altitude vs. RPM. Give der MT engineers the data for the RV-6, you know top speed at sea level, 7,500' at 75% and 55% power from Van's specifications: http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/rv-6per.htm Also give them this: http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/RV-6A%20Final%20APR.pdf Last give them the % HP from sea level to 12,500 for different RPM's of a Lycoming O-360, 180HP engine. The MT engineers can predict speed vs. altitude vs. RPM. You will see two trends. Speed decreases with altitude; speed should increase with RPM (due to greater HP). Your data shows some odd reversed trends and flip-flops. Does MT apporve you data? Get data from MT and post that and leave the Hartzell data off, it is not true. >Best Regards, >Jim Ayers >PS I can hardly wait for your response. :-) Regards George (please take that incorrect data off your site) --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)AOL.COM
Date: Dec 12, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
Good Evening George, I copied out the section at the bottom of this page for your reference. I show the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller at 2300 RPM & 25" MP at 2,500' going 186 mph tias. I show the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller at 2300 RPM & 18.9" MP at 12,500' going 191 mpg tias. Please check your calculations with this more complete data provide for your benefit. The MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller is an improved model of the MTV-12-B/183-59 propeller. The MTV-12-B/183-59b propeller is a farther improvement over the MTV-12-B/183-59d. I don't believe Van's (or anyone else at that time) had the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller available to test. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/12/2005 10:29:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 13, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
Jim: No disrespect, but I am done. I get what you recorded is what you believe. I know you think it's correct, and I will never convince you. Ask MT engineering to analyze you data and see what they say. That is all I can say, but let me try to make my point one more time, and the -59d or -59b has noting to do with it. It is impossible for any RV to go faster at 12,500 feet than at 2,500 feet. There is NO prop in the world, dash-59b/d or not, that MAKES more thrust than HP available. The only way this could be true is if you had a super charger or turbo charge. I DON'T care what dash number you are talking about NO prop could do this. That is all I can say about that. If going faster on less HP makes snese to you, read nop further. YOUR HARTZELL DATA IS SLANDER As far as Hartzell I can tell you your data does not match the analytical data or the experience of may self or a handful of other pilots. This again has NOTHING to do with -59b/d. The Hartzell data is just wrong. IF THIS HAPPENED the the Hartzell would loose say 14% efficiency!!!!!!!!! You know if that was true, Hartzell would have gone out of business long ago. A "2 by 4" could do better. This is really an insult to the Hartzell and not fair. Hartzells are great props and very efficient, basically the most efficient constant speed props you can get for light planes. Not only do you claim the MT is faster (as well as smoother) the Hartzell is a piece of cr%#p. If that happened I would sue them for my money back, damages and emotional stress. That is quite a sales pitch you got, and if true I would buy a MT. If I accepted your data as fact. Fortunately for Hartzell and their employees their company makes a great prop and from a pure performance, value and low maintenance stand point, they have a great product, which takes nothing away from MT. That is all can say but let me try to illustrate it one more time. *It is impossible for a Hartzell to loose 6 mph with a 200 rpm increase in RPM (at any altitude). Let me make it clear 1) A Hartzell is more efficient at 12,500 than 2,500 feet. 2) A Hartzell looses very little efficiency at higher RPM at high speed and even gains efficiency with higher RPM at low forward speed. 3) A Lycoming HP always goes UP with RPM (if leaned properly)** **At sea level (5 HP / 100 rpm), at 12,500 (2.5 HP / 100 RPM) From experience and analytical data a gain of engine power of 5 HP (minus about .25 HP for loss in prop efficiency) for a net gain of 4.75 HP will increase speed about 1 MPH. There is no argument about this in my mind, your data is wrong. Why did you get the results you did? May be you did not re-lean after every RPM change? May be you just messed up the calculations or made a recording error? Did you install spinners on every prop? What was the weather, vertical gust, turbulence? For the Hartzell to be given 5 more HP and loose enough thrust to slow the airspeed but 6 MPH is more than unlikely. IF ANY prop performs like this, than it is not suited for that airframe. This might happen if the aircraft is going say REAL FAST say MACH 0.60, but at for little planes with TAS less than 250MPH this is not an issue. Remember the faster you go (airplane speed) the faster the PROP-TIP MACH number. Thinner blades have advantage at higher tip speeds. LOOK AT A JET. The wing is thin for a reason. Slow aircraft have fat wings. ITS YOUR BUISNESS BUT........................ If you want to tell your customer's that their MT prop gains MORE speed at 12,500 feet fine. If you want to tell them MT prop will be the same speed or faster than a Hartzell at 7,500 feet and above, go a head, it is not true but go ahead. If the -59b/d has wood core blades and three of them, right off the bat it is at a disadvantage over ANY thin metal blades and props with 2 blades vs. 3. Those are hard facts. Even the -59b/d can not make it's own HP. Going faster on less HP is a great trick I wish was true. All I have to say is "do you want to race". I am not quite flying my current project but I will call you when I am ready. Basically if you have faith in your data, prove it. Challenge some 180HP, RV's with Hartzells. Enter some races like the sun-n-fun or air-venture or copper-state dash. I know what the results will be. I guess we agree to disagree. The old Hartzell, even though designed 30 plus years ago, was made to be efficient at 190-210 MPH, with a 180-250 HP engine and from 0-20,000 feet; in other words well suited for RV's. The blended tweaks this just a little more and is about 1.5% more efficient. That is reaching the limit of prop efficiency. EVEN the Sensenich is faster than the MT at 8,000 feet, 2500 RPM. Props just can't get more efficient than say 0.85. It is just the laws of physics. Most props are close in efficiency, but to claim huge changes in efficiency over the operating envelope is ridiculous. A MT prop way slower at 2,500feet will not BECOME way efficient, nor will the Hartzell BECOME way inefficient with small changes in RPM and altitude. SMALL changes are 200 rpms, 10,000 feet and 40HP. With that said the MT will be smoother and that counts for something. The MT on the other hand is made for either slower speeds or higher HP (with the much greater blade area). If you can get the DATA form MT I can calculate efficiency for any speed, hp, altitude, RPM or airspeed. That way we can compare apples to analytical apples. The nice part of Hartzell is you can call engineering and speak English with them. Can you call MT engineering and ask for DATA? Again Jim show the data you have for the MT-12 and ask MT engineering if it is possible, knowing the performance of the engine and airframe. IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME FINE, BUT ASK SOME REAL EXPERTS, LIKE MT AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY. If they say no it is not right, what are you going to do? Do you want to PROVE you data or are you happy to let it stand, despite my protest? Not that MT engineers can not design a fast prop but they are restricted by the materials they are using, wood. A modern composite props use SOLID laminates and dense man made resin cores. The good part is the blade can be thinner. The bad part the props are stiffer and have less ability to dampen vibration like wood, so they feel more like metal props than a wood based prop. RETEST AND HAVE OTHERS VERIFY IT: Bottom line is MT props are wonderful, well engineered and made props, but speed is not the reason to by one. I know you recognize speed is a major issue with selling MT props to experimental pilots. Try as you may and want to trust your results and want to make it LESS of an issue, your conclusions are based on incorrect data. Get better data and re-test the Hartzell and the MTV-12 dash any-one-you-want. Do just 3 altitudes, 3 RPMs on the same airframe. Make sure you use the 3 -leg constant track method (and reduce the data with a spread sheet to give airspeed which is ground speed with wind component removed). Lean with every RPM change. Test early in the morning and try to do a quick prop change to the 2nd prop and test within say an hour. Fly the next morning with the 2nd prop again to validate the test and change back to the 1st prop, test the first prop again, which I assume will be the one the owner will keep on. The other idea is to find two matched RV's, HP, weight, fit and finish and the same in every detail except one, the props. One with MT and one with a Hartzell (new or old). Van just flew the proto type RV-10 with a Hartzell next to a new RV-10 with a MT and a hot rod engine. The Hartzell was faster even though the customers RV was set to a higher MAP and higher FF. With some assumptions of what power the high compression engine was making makes the Hartzell 8-12 MPH faster!!!!!!!!!!!!! I keep seeing 8 MPH come up when a two RV's, one with a MT the other with a RV, fly next to each other. How can every one but you be wrong? LAST WORDS: I appreciate your enthusiasm and effort to use analytical and flight test methods to prove your point, but the results have to be valid. Any one looking at this data who knows anything about light piston plane performance will question your data and it does you no good. If you where an individual I would not care, but since you sell the product you are representing you should be held to a higher standard. One flight test will not do it. You need to retest and also may as well get a Hartzell Blended airfoil and Sensenich to test while you are at it. Best of luck, when I am ready for a MT prop on my future Pitts I want to buy, I'll buy a MT from you. Smoothness does count Jim, don't get me wrong that is a real selling point. Cheers George LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote: Good Evening George, I copied out the section at the bottom of this page for your reference. I show the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller at 2300 RPM & 25" MP at 2,500' going 186 mph tias. I show the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller at 2300 RPM & 18.9" MP at 12,500' going 191 mpg tias. Please check your calculations with this more complete data provide for your benefit. The MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller is an improved model of the MTV-12-B/183-59 propeller. The MTV-12-B/183-59b propeller is a farther improvement over the MTV-12-B/183-59d. I don't believe Van's (or anyone else at that time) had the MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller available to test. Regards, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/12/2005 10:29:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
In a message dated 12/13/2005 10:52:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: Why did you get the results you did? May be you did not re-lean after every RPM change? May be you just messed up the calculations or made a recording error? Did you install spinners on every prop? What was the weather, vertical gust, turbulence? Dear George, Why are you now asking questions? By your attitude, I could have no credible answers for any of your questions. You have claiming repeatedly that my data is wrong and I should remove it from my website. Until now, you didn't seem to care in the least what I did to establish a repeatable test program. Maybe we need to establish some ground rules. Payments due from discussions are not made by purchasing MT Propellers. They are paid in Strawberry shakes at Sun'N'Fun. A perspective: Empirical data is always subject to measurement errors. Engineering theory is based on empirical data. (An opportunity for continual learning by reducing error in obtaining empirical data and improving theory.) I spent yesterday working with two different friends on their aircraft, and working on my RV-6A. I spent today working on my RV-6A. I have 6 different propellers that need to have test data gathered, and I need to get my RV-6A completed to do this. You can expect much more empirical data on my website in the near future. You have spent an inordinate amount of time bashing my company. Quite frankly, as a lobbyist, you have failed. Regards, Jim Ayers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
In all of this Jim you still have no response, or you are saying you have a response but are not going to tell us because of my attitude. I apologize sincerely. Please answers the questions, I would love to hear what you have to say. Just show me. Your last response was "The MTV-12-B/183-59d propeller is an improved model of the MTV-12-B/183-59 propeller. The MTV-12-B/183-59b propeller is a farther improvement over the MTV-12-B/183-59d." Jim this has nothing to do with anything. I am talking about a 11 MPH difference in performance. No dash number change will affect how absurd your data is. YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP! YOUR 7,500 FT DATA AT 2,500 RPM DOES NOT MATCH ANYONES DATA NO SMALL CHANGE IN THE MT PROP WILL PRODUCE GAINS LIKE YOU SHOW Last I am sorry if you think I am bashing your company Less Drag Products. One guy I recall wrote that you went way out of your way to help him. Very nice Jim. I also have said nice things about MT props, but realistic things not alleged performance. THE ONLY BASHING I AM DOING IS THE TABLE OF DATA ON YOUR WEB SITE. >It amazes me, sometimes, on how much can be said >just on an opinion, and a scattering of engine and >propeller theory. When I first talk to you you about your data almost a year ago, you where quite rude, disrespectful and condescending. Sorry I am an engineer and you are not. I also can tell you don't understand aerodynamics. Just because you buy Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, does not make you an engineer. BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDE I have to be a little more blunt and aggressive with you. I am done. Say what you want; When your customer puts a MT on his RV-6a and looses speed over the Hartzell they had on it, they are going to do all the BASHING and you can take credit for it yourself. Hey but like I said it is your business. ON a related note, It took 6 post from others to convince you one Comm antenna does not produce 1/3rd of the air-craft's drag (you where off by a factor of 66 times, it is 0.5%, or a 1/2 mph). I don't say this to embarrass you, but it points to the fact that you can not recognize bad results. You believe any number you come up with, especially if it supports the preconceived ideas you have about the products you sell. I'm not patient or diplomatic enough to convince you that your data is incorrect, and by this last response you refuse to reply to any question because of ME. OK; You have no response or can you defend your data. Got it. That is what I thought. George A friendly suggestion, If you want to prove me wrong, get MT propeller company, the maker of the product you sell, "validate" your data. I think it's a good suggestion and devoid of "attitude". If MT can claim their props go 6 mph faster on 40 less HP at 12,500 than 2,500 feet, than I want to buy one. LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote: In a message dated 12/13/2005 10:52:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes: Why did you get the results you did? May be you did not re-lean after every RPM change? May be you just messed up the calculations or made a recording error? Did you install spinners on every prop? What was the weather, vertical gust, turbulence? Dear George, Why are you now asking questions? By your attitude, I could have no credible answers for any of your questions. You have claiming repeatedly that my data is wrong and I should remove it from my website. Until now, you didn't seem to care in the least what I did to establish a repeatable test program. Maybe we need to establish some ground rules. Payments due from discussions are not made by purchasing MT Propellers. They are paid in Strawberry shakes at Sun'N'Fun. A perspective: Empirical data is always subject to measurement errors. Engineering theory is based on empirical data. (An opportunity for continual learning by reducing error in obtaining empirical data and improving theory.) I spent yesterday working with two different friends on their aircraft, and working on my RV-6A. I spent today working on my RV-6A. I have 6 different propellers that need to have test data gathered, and I need to get my RV-6A completed to do this. You can expect much more empirical data on my website in the near future. You have spent an inordinate amount of time bashing my company. Quite frankly, as a lobbyist, you have failed. Regards, Jim Ayers --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
Good Morning George, I received your email to the RV-7 list this morning. I really enjoy reading your phantasm facts. In your mind, I did not know how to collect accurate cruise performance data. Perhaps you can provide me with the appropriate procedure to collect accurate cruise performance data. From the following quote, I believe your are now starting to bring out the real issues. If I might quote your most recent email. "When I first talk to you you about your data almost a year ago, you where quite rude, disrespectful and condescending. Sorry I am an engineer and you are not. I also can tell you don't understand aerodynamics." Now you have finally started to state your assumptions. I have a strong tendency to believe other people follow the Golden Rule. If I was quite rude, disrespectful and condescending of you, it is very likely that was how I was being treated by you. It's really very simple: if you don't want to be treated in that manner, don't treat me in that manner. I have a BSME degree from California State University at Long Beach. I don't know where you graduated. Although you didn't actually say you are a graduate engineer. Try sticking to one subject. Speculating on my knowledge of aerodynamics is off your topic of proper cruise performance data gathering. I use one aircraft for all of the flight tests. There are no modifications or changes to this aircraft during the flight test period for all of the propellers flown. I do not have any instrumentation on the aircraft to measure winds aloft. Any reference to ground speed by GPS would introduce an unknown, and therefore unacceptable, error into the data. My flight test area is 20 to 80 miles off the coast. You have chosen a public forum, instead of a direct email, to vent your spleen. Now it is your turn to toe the mark. Please provide an appropriate cruise performance procedure. This is in no way a contract, direct or implied, for payment or use on the part of Less Drag Products, Inc. Regards, Jim Ayers President Less Drag Products, Inc. PS I suspect the RV-7 cowl for the Sensenich propeller has already been fitted by now. Less we forget were this all started. :-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2005
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers _www.lessdrag.com_ (http://www.lessdrag.com) The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rick Rammos" <rrammos(at)bonvivantc.com>
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Date: Dec 14, 2005
You can't pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even learn something. _____ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: flyer01(at)adelphia.net
MT?))
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why
MT?)) ---- Rick Rammos wrote: > You can't pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even learn > something. > > No wonder you guys cant get your airplanes finished,but it is entertaining! > > _____ > > From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > LessDragProd(at)aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:21 PM > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) > > > > Good Morning Again George, > > > > You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" > > > > Using the data point you choose, and I quote: > > > > SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 > mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have > 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is > 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! > > According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual > flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp > at 12,500 feet. > > > > As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than > the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. > > Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. > > > > When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 > mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary > numbers shown in the website data.) > > > > And that's how you go faster on less power. > > > > And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at > altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at > the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease > shown in the website data.) > > > > Regards, > > Jim Ayers > > www.lessdrag.com > > The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. > Just open the page and scroll down to it. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Imken" <skikrazi(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Date: Dec 14, 2005
I really dont know whose side to take on all this. We may need to read about 200 more of these back and forth between George and Jim before deciding. Chuck I. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com <http://www.lessdrag.com> The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Date: Dec 14, 2005
They are both completely wrong. I am embarassed for both of these fine fellows to be posting such combined poppycock. I have all the facts, and they are not disputable, and you will all revel in the accuracy of my data. I will forward these obvious facts to the list when the voice in my head instructs me to do so. Don _____ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Imken Subject: RE: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) I really don't know whose side to take on all this. We may need to read about 200 more of these back and forth between George and Jim before deciding. Chuck I. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: T Bryant <tylerii(at)infoave.net>
Subject: Re: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) Yep that it is... entertaining! AFA props and engines etc. What I know is that the 72 inch CS Hartzell Blended airfoil prop on a AeroSport IO360/180 will drive a RV7A past Vne TAS at 7000 ft. What else matters? Tyler B N442TM Rick Rammos wrote: > You can't pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even > learn something. > > > > > From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > LessDragProd(at)aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:21 PM > To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) > > > > Good Morning Again George, > > > > You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" > > > > Using the data point you choose, and I quote: > > > > SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 > mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You > have > 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is > 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! > > According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the > actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 > feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. > > > > As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher > than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. > > Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. > > > > When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed > was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the > summary numbers shown in the website data.) > > > > And that's how you go faster on less power. > > > > And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings > at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees > C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 > gph decrease shown in the website data.) > > > > Regards, > > Jim Ayers > > www.lessdrag.com <http://www.lessdrag.com> > > The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" > page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Eh?...230mph on 180HP???...Sounds way fast...how come? Frank ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of T Bryant Subject: Re: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Yep that it is... entertaining! AFA props and engines etc. What I know is that the 72 inch CS Hartzell Blended airfoil prop on a AeroSport IO360/180 will drive a RV7A past Vne TAS at 7000 ft. What else matters? Tyler B N442TM Rick Rammos wrote: You can't pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even learn something. =09 =09 ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:21 PM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) =09 Good Morning Again George, =09 You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" =09 Using the data point you choose, and I quote: =09 SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. =09 As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. =09 When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) =09 And that's how you go faster on less power. =09 And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) =09 Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. =09 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Phantasm Facts (phantom MT props data)
Phantasm: That is the perfect word for your data. You are right I am wrong OK, I just don't get it. The MT prop is the greatest thing I have ever seen and every prop maker should just fold up shop and go home. I hear if you climb up to 18,000 feet you can shut the engine down and the MT prop will keep turning, making thrust forever, because it is so efficient, it does not even need an engine. FANTASTIC! Der-Vonder-prop dos Fliege Jim every time you bring up something new and not relevant. Compare IAS to IAS or TAS to TAS, that's that. HP who cares. So what. You avoiding the FACTS and grasping, but stop. You win I give up. I asked a few questions and you can't answer them so you divert and confuse the issue with a non sequitur. Great have a nice day. I get the concept of true airspeed and indicated airspeed, but this is not an issue. HP numbers you have mean nothing and are also way off anyway. You say 31 HP difference, OK. Fine. I say 40HP. It still does not matter. LOOK Van's aircraft data (180hp RV-6 solo), shows TRUE airspeed, WOT at sea level is 210mph. This is called TOP SPEED for a reason. OK At WOT at 8,000 feet, which is about 75% power (at 2400 rpm) is 199 mph. Notice the speed drop 11 mph. WHY? A loss of about 45 HP. You can expect the same +10 MPH true airspeed loss from 2,500 to 12,500 ft. No prop can overcome 31, 40 or 45 HP loss and maintain thrust (and TAS), no matter how efficient. Even with lower airframe drag, the loss of HP is too great to be overcome by a prop, no matter how efficient. Don't believe me CALL MT in Germany and ask. Oh they speak German. OH yea Hartzell engineers speak English, it helps. YOUR MT prop would need to be say need to gain about 30% more efficiency, least 110% efficient. JIM there is no such thing. 100% is perfect and that is not physically in the history of aviation; 110% is ridiculous. RV's don't go faster with altitude. You show a 4 mph increase climbing 10,000 feet, when a 10-14 mph decrease would be realistic. OK what you say is right I am wring I guess, I give. Strange enough you also show a humongous 20 MPH drop for the HARTZELL, BULL. That is not true from Van's data, my experience or the analytical Hartzell data, but I explained that before. You choose to ignore it and not address it. OK So I don't know what you are driving at? What part of "your data is wrong" don't you get? OK you say you go 4 mph faster with a 10,000 foot climb, but funny thing is the SAME PROP at 2700 RPM looses 10 mph for the 10,000' climb. Since it's the same prop, speed vs. altitude change for a given RPM should be about the same, with in a few MPH. One RPM goes +4, another RPM goes -10 mph? OK makes no sense to me, but you are the expert. I give up, I'll let my Hartzell do the talking when I pass you. Folks find their Hartzell's are about 5-8 mph faster at 8000feet, 2500rpm. That is a good indicator of overall performance advantage at all altitudes and RPMs. Regardless of the your dash number, MTV-12-59a/b/c/d, or what ever, which may be better than the original MTV-12(?), but you will never see huge large scale changes in relative performance. Things are measured in fractions of a percent or a few percent not 30%. When Hartzell re-designed a new prop for the RV over the traditional C2YK/F7666 they got about 1.5% more efficiency. THAT IS FANTASTIC. Prop improvements are measured in small increments. The C2YK was already an efficient prop (still is). It is the gold standard, but the new "blended" did it one better, or 1.5% better to be exact. That is really a fantastic achievement. Go USA. Good Luck. I am out, done. ope you sell lots of MT props. George LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote: Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 14, 2005
From: Darrell Reiley <lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
There has to be a prop forum somewhere... To argue like this is ridiculous on the RV List!! Please........ LessDragProd(at)aol.com wrote: Good Morning George, I received your email to the RV-7 list this morning. I really enjoy reading your phantasm facts. In your mind, I did not know how to collect accurate cruise performance data. Perhaps you can provide me with the appropriate procedure to collect accurate cruise performance data. From the following quote, I believe your are now starting to bring out the real issues. If I might quote your most recent email. "When I first talk to you you about your data almost a year ago, you where quite rude, disrespectful and condescending. Sorry I am an engineer and you are not. I also can tell you don't understand aerodynamics." Now you have finally started to state your assumptions. I have a strong tendency to believe other people follow the Golden Rule. If I was quite rude, disrespectful and condescending of you, it is very likely that was how I was being treated by you. It's really very simple: if you don't want to be treated in that manner, don't treat me in that manner. I have a BSME degree from California State University at Long Beach. I don't know where you graduated. Although you didn't actually say you are a graduate engineer. Try sticking to one subject. Speculating on my knowledge of aerodynamics is off your topic of proper cruise performance data gathering. I use one aircraft for all of the flight tests. There are no modifications or changes to this aircraft during the flight test period for all of the propellers flown. I do not have any instrumentation on the aircraft to measure winds aloft. Any reference to ground speed by GPS would introduce an unknown, and therefore unacceptable, error into the data. My flight test area is 20 to 80 miles off the coast. You have chosen a public forum, instead of a direct email, to vent your spleen. Now it is your turn to toe the mark. Please provide an appropriate cruise performance procedure. This is in no way a contract, direct or implied, for payment or use on the part of Less Drag Products, Inc. Regards, Jim Ayers President Less Drag Products, Inc. PS I suspect the RV-7 cowl for the Sensenich propeller has already been fitted by now. Less we forget were this all started. :-) Darrell Reiley RV7A "Reiley Rocket" N622DR Reserved --------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 14, 2005
Subject: Re: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)
Finally. A reasonable statement. Thanks. Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/14/2005 5:51:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo.com writes: There has to be a prop forum somewhere... To argue like this is ridiculous on the RV List!! Please........ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?))
Date: Dec 14, 2005
Huh?! Vne on the RV-7[A] is 230mph or 200knots. You mean to tell us you're getting 200 knots true? Sorry, I don't buy it. I assume you're kidding, in the spirit of this silly thread & made-up data? )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (724 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: T Bryant To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:09 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Yep that it is... entertaining! AFA props and engines etc. What I know is that the 72 inch CS Hartzell Blended airfoil prop on a AeroSport IO360/180 will drive a RV7A past Vne TAS at 7000 ft. What else matters? Tyler B N442TM Rick Rammos wrote: You can't pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even learn something. From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of LessDragProd(at)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:21 PM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear Jim why MT?)) Good Morning Again George, You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" Using the data point you choose, and I quote: SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? You have 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could do is 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 feet. When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) And that's how you go faster on less power. And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) Regards, Jim Ayers www.lessdrag.com The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 15, 2005
From: Norman Younie <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net>
Subject: Re: Phantasm Facts
I hope you guys all realize that the only way to make these planes fly faster is money. Merry Christmas all. Dan Checkoway wrote: > Huh?! > Vne on the RV-7[A] is 230mph or 200knots. You mean to tell us you're > getting 200 knots true? Sorry, I don't buy it. I assume you're > kidding, in the spirit of this silly thread & made-up data? > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D (724 hours) > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* T Bryant > *To:* rv7-list(at)matronics.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear > Jim why MT?)) > > Yep that it is... entertaining! AFA props and engines etc. What I > know is that the 72 inch CS Hartzell Blended airfoil prop on a > AeroSport IO360/180 will drive a RV7A past Vne TAS at 7000 ft. > What else matters? > Tyler B N442TM > > > Rick Rammos wrote: > >> You cant pay for this kind of entertainment. Hell, I might even >> learn something. >> >> >> *From:* owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >> *LessDragProd(at)aol.com >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 14, 2005 3:21 PM >> *To:* rv7-list(at)matronics.com >> *Subject:* RV7-List: Phantasm Facts (was: changing props (Dear >> Jim why MT?)) >> >> Good Morning Again George, >> >> You said, "YOU CAN'T GO FASTER ON LESS HP!" >> >> Using the data point you choose, and I quote: >> >> SWEET SPOT? You show the MTV-12 at 2300 RPM at 2500 going 186 >> mph, but at 12,500 you are going 191mph????? Impossible! Why? >> You have >> 156HP @ 2300 RPM at 2,500 ft. At 12,500 ft the best you could >> do is >> 115HP (@ 2300 RPM). 6 MPH faster on 40HP less power! >> >> According to the Lycoming data for the O-360 engine used and the >> actual flight conditions, the engine was producing 134 hp at >> 2,500 feet and 103 hp at 12,500 feet. >> >> As might be expected, the indicated airspeed at 2,500 feet was >> higher than the indicated airspeed at 12,500 feet. >> >> Specifically, 176 mph ias at 2,500 feet and 150 mph ias at 12,500 >> feet. >> >> When corrected for the density altitude, the True Indicated >> Airspeed was 187 mph at 2,500 feet and 191 mph at 12,500 feet. >> (These are the summary numbers shown in the website data.) >> >> And that's how you go faster on less power. >> >> And theatrically, on 2.6 gph less fuel. (With a greater fuel >> savings at altitude, if the aircraft owner is unwilling to lean >> to 30 degrees C ROP at the lower altitudes and higher power >> settings achievable 3.3 gph decrease shown in the website data.) >> >> Regards, >> >> Jim Ayers >> >> www.lessdrag.com <http://www.lessdrag.com> >> >> The website data being discussed is on the "Lycoming O-360 >> propeller" page. Just open the page and scroll down to it. >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LessDragProd(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 15, 2005
Subject: Re: Phantasm Facts
Everyone keeps telling me that MT Propeller has already figured that out. :-) Happy Holidays all, Jim Ayers In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:32:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net writes: --> RV7-List message posted by: Norman Younie I hope you guys all realize that the only way to make these planes fly faster is money. Merry Christmas all. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 17, 2005
Subject: [ George McNutt ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: George McNutt Lists: RV-List,RV7-List Subject: Roll Bar Shims http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/gmcnutt@shaw.ca.12.17.2005/index.html o Main Photo Share Index http://www.matronics.com/photoshare o Submitting a Photo Share If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the following information along with your email message and files: 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to: 2) Your Full Name: 3) Your Email Address: 4) One line Subject description: 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic: 6) One-line Description of each photo or file: Email the information above and your files and photos to: pictures(at)matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 22, 2005
From: Scott Farner <sfarner(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Flap Actuator and Weldment Alignment
I'm working on the flap actuator assembly on my -7A and am having a problem (well at least it appears to be a problem) aligning the flap actuator rod with the weldment. The flap actuator is off center to the left of the channel as it shows in the plans, but the arm on the weldment is centered within the channel. Depending on the where the actuator is positioned, the offset between the actuator rod and weldment arm is 3/8" to 1/2". Is the flap actuator supposed to be angled be bolted into the weldment arm? Thanks, Scott Farner www.scottfarner.com RV-7A Fuse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Pellien" <jim(at)pellien.com>
Subject: T'was The Night Before Christmas - Sports Planes Style
Date: Dec 22, 2005
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the forum not an EMAIL was posted, not even a note. The stockings were hung by the laptop with care, in hopes that Tom P. soon would be there. The pilots were nestled all snug in their beds, while visions of SLSA's danced in their heads. The aircraft in their hangars, and I in my cap, had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap. When out on the tarmac there arose such a clatter, I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter. Away to the window I flew like a flash, tore open the shutter, and threw up the sash. The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow gave the lustre of midday to the tie-downs below, when, what to my wondering eyes should appear, but a Light Sport Aircraft and eight big EAA 'rs. With a little old pilot, so lively and quick, I knew in a moment it must be Tom P. More rapid than eagles, his coursers they came, and he whistled and shouted and called them by name: "Now Rutan! Now Melville! Now, Fossett and Boyer! On, Lawrence! On, Heintz! On, Van G and Sawyer! To the end of the runway! To the tie-down area Now Shut Down ! Shut Down! Shut Down All Engines" As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly, when they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky so up to the top of the FBO they flew, with the sleigh full of flight toys, and Tom P. too. And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof the prancing and pawing of each little hoof. As I drew in my head and was turning around, down the chimney Tom P. came with a bound. He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot, and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot. A bundle of new FAA rules he had flung on his back, and he looked like a peddler just opening his pack. He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, and filled all the stockings, with SP and LSA Rulings. And laying his finger aside of his nose, and giving a nod, up the chimney he rose. He sprang to his SLSA, completed his preflight, And away he flew like the down of a thistle. But I heard him exclaim, 'ere he flew out of sight, "Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!" (An Adaptation of the Classic Poem, "T'was the Night Before Christmas") Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to All Jim Pellien Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com www.MASPL.com 703-313-4818 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Widen fuse to match canopy?
Date: Jan 03, 2006
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
________________________________ So my tip up canopy came out about 1/8th inch wider on both sides than the fuse.....Think the canopy sides are not quite the right shape plus I must be getting sloppy in my old age. Anyway, as I have already glassed the plexi to the frame I am not about to redo the canopy frame but the "overhang" does look a bit below par. I was wondering if anyone had seen a fuse that had the width built up using some glass and microballoons? As the plane will be painted it seems like one could fair up the sides quite easily. Any thoughts? Frank 7a final baffle work and canopy tweaking. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 07, 2006
From: "Daniel Storer" <dstorer(at)okwifi.com>
Subject: Landing Gear walk???
I was told today that the landing gear on a RV can walk fwd and aft. Has anyone experience this? It was recommended to look at the landing gear for the RV8 on the Grove Aircraft www.groveaircraft.com web site. It would take a new design for a RV 7 application, but I see how it would be stiffer fwd and aft. Any thoughts out there? Thanks, Dan S. OKC 7A - waiting finishing kit ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Landing Gear walk???
Date: Jan 07, 2006
Seen it on lots of Rockets with their long flexible gear, but not on RVs. Build on...don't worry about this. You can add wood stiffeners to your gear legs later if you really figure out a way to rationalize doing so (I didn't, there's no need). Anything above and beyond that is re-engineering, and you'd be going where you probably shouldn't go. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (762 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Storer Subject: RV7-List: Landing Gear walk??? I was told today that the landing gear on a RV can walk fwd and aft. Has anyone experience this? It was recommended to look at the landing gear for the RV8 on the Grove Aircraft www.groveaircraft.com web site. It would take a new design for a RV 7 application, but I see how it would be stiffer fwd and aft. Any thoughts out there? Thanks, Dan S. OKC 7A - waiting finishing kit ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NVSAMELA(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 09, 2006
Subject: Re: GNS 480 Install Kit for Sale
i don't understand what you mean by an install kit. please explain. nick ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: All New BBS Interface For Matronics List Forums!
Dear Listers, I'm very proud to announce a completely new BBS interface is now available for all of the Email Lists at Matronics! This is a full-featured system that allows for viewing, posting, attachments, polls - the works. But the best part is that it is *completely* integrated with all of the existing email tools currently available at Matronics! What this means at the most basic level is that, if you post a message to List from Email in the traditional way, it will show up on the BBS system *and* get distributed to everyone currently subscribed to the Email List. By the same token, if you are on the BBS and post a message to a given List-Forum, the message will not only show up on the BBS, but also be distributed to everyone on the Email List!! It is really a very nice implementation and I am very pleased with its operation. All of the tools you have come to know and love such as the List Search Engine and List Browse and Download will still be available and contain all of the latest posts. Think of the new BBS interface as just another method of accessing the all of the Lists. You can use the BBS to view all of the latest posts without having to do anything except use your browser to surf over to the site. You can view and look at all of the various List's posts. If you want to post a new message or reply to an existing message from the BBS, you will have to Register on the BBS. This is a *very* simple process and will only take a couple of minutes. There is a small icon in the upper righthand side of the main BBS page labeled "Register" to get you started. I strongly recommend that you use the exact *same* email address you are subscribed to the Email Lists with when registering on the BBS. Also, while not an absolute requirement, I would really appreciate it if people would use their full name when choosing their Username on the BBS (for example "Matt Dralle"). This just makes it easier for everyone to know who's posting. Also, I have enabled the ability to upload a small user picture with your profile called an "avatar". Please use a *real* picture of yourself *with* your cloths on! Thank you! Maximum size of the bitmap is 120x120. You can either be subscribed to the BBS, or any number of Email Lists, or both. Registering on the BBS will allow you to email directly to all of the various Lists. However, to receive direct List Email, you will need to be *subscribed* to the various Lists as you have in the past. No changes here in operation. I have added numerous links on the BBS pointing to the Email List subscription page. I've had the BBS connected to the Lists for about a week now, so its already loaded up with a fair number of messages. You can post photos and other documents directly to the BBS and links to them will appear in the List Email distributions. Also, when any messages posted to the BBS are viewed in the List Email distribution, there will be a URL link at the bottom of the message pointing back to the BBS. And here's what you've been waiting for -- the main URL for the new Matronics Email List BBS is: http://forums.matronics.com Please surf on over, Register, and have a great time! I think this will be the dawn of a whole new era for the Lists at Matronics! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 18, 2006
IIRC, dimple the skin, c-sink the spar, and don't do diddly to the hinge. Same setup when you rivet the flap hinge to the wing. Wing skin is dimpled, brace is c-sunk, hinge is left alone. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: RV7-List: Trim Tab Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 19, 2006
From: Norman Younie <rv6capt(at)pacificcoast.net>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Dimple skins countersink hinge. Norman Paul Walter wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three > items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge > countersunk ? > > > Thank you > > > Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Thanks Dan, Also, with rod end bearing for attaching elevator to HS. To get all perfectly in line did you just count the amount of rotations on each as it threads into the plate nut ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab IIRC, dimple the skin, c-sink the spar, and don't do diddly to the hinge. Same setup when you rivet the flap hinge to the wing. Wing skin is dimpled, brace is c-sunk, hinge is left alone. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: RV7-List: Trim Tab Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 18, 2006
Sort of. Van's plans call out suggested dimensions for the rod end bearing, distance from the spar or something like that. My 2 cents is -- don't sweat it until you're ready to mount the rudder on the VS permanently. Then you just make sure you have (a) alignment of all the rod ends with the hinge brackets, (b) rod ends adjusted to provide full range of rudder travel without any chafing or interference, (c) counterweight arm is aligned with the top of the VS and doesn't interfere. )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:28 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Thanks Dan, Also, with rod end bearing for attaching elevator to HS. To get all perfectly in line did you just count the amount of rotations on each as it threads into the plate nut ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab IIRC, dimple the skin, c-sink the spar, and don't do diddly to the hinge. Same setup when you rivet the flap hinge to the wing. Wing skin is dimpled, brace is c-sunk, hinge is left alone. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: RV7-List: Trim Tab Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 19, 2006
Thank you Dan, That is how it will be done. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:59 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Sort of. Van's plans call out suggested dimensions for the rod end bearing, distance from the spar or something like that. My 2 cents is -- don't sweat it until you're ready to mount the rudder on the VS permanently. Then you just make sure you have (a) alignment of all the rod ends with the hinge brackets, (b) rod ends adjusted to provide full range of rudder travel without any chafing or interference, (c) counterweight arm is aligned with the top of the VS and doesn't interfere. )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:28 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Thanks Dan, Also, with rod end bearing for attaching elevator to HS. To get all perfectly in line did you just count the amount of rotations on each as it threads into the plate nut ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab IIRC, dimple the skin, c-sink the spar, and don't do diddly to the hinge. Same setup when you rivet the flap hinge to the wing. Wing skin is dimpled, brace is c-sunk, hinge is left alone. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: RV7-List: Trim Tab Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net>
Subject: Trim Tab
Date: Jan 19, 2006
I'm just now working on mating the elevators to the horizontal stab. I have initially set the rod end bearings as per the plans. I'm getting ready to drill the elevator control horns but they are not square to the main center bearing or to each other. I was just about to email Vans (as the plans don't go into much detail here) when I saw this thread. Are the elevator rod end bearings supposed to be adjusted until the horns are square? This would mean each rod end bearing will be a different measurement from the spar and the counter-balance arms will not be exactly parallel to the horizontal stab as they are now. What have others done here? Bevan RV7A _____ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Walter Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:10 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Thank you Dan, That is how it will be done. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway <mailto:dan(at)rvproject.com> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 5:59 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Sort of. Van's plans call out suggested dimensions for the rod end bearing, distance from the spar or something like that. My 2 cents is -- don't sweat it until you're ready to mount the rudder on the VS permanently. Then you just make sure you have (a) alignment of all the rod ends with the hinge brackets, (b) rod ends adjusted to provide full range of rudder travel without any chafing or interference, (c) counterweight arm is aligned with the top of the VS and doesn't interfere. )_( Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul <mailto:pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> Walter Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:28 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab Thanks Dan, Also, with rod end bearing for attaching elevator to HS. To get all perfectly in line did you just count the amount of rotations on each as it threads into the plate nut ?. Regards - Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan <mailto:dan(at)rvproject.com> Checkoway Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:48 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Trim Tab IIRC, dimple the skin, c-sink the spar, and don't do diddly to the hinge. Same setup when you rivet the flap hinge to the wing. Wing skin is dimpled, brace is c-sunk, hinge is left alone. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter <mailto:pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:01 PM Subject: RV7-List: Trim Tab Hi Guys, I was wondering when riveting trim hinge to trim tab if all three items being the skin, hinges and trim tab spar are dimpled or is hinge countersunk ? Thank you Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2006
From: Larry Rush <k9hxt(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Garmin Xponder & Dynon EFIS
Has anyone installed a GTX-327 Garmin Transponder and interwired it (RS-232) with the DYNON D10-A EFIS Encoder?? What set-up parameters did you use in each to get the Garmin to display Pressure Altitude etc. First install with full digital stuff !! Thanks, Larry, RV-6A @ 2R2, mentored a RV-8 flying, and a RV-7A in assm'y at hngr. "LIMA TANGO SENDS" ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 26, 2006
From: Vern Little <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: Garmin Xponder & Dynon EFIS
Larry Rush wrote: > Has anyone installed a GTX-327 Garmin Transponder and interwired it > (RS-232) with the DYNON D10-A EFIS Encoder?? What set-up parameters did > you use in each to get the Garmin to display Pressure Altitude etc. > First install with full digital stuff !! > Thanks, > Larry, RV-6A @ 2R2, mentored a RV-8 flying, and a RV-7A in assm'y at hngr. > > > "LIMA TANGO SENDS" Yes, I have. On the D10A serial output menu, set 'FORMAT 4'. On the GTX-327, choose either ICARUS or SHADIN format (I forgot which). As for the other settings, you'll have to play around. I've attached the GTX 327 install guide (on your private email, it will get stripped on the list). If this does not work, let me know and I'll copy the settings down when I get to the airport. It all works fine once you program it. Aside: The only peeve I have is that the GTX-327 can't take serial GPS data from a Garmin GPSMap 296! This data is used to determine automatic STBY mode for takeoff/landing. Garmin assumes you have a 430, and won't talk to non-IFR GPSs. Vern Little RV-9A 90577 C-FRVL Larry Rush wrote: > Has anyone installed a GTX-327 Garmin Transponder and interwired it (RS-232) with the DYNON D10-A EFIS Encoder?? What set-up parameters did you use in each to get the Garmin to display Pressure Altitude etc. First install with full digital stuff !! > Thanks, > Larry, RV-6A @ 2R2, mentored a RV-8 flying, and a RV-7A in assm'y at hngr. > > > "LIMA TANGO SENDS" ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wheelpants and leg fairings RV 7a
Date: Jan 27, 2006
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Morning all, Fitting up my wheelpants and noticed from the drawing that you have to lift the plane off its gear so the tires are off the ground. I have one trolley jack and its not immediately apparent how I would do this? I notice what sounds like a fairly involved procedure to align the leg fairings...probably cus I didn't understand it on the first read through...Can anyone expain a simple procedure? I am thinking of using #6 screws and C/s washers rather than rivets to mount the pants..Any reason why not? Looks like a fair bit of work but I'd like to get everything done before I take the plane to the hangar. Thanks Frank RV7a..Final engine connections, bodywork, paint..Sell other airplane...and fly..:) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Wheelpants and leg fairings RV 7a
Date: Jan 27, 2006
Hi frank, the idea is to lift the airplane clean of the ground supported by trestles or similar. Align the main fairings to the centrelign of the aircraft. You can measure from centreline outboard on both sides and mark your H-stab. Use a piece of string over the centre of the pant and align with your mark on the h-stab. Now set the horizontal alignment. Pilot drill with 3/32 and use a cleco this way you have some leeway of adjustment. The holes in the pants can be filled with a little epoxy adhesive should you get it wrong. (but we never make any mistakes). hope this helps. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 29, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Six New Email Lists / Forums At Matronics!
Dear Listers, Its my pleasure to announce the addition of six new Email List / Forums to the aviation line up at Matronics! These new lists support all the usual features you've come to know and love from the Matronics Email List including full integration with the All New Web BBS Forums Site!! The new Lists include: LycomingEngines-List Textron/Lycoming Engines RotaxEngines-List Rotax Engine for Aircraft M14PEngines-List Vendenyev M14P Radial Engine MurphyMoose-List Murphy Moose Aircraft Allegro-List Allegro 2000, a Czech-built, Rotax-powered Aircraft Falco-List Sequoia Aircraft's Falco Experimental To sign up for any or all of the new Lists, surf over to the Matronics Email List Subscription Form and follow the instructions: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Don't forget to check out the All New Web BBS Forum now available along with all of the usual message and archive viewing tools at the Matronics Email Lists site. Surf over to the following URL for information on the BBS Forum: http://forums.matronics.com Enjoy the new Lists! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: Alf Olav Frog <alfolavf(at)online.no>
Subject: Pitot tube?
> Hi fellow RV-7 Builders! > > I live in Norway and am almost finished with the empennage of my RV-7A. > I'm just about ready to start with my QB-wings and considering different types of pitot tubes. > Since it's cold up here, I've to have a heated one. > > Is it a type or brand which most Rv-builders use the most? > > Best regards Alf Olav Frog > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 30, 2006
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
Alf, I live in Alaska and it is cold here, -10 today, you do not have to have a heated pitot tube. The ones from Van's work just fine. Mike Ice Anchorage, Alaska ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alf Olav Frog" <alfolavf(at)online.no> Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:05 PM Subject: RV7-List: Pitot tube? > > >> Hi fellow RV-7 Builders! >> >> I live in Norway and am almost finished with the empennage of my RV-7A. >> I'm just about ready to start with my QB-wings and considering different >> types of pitot tubes. >> Since it's cold up here, I've to have a heated one. >> >> Is it a type or brand which most Rv-builders use the most? >> >> Best regards Alf Olav Frog >> >> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Skykingjfg(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 31, 2006
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
You won't need one unless you plan to fly IFR in the clouds. However, if you decide you want one the cheapest I've found is either Falcon or Dynon. Also Gretz is offering a new model at a reasonable price. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
Date: Jan 31, 2006
There's no requirement for a heated pitot tube, even for IFR. It's simply not required under Part 91. 23.1323 requires a heated pitot tube: "(d) If certification for instrument flight rules or flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to icing." However, our airplanes are not required to conform to Part 23. Plus, the way the modern operating limitations are structured, we don't have to request specific "certification" under IFR. The operating limitations simply specify that we need to conform to 91.205: "(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with =A7 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." That said, you'd be remiss to do any real IFR flying anywhere near the freezing level without one. I have warm (hot?) fuzzies as a result of having one, but I want to clarify that it's not a hard and fast requirement for amateur built aircraft in the U.S. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (802 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Skykingjfg(at)aol.com To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 3:49 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Pitot tube? You won't need one unless you plan to fly IFR in the clouds. However, if you decide you want one the cheapest I've found is either Falcon or Dynon. Also Gretz is offering a new model at a reasonable price. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: "Brooks Wolfe" <slipstream13(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
Dynon's pitot tube remains unheated. For several years they worked on a heated version, but apparently they've finally given up on the project -- Last word I heard is that they have no plans to bring a heated tube to market. Brooks N513BW -- Waiting for warmer temps to cut my canopy! -------Original Message------- From: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Date: 01/31/06 04:05:39 Subject: Re: RV7-List: Pitot tube? You won't need one unless you plan to fly IFR in the clouds. However, if you decide you want one the cheapest I've found is either Falcon or Dynon. Also Gretz is offering a new model at a reasonable price. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pitot tube?
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Bummer!...Oh well at least there is no point in waiting. As to the canopy I PERSONALLY would just cut it....Use a local fan heater to warm the underside for a few minutes but other than that if you don't want to wait just do it...I have cut it quite sucessfully in as low as 40F no problem. Oh by the way, you can also sand out scratches with wet and dry and polish it back clear with metal polish pretty easily as well Frank ________________________________ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brooks Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:41 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Pitot tube? Dynon's pitot tube remains unheated. For several years they worked on a heated version, but apparently they've finally given up on the project -- Last word I heard is that they have no plans to bring a heated tube to market. Brooks N513BW -- Waiting for warmer temps to cut my canopy! -------Original Message------- From: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Date: 01/31/06 04:05:39 Subject: Re: RV7-List: Pitot tube? You won't need one unless you plan to fly IFR in the clouds. However, if you decide you want one the cheapest I've found is either Falcon or Dynon. Also Gretz is offering a new model at a reasonable price. =09 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: "Daniel Storer" <dstorer(at)okwifi.com>
Subject: Heated Pitot tube?
Call Wentworth (612) 722- 1024 and get a used Cessna heated tube just over $100, which works with the Gretz mounting hardware. Dan Storer N700DJ res. 7A waiting finishing kit Oklahoma City ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: joelrhaynes(at)aol.com
Subject: RE: PC Simulators
I have purchased several version of MS Flight Simulator through the years and I still do not like it. However, I have found OnTop version 8 from ASA to be a great IFR trainer. Don't expect great graphics out the window because it's an IFR trainer. But the panel graphics are great and you can configure the panel in many different ways for a variety of aircraft. It has all the VORs, NDBs, airports, etc. It flies like a real airplane. Joel Haynes Bozeman, MT 7A Finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cammie Patch" <cammie(at)sunvalley.net>
Subject: RE: PC Simulators
Date: Jan 31, 2006
The best, by far, it Elite's software www.flyelite.com <http://www.flyelite.com/> I'm a CFII and teach a lot of IFR students, I see results with this software. www.glasscockpitaviation.com <http://www.glasscockpitaviation.com/> Cammie _____ From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of joelrhaynes(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:07 PM Subject: RV7-List: RE: PC Simulators I have purchased several version of MS Flight Simulator through the years and I still do not like it. However, I have found OnTop version 8 from ASA to be a great IFR trainer. Don't expect great graphics out the window because it's an IFR trainer. But the panel graphics are great and you can configure the panel in many different ways for a variety of aircraft. It has all the VORs, NDBs, airports, etc. It flies like a real airplane. Joel Haynes Bozeman, MT 7A Finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com>
Subject: RE: PC Simulators
Date: Jan 31, 2006
If anyone wants to buy the elite software including joke please contact me off line. I do not use it anymore. Franz -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cammie Patch Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:18 PM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RE: RV7-List: RE: PC Simulators The best, by far, it Elite's software www.flyelite.com I'm a CFII and teach a lot of IFR students, I see results with this software. www.glasscockpitaviation.com Cammie -- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of joelrhaynes(at)aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:07 PM To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Subject: RV7-List: RE: PC Simulators I have purchased several version of MS Flight Simulator through the years and I still do not like it. However, I have found OnTop version 8 from ASA to be a great IFR trainer. Don't expect great graphics out the window because it's an IFR trainer. But the panel graphics are great and you can configure the panel in many different ways for a variety of aircraft. It has all the VORs, NDBs, airports, etc. It flies like a real airplane. Joel Haynes Bozeman, MT 7A Finishing ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 31, 2006
From: Mark Conover <markc(at)conotech.com>
Subject: Re: RE: PC Simulators
I found X-Plane very helpful during my IFR training a few years ago. And the price is outstanding, too. http://www.x-plane.com/ -Mark Conover RV-9 empennage (newly arrived) Franz Fux wrote: > If anyone wants to buy the elite software including joke please > contact me off line. I do not use it anymore. > > Franz > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com]*On Behalf Of *Cammie > Patch > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:18 PM > *To:* rv7-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV7-List: RE: PC Simulators > > The best, by far, it Elite's software www.flyelite.com > <http://www.flyelite.com/> > > I'm a CFII and teach a lot of IFR students, I see results with > this software. > > www.glasscockpitaviation.com <http://www.glasscockpitaviation.com/> > > Cammie > > > > > *From:* owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *joelrhaynes(at)aol.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2006 5:07 PM > *To:* rv7-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* RV7-List: RE: PC Simulators > > > > I have purchased several version of MS Flight Simulator through > the years and I still do not like it. However, I have found OnTop > version 8 from ASA to be a great IFR trainer. Don't expect great > graphics out the window because it's an IFR trainer. But the panel > graphics are great and you can configure the panel in many > different ways for a variety of aircraft. It has all the VORs, > NDBs, airports, etc. It flies like a real airplane. > > > > Joel Haynes > > Bozeman, MT > > 7A Finishing > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Left elevator
Date: Feb 01, 2006
When riveting skin to E-606pp on left elevator. Are the eight rivets (four each side) on the out bound side of the trim tab, between stiffeners J and H pop rivets or is there a method to back rivet. Dan - you got your ears on ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: Left elevator
Date: Feb 01, 2006
My plans say: MK319BS 4 PLACES, EACH SIDE, E-701-L TO E-606-PP RIVETS Just use pop rivets and dab some filler in the holes if you want them to look like solid rivets... )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (804 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:18 PM Subject: RV7-List: Left elevator When riveting skin to E-606pp on left elevator. Are the eight rivets (four each side) on the out bound side of the trim tab, between stiffeners J and H pop rivets or is there a method to back rivet. Dan - you got your ears on ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: Left elevator
Date: Feb 01, 2006
Ah, yes i see now. Thank you - Dan ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:27 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Left elevator My plans say: MK319BS 4 PLACES, EACH SIDE, E-701-L TO E-606-PP RIVETS Just use pop rivets and dab some filler in the holes if you want them to look like solid rivets... )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (804 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 11:18 PM Subject: RV7-List: Left elevator When riveting skin to E-606pp on left elevator. Are the eight rivets (four each side) on the out bound side of the trim tab, between stiffeners J and H pop rivets or is there a method to back rivet. Dan - you got your ears on ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: archived Yahoo group messages
From: Rob Riggen <rob(at)riggen.org>
Date: Feb 01, 2006
Hi all, I'm considering creating a searchable database of the archived Yahoo messages. Just wondering if it will be worth the effort. Anybody feel they would use this? There are more than 27,000 messages in the forum. I would hate to see that all go away. If you're interested or have comments, please visit this page to submit: http://www.expercraft.com/contact.php?s=yahoo I'll be collecting the names and feedback and be getting back in touch with updates. Thanks! Looking forward to the input. Rob RV-7 emp ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 01, 2006
From: Alf Olav Frog <alfolavf(at)online.no>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?Pitot tube?Pitot tube?
Regarding heated pitot tube, I was mainly think it would be an nice thing to have here in Norway where the winter is long, moist and long. Anyway: does anyone have any experience with Vans unheated pitot tube? I guess that one only can be used in Vans airspeed indicators (or similar type) Best regards Alf Olav Frog, Norway ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J. Brunke" <jdoody727(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?Pitot tube?Pitot tube?
Date: Feb 01, 2006
Dear Alf, I've been reading the replys to your pitot tube question. What the question really comes to is: Will YOU feel better with a heated pitot tube? It really doesn't matter whether one is required or not. It also doesn't matter that it may cost more. What will make you happy when your out flying in the "moist, cold air"? As the builder, that choice is up to you and your comfort factor. As for the unheated pitot tube, I have one on my RV-6 and it works great. But my comfort factor is VFR only. Happy building, John Brunke St. Charles, IL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alf Olav Frog" <alfolavf(at)online.no> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 4:00 PM Subject: Re: RV7-List: Pitot tube?Pitot tube?Pitot tube? > Regarding heated pitot tube, I was mainly think it would be an nice thing > to have here in Norway where the winter is long, moist and long. > > Anyway: does anyone have any experience with Vans unheated pitot tube? > I guess that one only can be used in Vans airspeed indicators (or similar > type) > > Best regards Alf Olav Frog, Norway > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Smitty" <smitty(at)smittysrv.com>
Subject: RV-6A For Sale
Date: Feb 02, 2006
RV-6A for sale. It's not mine. Thought someone out there might want to know about it: http://www.fun-places-to-fly.com/myclassifieds/details.asp?ID=3D1646 Have a goodun! Smitty's RV-9A - Wings are on there way! http://SmittysRV.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Walter" <pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: 390
Date: Feb 04, 2006
Hi Guys, Has any one in the group installed or considering the IO 390 for their project ?. Is there performance data and reliability info available ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: Pitot tube?
Date: Feb 04, 2006
While we're on the subject, I just installed my Gretz Aero Pitot Tube. It's pretty cool. It comes with a sensor that only draws power when pitot heat is really needed. It has led indicators to let you know when the pitot is cold or ok, and when it's actually heating. Here's some pics: http://donka.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=rv7leftwing&id=DSC0542 0 I suppose this pitot tube is on the pricey side, but what the heck. I will fly IFR and this will make me feel better. Around here, I know of other RV builders that get old Cessna pitots on the cheap, and those melt ice just as good. ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings, fuse on the way! http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alf Olav Frog Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: [SPAM] RV7-List: Pitot tube? > Hi fellow RV-7 Builders! > > I live in Norway and am almost finished with the empennage of my RV-7A. > I'm just about ready to start with my QB-wings and considering different types of pitot tubes. > Since it's cold up here, I've to have a heated one. > > Is it a type or brand which most Rv-builders use the most? > > Best regards Alf Olav Frog > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul" <greif8(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 390
Date: Feb 04, 2006
Talk to Allen Barrett of BPA engines @ bpa(at)bpaengines.com , he a great guy and will help you find guys that are using the engine currently. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:38 AM Subject: RV7-List: 390 Hi Guys, Has any one in the group installed or considering the IO 390 for their project ?. Is there performance data and reliability info available ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Hall" <dhall(at)donka.net>
Subject: Pitot tube?
Date: Feb 05, 2006
While we're on the subject, I just installed my Gretz Aero Pitot Tube. It's pretty cool. It comes with a sensor that only draws power when pitot heat is really needed. It has led indicators to let you know when the pitot is cold or ok, and when it's actually heating. Here's some pics: http://donka.net/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=rv7leftwing&id=DSC0542 0 I suppose this pitot tube is on the pricey side, but what the heck. I will fly IFR and this will make me feel better. Around here, I know of other RV builders that get old Cessna pitots on the cheap, and those melt ice just as good. ****************************************** Don Hall N517DG (registered) rv7 wings, fuse on the way! http:\\donka.net\rv7project.html ****************************************** -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alf Olav Frog Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 8:34 PM Subject: RV7-List: Pitot tube? > Hi fellow RV-7 Builders! > > I live in Norway and am almost finished with the empennage of my RV-7A. > I'm just about ready to start with my QB-wings and considering different types of pitot tubes. > Since it's cold up here, I've to have a heated one. > > Is it a type or brand which most Rv-builders use the most? > > Best regards Alf Olav Frog > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 390
Date: Feb 06, 2006
From: "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com>
Thanks Paul. You're alright as well. How's the flying going? What about the building? We're getting a slow start on this end. Rita decided we needed a bigger house before we could start the airplane project. I told her we weren't building it in the house, but we could use a bigger shop! Guess how THAT went over :-) Jeez, we're never gonna get started, it seems. We are also swamped here at the shop. We have a year's worth of work in here, damn near. Gotta go for now. Allen -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: 390 Talk to Allen Barrett of BPA engines @ bpa(at)bpaengines.com , he a great guy and will help you find guys that are using the engine currently. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter <mailto:pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:38 AM Subject: RV7-List: 390 Hi Guys, Has any one in the group installed or considering the IO 390 for their project ?. Is there performance data and reliability info available ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 390
Date: Feb 06, 2006
From: "BPA" <BPA(at)bpaengines.com>
Sorry Guys, this was meant to be sent off list. Please accept my apologies -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BPA Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: RE: RV7-List: 390 Thanks Paul. You're alright as well. How's the flying going? What about the building? We're getting a slow start on this end. Rita decided we needed a bigger house before we could start the airplane project. I told her we weren't building it in the house, but we could use a bigger shop! Guess how THAT went over :-) Jeez, we're never gonna get started, it seems. We are also swamped here at the shop. We have a year's worth of work in here, damn near. Gotta go for now. Allen -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv7-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:19 AM Subject: Re: RV7-List: 390 Talk to Allen Barrett of BPA engines @ bpa(at)bpaengines.com , he a great guy and will help you find guys that are using the engine currently. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Walter <mailto:pdwalter(at)bigpond.net.au> To: rv7-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 2:38 AM Subject: RV7-List: 390 Hi Guys, Has any one in the group installed or considering the IO 390 for their project ?. Is there performance data and reliability info available ? Paul Walter ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2006
From: Mark Conover <markc(at)conotech.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
Imken wrote: > >I was thinking about installing a heated pitot tube when building my RV-7A, >but then I got to thinking. If flying into conditions that would cause me >to need a heated pitot tube, I might also need de-ice boots on prop and >wings......so I said to myself, forget it. >Chuck Imken >200 hours on N735RV > > > > > My advice: if you are expecting to do any flying in instrument conditions, get a heated pitot tube. -Mark Conover RV9 (emp) > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2006
From: "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pitot tube?
Absolutely, Mark, and I was waiting for someone else to point this out. I didn't want to mention it myself because my IFR rating is in the future and I will be flying light IFR in my '7A so perhaps I'm not considered qualified to say this. And before the argument about "light" IFR gets started again, it simply means (to me) a personal requirement for much higher minimums and a mental attitude that more quickly allows a cancellation or diversion from flight plan. But I don't get the fascination with a heated pitot tube in an RV if one is going to have an IFR GPS on board. At altitude, if you lose your pitot intput from ice, your GPS will be plenty accurate to keep you safe. I'd worry more about ice on wings and prop and get myself out of there as quickly as possible. If you're blind and at altitude and neither you nor your FAA weather helpers can find some clear air for you to head for, then as far as I'm concerned, that's a flight you should have made in a fully booted aircraft anyway. For landing, using GPS airspeed and your usual power and flap settings for putting the wheels on the runway will get you down albeit a little fast if you want to be on the safe side. If you get to 100 feet off the ground on approach and can't see the ground during your actual landing, you got a lot more problems than an AWOL pitot tube. Vern On 2/8/06, Mark Conover wrote: > > > (pardon while I briefly veer a bit off topic) > > Say, Imken, do you fly in the US Southeast? I'm curious about > instrument flying in the various parts of North America. Do you get > much ice at lower altitudes? While I flew VFR in Texas a lot, my > experience with IMC has so far been restricted to the Pacific Northwest, > having moved to Seattle ten years ago. Our wx briefings routinely > refer to some amount of ice in the forecast; so, we tend to have a keen > interest in pireps. > > (returning to topic) > > As to whether to even bother with pitot heat if your airplane can't shed > ice, I figure the pitot tube will plug up before flying surfaces are > affected. If in IMC, I sure would prefer not to lose the airspeed > indicator. Perhaps in these days of GPS, losing the airspeed > indicator when at altitude is not as dicey as it once was. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 09, 2006
From: Alf Olav Frog <alfolavf(at)online.no>
Subject: Flap attachment?
Hi fellow builders! We've just started working on QB-wings now, and I saw in the manual that there were two metods of mounting the flap hinge. One was drilling a hole in the inboard aileron bracket, the other one was cutting the hinge in half. Is there a metod that is preferred over the other by you people out there? By the way; thank you for all the inputs regarding my question about heated pitot tube! I've gotten alot of ideas and thougts!


October 18, 2005 - February 09, 2006

RV7-Archive.digest.vol-ak