RV-Archive.digest.vol-nh
August 16, 2002 - August 21, 2002
> nozzle but made no diferance
>
> any ideas or info from people who have had simmilar problems would be a
big
> help
>
> Dave Tennant
> RV6 australia 2.5hrs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Digitrak servo installation and Navaid compa |
rison
Larry, et.al.,
I think it would help in these discussions to differentiate between the
three different product lines that TruTrak sells. Since Navaid has only one
product, we can get away with referring to their wing leveler/Porcine
Coupler combo as a "Navaid." We can not do this with "TruTrak." TruTrak
has three lines that have different input requirements and different
capabilities. These three lines are the DigiTrak, Digiflight and the DFC
series.
The DFC series are fully functioning autopilots with built in GPS Steering
(GPSS) that can use either RS232 or ARINC 429 inputs. My Apollo GX60 only
outputs RS232 whereas the Garmin and other lines output ARINC 429. My
DFC-250 will use either. The DigiFlight series offers GPSS as a $375
option. The DigiTrak series does not offer GPSS.
If you want to follow a GPS flight plan (i.e. no pilot inputs required to
change direction at each leg) you need GPSS in the TruTrak Line. To do
something similar (it is not true GPSS) with a Navaid, you need a Porcine
coupler and a GPS that is compatible with the Porcine coupler. According to
Porcine, the coupler is "Designed to decode NMEA-183 and Aviation Format
transmitted signals."
Back to my main point.....when asking questions or commenting on "TruTrak"
autopilots, be sure to make reference to the series (Digitrak, Digiflight
((with or without the GPSS option)) or DFC).
Ross Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
> How difficult would it be for some really smart person to make a widget
> that converts the RS232 (?) from the handheld GPSs to ARINC 429 so a
> handheld could be coupled to the TruTrak? Is that different than what
> the Porcine product does?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV8-List: cockpit color |
Dan,
Would like details on your scheme.
Thanks,
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Trutrak: RS232 vs. ARINC 429 inputs |
I am not a computer engineer and do not even play one on TV. I can,
however, share some discussions I have had with both Apollo and TruTrak
concerning the differences in the RS232 and ARINC 429 outputs. I have a
DFC-250 TruTrak and an Apollo GX-60 GPS. Apollo products like my GX-60
outputs RS232 whereas Garmins output ARINC 429. I spoke with Dick Martin at
AirVenture this year and he stated that he loved the TruTrak he was flying
but was going to change from an Apollo GPS to a Garmin GPS because he
believed the RS232 in the Apollo was causing the autopilot to drift.
Naturally, I was concerned, so I asked the engineer in the Apollo booth
about this. He stated that the ARINC connection does receive course
deviation signals faster than the RS232 but that the number of times that
the GPS updated the course based on this information was not significantly
different. In other words, even though GPS receivers with the ARINC
connection received more course deviation information than those with RS232
connections, they did not correct themselves significantly faster. Since
both connections send course deviation information to the autopilot several
times per second, drift would not be a factor in either unit. The Apollo
engineer said that Dick Martins problem, therefore, had to be associated
with something else, perhaps an older Apollo GPS. The TruTrak folks said
that Garmin, indeed, was the leader in GPS technology but the Apollo should
work just as well with their autopilots. Jim Yonkin stated that he was
going to do some testing with both units to verify that statement.
So...that's all I know and now it is time for those engineer types to step
in and clarify what I have said.
Ross Mickey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Log Book Entry Question |
John:
just a thought: what happens if you want to sell your engine, prop or airframe
separately? That's why I have three logs.
Bill Marvel
> From: "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com>
> Date: 2002/08/15 Thu PM 07:58:30 EDT
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Log Book Entry Question
>
>
>
> The Feds are not all in agreement here. In meetings with the Feds setting
> up my inspection and paperwork, the guy told me to prepare three(3) logs,
> engine, prop, and airframe. After purchasing them and filling them out,
> when they came down for the inspection, the older and more experienced
> person said " Why do you have three (3) logs"? I explained his helper told
> me too. He said "Get rid of two(2) of them. You can put everything in
> one(1)".
> So for the past six(6) years, I have happily put everything in one book.
> The Columbus FSDO still does that.
> John Kitz
> N721JK
> Ohio
>
>
> >
> > Exhaust change goes into the airframe logbook, not that it really matters
> > much. If it goes with the
> > engine then its a engine logbook entry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trutrak Digitrak servo installation and Navaid compa |
rison
Yes. I stated in previous posts I'm refering to the Digiflight. The DF200VS
is what I have. I guess that got lost in the trimming of previous posts.
To summarize my original quest. I have a Garmin 196 hand-held and DF200VS. I
was going to get the GPSS option, but TruTrak advised not to waste my money as
the Garmin does not output the needed ARINC 429. So your statement below about
needing the GPSS option to follow a multi-leg route programmed into the GPS is
correct, assuming you have a ARINC 429 capable GPS. I don't. Rats.
-Larry
--- Ross Mickey wrote:
>
> Larry, et.al.,
>
> I think it would help in these discussions to differentiate between the
> three different product lines that TruTrak sells. Since Navaid has only one
> product, we can get away with referring to their wing leveler/Porcine
> Coupler combo as a "Navaid." We can not do this with "TruTrak." TruTrak
> has three lines that have different input requirements and different
> capabilities. These three lines are the DigiTrak, Digiflight and the DFC
> series.
>
> The DFC series are fully functioning autopilots with built in GPS Steering
> (GPSS) that can use either RS232 or ARINC 429 inputs. My Apollo GX60 only
> outputs RS232 whereas the Garmin and other lines output ARINC 429. My
> DFC-250 will use either. The DigiFlight series offers GPSS as a $375
> option. The DigiTrak series does not offer GPSS.
>
> If you want to follow a GPS flight plan (i.e. no pilot inputs required to
> change direction at each leg) you need GPSS in the TruTrak Line. To do
> something similar (it is not true GPSS) with a Navaid, you need a Porcine
> coupler and a GPS that is compatible with the Porcine coupler. According to
> Porcine, the coupler is "Designed to decode NMEA-183 and Aviation Format
> transmitted signals."
>
> Back to my main point.....when asking questions or commenting on "TruTrak"
> autopilots, be sure to make reference to the series (Digitrak, Digiflight
> ((with or without the GPSS option)) or DFC).
>
> Ross Mickey
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com>
> > How difficult would it be for some really smart person to make a widget
> > that converts the RS232 (?) from the handheld GPSs to ARINC 429 so a
> > handheld could be coupled to the TruTrak? Is that different than what
> > the Porcine product does?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: High Fuel Pressure |
Glenn:
We've seen this in Grummans in the past. A blocked breather will cause high fuel
pressure because it biases the mechanical fuel pump diaphram. Look at that
for sure.
Bill Marvel
> From: "Glenn Gordon" <dirtyrottenscoundrels(at)attbi.com>
> Date: 2002/08/15 Thu PM 10:25:32 EDT
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: High Fuel Pressure
>
>
> Hello,
>
> On a flight this evening I started getting a high fuel pressure reading on
> the Electronics Intl. FP-5L fuel pressure gauge. Reading was about 7.8.
> When I pulled the throttle back, the pressure went up to about 8.4. Turning
> on the aux pump produced a .2 rise.
>
> The problem may be high fuel pressure, or it may be a bad transducer or
> gauge. Assuming the transducer and gauge are working properly, what would
> cause high fuel pressure?
>
> -Glenn Gordon
> N442E
> 55 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <karpinski(at)baldcom.net> |
| Subject: | New Builde: r Priming Question |
Well I'm glad I started with a good question...
OK.. You only build it once ! The hell with the extra weight ! (yes I
know every little bit adds up)
Here's what I'm going to do..
Aluminiprep & Clear Anodine the inside surfaces. Followed by 2 Part Akzo
epoxy primer..
_________________________
Al Karpinski
Laser Diode Array Inc.
110 Genesee Street
Auburn, NY 13021
Phone: 315-253-8292
Fax: 315-253-6368
Home: 315-689-0094
karpinski(at)ldai.com
www.ldai.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kendall R.
Simmons
Subject: RE: RV-List: New Builde: r Priming Question
Since someone has mentioned the "P" word I have a related question. I'm
using a similar setup as Al and I'm about to start the wing. I'm a
little concerned about doing the prep work when winter comes along. I've
read in the archives about using a painter to do the prep and paint for
a reasonable price. What "painter" does this, an aircraft maintenance
shop, an autobody shop, and industrial process plant?
Ken
8 (empennage amost done)
-----Original Message-----
From: karpinski(at)baldcom.net [mailto:karpinski(at)baldcom.net]
Subject: RV-List: New Builde: r Priming Question
The Journey Begins.. Hi All.. New builder.. RV-8QB..
About to prime the HS components.. Have Aluminiprep & Anodine the
spars.. Ribs.. etc.....
Ready to use 2 Part Akzo epoxy primer..
Question Is:
Do I need to also Prep/Anodine & Prime inside Surfaces of the Skins ??
Al Karpinski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Hi All:
FWIW, we left the Los Angeles area (TOA) in the 8A and flew non-stop to Durango,
CO with 10 gallons fuel remaining. From there to Kansas City also left 10 gallons
in the tanks. Big divert for WX took us to Louisville, KY, up to 15,500
to top the low part of a cold front and landed with 1.5 hours remaining. Then
to Martinsburg, WV with another divert for WX to the east over Charleston,
WV put us into Martinsburg with two hours left. From there to our destination
of Hartford, CT with 2.5 hours left.
Four stops across the US with not much tailwind. Van, you're a genius.
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long trip in 8A |
> Four stops across the US with not much tailwind. Van, you're a
> genius.
Total time enroute?
- Mike
====
Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver(at)yahoo.com)
Austin, TX, USA
RV-6 in progress, N140RV (Reserved)
Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean running Lyc |
Hi listers,
The right sized jets bought new is the preffered way to go, however:
If you find a need to fill and re-drill carburetor jets, do so with care.
Look first at the jet with the aid of a good magnifying glass.
Pay close attention to the shapes of the factory drilled hole at entry and
exit.
After filling with the solder of choice (My choice soft silver solder)
remove any extra solder if the hole gets over filled.
Re-drill with a very sharp drill using high speed and low pressure (don't
push the drill).
The idea is to make the re-drilled hole as straight and smooth as possible.
Also the hole should be the same depth from entry to exit
It's most likely my tendency toward anal behavior surfacing here, but I have
seen botched re-jetting that failed to produce expected results due to
failure to do the above. The result caused a lot of confusion, wasted time,
and wasted money. The jets in question had the holes drilled crooked through
a glob of solder that effectively made one of the re-drilled jet orifices
close to twice the depth of the original. the other was scored through the
length of the bore as well.
Attention to detail is required here. Treating these carburetor parts like
jewelry is justified.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "3 rotor" <rv8r300(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Lean running Lyc
>
> I had to drill the jet out a drill size and that seemed to help a lot, I
> forget the drill now, somewhere very near the 39,40,41 range, I believe.
> The process is reversible using a drop of silver solder if necessary to
fill
> in the hole and redrill back to the smaller size I was told. Kevin
> O-320D2J
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: RV-List: Lean running Lyc
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hi
> > Does anyone have any ideas why my 0-320 fixed pitch wood prop runs lean
> RV6
> > symptoms are -
> > high egts 1600ish at 2400rpm full rich
> > very light gray exhaust pipes
> > Carb heat has almost no drop
> > no increase in rpm or egt when leaning mixture at 2400rpm cruise just
> starts
> > to run rough
> > chts are good around 320f
> > oil temps are good 180f
> >
> > mag timming and drops are good
> > no induction leaks i can find
> > carby has had single piece venturi and metal float mods done and i just
> > tried replacing the standard discharge nozzle with a newer type
atomising
> > nozzle but made no diferance
> >
> > any ideas or info from people who have had simmilar problems would be a
> big
> > help
> >
> > Dave Tennant
> > RV6 australia 2.5hrs
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Builde: r Priming Question |
| From: | Thomas Lutgring J Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
Is this going to turn into the whose going to buy our old, primed or
unprimed, deburred or not deburred,
RV's 20 years from now thread.. Please God show mercy.... Oh no, I
brought non RV related religion into it .... Another bad thread could
start Tom, RV-9A wings
Forget the Alodine, buy a gallon of veri-prime
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HalBenjamin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dimple aileron nose skin |
In a message dated 08/16/2002 3:58:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dan(at)rvproject.com writes:
> Ok, you countersink the holes in the galvanized pipe...but how do you dimple
> the respective holes in the aileron nose skin?
Hi Dan,
After drilling and countersinking the pipe, I cleckoed the nose skin in place
and used a male "swivel dimpling set" in my rivet gun and the countersunk
pipe as the female die. (Rivet gun pressure set low) Worked well
Hal Benjamin
RV-4, Fuselage
Long Island, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Lean running Lyc |
In a message dated 8/16/2002 4:03:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dltenno(at)hotmail.com writes:
> Does anyone have any ideas why my 0-320 fixed pitch wood prop runs lean RV6
>
Check the archives for info regarding the proper carb main jet size if this
is a used engine from some other certified plane. The carb may need to be
modified to account for the better ram air induction at speed for RVs. The
idle mixture adjustment mentioned by someone previously will primarily affect
the lower end of the rpm curve.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 560hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | New Builde: r Priming Question |
On my old Cessna it was the underside of the upper skins that corroded
due to condensation. The bottom skins were fine. It was a 1963 model
delivered to Santa Barbara and left out in the salt fog for a lot of
years. The skins, by the way were salvageable though not pretty inside.
The spar attaches looked like croissants - all flakey and shit.
Ed Holyoke
Here's my view on priming inside parts for corrosion control: 1) Prime
alclad skins along the area where ribs & spars will be in contact (spray
down the line of rivet holes). Skin not in contact with other parts is
not
likely to corrode - unless it is a lower skin on which junk -moisture &
chemicals in the air - my collect and set up corrosion - so prime inside
of
lower skins. 2) All non-alclad parts need anti-corrosion primer.
Seems
like most ribs are not alclad - I may be remembering wrong.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: <karpinski(at)baldcom.net>
Subject: RV-List: New Builde: r Priming Question
>
>
> The Journey Begins.. Hi All.. New builder.. RV-8QB..
>
> About to prime the HS components.. Have Aluminiprep & Anodine
the
> spars.. Ribs.. etc.....
>
> Ready to use 2 Part Akzo epoxy primer..
>
>
> Question Is:
>
> Do I need to also Prep/Anodine & Prime inside Surfaces of the Skins
??
>
>
> Al Karpinski
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dimple aileron nose skin |
There's at least two ways to do this that I have used and both work. The
first, and most tedious is to use a pop rivet dimple tool (Cleveland or
Avery) and the second is to use a male dimple die in a rivet set drilled to
accept the die shank (again Avery Tools and probably Cleveland as well). For
the second method set your air pressure real low and only use one or two
hits. Of course, either way you have to machine dimple the pipe first. Good
luck.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com> |
Something to watch for:
http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/
a new 2 1/4 radio, looks like an improvement over the microair. time will
tell.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Todd Wiechman" <toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Do You Need Help Building? |
I am just letting you folks know that there is a spot open for a lucky
individual that needs help building their RV. I am an A&P with Inspection
Authorization and have over 6 years experience in building RV's. I am
located in Wichita Kansas, but can build and ship for anyone anywhere. If
you are interested, please give me a call at 316-721-5670 or 316-210-5670. I
have very competitive rates!!! I will build any part of the RV or the whole
kit and kaboodle!!
Todd Wiechman
toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long trip in 8A |
Don't have the logs here right now but I think about 13. Will be heading back
next week and have to try to connect with two RV fans who want rides in the 8
or 8A.
Bill
>
> From: Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com>
> Date: 2002/08/16 Fri PM 03:35:28 EDT
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Long trip in 8A
>
>
> > Four stops across the US with not much tailwind. Van, you're a
> > genius.
>
>
> Total time enroute?
>
> - Mike
>
>
> ====
> Michael E. Thompson (Grobdriver(at)yahoo.com)
> Austin, TX, USA
> RV-6 in progress, N140RV (Reserved)
> Ex-AX1 Sub Hunter, P-3 (B/B-TACMOD/C) Orion Aircrew,
> PP-G,ASEL, Motorglider Driver and Unlimited Air Race Nut!
>
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
| Subject: | Installing Rudder Cables |
When installing the rudder cables to you guys cut a slit into the plastic
grommets
and then insert them as you go? If you just insert the grommets first, the
rudder cable
ends will not fit through the holes.
Steve Hurlbut
RV-7A
Misc Fuselage Stuff
http://members.kingston.net/sjhdcl/rv7a.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Rudder Cables |
I just did this.
1. Cable is routed rear to front.
2. Grommets slipped over the cable then popped into place.
Cable ends will not go through grommets, if grommets are installed.
Also, this is easier while the top rear section of fuselage is not in
place.
Barry Pore RV9a finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Randy,
thanks for the trim tip, sounds like a great idea, and one more excuse to go
flying, just to test it out.
Been so mucky around here lately, not much fun flying. What a paradox, sky
clear and three miles visibility, but you can't see the ground straight down
above 5000ft.
Wheeler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
The only FAA requirement about any record "book" is that "a list of current
AD's/compliance data must be kept"
All other records may be kept on toilet paper for all they care.
Additionally most records can be destroyed after one year or when superceded
by new repair/service/inspection. (Although this is legal, please do not do
this as it makes it very difficult for anyone to continue certifiying the
aircraft as airworthy every year without those records)
The reason we keep separate logs is because engines, airframes and
propellers, hot sections, cold sections and gear boxes tend to go their own
way, so their individual records should follow.
The big exceptions to this one year rule are Total Time in Service, Life
Limited Parts, current AD status, and FAA Form 337s for Major Alterations
only.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
| Subject: | Installing Rudder Cables |
Subject: RV-List: Installing Rudder Cables
When installing the rudder cables to you guys cut a slit into the plastic
grommets and then insert them as you go? If you just insert the grommets
first, the
rudder cable ends will not fit through the holes.
Steve Hurlbut
RV-7A
-----------------------------------
Hi Steve
If they are the same grommets that came with my RV-6A you can put the rudder
cable through the bulkhead hole first and then fit the grommet over the
cable end (oval it a bit) then snap the grommet into the bulkhead.
For us folks with short legs sometimes the forward rudder cable fitting
(shoulder) binds or catches on the forward bulkhead grommet. I enlarged the
forward hole to into a slot shape to take care of the up and down motion of
the cable and made up a bushing out of 1/2" UHMW plastic. Beveled the
forward edges of the bushing to stop the binding.
George McNutt
Langley, B.C.
6A-65 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Rudder Cables |
Hi Steve;
Well, welcome to "Vans World" of easy and simple aircraft maintenance and
construction!
You are quite right, the rudder cable ends will not fit through an installed
snap-in grommet.
Solution is to feed the rudder cable through the grommet first (requires a
bit of a squeeze to make it oval to pass the cable end, BTW), then feed the
cable through the bulkhead hole (it's "just" big enough to get the cable end
through), and then slide the grommet along and snap it into place. Repeat as
necessary for later and additional bulkheads. Make sure you have the cable
right way around the first time!
If in a squeeze later on, the "slit open the grommet" method will work as
well.
Hope you are doing all this before the top fuse skins are on. Strongly
suggest that you deal with the pitot static system and make some wiring
provisions (such as a 1/2" poly tube conduit from the cockpit aft) before
closing this up. You did make some wiring provisions out to the wings from
under the seat before riveting the seat ribs into place didn't you ? That's
another tricky access place later on....
Do I have to add, "guess how I know that" ? .......
Regards, Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Subject: RV-List: Installing Rudder Cables
>
> When installing the rudder cables to you guys cut a slit into the plastic
> grommets
> and then insert them as you go? If you just insert the grommets first, the
> rudder cable
> ends will not fit through the holes.
>
> Steve Hurlbut
> RV-7A
> Misc Fuselage Stuff
> http://members.kingston.net/sjhdcl/rv7a.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Rudder Cables |
In a message dated 8/17/02 5:16:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca writes:
<< For us folks with short legs sometimes the forward rudder cable fitting
(shoulder) binds or catches on the forward bulkhead grommet. I enlarged the
forward hole to into a slot shape to take care of the up and down motion of
the cable and made up a bushing out of 1/2" UHMW plastic. Beveled the
forward edges of the bushing to stop the binding.
George McNutt
Langley, B.C.
6A-65 hrs >>
Another way to address the interference issue with the rudder cable end is to
sleeve it and the first 1' or so of the rudder cable with a piece of flexible
hose, like the plastic hose Van's supplies for the hydraulic lines. This
piece of hose (aka a fairlead) always extends through the "problem bulkhead"
and has a piece of safety wire at each end which keeps it from sliding fore
and aft on the rudder cable.
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Trutrak in an RV-4 ? |
Hi gang,
Does anyone have a trutrak installed and working in an RV-4? I am ready to
purchase the Digitrak model, and need some advice before doing so. Thanks.
-
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
255 exciting Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Ginn" <ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au> |
| Subject: | Flashing Landing Light |
Has anyone installed a flashing landing light? If so would you please let
me have some details of your installation.
Thanks
William Ginn
Sydney Australia
ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Light |
William Ginn wrote:
>
>
> Has anyone installed a flashing landing light? If so would you please let
> me have some details of your installation.
>
> Thanks
> William Ginn
> Sydney Australia
> ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au
>
Here is one way of flashing your lights:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/panel4.html
Scroll to the bottom of the page.
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Light |
Here's the details of the wig-wag I installed in my -8A... 53 hours and no
problems...
http://vondane.com/rv8a/tt&i/index.htm#wigwag
-Bill
http://vondane.com/rv8a
----Original Message Follows----
From: "William Ginn" <ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au>
Subject: RV-List: Flashing Landing Light
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 11:05:47 +1000
Has anyone installed a flashing landing light? If so would you please let
me have some details of your installation.
Thanks
William Ginn
Sydney Australia
ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
I put my EFIS/One in the 150 today and spent some time putting it through
its paces.
The test setup was very "jury rigged" but the airdata seemed to work well
.The pitot was a plastic tube stuck through the overhead wing vent, static
vented to cabin. The GPS antenna was on the glareshield. The
magnetometer mounting was fair, but less than a foot away from some steel
structure. The main box was on the floor of the baggage comnpartment.
Power from the cigarette lighter plug (12 volt generator).
I made no attempt to hook up any engine instruments or external VOR/ILS.
The moving map is the new "terrain" map which looks amazing, but
unfortunately doesn't have any aeronautical data other than (unlabeled)
airports and airspace boundaries yet.
There isn't any high terrain around Memphis, so nothing shows red (higher
altitude) but it is very cool flying along the river and seeing every bend
on the horizon display as well as out the window.
I have posted a short video at http://deepthought.apley.com/~flyeyes/efis.
html
This is about three unedited minutes of right turning and a little
maneuvering. It picks up on the forth or fifth 360 degree turn. It's
hard to tell in the video, but the EFIS corresponds to the actual horizon
better than the vacuum gyro, which is visible behind the left side of the
EFIS
I apologize for the poor quality, but I was in a hurry today and using a
very cheap camera. I will try to get a better camera and more stable
mount, but it will take a couple of weeks. You can tell (I think) that
the river corresponds beautifully with the mapped terrain on the EFIS, at
least when I'm pointed away from the sun.
James Freeman
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Trutrak Digitrak servo installation and Navaid comparison |
I installed a digiflight 200 with GPSS but without VS in my rv-8. I was at
oshkosh with the plane and had several people stop by and ask questions about
the units installation and operation. The actual unit is one of the early
digiflight 200 units coupled to a garmin 430 and has worked perfectly since
day one and was easy to install. It holds alt, headings and gps courses very
well. I understand that the newest units they are shipping for rv's will be
using a cable type drive (similar to an s-tec setup) for the pitch servo
which can be retrofitted to units already installed. This is because with the
one I have (direct drive rods) there is a very minute "gear" feel in glass
smooth conditions that some people may notice and some may not. Believe
me...on those 2hr flights its nice to have a good autopilot to hold alt and
courses so you can enjoy the scenery and not wear yourself out in choppy air.
John Link
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)apex.net> |
John Furey wrote:
>
> I have just installed a DigiTrak in my 6A. The mounting kit was
> excellent and the installation straight forward. With very limited time
> I must say I am very pleased with it's operation both with and without
> GPS hook up. I did have to reverse the 4 and 5 wires as the plans state
> may be needed. I don't know if that will apply to all other
> installations in the left wing.
>
> John Furey
> O-320 Sensenich 80"
Can it be hooked up to a hand held GPS (Garmin Pilot III) or can it only be
hooked up to a panel mount?
So it works well without a GPS?
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Working on the wings :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James & Shalise Cash" <jcash(at)granbury.com> |
, ,
| Subject: | FA: New com radio and Woodward prop governor |
Hey everybody,
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I have a couple of good deals on
eBay:
New Michel radio:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item1852114559
0SMOH Woodward prop governor for McCauley hub:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item1852126114
Thanks,
Jimmy Cash
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lean running Lyc |
| From: | Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com> |
An open note to all who would become main jet (fuel nozzle) drillers. You
know who you are.
Do you have a standard O-320 or is it highly modified?
Do you operate from a high altitude airport?
What is the fuel flow rate at cruse (compared with similar set ups)?
When you set up the idle mixture for the 50 rpm rise at idle cut off be sure
that you do this with sea level, standard day in mind. Other wise you might
find that the engine will quit when landing at or near a sea level, high
pressure day airport when you pull off power.
These MA-4 SPA carburetors(in good shape with no mods) should work fine on
320 cubic inch engines from sea level (high pressure days) through the
service ceiling of common light aircraft (Producing whatever power is
normal). If you can't lean/enrichen the carb enough to get the appropriate
mixture for your altitude and atmospheric conditions, look to equipment
problems first ( i.e. induction system leaks, fuel supply that can't keep
up, carb. passages partly plugged, float adjustment [good needle/seat] or
miss alignment of the mixture arm with respect to the mixture valve). I know
of one pilot whose MA-4 bottom half almost fell off the RV-4 before he
couldn't keep the engine running smoothly with mixture control and had to
pull the cowl and look ( the mixture control can hide problems right up to
the point you become a glider).
The mixture control cable housing should be anchored at each end and the
cable throw must allow for full travel of the mixture arm, stop to stop
against the carb. body.
I have seen some bad single piece venturi installations due mainly to poorly
cast venturis.
The alignment of the mixture arm to its valve (a hollow half shaft at the
valve end) has to be done with the top off the carb. so that you can see
that fuel supply hole that feeds the main jet is fully shut a idle cut off
and fully open at full rich. As I remember this valve rotates about 180*
and most of the leaning action right up to full cut off is of fewer degrees
to allow for a slight assembly misalignment.
I probably left out some other factors, however, what bothers me is that
there must be many hundreds of O-320's flying with Van's set up that do not
have problems with normal leaning. Why do just a few need to modify their
carbs. main jet.
Parts: Check out; 10-5009N, 10-5135, 10-5217 MA-4SPA
Will all the folks who are currently flying with drilled out nozzles please
report the following information to the list. (or know of someone who is not
on the "list")
sub: Lean Running MA-4SPA
RV Model
Carb. Model Number and new or rebuilt
Nozzle Part Number
Air cleaner style (round or flat bottom if Van's)
Drilled to what size, from what size
Thanks in advance,
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
| Subject: | Lean running MA4SPA |
Subject: RV-List: Lean running Lyc
An open note to all who would become main jet (fuel nozzle) drillers. You
know who you are.
Do you have a standard O-320 or is it highly modified?
Do you operate from a high altitude airport?
What is the fuel flow rate at cruse (compared with similar set ups)?
(snip)----------------
I probably left out some other factors, however, what bothers me is that
there must be many hundreds of O-320's flying with Van's set up that do not
have problems with normal leaning. Why do just a few need to modify their
carbs. main jet.
Parts: Check out; 10-5009N, 10-5135, 10-5217 MA-4SPA
Will all the folks who are currently flying with drilled out nozzles please
report the following information to the list. (or know of someone who is not
on the "list")
sub: Lean Running MA-4SPA
RV Model
Carb. Model Number and new or rebuilt
Nozzle Part Number
Air cleaner style (round or flat bottom if Van's)
Drilled to what size, from what size
Thanks in advance,
Gary
Hi Gary
I confess, - and I am interested in this subject so here are the my sordid
details.
1) RV-6A with standard zero time 0-320 modified from E2C (150 HP) to D2A
(160 HP) when rebuilt only mod is Lightspeed electronic ignition replacing
right magneto.
2) Operating from sea level airports, highest cruise altitude so far is
13,000 feet.
3) Fuel burn varies from 7.5 to 9 GPH.
4) First carb was P/N 10-3678-32 which was on the engine when purchased and
was overhauled at engine overhaul. When lean running diagnosed our local
engine shop advised that this was a carb for a 140 HP engine. Carb was then
replaced with a P/N 10-5217 off 160 HP Robinson helicopter, used serviceable
& 960 hrs TTSN. This carb also ran lean.
5) Nozzle P/N not recorded.
6) Air cleaner is oval shaped K&N as supplied with Vans airbox. Filter has
flat plate on bottom.
7) Initial jet size (on 10-5217 carb) was #42 drill size (lean) then drilled
to # 40 (lean) then # 38 acceptable but still seems a tad lean. Jets drilled
out by engine shop.
8) Minimual instrumentation on this aircraft & no EGT. I am now able to get
a 50 RPM rise when leaning at 8000 feet and about a 150 RPM rise at 13,000
feet.
George McNutt
6A-65 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
James the movie doesn't seem to show up on the page.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Freeman
Subject: RV-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
I put my EFIS/One in the 150 today and spent some time putting it through
its paces.
The test setup was very "jury rigged" but the airdata seemed to work well
.The pitot was a plastic tube stuck through the overhead wing vent, static
vented to cabin. The GPS antenna was on the glareshield. The
magnetometer mounting was fair, but less than a foot away from some steel
structure. The main box was on the floor of the baggage comnpartment.
Power from the cigarette lighter plug (12 volt generator).
I made no attempt to hook up any engine instruments or external VOR/ILS.
The moving map is the new "terrain" map which looks amazing, but
unfortunately doesn't have any aeronautical data other than (unlabeled)
airports and airspace boundaries yet.
There isn't any high terrain around Memphis, so nothing shows red (higher
altitude) but it is very cool flying along the river and seeing every bend
on the horizon display as well as out the window.
I have posted a short video at http://deepthought.apley.com/~flyeyes/efis.
html
This is about three unedited minutes of right turning and a little
maneuvering. It picks up on the forth or fifth 360 degree turn. It's
hard to tell in the video, but the EFIS corresponds to the actual horizon
better than the vacuum gyro, which is visible behind the left side of the
EFIS
I apologize for the poor quality, but I was in a hurry today and using a
very cheap camera. I will try to get a better camera and more stable
mount, but it will take a couple of weeks. You can tell (I think) that
the river corresponds beautifully with the mapped terrain on the EFIS, at
least when I'm pointed away from the sun.
James Freeman
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Sunday, August 18, 2002, at 08:34 AM, Bob Hassel wrote:
> James the movie doesn't seem to show up on the page.
>
I just checked it and it's working for me (it's on a friend's server).
You need the Quicktime plug-in which is free from apple (works in windows,
Mac, or Linux)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net> |
The Digitrak can be hooked up to a hand held but is not recommended. The
Digitrak needs updates
once per second and most hand helds update every 2 seconds (even though the
screen may update
once per second). The Digitrak needs to be coupled to good GPS. For a simple
solution the company sells
the Garmin 35 which is just an antenna (no panel display) to give it the
required info. Garmin 35 is only
$175. Then use you hand held Pilot III to help you will navigation only.
Alternative is to use Garmin 430
if your budget allows. Without the 1/sec updates the flying qualities are
not near as good.
This was Chuck Bilbe's response at Oshkosh.
Steve Hurlbut
RV-7A
Fuselage
http://members.kingston.net/sjhdcl/rv7a.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: DigiTrak
>
> John Furey wrote:
>
> >
> > I have just installed a DigiTrak in my 6A. The mounting kit was
> > excellent and the installation straight forward. With very limited time
> > I must say I am very pleased with it's operation both with and without
> > GPS hook up. I did have to reverse the 4 and 5 wires as the plans state
> > may be needed. I don't know if that will apply to all other
> > installations in the left wing.
> >
> > John Furey
> > O-320 Sensenich 80"
>
> Can it be hooked up to a hand held GPS (Garmin Pilot III) or can it only
be
> hooked up to a panel mount?
> So it works well without a GPS?
>
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Working on the wings :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James & Shalise Cash" <jcash(at)granbury.com> |
, ,
| Subject: | Corrected address: FA: New com radio and Woodward prop governor |
Hey everybody,
Just wanted to give you a heads up that I have a couple of good deals on
eBay:
New Michel radio:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item1852114559
0SMOH Woodward prop governor for McCauley hub:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item1852126114
Thanks,
Jimmy Cash
PS: If you have trouble with the links, make sure the "" sign is in
front of the item number. It gets scrambled sometimes, putting the""
in front of the last digit.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James & Shalise Cash" <jcash(at)granbury.com> |
This is a great unit. It can be used with any GPS that has a data output.
In fact, you can use the GPS/Receiver unit that is integral with the antenna
(this is the unit the IPAQ Anywhere maps use, also). The GPS data allows
the autopilot to track a straight "track line." It does not track your
programmed flight plan. It simply uses GPS position to fly the track which
is displayed in the autopilot. If you want to fly your GPS course, simply
get the airplane on the line, and turn it so the track in the autopilot
matches the track indicated on your GPS. The Digitrack also flies standard
rate turns, and has several other functions.
Without the GPS, the autopilot will fly a fixed heading, based on zero rate.
Since it has no data, it cannot compensate for winds.
This is a superior unit to the Navaid, without question.
Jimmy Cash
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)apex.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: DigiTrak
>
> John Furey wrote:
>
> >
> > I have just installed a DigiTrak in my 6A. The mounting kit was
> > excellent and the installation straight forward. With very limited time
> > I must say I am very pleased with it's operation both with and without
> > GPS hook up. I did have to reverse the 4 and 5 wires as the plans state
> > may be needed. I don't know if that will apply to all other
> > installations in the left wing.
> >
> > John Furey
> > O-320 Sensenich 80"
>
> Can it be hooked up to a hand held GPS (Garmin Pilot III) or can it only
be
> hooked up to a panel mount?
> So it works well without a GPS?
>
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Working on the wings :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
James & Shalise Cash wrote:
>
>
> This is a great unit. It can be used with any GPS that has a data output.
> In fact, you can use the GPS/Receiver unit that is integral with the antenna
> (this is the unit the IPAQ Anywhere maps use, also). The GPS data allows
> the autopilot to track a straight "track line." It does not track your
> programmed flight plan. It simply uses GPS position to fly the track which
> is displayed in the autopilot. If you want to fly your GPS course, simply
> get the airplane on the line, and turn it so the track in the autopilot
> matches the track indicated on your GPS. The Digitrack also flies standard
> rate turns, and has several other functions.
>
> Without the GPS, the autopilot will fly a fixed heading, based on zero rate.
> Since it has no data, it cannot compensate for winds.
>
> This is a superior unit to the Navaid, without question.
>
> Jimmy Cash
>
I fail to see by your description what makes it superior to Navaid
without guestion? Please explain
Jerry Springer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1(at)kc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | AutoCad RV-6A Panel |
Does anyone have an AutoCad drawing of an RV6-A (slider) instrument
panel?
Thanks...
David Schaefer
RV6-A Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Wheel pant alignment |
Hello Listers;
After 6 years of flying my -4, it needed the cowling and wheel pants
repainted. In doing so, I also purchased new fiberglass fairings from
Tracy Saylor(which by the way are of excellent quality and fast
delivery).
Concerning aligning the wheel pants for lowest drag, do most of you
align them while the weight is on the gear so they look good on the
ground? If so, how much misaligned are they in flight ? Just looking
for a little more speed while I am doing these mods.
Thanks.
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AutoCad RV-6A Panel |
I've got my tipper panel on ACAD if interested- not too sure if there's that
much difference...
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark
David Schaefer wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an AutoCad drawing of an RV6-A (slider) instrument
> panel?
>
> Thanks...
>
> David Schaefer
> RV6-A Fuse
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Todd Wiechman" <toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Do You Need Help Building? |
I am just letting you folks know that there is a spot open for a lucky
individual that needs help building their RV. I am an A&P with Inspection
Authorization and have over 6 years experience in building RV's. I am
located in Wichita Kansas, but can build and ship for anyone anywhere. If
you are interested, please give me a call at 316-721-5670 or 316-210-5670. I
have very competitive rates!!! I will build any part of the RV or the whole
kit and kaboodle!!
Todd Wiechman
toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Schnebeck" <schnebeck(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Blue Mountain EFIS |
Works fin ewith XP
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Hassel" <bob@hassel-usa.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
>
> James the movie doesn't seem to show up on the page.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of James Freeman
> To: Rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Blue Mountain EFIS
>
>
> I put my EFIS/One in the 150 today and spent some time putting it through
> its paces.
>
> The test setup was very "jury rigged" but the airdata seemed to work well
> .The pitot was a plastic tube stuck through the overhead wing vent, static
> vented to cabin. The GPS antenna was on the glareshield. The
> magnetometer mounting was fair, but less than a foot away from some steel
> structure. The main box was on the floor of the baggage comnpartment.
> Power from the cigarette lighter plug (12 volt generator).
>
> I made no attempt to hook up any engine instruments or external VOR/ILS.
>
> The moving map is the new "terrain" map which looks amazing, but
> unfortunately doesn't have any aeronautical data other than (unlabeled)
> airports and airspace boundaries yet.
>
> There isn't any high terrain around Memphis, so nothing shows red (higher
> altitude) but it is very cool flying along the river and seeing every bend
> on the horizon display as well as out the window.
>
> I have posted a short video at http://deepthought.apley.com/~flyeyes/efis.
> html
>
> This is about three unedited minutes of right turning and a little
> maneuvering. It picks up on the forth or fifth 360 degree turn. It's
> hard to tell in the video, but the EFIS corresponds to the actual horizon
> better than the vacuum gyro, which is visible behind the left side of the
> EFIS
>
> I apologize for the poor quality, but I was in a hurry today and using a
> very cheap camera. I will try to get a better camera and more stable
> mount, but it will take a couple of weeks. You can tell (I think) that
> the river corresponds beautifully with the mapped terrain on the EFIS, at
> least when I'm pointed away from the sun.
>
> James Freeman
>
> .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel pant alignment |
In a message dated 8/18/02 12:51:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com writes:
<< Hello Listers;
After 6 years of flying my -4, it needed the cowling and wheel pants
repainted. In doing so, I also purchased new fiberglass fairings from
Tracy Saylor(which by the way are of excellent quality and fast
delivery).
Concerning aligning the wheel pants for lowest drag, do most of you
align them while the weight is on the gear so they look good on the
ground? If so, how much misaligned are they in flight ? Just looking
for a little more speed while I am doing these mods.
Thanks.
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio >>
To be sure they are honest-to-gosh straight, you need to align them with the
weight off the wheels.
On mine, I aligned them when the wings were off and before I hung the engine,
so the fuselage only weighted a couple of hundred pounds. I simply set it on
a couple of sawhorses with some padding under the fuselage. If you're
motivated, I'm sure you can come up with a way to suspend the assembled
airplane... ;-)
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel pant alignment |
I have the front of the airplane on a frame I welded up from 3" square
tubing. It would hold up a 747 I believe. I have the gear off the airplane
and it sure would look great as a retract. How do the wheel pants look when
on the ground after aligning them with no weight on them?
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio
> << Hello Listers;
> After 6 years of flying my -4, it needed the cowling and wheel pants
> repainted. In doing so, I also purchased new fiberglass fairings from
> Tracy Saylor(which by the way are of excellent quality and fast
> delivery).
> Concerning aligning the wheel pants for lowest drag, do most of you
> align them while the weight is on the gear so they look good on the
> ground? If so, how much misaligned are they in flight ? Just looking
> for a little more speed while I am doing these mods.
> Thanks.
> John Kitz
> N721JK
> Ohio >>
>
> To be sure they are honest-to-gosh straight, you need to align them with
the
> weight off the wheels.
>
> On mine, I aligned them when the wings were off and before I hung the
engine,
> so the fuselage only weighted a couple of hundred pounds. I simply set it
on
> a couple of sawhorses with some padding under the fuselage. If you're
> motivated, I'm sure you can come up with a way to suspend the assembled
> airplane... ;-)
>
> Kyle Boatright
> 0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
> Kennesaw, GA
> http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel pant alignment |
In a message dated 8/18/02 2:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com writes:
<< I have the front of the airplane on a frame I welded up from 3" square
tubing. It would hold up a 747 I believe. I have the gear off the airplane
and it sure would look great as a retract. How do the wheel pants look when
on the ground after aligning them with no weight on them?
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio >>
John,
The wheel pants look fine, but my eyeball isn't calibrated enough to tell if
they are 1, 5, or even 10 degrees out of alignment on the ground. With the
weight on the wheels, the gear are deflected out and slightly aft. Given the
gear leg and axle geometry, I'd bet there is some twist in there too, with
the wheel pants having a little more toe-out than with the weight off the
gear.
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lean running Lyc |
Coming from many years in certified airplanes and new to homebuilts when I built
my 8A, I am also hesitant to start drilling as a first resort.
1. Get the engine model number, carb part number, model number and serial number
and contact the carb mfg to make sure that carb is intended for that engine.
2. If so, make sure the economizer is set properly. This little device enriches
the mixture for full power operation and then leans it slightly off full power.
If it is incorrectly set, so will be your mixture.
3. A full, detailed inspection of the carb, fuel and air inlet systems is called
for at this point with a couple sets of different, knowledgeable eyeballs.
4. The fact is that nothing about Van's air box is magic. It does not increase
available manifold pressure, only minimizes the loss. Air flow through the
carb is determined by engine displacement and speed for full throttle operation.
If the carb is the right one for the engine and is in good mechanical shape,
fuel metering ought to be appropriate for the volume of air sensed.
In short, there is a lot of homework that needs to be done before one pulls the
trigger on the drill. The symptoms of this carb seem so dramatic that it ought
not be that difficult to start pinning down some causes.
Bill Marvel
(still in CT in 8A from CA trip. Heading back in a couple of days.)
>
> From: Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com>
> Date: 2002/08/18 Sun AM 01:47:28 EDT
> To: RV List
> Subject: RV-List: Lean running Lyc
>
>
> An open note to all who would become main jet (fuel nozzle) drillers. You
> know who you are.
>
> Do you have a standard O-320 or is it highly modified?
> Do you operate from a high altitude airport?
> What is the fuel flow rate at cruse (compared with similar set ups)?
>
> When you set up the idle mixture for the 50 rpm rise at idle cut off be sure
> that you do this with sea level, standard day in mind. Other wise you might
> find that the engine will quit when landing at or near a sea level, high
> pressure day airport when you pull off power.
>
> These MA-4 SPA carburetors(in good shape with no mods) should work fine on
> 320 cubic inch engines from sea level (high pressure days) through the
> service ceiling of common light aircraft (Producing whatever power is
> normal). If you can't lean/enrichen the carb enough to get the appropriate
> mixture for your altitude and atmospheric conditions, look to equipment
> problems first ( i.e. induction system leaks, fuel supply that can't keep
> up, carb. passages partly plugged, float adjustment [good needle/seat] or
> miss alignment of the mixture arm with respect to the mixture valve). I know
> of one pilot whose MA-4 bottom half almost fell off the RV-4 before he
> couldn't keep the engine running smoothly with mixture control and had to
> pull the cowl and look ( the mixture control can hide problems right up to
> the point you become a glider).
>
> The mixture control cable housing should be anchored at each end and the
> cable throw must allow for full travel of the mixture arm, stop to stop
> against the carb. body.
>
> I have seen some bad single piece venturi installations due mainly to poorly
> cast venturis.
>
> The alignment of the mixture arm to its valve (a hollow half shaft at the
> valve end) has to be done with the top off the carb. so that you can see
> that fuel supply hole that feeds the main jet is fully shut a idle cut off
> and fully open at full rich. As I remember this valve rotates about 180*
> and most of the leaning action right up to full cut off is of fewer degrees
> to allow for a slight assembly misalignment.
>
> I probably left out some other factors, however, what bothers me is that
> there must be many hundreds of O-320's flying with Van's set up that do not
> have problems with normal leaning. Why do just a few need to modify their
> carbs. main jet.
>
> Parts: Check out; 10-5009N, 10-5135, 10-5217 MA-4SPA
>
> Will all the folks who are currently flying with drilled out nozzles please
> report the following information to the list. (or know of someone who is not
> on the "list")
>
> sub: Lean Running MA-4SPA
>
> RV Model
> Carb. Model Number and new or rebuilt
> Nozzle Part Number
> Air cleaner style (round or flat bottom if Van's)
> Drilled to what size, from what size
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wheel pant alignment |
In a message dated 8/18/2002 9:51:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com writes:
> Hello Listers;
> After 6 years of flying my -4, it needed the cowling and wheel pants
> repainted. In doing so, I also purchased new fiberglass fairings from
> Tracy Saylor(which by the way are of excellent quality and fast
> delivery).
> Concerning aligning the wheel pants for lowest drag, do most of you
> align them while the weight is on the gear so they look good on the
> ground? If so, how much misaligned are they in flight ? Just looking
> for a little more speed while I am doing these mods.
> Thanks.
> John Kitz
> N721JK
I just finished installing the Team Rocket wheel fairings on my -6. The
instructions say to install the fairings with the weight off the gear and the
airframe leveled. Also to align the top and bottom mold parting line on the
fairing with the centerline of the tire. With the weight off airframe the
tire it is tilted outboard at the top. This concerned me because in-flight
the fairing's will be canted a couple of degrees from vertical. On the
ground they a pretty much vertical. I didn't try and reinvent the wheel I
installed them the way the direction's specified. There are a few other
steps in the directions that I haven't talked about here.
Cash Copeland
RV6 Hayward, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Engine Fasteners |
Hey guys, just got my engine mounted and was looking at the accessories. It
seems that they are all held on with either 1/4-20 or 5/16-18 studs, nuts,
and bolts. I checked all of my usual sources, Spruce, Wicks, Skybolt, etc.
and they only carry fine thread (1/4-28 and 5/16-24) fasteners.
Where do I find the course thread, or is it alright to use the cadmium
plated bolts and nuts from the hardware store?
Vince
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Edward Cole" <edwardmcole(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | AutoCad RV-6A Panel |
Mark,
Can I get a copy of the Tipper panel on ACAD?
Ed Cole
RV6A N2169D Flying
RV6A N648RV Finishing
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark Phillips
Subject: Re: RV-List: AutoCad RV-6A Panel
I've got my tipper panel on ACAD if interested- not too sure if there's
that
much difference...
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark
David Schaefer wrote:
>
> Does anyone have an AutoCad drawing of an RV6-A (slider) instrument
> panel?
>
> Thanks...
>
> David Schaefer
> RV6-A Fuse
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wheel pant alignment |
John:
I mounted my two piece wheel pants on my 4 a few weeks ago. raised the ac
off the ground and level. I marked the pants from front to back and when it
was lowered and rolled around the angle was out about 5 degrees or so. The
difference was also seen in the leg fairing as well. The wittman leg really
bends aroung a point it seems. Van's says this adds a heck of a drag so I
guess it is worth the effort. Doesnt look at all bad on the ground either.
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
going to the airport
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Wheel pant alignment
>
> Hello Listers;
> After 6 years of flying my -4, it needed the cowling and wheel pants
> repainted. In doing so, I also purchased new fiberglass fairings from
> Tracy Saylor(which by the way are of excellent quality and fast
> delivery).
> Concerning aligning the wheel pants for lowest drag, do most of you
> align them while the weight is on the gear so they look good on the
> ground? If so, how much misaligned are they in flight ? Just looking
> for a little more speed while I am doing these mods.
> Thanks.
> John Kitz
> N721JK
> Ohio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Fasteners |
>
>
>Hey guys, just got my engine mounted and was looking at the accessories.
>It
>seems that they are all held on with either 1/4-20 or 5/16-18 studs, nuts,
>and bolts. I checked all of my usual sources, Spruce, Wicks, Skybolt, etc.
>and they only carry fine thread (1/4-28 and 5/16-24) fasteners.
>
>Where do I find the course thread, or is it alright to use the cadmium
>plated bolts and nuts from the hardware store?
>
>Vince
So, you don't have any of the nuts on your engine for the starter, mags, vac
pump, governor, etc.? Bummer. I would not use hardware store nuts on the
engine. Not a good practice in general. I found a page in the Wick's
catalog that has plain steel nuts in 5/16-18 and 1/4-20 at
http://wicks.overcoffee.com/gotopage.php?page=215
These are typically used on exhaust studs. They should have star or split
ring washers under them as applicable and shown in the Lycoming overhaul and
parts manuals. (Gotta get these if you don't have them already.) Most of
the various studs on the engine are of these thread sizes. If you have a
used engine, you might want to get a couple of exhaust studs while you're at
it. Nice items to have around the shop.
If you just need a few nuts, washers, etc, have you tried the local FBO?
Sometimes it's just easier to go ask the A&P on duty for a gasket, bolt,
nut, etc. and although it can cost more, you don't have to wait to get the
job done.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
297 hrs.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net> |
| Subject: | Condition Inspection |
Does anyone have the proper log book endorsement for a completed
condition inspection?
Jim
Jim Cimino
RV-8 sn 80039 N7TL 60+ Hrs.
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
(570)842-4057
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: New Builde: r Priming Question |
Hey, Al:
A question for you!!!!!
>>>> Priming Done !! .. First Rivet Tomorrow.. Then only 15,000 to Go!
<<<<<
A kit cost about $15,000 and contains about 15,000 rivets. If you are not
referring to the number of "rivets" then you are in for a real lesson in
economocs. All of the oldies have faced this awaking - - - and it is still
worth it. We just get creative in justifying it to our spouses.
Welcome to the world of RV builders.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
Finish Kit 30% Complete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Rudder Cables |
Yo! Barry: Perfect answer. However, like most builders that like to see a
little progress each day I installed the grommets as soon as I could. It
was a no-brainer. When I ran the cable I just popped the grommet out of the
hole with a blade-type screw driver, then I gently squeezed the grommet with
a plier so it would slide it over the cable end one at a time. Really easy
to do once I figured it out.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
Finish Kit 30% Complete
----- Original Message -----
From: "barry pote" <barrypote(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Installing Rudder Cables
>
> I just did this.
> 1. Cable is routed rear to front.
> 2. Grommets slipped over the cable then popped into place.
>
> Cable ends will not go through grommets, if grommets are installed.
> Also, this is easier while the top rear section of fuselage is not in
> place.
> Barry Pore RV9a finishing
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
James & Shalise Cash wrote:
>
>
> This is a great unit. It can be used with any GPS that has a data output.
> In fact, you can use the GPS/Receiver unit that is integral with the antenna
> (this is the unit the IPAQ Anywhere maps use, also). The GPS data allows
> the autopilot to track a straight "track line." It does not track your
> programmed flight plan. It simply uses GPS position to fly the track which
> is displayed in the autopilot. If you want to fly your GPS course, simply
> get the airplane on the line, and turn it so the track in the autopilot
> matches the track indicated on your GPS. The Digitrack also flies standard
> rate turns, and has several other functions.
>
> Without the GPS, the autopilot will fly a fixed heading, based on zero rate.
> Since it has no data, it cannot compensate for winds.
>
> This is a superior unit to the Navaid, without question.
>
> Jimmy Cash
Interesting that the Digitrak is considered by at least one individual
as "a superior unit to the Navaid, without question." While I appreciate
the innovations the Digitrak is introducing, I think the good ol' tried
and proven Navaid has gotten a bum rap from some listers (many of whom
are still building and have never flown either unit!?!). I have over 400
hrs with the Navaid in my RV-6, and while the unit is definitely low
tech, it works amazingly well.
The only operational feature the Navaid doesn't have that the Digitrak
has is the digital heading display. Unless I have overlooked something,
the Navaid (when slaved to a GPS) has all the functionality of the
Digitrak. It will track a GPS heading just like the Digitrak, do
standard rate turns like the Digitrak, and the heading is adjustable in
one degree increments via the Smart Coupler just like the Digitrak.
When you switch to "Course" mode, it does stuff the Digitrak is
incapable of duplicating, such as taking you precisely to a waypoint
with no user intervention. While this navigation is being accomplished,
you have the services of the turn coordinator display, which the
Digitrak lacks.
As far as accuracy goes, I routinely see my Navaid (slaved to Airmap
100) holding course within 3-4 hundredths (!) of a mile. The course
corrections are so tiny that they are imperceptible. The Navaid will
also allow you to set a parallel course which I don't think is possible
with the Digitrak.
The Digitrak is a nice instrument, but I fail to see how it could be
characterized as "a superior unit to the Navaid, without question." I
suppose after somebody has flown both the Navaid and Digitrak for many
hours we will have a better basis for making valid comparisons.
By the way, the Navaid's mechanical innards have proven to be very
reliable, with thousands of hours in service. There just isn't much in
the thing to wear out in many years of service, and if something did go
belly up, it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively repaired. (I
suspect the Navaid boys would repair any defect in the unit even if it
was out of warranty; my experience with the Navaid gang has reinforced
my impression that they are very serious about supporting their unit.)
Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
"The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
,
| Subject: | new alodine trick |
Well, I don't know if this is new...but I'll be happy to take credit for it
if it is. 8
)
When alodining parts, here's a way to get thorough coverage with a minimum
of alodine and essentially no runoff or waste:
Take a large Ziploc sandwich bag (I used the common 1 gallon size that we
had lying around the kitchen), and pour a bit of alodine in there...maybe a
cup or so. Place your small parts into the bag one or two (or whatever) at
a time, and seal it if you want (or not). Slosh the parts around in the
alodine for a minute or two, take 'em out and rinse. The alodine stays in
the bag and the coverage on the parts is way better than what you get when
brushing it on.
This will only work for small parts, obviously -- I just did this with
aileron ribs and reinforcement plates and Gretz pitot mounting plates, etc.
I have to say it works excellent. Wish I knew this trick a while ago.
The coolest part is that you can drink the alodine right out of the bag when
you're done. Um, not.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (ailerons)
dan @ rvproject . com
http://www.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RV6A Down in Tampa |
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGAVLHHO15D.html
2 fatalities...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | We lost 2 of us today. |
I just received this terrible news from Jim Norman and am forwarding it
per his request.
This is indeed a sad day......
Sam Buchanan
================================
Jim Norman wrote:
>
> Sam,
> Please post this to the RV list for me. The RV List email service is
> rejecting my email... while I try to figure it out, please post this very
> sad note for me.
>
> regards,
> jim
> 813-971-2590
>
> RV Friends,
>
> It is with great remorse and sadness that I inform you that we lost two RV
> friends today.
>
> Scott Revere and John Moleki died this morning in Scott's RV-6A. The
> accident was at approximately 9:45 this morning just off the field at Peter
> O'Knight airport in Tampa.
>
> Scott was a great friend to me and was a constant contributor to the RV
> List. You all know him as ABAYMAN on this list. Here in Tampa, my nickname
> for him was "the world's nicest man". Scott would give anything to anybody,
> to the point that the rest of us noticed, and openly talked about him in
> this way. Many of you may remember Scott from his funny postings, or the
> way he was always the first on the list to offer to fax something, or
> provide something else. Those that have been on the list for a year or so
> will remember Scott's troubles when his shop was broken into 3 times in 2
> weeks, where all of his tools were taken, and they ruined his elevators by
> stepping on them. Scott's RV-6A received its airworthiness certificate about
> 5 weeks ago and it already had roughly 50 hours on it. All of us here in
> Tampa loved Scott.
>
> John Moleki was also an RV-6A builder, in partnership with Marvin Alvarez.
> John also lived in Tampa, and worked as a CFI out of Peter O'Knight airport.
> John's past included flying A6 Intruders in Vietnam, and more recently,
> working at Flight Safety. John's (and Marvin's) RV-6 was nearing completion
> and was expected to fly in the next month or so.
>
> I flew with Scott in his airplane yesterday afternoon, as did fellow Tampa
> RV builder Don Hughes. The plane flew wonderfully and Scott was so proud.
>
> I have spent the past few hours with the FAA examiner, and I went to the
> crash site with him to help in any way I could. I want to share with you
> what I know, what I saw, and what I suspect. However, I will not do this at
> this time, but will wait a day or two to sift through my feelings.
>
> At this time, I just want to say that we all need to be accountable to each
> other, and to take care of each other. Scott and John loved life, and they
> loved their families. We will miss them terribly.
>
> with a heavy heart, I am,
> Sincerely,
>
> jim
>
> James Norman, MD
> Tampa
> RV 6A... almost ready to fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Condition Inspection |
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net>
Subject: RV-List: Condition Inspection
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:43:01 -0400
Does anyone have the proper log book endorsement for a completed
condition inspection?
Jim
Jim Cimino
RV-8 sn 80039 N7TL 60+ Hrs.
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
(570)842-4057
Jim:
Most "Operating Limitations" will have a suggested logbook entry included
with them.
Here is where you can find the FAA requirements.
See FAR 43.11(a)(4)
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with (insert
type) inspection and was determined to be in airworthy condition." FAR
43.11(a)(2) "Date of the inspection and aircraft total time in service." FAR
43.11(a)(3) "The signature, the certificate number, and kind of certificate
held by the person approving or disapproving for return to service the
aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, component part,
or portions thereof."
When I do a condition inspection on an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft (Amateur Built
or EXHIBITION), my entry for a successful inspection that PASSES reads like
this:
"I certify that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with a
condition inspection and was determined to be in a condition for safe
operation." DD MONTH YEAR, ####.# TT, My Signature ### ## #### A&P."
I have found that most OPERATING LIMITATIONS state "a condition for safe
operation." instead of "airworthy condition."
Gary A. Sobek
EAA TC 3812
FAA A & P
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,163 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | We lost 2 of us today. |
RV Friends,
It is with great remorse and sadness that I inform you that we lost two RV
friends today.
Scott Revere and John Moleki died this morning in Scott's RV-6A. The
accident was at approximately 9:45 this morning just off the field at Peter
O'Knight airport in Tampa.
Scott was a great friend to me and was a constant contributor to the RV
List. You all know him as ABAYMAN on this list. Here in Tampa, my nickname
for him was "the world's nicest man". Scott would give anything to anybody,
to the point that the rest of us noticed, and openly talked about him in
this way. Many of you may remember Scott from his funny postings, or the
way he was always the first on the list to offer to fax something, or
provide something else. Those that have been on the list for a year or so
will remember Scott's troubles when his shop was broken into 3 times in 2
weeks, where all of his tools were taken, and they ruined his elevators by
stepping on them. Scott's RV-6A received its airworthiness certificate about
5 weeks ago and it already had roughly 50 hours on it. All of us here in
Tampa loved Scott.
John Moleki was also an RV-6A builder, in partnership with Marvin Alvarez.
John also lived in Tampa, and worked as a CFI out of Peter O'Knight airport.
John's past included flying A6 Intruders in Vietnam, and more recently,
working at Flight Safety. John's (and Marvin's) RV-6 was nearing completion
and was expected to fly in the next month or so.
I flew with Scott in his airplane yesterday afternoon, as did fellow Tampa
RV builder Don Hughes. The plane flew wonderfully and Scott was so proud.
I have spent the past few hours with the FAA examiner, and I went to the
crash site with him to help in any way I could. I want to share with you
what I know, what I saw, and what I suspect. However, I will not do this at
this time, but will wait a day or two to sift through my feelings.
At this time, I just want to say that we all need to be accountable to each
other, and to take care of each other. Scott and John loved life, and they
loved their families. We will miss them terribly.
with a heavy heart, I am,
Sincerely,
jim
James Norman, MD
Tampa
RV 6A... almost ready to fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: We lost 2 of us today. |
Yesterday I downloaded the spinner cut out template that Scott so
kindly made available. He certainly was always ready to help out.
My prayers and thoughts are with the families.
God speed,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Rudder light wire runs |
I've got the combination strobe and nav light that mounts on the
rudder bottom fairing on my RV-8. I'm interested in hearing about
any ideas on where to run the wires through the VS rear spar. I had
planned on bringing them through below the bottom hinge on the
rudder, but I see that I would either have to run through the tail
wheel mount, or put a hole in the hinge bracket. I don't like
weakening either of those, so now I'm pondering bringing the wires
out the front of the rudder, and then running them vertically up the
rear side of the VS rear spar, way over at the right edge next to the
fuselage skin. I would put a hole in the spar on the right side
above the bottom hinge.
Will this work? I still need to hang my rudder again and confirm
that I've got enough clearance between the leading edge of the rudder
and the VS rear spar when the rudder is hard left. Does anyone else
have a better idea?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Ginn" <ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au> |
Is anyone using a 28 volt system and if so are there any problems I should
be aware of before charging down that route?
Thanks Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: We lost 2 of us today. |
Jim and the list:
I had the opportunity to meet Scott and look at his project while in Tampa
... a great guy. My prayers are with all of his friends and family.
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
Any week now !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
08:16:41 AM
Hey all, my buddy is selling his RV-6 to fund the finishing cost of his F1
Rocket. Hate to see it go since this is my favorite way to spend a saturday
but that rocket will be fun too. This is a good clean airplane, standard
performer. I've been over every inch of this plane and can vouch for its
airworthiness. It has a few dings from normal hangar rash but is still a
clean pretty airplane. Engine starts first blade and runs like a top.
Here's a pic.
http://members8.clubphoto.com/eric538374/877958/owner-0ac6.phtml
1998 RV-6 - 112 TTAF. Lycoming O-360 A1A engine (180 h.p., 112 SMOH
(Aerosport Power)). New Aymar-Demuth prop. Full night VFR panel equipped
with gyros, King KX-125 Nav/Com, King transponder, Apollo II Loran, King
portable GPS, intercom. Hooker harnesses. $60,000.
Call Ken Sebok (West Palm Beach, Florida)
(561) 373-1595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl Fortner <efortner(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: We lost 2 of us today. |
They will be missed. I have always enjoyed reading Abaymans post. He has been
most helpful to many. I also wonder after an RV has gone down, could a
ballistic chute have saved their lives. I am sure those that lost a wing or got
disoriented in IFR would work on how to install one in their RV if they
had a second chance. My prayers and sympathy go out to the families of
Scott and John.
Earl RV4
"Jim Norman (by way of Matt Dralle )" wrote:
>
> RV Friends,
>
> It is with great remorse and sadness that I inform you that we lost two RV
> friends today.
>
> Scott Revere and John Moleki died this morning in Scott's RV-6A. The
> accident was at approximately 9:45 this morning just off the field at Peter
> O'Knight airport in Tampa.
>
> Scott was a great friend to me and was a constant contributor to the RV
> List. You all know him as ABAYMAN on this list. Here in Tampa, my nickname
> for him was "the world's nicest man". Scott would give anything to anybody,
> to the point that the rest of us noticed, and openly talked about him in
> this way. Many of you may remember Scott from his funny postings, or the
> way he was always the first on the list to offer to fax something, or
> provide something else. Those that have been on the list for a year or so
> will remember Scott's troubles when his shop was broken into 3 times in 2
> weeks, where all of his tools were taken, and they ruined his elevators by
> stepping on them. Scott's RV-6A received its airworthiness certificate about
> 5 weeks ago and it already had roughly 50 hours on it. All of us here in
> Tampa loved Scott.
>
> John Moleki was also an RV-6A builder, in partnership with Marvin Alvarez.
> John also lived in Tampa, and worked as a CFI out of Peter O'Knight airport.
> John's past included flying A6 Intruders in Vietnam, and more recently,
> working at Flight Safety. John's (and Marvin's) RV-6 was nearing completion
> and was expected to fly in the next month or so.
>
> I flew with Scott in his airplane yesterday afternoon, as did fellow Tampa
> RV builder Don Hughes. The plane flew wonderfully and Scott was so proud.
>
> I have spent the past few hours with the FAA examiner, and I went to the
> crash site with him to help in any way I could. I want to share with you
> what I know, what I saw, and what I suspect. However, I will not do this at
> this time, but will wait a day or two to sift through my feelings.
>
> At this time, I just want to say that we all need to be accountable to each
> other, and to take care of each other. Scott and John loved life, and they
> loved their families. We will miss them terribly.
>
> with a heavy heart, I am,
> Sincerely,
>
> jim
>
> James Norman, MD
> Tampa
> RV 6A... almost ready to fly...
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Installing Rudder Cables |
On the 8 or 8A you don't have to cut the plastic grommets (bushings). Just
insert the rudder cable with the plastic bushing outside of the hole, you
can bend it a bit to get the rudder end through . . . then insert the
bushing into the hole.
Rick Jory
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve J Hurlbut <sjhdcl(at)kingston.net>
Subject: RV-List: Installing Rudder Cables
>
> When installing the rudder cables to you guys cut a slit into the plastic
> grommets
> and then insert them as you go? If you just insert the grommets first, the
> rudder cable
> ends will not fit through the holes.
>
> Steve Hurlbut
> RV-7A
> Misc Fuselage Stuff
> http://members.kingston.net/sjhdcl/rv7a.htm
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 28Volt System |
>
>
>Is anyone using a 28 volt system and if so are there any problems I should
>be aware of before charging down that route?
>
>Thanks Bill
I'd just say NO to a 28v system. You greatly limit your potential resources
for automotive based electrical supplies, (fuses, relays, solenoids,
batteries, breakers) and the like. Unless you have access to a pile of
inexpensive, 28 volt avionics, just go with the widely accepted 12v system
in your RV.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
297 hrs.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Boucher" <michelboucher594(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | We lost 2 of us today. |
Every winter I go to Lakeland for my Piper Cheyenne simulator training at
Flight Safety. Managed to fly down with my RV3 this past February and I was
fortunate to have John F.Malecki as ground and Sim instructor. It was
interesting to discover our mutual interest in the RV. He had showed me his
proposed instrument panel for his RV6 and how he was hoping to fly it to see
some family in Michigan in July. My experience at Flight Safety had been
made very pleasant with John and I was hoping to see him this winter again.
Its amazing how we can be affected even at such distances, my heartfelt
remorse to both families.
Michel Boucher
RV3 1,100 hrs
RV8 preparing for flight
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Norman (by way
of Matt Dralle )
Subject: RV-List: We lost 2 of us today.
(by way of Matt Dralle )
RV Friends,
It is with great remorse and sadness that I inform you that we lost two RV
friends today.
Scott Revere and John Moleki died this morning in Scott's RV-6A. The
accident was at approximately 9:45 this morning just off the field at Peter
O'Knight airport in Tampa.
Scott was a great friend to me and was a constant contributor to the RV
List. You all know him as ABAYMAN on this list. Here in Tampa, my nickname
for him was "the world's nicest man". Scott would give anything to anybody,
to the point that the rest of us noticed, and openly talked about him in
this way. Many of you may remember Scott from his funny postings, or the
way he was always the first on the list to offer to fax something, or
provide something else. Those that have been on the list for a year or so
will remember Scott's troubles when his shop was broken into 3 times in 2
weeks, where all of his tools were taken, and they ruined his elevators by
stepping on them. Scott's RV-6A received its airworthiness certificate about
5 weeks ago and it already had roughly 50 hours on it. All of us here in
Tampa loved Scott.
John Moleki was also an RV-6A builder, in partnership with Marvin Alvarez.
John also lived in Tampa, and worked as a CFI out of Peter O'Knight airport.
John's past included flying A6 Intruders in Vietnam, and more recently,
working at Flight Safety. John's (and Marvin's) RV-6 was nearing completion
and was expected to fly in the next month or so.
I flew with Scott in his airplane yesterday afternoon, as did fellow Tampa
RV builder Don Hughes. The plane flew wonderfully and Scott was so proud.
I have spent the past few hours with the FAA examiner, and I went to the
crash site with him to help in any way I could. I want to share with you
what I know, what I saw, and what I suspect. However, I will not do this at
this time, but will wait a day or two to sift through my feelings.
At this time, I just want to say that we all need to be accountable to each
other, and to take care of each other. Scott and John loved life, and they
loved their families. We will miss them terribly.
with a heavy heart, I am,
Sincerely,
jim
James Norman, MD
Tampa
RV 6A... almost ready to fly...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
Dammit people be careful out there. Whatever happened lets learn from it
and don't let this type of tragedy happen again. Truly a sad day in our
world. We are all located so far away, but even just reading the posts of
people over the years helps to grow the bond that we all share. I knew
Scott only from his funny posts and the few posts that we had off list. He
was indeed a great guy and went out of his way to help others. He had made
many efforts to send off list emails to me about various questions and
topics, and was always very kind. He will be truly missed.
I did not know John Moleki, but I'm sure if he was friends with Scott, he is
obviously in the same class of people.
Please, Please be careful. Never get comfortable with your airplane.
Always use the checklists, and inspect the airplane regularly.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Condition Inspection |
There should be a paragraph in your Operating Limitations that gives you the
verbage. But if not then the wording should go something like: "I certify
that this aircraft has been inspected in accordance with the scope and
detail of appendix D to Part 43 and found to be in a condition for safe
operation." The entry needs to include the aircraft total time in service,
the name, signature, certificate number , and type of certificate held by
the person performing the inspection.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
RV-8A, 9A, 6A
>From: "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "RV-LIST"
>Subject: RV-List: Condition Inspection
>Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:43:01 -0400
>
>
>Does anyone have the proper log book endorsement for a completed
>condition inspection?
>Jim
>
>Jim Cimino
>RV-8 sn 80039 N7TL 60+ Hrs.
>http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
>(570)842-4057
>
>
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV8 Wheel Fairing Fit |
Folks,
I just got around to fitting the wheel fairings so I can get the gear leg
fairings and intersection fariings done before I paint wings. I found it
impossible to get the farinings to fit properly and avoid having interference
with the brake calipers. In fact when they're on straight, lined up with the
longitudnal axis of the plane, level with the plane as per plans, and a one
inch space above the tire, there is a fair amount of foce being applied to
the bottom, aft cormer of the caliper by the fairing. Clearly enough to
cause the outer brake pad to drag and wear/heat up. I have the original,
gel-coat, pressure recovery fairings from Van's.
I ended up glassing in a small bubble in the fairing to accomodate the
caliper. It would seem that a 1/2" increase in width in this area would have
avoided ay possible interference problems. Another idea was to bend the
brackets to move the entire fairing slightly inboard while keeping it
straight logitudnally. The result would be a fairing not quite centered on
the tire and a bit more clearance for the caliper.
What have others done and do the the new (no-gel coart) fairings still have
this problem? If you haven't checked, see if yours are interfereing.
Regards,
-Don
RV8 NJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Brooks" <kdbrv8r(at)charter.net> |
Fellow listers,
Like all of you, I am deeply saddened by the untimely deaths of
Scott and John. How do you feel about starting a fund to help out the
families? That would be one way of showing how much of a "family" we
all are, as RV builders and enthusiasts. I would be honored to be the
first contributor, but thought that someone closer to the families and
was local to the Tampa area might take on the task of being the point
person. Did either of them have children? Married? Simply posting a
mailing address for contributions (college fund for the kids?), etc.
would be enough to get the ball rolling and each of us so inclined to
contribute could mail a check. If everyone who's ever had the privilege
of flying in an RV sent just a dollar, it could really help, but more
than that, it would show the families that we care. Godspeed, Scott and
John.
Ken Brooks
Roscoe, IL
RV-8 N1903P resvd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: Warnke Props. |
My final post (for a while) on the Warnke saga. I received my Warnke
prop on thursday. It was a long wait, and at least based on appearance, was
worth the wait. The prop is beautiful and fits the hub perfectly.
I'm still working on details of my Mazda rotary installation, so it will
still be a while before I'll be able to determine how close it is to
meeting my requirements. Since Margie had to build it based on a SWAG for
HP I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is perfect out of the box. I'll let
the list know how it works out when I fly it.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Laird Owens <owens(at)aerovironment.com> |
This DigiTrak vs Navaid debate is soon going to top "tailwheel v.
nosewheel", "prime v. no prime", "tip-up v. slider, or "tandom v.
side by side".
I just bought a DigiTrak and will be installing it this week. I
don't think it better than the Navaid, it's just different. It was
available without a 6 month lead time, and they have a great upgrade
policy that will allow me to get altitude hold when my finances
allow. That's why I chose it.
I'll post a report when I have some results, although I don't have
any time behind a Navaid to compare it to.
Laird RV-6 570hrs
SoCal
My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of our
flying buddies who were lost this weekend. It's always so sad to hear.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sam Buchanan" <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: DigiTrak
>
>
>>
>>
>> James & Shalise Cash wrote:
>> >
>
>> >
>> > This is a great unit. It can be used with any GPS that has a data
>output.
>> > In fact, you can use the GPS/Receiver unit that is integral with the
>antenna
>> > (this is the unit the IPAQ Anywhere maps use, also). The GPS data
>allows
>> > the autopilot to track a straight "track line." It does not track your
>> > programmed flight plan. It simply uses GPS position to fly the track
>which
>> > is displayed in the autopilot. If you want to fly your GPS course,
>simply
>> > get the airplane on the line, and turn it so the track in the autopilot
>> > matches the track indicated on your GPS. The Digitrack also flies
>standard
>> > rate turns, and has several other functions.
>> >
>> > Without the GPS, the autopilot will fly a fixed heading, based on zero
>rate.
>> > Since it has no data, it cannot compensate for winds.
>> >
>> > This is a superior unit to the Navaid, without question.
>> >
>> > Jimmy Cash
>>
>>
>> Interesting that the Digitrak is considered by at least one individual
>> as "a superior unit to the Navaid, without question." While I appreciate
>> the innovations the Digitrak is introducing, I think the good ol' tried
>> and proven Navaid has gotten a bum rap from some listers (many of whom
>> are still building and have never flown either unit!?!). I have over 400
>> hrs with the Navaid in my RV-6, and while the unit is definitely low
>> tech, it works amazingly well.
>>
>> The only operational feature the Navaid doesn't have that the Digitrak
>> has is the digital heading display. Unless I have overlooked something,
>> the Navaid (when slaved to a GPS) has all the functionality of the
>> Digitrak. It will track a GPS heading just like the Digitrak, do
>> standard rate turns like the Digitrak, and the heading is adjustable in
>> one degree increments via the Smart Coupler just like the Digitrak.
>>
>> When you switch to "Course" mode, it does stuff the Digitrak is
>> incapable of duplicating, such as taking you precisely to a waypoint
>> with no user intervention. While this navigation is being accomplished,
>> you have the services of the turn coordinator display, which the
>> Digitrak lacks.
>>
>> As far as accuracy goes, I routinely see my Navaid (slaved to Airmap
>> 100) holding course within 3-4 hundredths (!) of a mile. The course
>> corrections are so tiny that they are imperceptible. The Navaid will
>> also allow you to set a parallel course which I don't think is possible
>> with the Digitrak.
>>
>> The Digitrak is a nice instrument, but I fail to see how it could be
>> characterized as "a superior unit to the Navaid, without question." I
>> suppose after somebody has flown both the Navaid and Digitrak for many
>> hours we will have a better basis for making valid comparisons.
>>
>> By the way, the Navaid's mechanical innards have proven to be very
>> reliable, with thousands of hours in service. There just isn't much in
>> the thing to wear out in many years of service, and if something did go
>> belly up, it can be easily, quickly, and inexpensively repaired. (I
> > suspect the Navaid boys would repair any defect in the unit even if it
>> was out of warranty; my experience with the Navaid gang has reinforced
>> my impression that they are very serious about supporting their unit.)
>>
>> Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
>> "The RV Journal" http://thervjournal.com
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Terra avionics service |
Sort of RV related. I recently purchased a Schweizer 1-26 sailplane with
a Terra TX-720 comm installed. Receive works fine but transmit does not.
When the mic is keyed it transmits just a loud hum. Is there anyone still
servicing these old radios that anyone on list could recommend?
Alternatively, does anyone have a service manual and schematic for this
radio that they could loan me (or copy for me)?
The RV tie in? My RV-4 is still a project (with a perfectly good
Micro-Air radio installed collecting dust) but the glider is flying. Hate
to do it but if I cant get the Terra fixed economically I'll cannabalize
the RV radio.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HalBenjamin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: We lost 2 of us today. |
Our thoughts and prayers are with Scott & John's families.
Hal & Barbara
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Continental Powered RVs? |
Does anyone know of a Continental powered RV?
ERic--
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TIGER40359(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Story in Tampa Tribune - Online Edition |
Click here: The Tampa Tribune - Online Edition
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | F-750 / F750 Baggage Side Panel |
Be foresighted when you get to installing F750 Aft Baggage Side Covers.
Make a note in your construction manual at the topics "Finishing the
inside - The baggage Compartment". You should first get the Rudder Cables
out and slide them inside and through of the plastic groumets along each
side of fuselage before you rivet in the F750 cover. If you rivet in the
cover when the manual tells you, you will not be able to easily install the
cable later.
(It is times like this when it is better not to have a construction manual,
but I wouldn't have bought the kit if didn't.)
Indiana Larry, working on the fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lean running MA-4SPA |
| From: | Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com> |
It is the MA-4.5SPA for the 180hp engines that has the economizer
adjustment. That is why there are so many carb numbers for the 4.5.....
Each engine/prop/airframe has a different setting. This is not the case for
the MA-4SPA where the power circuit mixture is fixed and only adjusted by
the mixture arm.
For the survey/data collection, please state what type of ignition you have.
Timing may have an effect on lean burn. My understanding of the physics is
the fuel/air ratio is determined at the carby (for those down under).
Ignition sure can effect how that mixture is converted to HP.
Hopefully, with some data we can find the problem or determine the cause and
effect for the "O-320" engines both 150/160 HP.
The round bottom air cleaner uses a metal plate under the filter inside the
bowl.
Thanks again,
Gary (Oregon)
RV-4FB, 160, Wood, Mags , 10-5009N
Mixture works the way we expect it too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | lean-running Lyc |
Gentlemen,
I just checked the archives to refresh my memory on my own personal
experience with this issue.
For the 160 hp O-320, I believe the carb you want is the MA-4-SPA-10-5217.
I had a MA-4-SPA-10-5135 from a Cessna 172 on the engine at first, and it was
nothing but trouble. Drilling the jet was attempted, and overdone, meaning I
had to lean very aggressively in all flight regimes, including taxi.
I now favor getting the correct carb model as opposed to taking a drill to
the main jet and altering the geometry and flow. Too risky.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
| Subject: | Re: F-750 / F750 Baggage Side Panel |
Good point.
Or you can make the baggage walls removable as I did.
Steve
RV7A
http://members.kingston.net/sjhdcl/rv7a.htm
Quoting LarryRobertHelming :
>
> Be foresighted when you get to installing F750 Aft Baggage Side Covers.
>
> Make a note in your construction manual at the topics "Finishing the
> inside - The baggage Compartment". You should first get the Rudder Cables
> out and slide them inside and through of the plastic groumets along each
> side of fuselage before you rivet in the F750 cover. If you rivet in the
> cover when the manual tells you, you will not be able to easily install the
> cable later.
>
> (It is times like this when it is better not to have a construction manual,
> but I wouldn't have bought the kit if didn't.)
>
> Indiana Larry, working on the fuselage
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Guys
For the survey
RV6 0-320 160hp slick mags timming 25btdc wooden prop( which is probably a
little course max static rpm is 2100 max in level flight is 2600)ma4spa 5009
carby with attomising nozzle i think its number 828 this makes the carb a
5135 both carb nos are listed for a 160 hp 0-320.
yesterday i drilled the nozzle to no38 and did some test runs results are
on the ground static rpm droped 25rpm egt down 150F
mixture causes a rpm increase of about 25 and egt rise of 150f carb heat
causes a more noticable drop
in flight egt is now just under 1400 at full pwr and at 1350 @2300rpm (was
almost 1600)
I have arranged to use a 5217 (i think thats the number)carb from a robinson
helicoper 160 hp engine and will try that in the next few weeks.and will
advise the results
the way it is now with the drilled nozzle is a lot better that what i had
before at least i can be sure im not flying over lean and the engine sounds
so much happier
Dave Tennant
Rv6 160hp
australia 5hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Warnke Props. |
I got to meet Rick Gray from the list that signs his name "From the buffalo
Farm". He is flying off his hours on a beautiful 6 with a Bart engine and a
Warnke prop. The prop looks great and when he took off, it was pretty
obvious he has a real preformer.
John Kitz
N721Jk
Ohio
> My final post (for a while) on the Warnke saga. I received my Warnke
> prop on thursday. It was a long wait, and at least based on appearance,
was
> worth the wait. The prop is beautiful and fits the hub perfectly.
>
> I'm still working on details of my Mazda rotary installation, so it will
> still be a while before I'll be able to determine how close it is to
> meeting my requirements. Since Margie had to build it based on a SWAG for
> HP I'll be pleasantly surprised if it is perfect out of the box. I'll let
> the list know how it works out when I fly it.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Will Cretsinger <cretsinger(at)ticnet.com> |
"C. W. Crane"
| Subject: | Re: Terra avionics service |
Mike, Terra has the misfortune of being an orphan but is not more of an
"old radio" than the Micro-Air. Terra can be repaired by Freeflight
Systems, 800-487-4662, located in Waco, Texas. Items can be sent for
repair estimate. If the estimate is too high, you pay freight charges
only, I understand.
I have found a local repair source for me: IEC International,
817-626-2462, located at Fort Worth Meacham Field. Ask to speak to
Jurgen, their best tech guy.
Will Cretsinger, Arlington, Texas
-6A flying near 500 hours
Mike Wills wrote:
>
>
> Sort of RV related. I recently purchased a Schweizer 1-26 sailplane with
> a Terra TX-720 comm installed. Receive works fine but transmit does not.
> When the mic is keyed it transmits just a loud hum. Is there anyone still
> servicing these old radios that anyone on list could recommend?
> Alternatively, does anyone have a service manual and schematic for this
> radio that they could loan me (or copy for me)?
>
> The RV tie in? My RV-4 is still a project (with a perfectly good
> Micro-Air radio installed collecting dust) but the glider is flying. Hate
> to do it but if I cant get the Terra fixed economically I'll cannabalize
> the RV radio.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families left behind by Scott and Johnn/s
untimely deaths.
ABAYMAN will be sorely missed by us all. Having never met either man personally,
we still feel a sense of loss by the friend we met through the list.
God Speed Scott and John!
Scott and Jaye Jackson
South Surrey, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Louis Willig <larywil(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Do You Need Help Building? |
Hi gang,
I hate spam!! That being said, I will play devil's advocate for a moment
and suggest that many of us from time to time get some benefit from a
vendor using the list to show his/her wares. When I first saw Todd's post
about his services, I saved the e-mail to my special "RV info" file. When
the second and third postings arrived, I started to wonder about the
value of permitting this type of posting. Over the years, we have had
many suppliers make us aware of their products and services. This is how
some of the Rocket guys started to get noticed, and this is where, the seat
belt, and upholstery, and paint, and avionics, and fasteners...you get the
idea.. first got our attention. So I suspect that we ought to let these
guys make their posts with a limit of one time per month, or some such
limitation. Speaking of vendors, I am going to close this e-mail here and
start another e-mail about one particular vendor of recent interest.
Clear blue to all of you.
-
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
255 exciting Hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MeangreenRV4(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:WAKE UP CALL TO ALL! |
In a message dated 8/19/2002 4:03:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca writes:
How many Saturdays and Sundays have we all said "I will be back in an hour".
What a WAKE UP CALL TO ALL!
I think the post earlier about this list helping in someway is an very noble
idea!
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families left behind by Scott and
John's untimely deaths.
Tim Barnes
Meangreen RV-4
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Continental Powered RVs? |
In a message dated 8/19/02 12:19:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ericparlow(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< Does anyone know of a Continental powered RV?
ERic-- >>
Yes. There is a real oddball RV up in North Carolina, I believe. It has an
RV-6 fuse, RV-4 wings, longer chord flaps, tapered ailerons, and a
Continental Engine. The key to installing a Continental is W/B and, of
course, the engine/landing gear mount.
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
In a message dated 8/19/02 3:35:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
<< I just checked the archives to refresh my memory on my own personal
experience with this issue.
For the 160 hp O-320, I believe the carb you want is the MA-4-SPA-10-5217.
I had a MA-4-SPA-10-5135 from a Cessna 172 on the engine at first, and it
was
nothing but trouble. Drilling the jet was attempted, and overdone, meaning
I
had to lean very aggressively in all flight regimes, including taxi.
I now favor getting the correct carb model as opposed to taking a drill to
the main jet and altering the geometry and flow. Too risky.
-Bill B >>
My airplane (and engine) are quite happy with the carb that came with my
O-320-D2J, which was straight off a C-172 (and rebuilt by yours truly). I
think there is more at work here than the carb jet size.
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
My first actual post to this list! Been "lurking" for a year or more.
I have been working on the 7 empennage kit for about 6 weeks now and think I
like this airplane building thing!
I need to go ahead and get the standard wing kit on order now and have a few
questions:
1. Can I assume that the "sheared" wing tips come standard with the lens and
recess for the position and strobe lights?
2. I would like to put the landing/taxi lights inside the recess also.
Possible? Good idea?
3. Capacitive or float type resistance fuel senders? Order sheet says
capacitive type will only work with Electronics International FL-2C fuel
gauge! Nothing wrong with that gauge that I can see with my limited
knowledge at this time but is this limiting my future options.
4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather than
just one. Good/Bad idea?
5. Do I have to float or flop type pick up tubes separately or do they come
with the wing kit?
Thanks in advance.
Allen Fulmer
N880AF reserved
RV7 empennage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "3 rotor" <rv8r300(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
> 3. Capacitive or float type resistance fuel senders? Order sheet says
> capacitive type will only work with Electronics International FL-2C fuel
> gauge! Nothing wrong with that gauge that I can see with my limited
> knowledge at this time but is this limiting my future options.
my resistance style work fine 850 hrs later, I'd save my money and spend it
on a fuel flow meter.
> 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather than
> just one. Good/Bad idea?
you know the plane will run for perhaps 15-30 seconds with the fuel entirely
shut off. Extended inverted maneuvers aren't all that pleasant, put in a
smoke system if you want people to notice ya'. Don't forget the $$$ for
inverted oil system. Someone recently had a forced landing when his flop
tube didn't flop back. I vote bad idea.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV 4 flap question |
Can anyone clarify a couple of items shown on sheet 15 for the RV-4 flaps? I
don't know if I'm missing some prints or parts list as I purchased a used mid
eighties partially built kit.....(# 656) Might have to call Van's but I
don't know what to ask for......Anyway there is a rivet required called
LP4-3. I don't see it labeled on the drawers of parts that accompanied the
kit.....Think it may be a low profile pop rivet but don't see that item
listed in any catalogs I have. This is used to secure the flap ribs, FL-5L to
the flap spar, FL-3. I also see another puzzler on section AA
......something called C54-4. Looks like it may be a rivet on part FL-6C.
Again, thanks a million for your help.
Pat Long
RV-4 in Michigan
PGLong(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
| From: | Tom Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
1. Can I assume that the "sheared" wing tips come standard with the lens
and
recess for the position and strobe lights?
Allen, if you look at Vans order form, at the top of the options page
it states " wing tips and rudder bottoms are designed for lights. If you
are not installing lights check this box"
The tips with recess for nav/strobe lights are standard. This was an
option last year, and part of the increased wing kit price for this year.
Tom RV-9A wings almost finished
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kenneth Beene" <kbeene(at)citilink.com> |
| Subject: | RE: RV4-List: RV 4 flap question |
Can anyone clarify a couple of items shown on sheet 15 for the RV-4
flaps? I
don't know if I'm missing some prints or parts list as I purchased a
used mid
eighties partially built kit.....(# 656) Might have to call Van's but
I
don't know what to ask for......Anyway there is a rivet required called
LP4-3. I don't see it labeled on the drawers of parts that accompanied
the
kit.....Think it may be a low profile pop rivet but don't see that item
listed in any catalogs I have. This is used to secure the flap ribs,
FL-5L to
the flap spar, FL-3. I also see another puzzler on section AA
......something called C54-4. Looks like it may be a rivet on part
FL-6C.
Again, thanks a million for your help.
````````````
````````````
LP4-3 are 1/8 inch aluminum blind rivets with a steel mandrel; bag 437
contains 200
CS4-4 are 1/8 inch countersunk aluminum blind rivets with a steel
mandrel; bag 436 contains 250
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Mei" <don_mei(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | fantastic article on theory of flight |
http://www.buckeye-illinois.com/seehowitflies.htm
Don Mei
Americans used to roar like lions for liberty: Now they bleat like sheep for
security
Norman Vincent Peale
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Engine corrosion heads up |
Here is a heads up that might save someone some heartache.
I was ready to mount my Hartzell on my IO-360-A1B6 yesterday, so I
pulled the plastic cover off the front end of the crankshaft. I
peered inside, and to my horror, I saw some corrosion (read rust) on
the inside diameter of the crankshaft. Major depression. Bad night
sleeping with nightmares of needing a new crank :(
I called Bart Lalonde today to talk to him. He told me that he has
seen this before, and that it is easy to deal with. The IO-360-A
series has a lot more metal in the crank in this area than the O-320
and O-360 engines, so there is a much more margin on how much metal
can be removed to get the rust out. He suggested to put some tape on
the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
inspect for pits (bad thing), remove the tape from that oil tube and
spray a bunch of LPS-3 over the whole area to protect it. The LPS-3
will dissolve in the hot oil once we run the engine.
So, I suggest that anyone who has an engine sitting (I've had mine
for about 15 months) should pull that plastic cover off the end of
the crank, and take a good look inside. Spray some LPS-3 in there to
protect it.
Bart also said that LPS-3 was a good thing to spray in the cylinders
once in a while. Pull the bottom plugs, spray a bunch of LPS-3 in
there, put them back in then spray through the top plug holes.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oldsfolks(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-4 flap question |
Van's has the pop rivets you mention. LP 4-3 and the other would be CS4-_
(Countersunk).
I can look at my plans (#1191 ) in the shop tomorrow,if someone else doesn't
answer your question.
Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X - test flying
Charleston,Arkansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Shelby Smith <rvaitor(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental Powered RVs? |
I believe Art Chard's original design based on a RV, the first side by side
RV had a Cont IO-346(?) 165 HP Fuel Injected engine. Can't remember what he
called it, but I saw it advertised once.
Shelby Smith
> From: Eric Parlow <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com>
> Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:16:54 +0000
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Continental Powered RVs?
>
>
> Does anyone know of a Continental powered RV?
>
> ERic--
>
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV8-List: Engine corrosion heads up |
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Monday, August 19, 2002, at 08:39 PM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> He suggested to put some tape on
> the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
> sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
> Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
Ouch.
Kevin, I've had good luck cleaning rust from the inside of steel tubing
using a cheap brake cylinder hone from the auto parts store to hold the
scotchbrite. Hope this helps.
James Freeman
N9TN reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Cimino" <jcimino(at)echoes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV8 Wheel Fairing Fit |
I think you are talking about the wheel pant. I have the originals on my -8
and do not have any interference.
Jim
Jim Cimino
RV-8 sn 80039 N7TL 60+ Hrs.
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
(570)842-4057
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rv8don(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: RV8 Wheel Fairing Fit
>
> Folks,
>
> I just got around to fitting the wheel fairings so I can get the gear leg
> fairings and intersection fariings done before I paint wings. I found it
> impossible to get the farinings to fit properly and avoid having
interference
> with the brake calipers. In fact when they're on straight, lined up with
the
> longitudnal axis of the plane, level with the plane as per plans, and a
one
> inch space above the tire, there is a fair amount of foce being applied to
> the bottom, aft cormer of the caliper by the fairing. Clearly enough to
> cause the outer brake pad to drag and wear/heat up. I have the original,
> gel-coat, pressure recovery fairings from Van's.
>
> I ended up glassing in a small bubble in the fairing to accomodate the
> caliper. It would seem that a 1/2" increase in width in this area would
have
> avoided ay possible interference problems. Another idea was to bend the
> brackets to move the entire fairing slightly inboard while keeping it
> straight logitudnally. The result would be a fairing not quite centered
on
> the tire and a bit more clearance for the caliper.
>
> What have others done and do the the new (no-gel coart) fairings still
have
> this problem? If you haven't checked, see if yours are interfereing.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Don
> RV8 NJ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
Hey Doctor. How've you been? It was nice to meet you at Oshkosh this year.
We had a great time, even though I had to work most of the time. I download
problem is I don't have the time to mess with it. It always seems that I
have something going on. School, flying, work, etc.
Anyway, just wanted to check in with you. Talk to you later.
Paul Besing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Vendors are Invited |
I agree that most of us can tell the difference. Unfortunately it isn't
always clear to the people that spam the list. There is an enormous
difference between someone that provides real input to the list in addition
to selling a product. JT Helms comes to mind as one, and I'm sure there are
others. Someone that posts the exact same advertising message 4 times
doesn't fall into that category. Nothing against the services this person
offers, but I think once is plenty, it goes into the archives, and if anyone
wants to look it up they can.
I think a company like TruTrack would be an invaluable asset to the list,
and by providing good, solid information they will automatically sell
themselves and their product. Spamming the list with advertising pitches
probably isn't going to compel anyone.
I notice that sometimes people try to sell finished or unfinished airplanes
at prices that are a bit, shall we say, optimistic. Then they keep posting
over and over again thinking that maybe nobody is paying attention. Believe
me, when you post *anything* for sale on this list at a reasonable price you
get an amazing amount of responses immediately. If you don't get any
responses, you're asking too much, or you're trying to sell something that
nobody wants.
Hey, where am I, and how did I get on this soapbox?
Ed Bundy - RV6A N427EM 500+ hours
160hp 0320 w/Sensenich 70x78
Eagle, ID
ebundy(at)velocitus.net
> I just posted an opinion on vendors using our RV-list for advertising
> purposes. This was in response to some of our minor irritation to a recent
> multiple spam.
> I've thought about this problem
> and came to the conclusion that 95% of us can tell the difference between
> participating in honest, serious discussions vs. "hawking" a product. I
> don't know what protocol should be used when and if a Vendor makes a post
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Thanks for the info, & Trip Log - delete if not interested |
I'd just like to thank everyone who responded on and off the list to my
recent request for information on my flight to Chicago and back. There were
too many to thank individually, and I made use of a lot of your suggestions.
For those that are interested, here is a brief summary of the trip.
Otherwise, delete at your discretion.
My mother needed to fly to Chicago to help her mother in the hospital. The
full fare airline price was nothing short of breathtaking, so I offered to
fly her. This offered the opportunity for an adventure, and some quality
time with someone that I don't spend enough time with. We flew from ID40 to
Rexburg, ID, then on to Rapid City, SD. Over the Rockies and Grand Tetons
at 14,500' with a 20kt tailwind. We stopped here for the night. The staff
at Jetstream was very friendly and efficient, although the gas was quite
pricey. In all fairness *everything* is expensive in Rapid City, being the
jumping off point for Mount Rushmore. They got us a great (comparatively)
crew price on a hotel room and car and we did the Rushmore thing the next
morning. Calling FSS got us the TFR for Bush's photo op at Rushmore, and we
departed.
Next stop was Wayne, NB. They supposedly take credit cards (I called ahead
to verify) and at $1.95 they were high on the list. NB grows corn. Lots of
corn. Even the airport has corn growing all over it. From the air it looks
like they plowed out just enough corn to put in a runway. Apparently
grasshoppers like corn. There were grasshoppers the size of hummingbirds
hopping around. So we pull up, get out, and the card reader doesn't work.
Luckily I find an airport resident and he says just pump the gas and leave a
check in the box.... Ooookay, I don't *have* a checkbook with me, so I
give this guy the cash to give to the airport manager. Things are a little
different in this neck of the woods, but I kind of like it.
Then on to New Lenox, IL. Runway lights don't work. (we found out later
they were on a different frequency from the CTAF) We had the pleasure of
meeting a Bonanza driver that went way out of his way to help us out.
Airplane people are the greatest. A small town airport. Very quaint. No
card reader. No problem, I'll get gas tomorrow during business hours. Only
two tie down spots on the ramp (not two available, *only* two) and both of
them have what appears to be the 2" end of a piece of rebar with a rope on
it sticking vertically straight up out of the pavement. Now, having flown
to a fair number of airports including some in the Idaho backcountry I'm
used to a metal ring, loop, cable, or some other slightly more substantial
way of attaching airplane to terra firma. It's very dark and I'm Rube
Goldberging this thing trying to make the rope hold the nub of rebar against
the lifting force that's sure to develop from the storm that's coming in
tonight. I leave feeling very uncomfortable.
Fortunately the rope, my tie downs, and some clamps seem to have held, and I
get the pleasure of paying for an avgas price increase that apparently
happened overnight, from $2.45 to $2.65. Oh well, the flight out was
amazing. 4,000' scattered, flying 2000' agl over some beautiful green
scenery. You don't see much green, flat land in my neck of the woods. Got
a picture of Chicagoland Speedway from the air (if you aren't a Nascar fan,
never mind) and really enjoyed the flight in spite of a 30-40kt headwind.
It didn't blow that hard all the way though, sometimes it increased to
50kts. After a rather longish flight back to Wayne (I left a note with the
gas amount and sent a check to them when I got home) I headed back to Rapid
City with only a 25-30kt headwind. Guess I'm paying for the 20kt tailwind I
had on the whole trip East. Got weathered in an extra day in Rapid City
(wind 40 gusting to 70, no exaggeration) with an Airmet for moderate
turbulence over the 400 miles West of my position below 18,000'. Glad Rapid
City has real tie down anchors.
The next day high pressure was back in control and there was clear skies
with virtually no headwind. Flew over the Rockies, and *through* the Grand
Tetons with Louis Armstrong singing "What a Wonderful World" on the stereo.
Virtually a religious experience.
5 days, 3100 miles, 140 gallons of fuel, and 19 flight hours seeing some of
the most magnificent sights, and stunningly beautiful landscape, most of
which would be impossible without a small, fast, capable personal airplane.
In case you haven't heard it before, keep pounding those rivets - you are
going to LOVE this airplane.
When I get a chance, I'll post some pictures on my website.
Ed Bundy - RV6A N427EM 500+ hours
160hp 0320 w/Sensenich 70x78
Eagle, ID
ebundy(at)velocitus.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lean running MA-4SPA |
| From: | Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com> |
The O-320 Lycoming 150/160 HP engines since the seventies or there about
have most commonly used the following carburetors: 10-5009; 10-5062;
10-5135; 10-5217. Service instruction 1305 field modified a good many of the
5009 (C172) & 5062 carbs to "N" versions by changing the nozzle to 47-828
from 47-813. This was done to eliminate " hesitation, stumble, or roughness
during normal engine operation on some engine/airframe combinations." The
5135 was introduced and its parts list was called out for overhaul of the
09/62. The 5135 had the 47-828 nozzle. Then came the one piece venturi
(ha) and back to the metal float. Along with the metal float they provided
the 29-194 needle/float clip for positive needle valve opening. (most of the
carbs already had this) Then came the 5217 that superceded the 5135. It
had all the SB & SI stuff plus the 47-828 nozzle. The parts list for the
5135 and 5217 are the same in the parts lists I have. Problems did develop
after the introduction of the one piece venturi and my Continental
O-200(MA-3SPA) required a free nozzle change. Some of the one piece venturi
castings were of poor quality and needed a lot of TLC to install correctly
and to clean up casting flash and flaws. Maybe the old two piece nozzle
would fix a lean problem on the RV equipped MA-4SPA There must be many of
these laying around hangars everywhere. The venturi just happens to be an
important part of the mixture equation.
You folks with the 10-4910, 10-3678-12, 10-3678-32 carbs need to do some
research.
Thanks to those who have posted/sent data so far, but I suspect there are
more of you out there or those who know of carb drillers in your
neighborhood. (If its not a problem, why should we worry about it, except to
help a brother save his engine or butt).
I am going to attach my last two posts for continuity. (not spam)
---------------------------------------------
It is the MA-4.5SPA for the 180 plus hp engines that has the economizer
adjustment. That is why there are so many carb numbers for the 4.5.....
Each engine/prop/airframe has a different setting. This is not the case for
the MA-4SPA where the power circuit mixture is fixed and only adjusted by
the mixture arm.
For the survey/data collection, please state what type of ignition you have.
Timing may have an effect on lean burn. My understanding of the physics is
the fuel/air ratio is determined at the carby (for those down under).
Ignition sure can effect how that mixture is converted to HP.
Hopefully, with some data we can find the problem or determine the cause and
effect for the "O-320" engines both 150/160 HP.
The round bottom air cleaner uses a metal plate under the filter inside the
bowl.
Thanks again,
Gary (Oregon)
RV-4FB, 160, Wood, Mags , 10-5009N
Mixture works the way we expect it too.
-----------------------------------------------
An open note to all who would become main jet (fuel nozzle) drillers. You
know who you are.
Do you have a standard O-320 or is it highly modified?
Do you operate from a high altitude airport?
What is the fuel flow rate at cruse (compared with similar set ups)?
When you set up the idle mixture for the 50 rpm rise at idle cut off be sure
that you do this with sea level, standard day in mind. Other wise you might
find that the engine will quit when landing at or near a sea level, high
pressure day airport when you pull off power.
These MA-4 SPA carburetors(in good shape with no mods) should work fine on
320 cubic inch engines from sea level (high pressure days) through the
service ceiling of common light aircraft (Producing whatever power is
normal). If you can't lean/enrichen the carb enough to get the appropriate
mixture for your altitude and atmospheric conditions, look to equipment
problems first ( i.e. induction system leaks, fuel supply that can't keep
up, carb. passages partly plugged, float adjustment [good needle/seat] or
miss alignment of the mixture arm with respect to the mixture valve). I know
of one pilot whose MA-4 bottom half almost fell off the RV-4 before he
couldn't keep the engine running smoothly with mixture control and had to
pull the cowl and look ( the mixture control can hide problems right up to
the point you become a glider).
The mixture control cable housing should be anchored at each end and the
cable throw must allow for full travel of the mixture arm, stop to stop
against the carb. body.
I have seen some bad single piece venturi installations due mainly to poorly
cast venturis.
The alignment of the mixture arm to its valve (a hollow half shaft at the
valve end) has to be done with the top off the carb. so that you can see
that fuel supply hole that feeds the main jet is fully shut a idle cut off
and fully open at full rich. As I remember this valve rotates about 180*
and most of the leaning action right up to full cut off is of fewer degrees
to allow for a slight assembly misalignment.
I probably left out some other factors, however, what bothers me is that
there must be many hundreds of O-320's flying with Van's set up that do not
have problems with normal leaning. Why do just a few need to modify their
carbs. main jet.
Parts: Check out; 10-5009N, 10-5135, 10-5217 MA-4SPA
Will all the folks who are currently flying with drilled out nozzles please
report the following information to the list. (or know of someone who is not
on the "list")
sub: Lean Running MA-4SPA
RV Model
Carb. Model Number and new or rebuilt
Nozzle Part Number
Air cleaner style (round or flat bottom if Van's)
Drilled to what size, from what size
Ignition system(new)
Thanks in advance,
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine Fasteners |
| From: | "Martin Hone" <martin.hone(at)tradergroup.com.au> |
Hi Brian,
For those engine fasteners, you may wish to drop by your local
Harley-Davidson emporium.
It will have a range of NC nuts and bolts, as well as a small range of
unique right angle hose fittings as fitted to Harleys over many years.
Cheers
Martin in Oz
RV-6 80%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steven DiNieri" <capsteve(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | We lost 2 of us today. |
After reading the article in the local Tampa paper about Scott's terrible
accident I'm saddened as well as a little pissed at the reporter. (and I did
write to tell him). After reading what I first thought was a well-written
piece giving witness testimony, and first hand accounts. He decides to tell
us about an incident that happened to Scott in April. Needless to say, it
was not aviation related and the word convicted was nowhere to be seen. This
was a deliberate attempt to skew the story and tarnish the pilots
credibility. Given the grave circumstances and the lack of pertinent facts,
I think he was way out of line...
Anyway, I'm going to crack a cold beer and read their posts in the archives
in remembrance. They will be sorely missed by all...
My condolences to all family and friends
Steven DiNieri
capsteve(at)adelphia.net
I just received this terrible news from Jim Norman and am forwarding it
per his request.
This is indeed a sad day......
Sam Buchanan
================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
> 1. Can I assume that the "sheared" wing tips come standard with the lens
and
> recess for the position and strobe lights?
Yep.
> 2. I would like to put the landing/taxi lights inside the recess also.
> Possible? Good idea?
Possible, yes: http://vondane.com/rv8a/landlightkit/ Looks like Bill
Vondane has a cool new 3-D view of the system and is apparently shipping
kits.
Good idea, sure...as long as you protect the wing tip from the heat and as
long as the light doesn't get obscured too badly by the position/strobe. I
can't speak to this issue since I went with dual 100-watt halogen leading
edge Duckworks landing lights. Don't know how well they work yet. I'm sure
it's 6 and one half dozen when you get right down to it.
> 3. Capacitive or float type resistance fuel senders? Order sheet says
> capacitive type will only work with Electronics International FL-2C fuel
> gauge! Nothing wrong with that gauge that I can see with my limited
> knowledge at this time but is this limiting my future options.
I'll give you my 2 cents...the capacitive senders were easy to install. No
idea how accurate they are or how well they work. I just like the
"maintenance free" idea. Hope it comes through like that.
> 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather than
> just one. Good/Bad idea?
> 5. Do I have to float or flop type pick up tubes separately or do they
come
> with the wing kit?
Flop tubes don't come with the kit. Van's sells 'em for about $48 each. I
put 'em in both tanks so I don't have to think too hard before doing
inverted stuff.
Hope this helps...
)_( Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "flamini2" <flamini2(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Cont IO-360 RV-6 |
We have one here in the South suburbs of Chicago, Chuck Thomas does not
have a computer but i can get photos or info for you.
The red one is Cont IO-360 powered, had fixed wood but went to 80" CS
prop.
Anyone else interested in the photo can e-mail me, Dennis and Fran in
Chicago
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RV-4 flap question |
Hi and thanks Ken for your answers on the rivet questions. Just wish I had
the bags with the numbers on them. With your descriptions, I think I can
identify them in the unmarked bins. Is there a list that should have
accompanied the kit that I should ask Van's to send me a copy of? If so, what
would I ask for?
Thanks, again,
Pat Long
RV-4 in Michigan
PGLong(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael D. Crowe" <tripacer(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Spring Back Dimple Dies |
I read somewhere that either Avery or Cleaveland Dies where the best. I can
not find that information again. Any suggestions?
Thanks
Mike Crowe
RV8A Emp
McDonough GA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine corrosion heads up |
Kevin,
Thanks much for the warning. A few years ago there was an AD on Lycomings
for internal crankshaft corrosion on the fixed pitch models with plug
installed. Some of the info may apply. The real can of worms you have
opened up is this: what about engines that have been sitting for awhile
with prop installed? It sounds like the best strategy is to delay the prop
installation as much as possible and keep checking until then. Does anyone
know if there's a Lycoming service letter on long term storage?
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121 fuse
sending deposit for new IO-360 today
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: RV-List: Engine corrosion heads up
>
> Here is a heads up that might save someone some heartache.
>
> I was ready to mount my Hartzell on my IO-360-A1B6 yesterday, so I
> pulled the plastic cover off the front end of the crankshaft. I
> peered inside, and to my horror, I saw some corrosion (read rust) on
> the inside diameter of the crankshaft. Major depression. Bad night
> sleeping with nightmares of needing a new crank :(
>
> I called Bart Lalonde today to talk to him. He told me that he has
> seen this before, and that it is easy to deal with. The IO-360-A
> series has a lot more metal in the crank in this area than the O-320
> and O-360 engines, so there is a much more margin on how much metal
> can be removed to get the rust out. He suggested to put some tape on
> the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
> sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
> Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
> inspect for pits (bad thing), remove the tape from that oil tube and
> spray a bunch of LPS-3 over the whole area to protect it. The LPS-3
> will dissolve in the hot oil once we run the engine.
>
> So, I suggest that anyone who has an engine sitting (I've had mine
> for about 15 months) should pull that plastic cover off the end of
> the crank, and take a good look inside. Spray some LPS-3 in there to
> protect it.
>
> Bart also said that LPS-3 was a good thing to spray in the cylinders
> once in a while. Pull the bottom plugs, spray a bunch of LPS-3 in
> there, put them back in then spray through the top plug holes.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Newton" <enewton57(at)cableone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Back Dimple Dies |
I realy liked the sprin back dimple dies from Avery's. ALl the rivets on my
RV-6A, truned out flush to the skin and the surrounding metal had no
deformation. Very nice and highly recommended.
Regards,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
RV-6A N57ME (Sold)
Glastar (Empennage)
www.ericsrv6a.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Crowe" <tripacer(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RV-List: Spring Back Dimple Dies
>
> I read somewhere that either Avery or Cleaveland Dies where the best. I
can
> not find that information again. Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
> Mike Crowe
> RV8A Emp
> McDonough GA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl Fortner <efortner(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV4-List: RV 4 flap question |
The LP4-3 is a lowprofile poprivet (Bag 437). What you have called C54-4 is
actually CS4-4 which is a poprivet similar to LP4-3 except it is countersunk
and flush after installed.
If you just need a few of these I will be glad to send you some free of charge
and save you the crateing charge from Vans.
Earl RV4
PGLong(at)aol.com wrote:
> --> RV4-List message posted by: PGLong(at)aol.com
>
> Can anyone clarify a couple of items shown on sheet 15 for the RV-4 flaps? I
> don't know if I'm missing some prints or parts list as I purchased a used mid
> eighties partially built kit.....(# 656) Might have to call Van's but I
> don't know what to ask for......Anyway there is a rivet required called
> LP4-3. I don't see it labeled on the drawers of parts that accompanied the
> kit.....Think it may be a low profile pop rivet but don't see that item
> listed in any catalogs I have. This is used to secure the flap ribs, FL-5L to
> the flap spar, FL-3. I also see another puzzler on section AA
> ......something called C54-4. Looks like it may be a rivet on part FL-6C.
> Again, thanks a million for your help.
>
> Pat Long
> RV-4 in Michigan
> PGLong(at)aol.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV7 wing kit
>
> My first actual post to this list! Been "lurking" for a year or more.
> I have been working on the 7 empennage kit for about 6 weeks now and think
I
> like this airplane building thing!
>
> I need to go ahead and get the standard wing kit on order now and have a
few
> questions:
>
> 1. Can I assume that the "sheared" wing tips come standard with the lens
and
> recess for the position and strobe lights?
Yep the recess type comes standard.
> 2. I would like to put the landing/taxi lights inside the recess also.
> Possible? Good idea?
Been done I can't think of where right off but there is someone putting
together a kit.
> 3. Capacitive or float type resistance fuel senders? Order sheet says
> capacitive type will only work with Electronics International FL-2C fuel
> gauge! Nothing wrong with that gauge that I can see with my limited
> knowledge at this time but is this limiting my future options.
Grand Rapids informed me that their EIS engine monitor would read these
Capacitive senders with the addition of a small box and there are ways of
converting the capacitance to resistance if you decided to go with a
different kind later. What did it for me was that I could alway go back to
the floats but once the tanks are together getting the cap senders in there
would be very difficult.
> 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather than
> just one. Good/Bad idea?
It's been discussed and in my opinion it is not necessary. You have a >4 hr
of fuel on this bird. Are you really going to be upside down for 4hrs.
There have been some cases of the flop tube getting stuck. There are some
guards and brackets that you are to install to keep this from happening but
it is hard to say that it can't happen. I sure would like to have that
other tank to switch to in case it does. I put the flop tube in the left
wing and the regular pick up in the right wing.
> 5. Do I have to float or flop type pick up tubes separately or do they
come
> with the wing kit?
The flop tube is ordered seperately. The regular pick up comes standard.
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Allen Fulmer
> N880AF reserved
> RV7 empennage
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl Fortner <efortner(at)vnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine corrosion heads up |
What is the LPS-3 and where can you get it. (brand, etc)
Earl RV4
Kevin Horton wrote:
>
> Here is a heads up that might save someone some heartache.
>
> I was ready to mount my Hartzell on my IO-360-A1B6 yesterday, so I
> pulled the plastic cover off the front end of the crankshaft. I
> peered inside, and to my horror, I saw some corrosion (read rust) on
> the inside diameter of the crankshaft. Major depression. Bad night
> sleeping with nightmares of needing a new crank :(
>
> I called Bart Lalonde today to talk to him. He told me that he has
> seen this before, and that it is easy to deal with. The IO-360-A
> series has a lot more metal in the crank in this area than the O-320
> and O-360 engines, so there is a much more margin on how much metal
> can be removed to get the rust out. He suggested to put some tape on
> the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
> sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
> Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
> inspect for pits (bad thing), remove the tape from that oil tube and
> spray a bunch of LPS-3 over the whole area to protect it. The LPS-3
> will dissolve in the hot oil once we run the engine.
>
> So, I suggest that anyone who has an engine sitting (I've had mine
> for about 15 months) should pull that plastic cover off the end of
> the crank, and take a good look inside. Spray some LPS-3 in there to
> protect it.
>
> Bart also said that LPS-3 was a good thing to spray in the cylinders
> once in a while. Pull the bottom plugs, spray a bunch of LPS-3 in
> there, put them back in then spray through the top plug holes.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com> |
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
RV Friends,
After a couple days to consider what has transpired, I will tell what I
know, believe, and think about the tragic fatal crash in Tampa on Sunday.
The purpose of this (long) note is not to put blame, and not to second
guess. It is simply because I want to know (as I'm sure you do as well) what
likely transpired. Because I do not want to spend 7+ years building my own
casket. I do not want to leave my wife and 2 perfect kids without a
husband/dad, and I do not want to loose any more buddies. We simply cannot
live this close to the edge without understanding where the edge is.
Recall, these guys were my buddies. I was with them on Saturday. We worked
together putting the wings on another RV6 on Saturday... We went out for
lunch on Saturday... And I flew this plane Saturday afternoon.
N747ES was an RV-6A Slow Build, built in a garage attached to Scott's
air-conditioning business. I have visited Scott's project countless times.
There was a group of us that always visited each other's projects, and were
there for big days like engine mounting, engine starting, wing hanging, etc,
but we were also there just hanging out being friends.
The engine was a used 0-360 with a used CS Hartzell. Both were removed from
a gov't airplane of some sort about 6 years ago and they had been sitting
since. 2 magnetos. The engine started fine every time we saw it. It
started easily. It shut down nicely. Two others said that they observed the
engine sputter a bit during a run-up (or two) during the past 2-3 weeks, but
I did not observe this.
It received its airworthiness certificate about 5-6 weeks ago. It was a
non-event, and some of us here were disappointed. This was a plane of
average build quality, yet there was not a single squawk by the FAA
inspector. I wasn't there for the inspection, but word has it that
paperwork was the real emphasis, not the safety of the plane. Again... it
is NOT the duty of the FAA examiner to keep us safe, however, it would be
nice to have an objective eye... This will be addressed again at the end of
this note...
Scott has had a license for about 9 years, but has never owned a plane, and
did not fly very often. He did the smart thing and allowed a test pilot to
fly off his initial 25 hours. He then transitioned into it, and had put
'roughly' 25 hours on it himself, prior to me getting into it on Saturday.
You all may recall from this list, that as soon as Scott's plane went
airborne (we were all there to watch), it was noticed that the vertical
speed indicator (VSI) did not work. Scott wrote to this list several times
looking for advice as to why the VSI did not work. A new VSI was put in the
plane, and it did not work either... obviously suggesting that the problem
was in the pitot/static system. The VSI was removed, and knowing this
problem existed, Scott and several other pilots (about 4 others including
me) flew the plane... but on beautiful clear days.
The radios did not work well, nor did the intercom. If there was any
outside radio transmissions, it would override the intercom. Thus, in my
short 45 minutes in this plane, I found it very hard (frustrating) to
communicate with the other person. Even when the intercom was on, it was not
loud or clear enough, and was simply, not correct.
The Navaid did not work. Emergency lights (alternator, etc) did not work.
However, knowing these squawks, myself, and others, anxious for some RV
time, jumped in. The plane was very well balanced. Flew hands off.
Electric trim worked fine and the plane could be trimmed very easily. The
electric flaps worked crisply and correctly. The controls were smooth and
appropriate. I pre-flighted the plane (air frame only) on Saturday, and
yanked very hard on every control surface, wing tip, cowl, etc... and all
was just fine.
When flying on Saturday (from the right seat), several things became
apparent. First, Scott did not use a written checklist, however, when I
asked him during our run-up, he spouted it off verbally, and went through
what I believed to be a very appropriate check list that was in his head.
The mag check was fine.
While taking off, I noticed that the airspeed indicator seemed to be off a
little, but I was not sure because it was completely on the other side of
the cockpit. I have very little RV time, ( <2 hours), so some of my time
was more 'observing' and asking. It did seem, however that when we took
off, we didn't rotate until about 90 MPH as indicated by the airspeed
indicator. It didn't look quite that fast (I have an Archer that I fly
regularly), but that is what the airspeed indicator said. I didn't ask. We
flew around a bit. I flew over my house and circled. The plane flew fine. We
came back to the airport and he landed it (touch and go), and then we went
around again and I made the second landing... full stop, and we got out. I
do not know the correct way to land an RV-6 with a CS prop, and this is
where this list MUST help out, because I think this plays a role in the
cause of the crash. Scott's landing procedure was to push the prop control
all the way in, and keep the plane high and fast (100 MPH)... Compared to my
500+ hours in an Archer, this was very different. We stayed high, almost
1000 feet and made a short pattern (short downwind, short, base, and short
final). Then we almost coasted (fell?) down to the runway rather than flying
it to the runway. The VASI lights??? Too high to even be white. Again, my
total of 10 or less RV landings do not allow me to discuss the correct way
to land an RV, but this actually scared me. I rationalized this in my mind
at the time that the short wings, CS prop, etc were very different from the
Archer... However, I never get scared of landing the Archer, and this made
me very un-easy. It didn't seem like we flew the plane the last part of the
pattern, but rather that we rode in it while it coasted on its way down...
After I got out, another RV builder (my hanger mate) Don Hughes (who's RV-6
we were putting the wings on Saturday) flew with Scott, and I went home.
(Don flies a Navion and I respect his judgment greatly). Don reports to me
now (after the crash) that they flew with the purpose of staying in the
pattern to get some time, and practice. They apparently made one circuit
and landed because Don was uncomfortable with the airspeed indicator not
working correctly at all times. Don's observations were that at speed it
seemed to be correct, but at slower speeds, it was not moving, or was moving
too slow and erratically. Don got out, Scott flew back to his base airport
(not the same one where Don and I are based). Scott's stated plans were to
fly to Peter O'Knight airport the next morning (Sunday) (~5 NM from my
airport, and about 6 NM from Plant City airport where Scott was keeping his
plane) to pick up John Woleki for some training. As you will recall, John
is a VERY experienced pilot from the Marines (A6 Intruder pilot in Vietnam),
and worked as a CFI at Flight Safety in Lakeland, and at Peter O'Knight
airport.
Scott arrived at Peter O'Knight airport at about 9:00 am Sunday. He pulled
up to John's and Marvin's hanger (they are putting their wings on and
getting their RV-6A ready to fly). John hopped in and they flew away. By
witness accounts (I was not there), they took off, went around the pattern
and lined up for a landing on runway 17. Witnesses (including Marvin,
John's building partner and best friend) say that they were too high for
landing on runway 17 (sound familiar?), and that over the runway they
applied full power and began a go-around. Marvin is quoted in the paper as
saying that the engine responded correctly, apparently delivering full
power. They made a left turn to the north, and again, according to
witnesses, the plane was sluggish, eventually stalling and falling to the
shipyards below. It is not clear, if they were trying to get aligned for
runway 21, however the wreckage is more or less on the extended center line
of runway 21. This may be coincidental.
I met with the FAA investigator at Peter O'Knight airport (with Don Hughes),
and then went with them to the crash site (300 yards away-- have to drive 6
miles because the airport is on a small island, and the crash was on the
other side of a channel). With the exception of internal engine
examination, the FAA will not be able to help us on this. The FAA
investigator did not know anything about the RV series of planes. Knowing
this, I wanted to see the plane myself to see If I could tell if the flaps
were up, the ailerons were attached, etc, etc.
The plane stalled and spun into the ground at near vertical. The final
resting place of the plane was about 70 feet from the impact site. The
impact site was within a HUGE dry dock, made of cement--- about 75 feet
tall, 1000 feet long, and 175 feet wide. Thus every piece of the plane is
contained within this area, nothing is buried in dirt...there is no dirt.
The plane came to rest upside down. The engine is separated from the mount,
but still within the vicinity of the firewall area. Other than the
crankcase and its metal accessories, nothing FWF is recognizable, even to
me.... consumed by fire.
The fuselage forward of the empennage was consumed by fire. With the
exception of the right wing tip and prop, all major pieces are still
together. The empennage is intact, and structurally sound. Between the
firewall and the empennage, however, all is destroyed. Nothing is
recognizable as an airplane. The flap weldment is intact, but apparently
not attached to anything. Same goes for the rudder pedals. This is not
because they became un-attached, but because the surrounding structure has
been burned/melted completely away, leaving these steel parts recognizable
within what is otherwise unrecognizable.
The main spar attachment appears intact, and thus the two wings remain
attached to each other. The rear spar was not attached to the left wing...
having been sheered (apparently). The ailerons and flaps are attached to
their wings, but continuity to the control system cannot be established (at
least on the left side that I could easily see). I looked for, but could
not see the prop/throttle/mixture controls so could not comment on their
positions.
Bottom line, there is nothing than can be said about the airframe. No
conclusions can be drawn in my opinion, from what I saw.
Witnesses interviewed by the FAA and the local TV station say that the
engine was sputtering. My opinion (again) is that people always say this.
Seconds earlier, Marvin heard it rev up and develop power when it was
performing the go around. Others say that seconds later... over the
shipyards, it was sputtering.
My opinion of the cause of this crash: They stalled while performing a
missed landing and go-around. Contributing factors potentially (likely?)
was the faulty pitot/static system, including airspeed and vertical speed
indicators. There was no stall warning device installed. Also, the question
that the engine sputtered (loss of power) is still an unknown, but obviously
a major contributor to them stalling if this occurred. They could have been
having engine trouble and trying to make the airport... or the water (they
came very close to both) they simply ran out of airspeed... I don't believe
that the engine is to blame... but I don't think we will ever know.
What we must do together:
1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right way
for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down wind,
crosswind and final. I've been on this list for several years, and I've seen
different opinions, and different speeds on a regular basis. What
invariably comes across is "dear XXXX, here are the speeds that work for
me". There are too many of these things flying around for there to be 20
different opinions on how this is done. We must come together and establish
correct and incorrect, and publish it. This may take the form of
"guidelines", where we all have to go to altitude and check our glide
ratios, etc, etc, and we will need different numbers for 3's 4's 6's 7's
8's, 9's, 0320, o-360, etc, etc, etc... but we have the Internet, we have
ways of collecting data from hundreds of people flying. We can't have all
these new RV pilots (myself included!!!) guessing what the correct landing
procedures for these planes are.
2) We must be more accountable to others. Several of us here are kicking
ourselves for not forcing some of the 'minor' squawks to be fixed in N747ES.
We need to have others pick our planes apart... every single bolt. We can't
get our feelings hurt, and we can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder
that their techniques, tools, instruments, or building practices are not
good enough. We must take care of each other.
Don't we realize, that there are thousands of these planes being built...
that will be flying in the next year... ??? We can't be repeating this
weekend's events every few months... and sadly, I believe that we might.
I remain open to comments, and open to criticism. Please take this entire
(lengthy) note in the way it was intended... for all of our goods, mine and
my other buddies included.
Jim
James Norman, MD
RV6A, N555JN. Almost ready to fly.
IO-360, CS Hartzell, Sam James Cowl/plenum, Full Apollo Stack. 7+ long
years.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Andrews" <rv8apilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Jim and all,
Thanks for the long post and all the new data.
Your right about us as a community needing to relate our own experiences for
the benefit of all so something like this won't be repeated.
When I did the first flight on my plane last August I relayed the fact that
my airspeed gage was 20 mph off on my first flight. In retrospect this was
pretty irresponsible of me not to have checked this out before I flew.
Since I have a Rocky Mtn Instruments Micro Encoder, all I had to do was go
to the calibration section of the manual to find out how to build a simple
manometer to check out the pitot system myself. The whole experience took
me about 30 minutes to construct the tool ( a simple clear tubing and yard
stick affair ) that only cost me about $10. Using the chart in the back of
the manual you can tell down to about a mph where you are with regard to
calibration. I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one
against the other. You can also use this system to determine if you have a
leak.
The manual for the encoder is on the Rocky Mountain site (
http://www.rkymtn.com/ ) for anyone to download. In encourage everyone to
do this and construct this tool long before your first flight to insure that
what happened to Scott doesn't happen to you.
- Jim Andrews
RV-8A ( out of the paint shop this weekend... Yippeeeeee )
rv8a.tripod.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Wittman" <fmico(at)iaxs.net> |
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
>I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one against
the other.
Jim, how do you determine which gauge is correct when they don't agree?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
I have an airspeed indicator and an LRI...
I have checked my AS against other RV's in flight and know that mine is
about right at slow speeds, and a little fast at cruise speeds... I do
stalls just about every I fly, so I can pretty much tell if my AS and/or LRI
is still reading correctly...
-Bill
http://vondane.com/rv8a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Wittman" <fmico(at)iaxs.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one against
the other.
Jim, how do you determine which gauge is correct when they don't agree?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Andrews" <rv8apilot(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
In flight...
You can't, that's the problem with a redundant system like mine. You can
tell you have a problem but you don't really know what to trust. I did
later install a Lift Reserve Indicator that has a totally independent pitot
and static system that I could have used if I had it.
I was lucky enough at the time of my first flight to have a chase plane that
I could compare readings with. Something else I highly recommend. I was
also lucky in the fact that my problem was a bad gage and not my pitot
system at all. It was reading 20 mpg low so I was really just coming in to
hot and not dangerously close to a stall as would have been the case
otherwise.
On the ground with the test jig...
You can read the expected air speed right off the chart and compare this to
what you see on your gage. This works for all air speed gages, not just the
Micro Encoder. As a matter of fact the Micro Encoder was right on the money
( Thanks Rky Mtn Instruments!). The test jig is amazingly accurate for such
a home brew setup.
- Jim Andrews
RV-8A
rv8a.tripod.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Wittman" <fmico(at)iaxs.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>
> >I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one against
> the other.
>
> Jim, how do you determine which gauge is correct when they don't agree?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Point" <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | RV-6 tip up question |
I have a question for -6 tip up builders, but it may also apply to -7s. The
F632B is the piece of .125 angle, bent to 100 degrees, which attaches the
rear of the 631 channel to the 606 bulkhead. I can't seem to find this
piece in the kit, nor can I figure a way to bend .125 angle from 90 to 100
degrees. Should this have been in my kit? How have others made this piece?
Jeff Point
Milwaukee WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
Hi Jim,
It must be tough for you to to lose a friend like that. If I lost one of my close
RV buddies I don't think I would be taking it very well myself; I feel for
you.
A few questions/comments I'd like to make. Did Scott ever get transitioned by
someone like Mike Seager, who is intimately familiar with RV's? Please, please,
guys, fly with an instructor who is very experienced in the RV's for transition
training. The knowledge you gather can save your life. I will have to say
here that a stall/spin accident is easily preventable in the RV if you know
what you're looking at without looking at the airspeed, as stalls occur at a
pretty steep pitch angle, the controls get pretty mushy. It will let you know
you're getting close to the edge without looking at the airspeed or having a
stall warning device. I think the proper training could have prevented this accident--the
RV's are a different airplane and I don't think it matters much how
much total time you have as a pilot or instructor, what matters is RV time.
It looks like to me that neither one of them was as familiar with the airplane
as they could/should have been.
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 350+ hours
F1 QB under const.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
"'rv-list(at)matronics.com '"
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Thanks for the review Jim. I for one took the email exactly as you intended
it. I was not as close to Scott as you obviously were but he and I emailed
each other. He was one of the listers who's emails I paid attention to. I
can't tell you how shocked and saddened I am that he is gone.
As far as landing procedures I think that is a good idea. There are enough
RV's flying that everyone should be able to come up with a standardized set
of checklists and procedures that is general enough to apply to each series
of aircraft. One would think however that Van would be able to provide much
of this. At least where airspeeds are concerned. To those who have taken
the transition program from Mike, what airspeeds did he have you fly? What
procedures did he suggest?
If you ask 1000 pilots how to fly an airplane you're going to get 1000
different answers. I'm not a fan of blindly following Van but this is one
case where the answers are really going to have to come from the factory.
Perhaps I should say the suggestions are going to come from the factory.
Each airplane is going to have minute differences in rigging. This is also
another good reason for a good, well-documented, and well-executed test
program..
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Norman
Subject: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
RV Friends,
After a couple days to consider what has transpired, I will tell what I
know, believe, and think about the tragic fatal crash in Tampa on
Sunday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Perry" <pperryrv(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
OK,
I was comfortable with my engine carb combo until reading these posts. Now
I'm getting paranoid that I may be overlooking something on my machine.
When I first ran my engine (and airplane) I noticed high CHT's 500+ on #3
during climb. I blamed and checked everything including the carb. I sent
the carb back to the rebuild shop and they returned it with a good bill of
health and noted they adjusted the floats slightly. In the mean time I made
some changes to make sure I had good air flow across all the cylinders and
changed #3 spark plug thermocouple with a cylinder probe as Lycoming
specifies.
Now the CHT of the #3 cylinder never reads higher than 425 in climb after
the probe change. The others still float up to the mid to high 400 range,
I've been blaming that on the plug probes.
This is the first plane I've flown that has EGT's, prior to this I used the
sound of the engine to determine how much to lean(didn't do this often).
Since I'm not familiar with leaning by EGT I asked a few people and they all
said 25-50deg of peak. When I watch the EGT there is very little
temperature change while pulling the mixture before it starts to run rough,
how quickly should the tempurature rise and what are typical tempuratures
for 1000ft MSL at full rich? What other symptoms would a lean engine show?
If I take the plane to 7500' what should I see as an EGT at full rich and
how much rise should I see before it starts to drop?
I will look next flight to see exactly what temp my EGT's are reading but I
believe 15-1600 is where they run at low altitude (<4000msl). My carb and
engine are off a 172, 320-E2D with a MA-4-SPA-?-?. Running Vans airbox with
the KN oval filter and flat plate. My prop is a 82" pitch Sensenich Wood.
I get about 2150 RPM static and very little if any rmp increase when cutting
off the mixture.
Pat P
N154PK 75+ hours.
>From: KBoatri144(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: lean-running Lyc
>Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:13:34 EDT
>
>
>In a message dated 8/19/02 3:35:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
>
><< I just checked the archives to refresh my memory on my own personal
> experience with this issue.
>
> For the 160 hp O-320, I believe the carb you want is the
>MA-4-SPA-10-5217.
>
> I had a MA-4-SPA-10-5135 from a Cessna 172 on the engine at first, and it
>was
> nothing but trouble. Drilling the jet was attempted, and overdone,
>meaning
>I
> had to lean very aggressively in all flight regimes, including taxi.
>
> I now favor getting the correct carb model as opposed to taking a drill
>to
> the main jet and altering the geometry and flow. Too risky.
>
> -Bill B >>
>
>My airplane (and engine) are quite happy with the carb that came with my
>O-320-D2J, which was straight off a C-172 (and rebuilt by yours truly). I
>think there is more at work here than the carb jet size.
>
>Kyle Boatright
>0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
>Kennesaw, GA
>http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
>
>
Pat Perry
Dallas, PA
RV-4 N154PK Flies great!
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Busick" <panamared1(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
> > 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather
than
> > just one. Good/Bad idea?
I have a flop tube in right wing only. My experience is that the left wing
when fuel level is half full or below, will unport the fuel pick up tube
with the left wing high (as in making a 40 degree banking turn). When the
engine starts to sputter this becomes real exciting, especially over
mountainous terrain (I live in the mountains). I do not have this problem
with the inverted fuel tank, the one with the flop tube.
I suspect that the trap door in the first wing rib outboard of the flop tube
has a trap door on the rib. This door allows fuel to flow in, but not out
of the first fuel bay.
If I were to do it again, I would put this trap door on the non inverted
fuel tank as well.
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Todd Wiechman" <toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Building help.... |
I am just letting everybody out there know that I wasn't trying to offend
anyone by posting my ad on the RV-list. I didn't realize so many people
would care. I am just a person that loves aviation and especially the RV
series of aircraft. I recently got divorced and lost two of my RV's to that
cause. I love to build these planes, which is why I began to help people
that didn't want to do all the work. And I have worked closely with the FAA
to make sure that I didn't come close to "ruining" the homebuilder's
situation pertaining to the 51% rule. I have always had the person I am
working with be there for as much as he can be, so he is always learning
too. I don't have some big fancy office and shop, I work out of my garage
which I designed solely to be big enough to put a RV together inside.
Some of you have e-mailed me and told me that I was a "bad person" for
asking to be paid for my work. Well, I think the same about lawyers and
doctors, but as you know, everybody gets paid for the work they do, or they
would not be able to feed their families. That is the only reason I have to
get paid. I have custody of my children after the divorce, and if any of you
have been there, you know how hard it can be to take care of all of their
needs on the $27,000.00 I make a year being a firefighter. I have to
supplement my income somehow, and this is what I like doing best, building
airplanes and flying them.
I will make sure not to post anymore of my "ads" on here again.
Sorry if I offended anybody...
Todd Wiechman
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 tip up question |
| From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
I cut the piece from a piece of .125 angle and used a 3 lb. single jack and the
shop floor to bend it to 100 degrees. Not elegant but it worked.
Gary
Quoting Jeff Point :
>
> I have a question for -6 tip up builders, but it may also apply to -7s.
> The
> F632B is the piece of .125 angle, bent to 100 degrees, which attaches
> the
> rear of the 631 channel to the 606 bulkhead. I can't seem to find
> this
> piece in the kit, nor can I figure a way to bend .125 angle from 90 to
> 100
> degrees. Should this have been in my kit? How have others made this
> piece?
>
> Jeff Point
> Milwaukee WI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
"Van Artsdalen, Scott" wrote:
>
One would think however that Van would be able to provide much
> of this. At least where airspeeds are concerned.
Liability, liability, liability.
> I'm not a fan of blindly following Van but this is one
> case where the answers are really going to have to come from the factory.
Litigation, litigation, litigation.
Don't expect Vans to produce a POH for planes they didn't build.
And I don't blame them for not doing it.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Phillips <ripsteel(at)edge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV-6 tip up question |
Hi Jeff!
I assume you're talking about the rear of the rollbar support brace- (F-632A in
my -6A kit?) Just cut the required length off a piece of angle that comes with
the kit (don't recall if it was a dedicated part), lay it on your workbench like
a little teepee, and whack it with a rubber faced deadblow hammer- brutal yes,
but it worked for me! Somewhat more reasonable may be to sandwich the angle
horizontally between two small pieces of plywood in a large enough vice and
squash it till it's 100 degrees. You will need to file or belt-sand the outer
faces flat, as they will both be bent at the intersection, away from the corner
a little bit.
Something else you might wish to consider- when I installed my -632, I lowered
the rear attach point about 3/4" below the top of the F-606, and installed the
front with the bottom of the channel flush with the bottom of the -631 rollbar-
(OK'd by Vans techs). This gives you some room to more easily clean the glass
above the channel, and gives you enough room to stick your GPS antenna on top,
under the glass. Not flying yet, but all I have talked to said this location
should work as well as on the glare shield, maybe better.
From the PossumWorks in TN
Mark
Jeff Point wrote:
>
> I have a question for -6 tip up builders, but it may also apply to -7s. The
> F632B is the piece of .125 angle, bent to 100 degrees, which attaches the
> rear of the 631 channel to the 606 bulkhead. I can't seem to find this
> piece in the kit, nor can I figure a way to bend .125 angle from 90 to 100
> degrees. Should this have been in my kit? How have others made this piece?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sjhdcl(at)kingston.net |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
I don't quite understand. When you're in a right bank (left wing high) the
engine sputters when you're using the left fuel tank? This does not make sense
and sounds like at different fuel flow problem. In a right bank the standard
fuel pick up should have plenty of fuel. Of course if the turn is coordinated
perfectly the fuel wouldn't go anywhere.
Is this a mistake? Please explain.
Steve
RV7A
Misc fuse stuff
Quoting Bob Busick :
>
> > > 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather
> than
> > > just one. Good/Bad idea?
>
> I have a flop tube in right wing only. My experience is that the left
> wing
> when fuel level is half full or below, will unport the fuel pick up tube
> with the left wing high (as in making a 40 degree banking turn). When the
> engine starts to sputter this becomes real exciting, especially over
> mountainous terrain (I live in the mountains). I do not have this problem
> with the inverted fuel tank, the one with the flop tube.
>
> I suspect that the trap door in the first wing rib outboard of the flop
> tube
> has a trap door on the rib. This door allows fuel to flow in, but not out
> of the first fuel bay.
>
> If I were to do it again, I would put this trap door on the non inverted
> fuel tank as well.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit |
> I have a flop tube in right wing only. My experience is that the left wing
> when fuel level is half full or below, will unport the fuel pick up tube
> with the left wing high (as in making a 40 degree banking turn). When the
> engine starts to sputter this becomes real exciting, especially over
> mountainous terrain (I live in the mountains). I do not have this problem
> with the inverted fuel tank, the one with the flop tube.
>
Bob: as you recall from flying with me, my ship has the exact same
configuration as far as fuel pickups are concerned. Mine has never unported
in a turn at any fuel level, down to about 3 gallons in the tank. (Prudence
demands never deliberately draining a tank further than this if it can be
avoided, IMO). I don't think your plane should behave in this way. Any
chance your pickup tube in the left tank has rotated out of position? What's
your actual measured unusable fuel on that side? Do you fly your turns with
the ball centered? I can see no reason why the tank should unport in a
coordinated turn at a fuel level that causes no unporting in level flight.
The tank won't know the difference.
We do live in and fly over some rough, unlandable terrain. Get this fuel
problem figured out soon, my friend. FWIW, I agree with the notion of
putting the trap doors in the tank baffles, just as a backup safety.
Sometimes uncoordinated flight is a necessity, as on short final with a
crosswind. If I had it to do over again, I would have left the flop tube out
and saved weight and money going conventional on both sides. I'm a
non-acrobatic kind of flyer.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "FABIAN LEFLER" <FLEFLER(at)broward.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Building help.... |
Todd,
No worries. If someone was bothered by your post, all they have to do was delete
your mail the minute they saw it. I read it once, and delete it every time
after. My feelings were not hurt.
If you have a service or product to provide, it belongs on the list.
Good luck in your all your personal endeavors.
Fabian
>>> toddwiechman(at)hotmail.com 08/20/02 12:52PM >>>
I am just letting everybody out there know that I wasn't trying to offend
anyone by posting my ad on the RV-list. I didn't realize so many people
would care. I am just a person that loves aviation and especially the RV
series of aircraft. I recently got divorced and lost two of my RV's to that
cause. I love to build these planes, which is why I began to help people
that didn't want to do all the work. And I have worked closely with the FAA
to make sure that I didn't come close to "ruining" the homebuilder's
situation pertaining to the 51% rule. I have always had the person I am
working with be there for as much as he can be, so he is always learning
too. I don't have some big fancy office and shop, I work out of my garage
which I designed solely to be big enough to put a RV together inside.
Some of you have e-mailed me and told me that I was a "bad person" for
asking to be paid for my work. Well, I think the same about lawyers and
doctors, but as you know, everybody gets paid for the work they do, or they
would not be able to feed their families. That is the only reason I have to
get paid. I have custody of my children after the divorce, and if any of you
have been there, you know how hard it can be to take care of all of their
needs on the $27,000.00 I make a year being a firefighter. I have to
supplement my income somehow, and this is what I like doing best, building
airplanes and flying them.
I will make sure not to post anymore of my "ads" on here again.
Sorry if I offended anybody...
Todd Wiechman
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Crash on Sunday-very long
I appreciate Jim taking the time and what must be an emotional drain to
lay out his views of the potential factors leading up to Scott's crash. His
suggestion about standarization of airspeeds, approaches, etc., also have
considerable merit. But, lets not forget that these aircraft are
manufactured differently - in each case: angles of incident, trims, balance,
gross weight, pitot static systems, control surface alignment, individual
flight instruments, etc., are all variables.
Take final approach speed. A number of flyers have indicated they fly
their approach at 70 - 75 mph with great results. My somewhat heavier RV-6A
develops a high rate of sink at those speeds on final. I have bent the tail
tie-down attesting to the degree of rotation I needed to arrest a sink on
one such landing experimenting with the 70 mph approach. I believe that
there already exists a proven and acceptable approach to determining
airspeeds that takes into consideration many of these variables as they will
exist in different aircraft. Find your stall speed (regardless of what it
is). At gross weight, my stall speed (Full flaps) is 59 mph IAS, therefore
my approach should be 1.3XVo or 77 MPH for my bird. Given I know that my
airspeed indicator is 3 mph slow in that speed range, I should fly final at
80 MPH. It turns out that 160 landing have shown that this is the airspeed
that my bird finds just right for final. Even 75 mph is getting too slow
especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight. I can and have
landed it at those speeds, but must be prepared and rotate at the right
instant to avoid a heavy landing.
All I am suggesting is that the goal of standarization may be desirable but
without standarized aircraft the attaintability of this goal may be
questionable. You do need to known you bird's airspeeds down pat, but what
is appropriate and fine for your RV class may not be appropriate for the
next guy and his unique bird. FWIW
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
>
>
> One would think however that Van would be able to provide much
> > of this. At least where airspeeds are concerned.
>
> Liability, liability, liability.
>
> > I'm not a fan of blindly following Van but this is one
> > case where the answers are really going to have to come from the factory.
>
> Litigation, litigation, litigation.
>
> Don't expect Vans to produce a POH for planes they didn't build.
>
> And I don't blame them for not doing it.
>
Good points, Sam. Since I'm at the computer today, I will weigh in with my
own personal numbers. This works well for me, flying into a short-ish turf
strip, and I try to make every landing a short-field landing unless requested
by tower to land long. Consistency helps me stay sharper, so I rarely vary
this drill. My plane is an RV-6A with a 160 hp Lyc and a Sensenich FP prop.
No vortex generators.
Downwind: entry at 100 mph IAS and 1000 ft above terrain.
Flaps: 50% abeam the threshold. Trim for 90 mph. MAP typically 13.5; RPM
about 1320.
Base turn: at 45 degrees to the threshold. Roll into the turn at about 85
mph, pull a bit, roll out on base at 75-80. Pull off some throttle to about
11 inches.
Flaps: full just before the final turn.
Final turn: entered at 75 mph +/- the gust factor.
Roll out of the turn at 70 mph. All the usual cautions about capturing the
centerline, checking sink rate and making sure the turn is coordinated, not
skidding, apply emphatically here. This is not the place for sloppy
airmanship.
Final: pitch & trim for 65 mph IAS. It may pitch and buck through a few
phugoids with the flaps fully down and the nose this far up. Don't
overcorrect. Hold what you've got and wait for a stable sight picture to
emerge.
At this stage, I notice 2 things typically: the nose will at least
temporarily obscure the touchdown point with the final pitch-up to 65 mph.
And the approach will look very high, prompting a hard pull on the throttle
to avoid an overshoot. Then the famous RV sink rate will kick in, and I find
myself dialing in power (sometines as much as 15 inches) to ensure I clear
the trees that are 500 feet beyond the threshold. This is also where I scan
carefully for deer on the runway and for cars stopping on the state road that
defines the end of my grass strip to "watch that feller land." Don't want to
give anyone a heart attack down below, or to get the neighbors talking (even
more) about me.
Sink rate on stabilized final is 700-800 fpm unless you drag it in with
power, but there is plenty of energy in the bank for ONE attempt at a smooth
flare. The plane always seems to contact the ground before I think it will,
so my height perception is about 2 feet out of spec, but good landings are
usually had, at a touchdown speed of 50-55 mph. A touchdown at above 55 will
almost guarantee the nosewheel will hit first (bad!) A brief shot of power
will save me from the otherwise inevitable porpoising down the bumpy strip I
call "Hop-Along" for good reason.
For comparison purposes, my ship stalls clean at 55 mph IAS and with full
flaps at 48-50, power off.
Your results may vary. I know Mike Segar teaches approach speeds to long,
paved runways of about 90 mph and half flaps. I train for STOL ops as a way
of life. You do what suits you. Develop consistent habits and stick with
them. Practice go-arounds and deadstick landings. Practice
landing-configuration stalls; there's no better cure for a streak of bad
landings that getting comfortable again with the low-speed handling of your
plane, including overcoming the fear of the stall in the landing flare. It
is a very nose-high affair to stall these ships in ground effect. Don't be
afraid to flare. You will be as blind as a tail-dragger pilot as you do so,
so be certain of alignment with runway centerline before you pull the stick
fully back to settle on the turf.
I hope this helps.
Bill Boyd
RV-6A 245 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
One method that an aerobatics instructor taught me when flying basic VFR is to
learn how to fly the airplane in the pattern without using the airspeed indicator
at all. You can train yourself to know what attitude the plane should be
in based on the power setting to give you the appropriate airspeed. You can look
at the nose or wings relative angle to the outside horizon for both climbs,
cruise, and descents. This gives you another way to cross check your gauges,
and if the gauges are failed, you will know that you can still safely land.
This was a very unfornature tragedy, and I agree, we need to do all we can to
spread any information to try to keep this from happening again.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Busick" <panamared1(at)brier.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit (Correction) |
Sorry guys, in my original post I meant to say" the left wing when fuel
level is half full or below will unport the fuel pickup when the right wing
is high"
Bob Busick
> > > 4. Was considering putting flop tube fuel pickup in both tanks rather
> than
> > > just one. Good/Bad idea?
>
> I have a flop tube in right wing only. My experience is that the left
wing
> when fuel level is half full or below, will unport the fuel pick up tube
> with the left wing high (as in making a 40 degree banking turn). When the
> engine starts to sputter this becomes real exciting, especially over
> mountainous terrain (I live in the mountains). I do not have this problem
> with the inverted fuel tank, the one with the flop tube.
>
> I suspect that the trap door in the first wing rib outboard of the flop
tube
> has a trap door on the rib. This door allows fuel to flow in, but not out
> of the first fuel bay.
>
> If I were to do it again, I would put this trap door on the non inverted
> fuel tank as well.
>
> Bob
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday |
Jim,
Very constructive report. A couple of things become VERY apparent, and
truly need to be emphasized to the rest of the homebuilt community so they
are NOT repeated:
(Please note, I am not being critical of those involved or associated with
this accident: I am only trying to point out what we all must learn for
it.... No flames intended...)
1. There were many squawks that needed immediate attention prior to the next
flight. You and Don Hughes witnessed a definite airspeed calibration issue
(that might have been static port related as the VSI also didn't work) and
electrical problems. Don was so uncomfortable with the airspeed problem that
he got out.. This should have been a big red flag warning.....
2. Scott was a low time RV pilot. His landing technique you've described IS
NOT recommended by Van for low time pilots as it requires slow airspeeds,
high angle of attack, and high vertical descent speeds. I've done it
hundreds of times in N925RV, but I can say from almost 2000 Hrs of
experience in my RV that I would NEVER attempt this technique with known
airspeed/VSI problems. (Van has demonstrated this technique when doing VERY
short field landings...) Even John, with his CFI and military experience, if
he were flying N747ES in an emergency situation, might have trouble
maintaining flight if the airspeed indicator was not working properly
(ESPECIALLY if it didn't work properly at low speeds AND he was not aware of
it).....
LESSONS LEARNED (again?):
1. Resolve squawks prior to next flight. You never know when that "just one
more flight" might come back to bite you..
2. Get transitional training prior to attempting to fly your own RV. It
doesn't have to be from a CFI. I've found that a lot of insurance companies
will accept dual training time from another EXPERIENCED (read high time) RV
pilot( mainly because there just aren't enough CFI's with RV
experience/time). [You do have to negotiate with them....] An experienced RV
pilot can show you what is right (that works) and what is wrong (and doesn't
work or will get you into trouble). I know first hand as I've been doing it
for years..... (But we need more experienced pilots sharing in this
effort....)
3. The "Test Period" is suppose to identify the "safe realm of flight".
(This includes, but isn't limited to, Stall speeds at various flap settings,
pattern speeds, final approach speeds, landing speeds, etc..) A properly
generated and executed test plan results in KNOWING what these speeds should
be PRIOR to getting the final airworthiness certificate. Short cutting this
test effort (maybe because something wasn't working properly...) can only
get the in-experienced pilot into trouble.
As we all know to well, when an aircraft goes down, it makes headline
news. Every time an experimental aircraft incident occurs, the experimental
aircraft industry is exposed to more public scrutiny and the chance for more
bureaucratic control. Our class of aircraft is growing at a fast rate and is
forecasted to grow even faster yet. If we don't keep our accident rates at a
very low level, we will expose this growing industry to more governmental
controls that none of us want. It's for this reason, and our own safety,
that we must approach experimental aircraft construction and maintenance
from a "Better than certified" mentality. If we don't take on this
responsibility the FAA will do it for us....
As one of our past US Presidents once stated, " The buck stops here." Only
we, as individuals, constructing, flying and maintaining our own aircraft,
can insure the outcome of controls and safety in experimental aircraft. The
EAA has done much help promote this kind of responsibility, but it still
takes each of us as individuals to ensure its outcome.
Lets all try and learn something from this horrible accident.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N925RV
1990+ Safe Hrs and counting.....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com>
Subject: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>
>
> RV Friends,
>
> After a couple days to consider what has transpired, I will tell what I
> know, believe, and think about the tragic fatal crash in Tampa on Sunday.
> The purpose of this (long) note is not to put blame, and not to second
> guess. It is simply because I want to know (as I'm sure you do as well)
what
> likely transpired. Because I do not want to spend 7+ years building my
own
> casket. I do not want to leave my wife and 2 perfect kids without a
> husband/dad, and I do not want to loose any more buddies. We simply
cannot
> live this close to the edge without understanding where the edge is.
> Recall, these guys were my buddies. I was with them on Saturday. We worked
> together putting the wings on another RV6 on Saturday... We went out for
> lunch on Saturday... And I flew this plane Saturday afternoon.
>
You all may recall from this list, that as soon as Scott's plane went
airborne (we were all there to watch), it was noticed that the vertical
speed indicator (VSI) did not work. Scott wrote to this list several times
looking for advice as to why the VSI did not work. A new VSI was put in the
plane, and it did not work either... obviously suggesting that the problem
was in the pitot/static system. The VSI was removed, and knowing this
problem existed, Scott and several other pilots (about 4 others including
me) flew the plane... but on beautiful clear days.
The radios did not work well, nor did the intercom. If there was any
outside radio transmissions, it would override the intercom. Thus, in my
short 45 minutes in this plane, I found it very hard (frustrating) to
communicate with the other person. Even when the intercom was on, it was not
loud or clear enough, and was simply, not correct.
The Navaid did not work. Emergency lights (alternator, etc) did not work.
However, knowing these squawks, myself, and others, anxious for some RV
time, jumped in. The plane was very well balanced. Flew hands off.
Electric trim worked fine and the plane could be trimmed very easily. The
electric flaps worked crisply and correctly. The controls were smooth and
appropriate. I pre-flighted the plane (air frame only) on Saturday, and
yanked very hard on every control surface, wing tip, cowl, etc... and all
was just fine.
After I got out, another RV builder (my hanger mate) Don Hughes (who's RV-6
we were putting the wings on Saturday) flew with Scott, and I went home.
(Don flies a Navion and I respect his judgment greatly). Don reports to me
now (after the crash) that they flew with the purpose of staying in the
pattern to get some time, and practice. They apparently made one circuit
and landed because Don was uncomfortable with the airspeed indicator not
working correctly at all times. Don's observations were that at speed it
seemed to be correct, but at slower speeds, it was not moving, or was moving
too slow and erratically. Don got out, Scott flew back to his base airport
(not the same one where Don and I are based). Scott's stated plans were to
fly to Peter O'Knight airport the next morning (Sunday) (~5 NM from my
airport, and about 6 NM from Plant City airport where Scott was keeping his
plane) to pick up John Woleki for some training. As you will recall, John
is a VERY experienced pilot from the Marines (A6 Intruder pilot in Vietnam),
and worked as a CFI at Flight Safety in Lakeland, and at Peter O'Knight
airport.
> What we must do together:
> 1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right way
> for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down wind,
> crosswind and final. I've been on this list for several years, and I've
seen
> different opinions, and different speeds on a regular basis. What
> invariably comes across is "dear XXXX, here are the speeds that work for
> me". There are too many of these things flying around for there to be 20
> different opinions on how this is done. We must come together and
establish
> correct and incorrect, and publish it. This may take the form of
> "guidelines", where we all have to go to altitude and check our glide
> ratios, etc, etc, and we will need different numbers for 3's 4's 6's 7's
> 8's, 9's, 0320, o-360, etc, etc, etc... but we have the Internet, we have
> ways of collecting data from hundreds of people flying. We can't have all
> these new RV pilots (myself included!!!) guessing what the correct landing
> procedures for these planes are.
>
> 2) We must be more accountable to others. Several of us here are kicking
> ourselves for not forcing some of the 'minor' squawks to be fixed in
N747ES.
> We need to have others pick our planes apart... every single bolt. We
can't
> get our feelings hurt, and we can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder
> that their techniques, tools, instruments, or building practices are not
> good enough. We must take care of each other.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
In a message dated 08/20/2002 1:54:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com writes:
> Even 75 mph is getting too slow
> especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the nonstandard-day
factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter the
indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will differ. At
least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | re:Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
From: Danny King <wdking(at)flash.net>
Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
Jim,
I was moved by your words and for the second time since I learned about
this accident, I find myself very sad.
First of all, you have NOT built your own coffin. You have built a
ticket to fun and adventure that will lift you sprit and help fulfill
your life. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
I believe you are on the right road in trying to understand what
happened here and learn from it. I built and fly an RV-8 so I can only
comment on the similarity between the two models.
Clearly the pitot static system is of primary importance, and any
squawks must be corrected before further flight! Having said that, an
RV can be safely flown without any airspeed indication at all. A while
back a few of us on the RV-8 list, admitted to a less than perfect
preflight and finding ourselves airborne with the pitot cover still in
place. By maintaining power settings and being aware of the "feel" of
the aircraft, all of us made normal landings without the benefit of a
functioning airspeed indicator.
How fast should you fly the pattern? Each aircraft will be slightly
different as each aircraft will have a different empty weight. My 8
weights in 1149, kinda on the heavy side. I chose 85 mph to fly final
after stalling testing showed a clean stall of 60 mph and full flap
stall of 57 mph. Besides, she just feel "right" at 85 mph indicated on
final! I recently flew a light RV-8a which flew best a 80 mph on
final. Downwind should be flown around 100 mph (flap speed), base
about 90 mph and final 85 mph or so.
How does the CS prop affect this? It helps! The prop and mixture
should be placed forward as you slow to enter downwind. The prop pitch
will flatten out and the increased drag will help slow your RV to a flap
speed of 100 mph. Power should be increased to hold that speed on
downwind.
As you begin the turn to base and start your descent, power can be
reduced to slow to approx.. 90 mph. As you roll out on final, the
proper aim point to maintain a proper glide slope is a must! High
patterns that are too high for the VASI to work should trigger an early
go-around! Never try to salvage a poor pattern! Go around and get it
right! When on a proper glide path (approx. 3 degrees), you will have
some power on! Maintain aim point, glide path, and airspeed on final.
For my 8 that is 85 mph. As you cross the numbers a gentle flair as you
reduce the power to idle will result in a grease job touchdown in an
RV. These are easy airplane to fly and I have never flown one
(including and RV-3, two RV-4s, one RV-6, and three RV-8s) that didn't
fly as described above! The numbers I gave are for my 8 but I am sure
that they are "In the Ball Park" for any RV.
The RVs without a CS prop needs more planning on the part of the pilot
to slow the aircraft to flap speed on downwind. Without the CS prop,
these aircraft are so slick that getting them to slow down is a problem
for the average Spam can driver!
I grieve with you at this terrible loss. As you wrote in you letter, we
can all learn from this and help each other prevent future loss from our
RV family.
Danny King
Beautiful Doll 80434
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KostaLewis" <mikel(at)dimensional.com> |
| Subject: | Follow up on the RV-6 accident (also LONG) |
Jim and RVers:
Thank you for your thoughtful post on Scott's accident. It is hard for
me just knowing him through The List; I can only imagine how hard it is
for you knowing him personally like you did.
We do need to look at accidents like this and learn from them so those
that were involved can pass lessons on to those of us that survive them.
A lot of this has been harped on before and this is a great opportunity
to reiterate those points. I don't pretend to know everything but after
650 hours in Suzie Q we have learned a thing or two about each other.
This is also not intended to blame or flame anyone, just to reinforce
some points that may help the rest of us from getting in trouble. (This
is all supposition and opinion, not based on actual knowledge of this
particular pilot or accident. It is also not meant to be critical of
Scott or his airplane, just airplanes and pilots in general, although he
is referenced here.)
>Scott has had a license for about 9 years, but has never owned a plane,
and
>did not fly very often.
This is a VERY common problem with custom builders. You get so rapped up
in getting your airplane together, especially as it starts to really
look like an airplane, that your piloting skills begin to fade. If there
were any skills there to begin with. Getting the damn airplane done
becomes center focus. Flying skills are lost.
The simple fact is you are about to become the test pilot, or at least
the pilot of a high performance airplane and dogging around for 15 hours
a year, last year, is not the way to prepare yourself for that job.
Practice, practice, practice. You should budget increasing your flying
time into the cost of your project. And start to fire up as the time
fast approaches for that first flight. 5 hours the several months before
you get up in your new bird is not the way either.
Then there is the hardest thing to get: time in type. You HAVE to get
some time in type, even if it means flying to Oregon and doing it with
the factory guys. This is not something to be taken lightly. You need to
be current in anything and at least familiar with how your new bird is
going to fly. The RV series are great flying airplanes with few
surprises to bite you. But, like any airplane, they can bite. And you
should fly with the thought that they are GOING to bite you. It is just
a matter of when. That way you are at least somewhat more prepared IF
they do. This needs to be in your mind as your hours mount up also.
Familiarity breeds contempt. And complacency. Don't let it happen to
you.
>He did the smart thing and allowed a test pilot to fly off his initial
25 >hours.
The only reason this may have been the smart thing to do is that he
realized he was not current in the airplane, or, again, any airplane. I
think it is a bad idea to have someone or, in some cases, several pilots
"fly the time off" your test period. This is not what this time is for.
As already stated, you need to be current enough that YOU feel
comfortable flying the time off. It has several purposes: making sure
the airplane is safe to fly in all its areas of performance AND getting
YOU as familiar with your airplane as you can get. YOU know how fast it
climbs at what airspeed because it was YOU that tested it to those
limits. It wasn't someone telling you what they found. How is that
getting you familiar with your airplane? Pretty indirect. You need
direct knowledge and the best way is flight testing. My test period was
40 hours and that wasn't enough for how I wanted to know my airplane.
Anal? You bet. And I am still getting to know my airplane. 650 hours
hasn't been enough. She teaches me something every time I go up.
>You all may recall from this list, that as soon as Scott's plane went
>airborne (we were all there to watch), it was noticed that the vertical
>speed indicator (VSI) did not work. The radios did not work well, nor
did >the intercom. The Navaid did not work. Emergency lights
(alternator, etc) >did not work...
Squawk list. If it ain't right, FIX IT NOW. Another purpose of flight
testing. When you sign off your airplane as having been test flow and
found safe in every area of your testing, it also has to do with systems
and their function. You don't wait to "fix it later". Especially
flight-critical systems. Instrument light doesn't work? It may still be
a big deal because it may be an indication of a potential failure in
another system. I wonder what went on during the time this airplane was
supposed to be flight tested. Was the time just "flown off" boring holes
in the sky? As a test pilot, I would not have gone up the second time in
an airplane with a critical system malfunction. Or with as many things
not working on the airplane. It would have made me wonder what has
hidden that was also not done right.
As it turned out, the malfunction of a flight-critical system may have
been a major contributor to the airplane's demise. More on that later.
>Scott did not use a written checklist.
Is this necessary? No. Is it a good idea? You bet. In all the hours I
have in Suzie Q, the check LISTS are on my knee board. I use them every
flight. And I find I occasionally would have forgotten something if not
for those lists. I can and do say them out loud without reference to the
list (the pretakeoff list, the emergency list) but still use them. These
are high performance airplanes. I am about to go 200 miles an hour and
maybe pull 4+ Gs. I want everything working right. Why DON'T you have a
check list? There is no good answer to that one. The Big Guys use them.
I can use all the help I can get.
>While taking off, I noticed that the airspeed indicator seemed to be
off a
little...
These airplanes fly great whether they fly fast or slow. This airfoil
GRABS at the air. And the change in control response with change in
airspeed is VERY evident. To the low-time pilot, it is going to feel
slightly "sloppy" at low speeds. It may be difficult to judge the
airspeed at slow speeds in these airplanes because there is such a wide
speed range, from pretty fast to pretty slow. And, especially early on
in the getting-to-know-you hours, you need an accurate airspeed
indication to relate what the controls are telling you. It is a good
idea to try flying the pattern with the ASI blocked to your view but
seen by your right seat instructor to see if you can estimate pattern
speeds without it. Harder than it seems.
>Scott's landing procedure was to push the prop control all the way in,
and >keep the plane high and fast (100 MPH)...
Which was probably his way of having enough airspeed to work with on
final without a reliable ASI. Yikes.
>We stayed high, almost 1000 feet and made a short pattern (short
downwind, >short, base, and short final). Then we almost coasted (fell?)
down to the >runway rather than flying it to the runway.
Every one is going to fly differently, but this is not, I believe,
standard practice. These airplanes fly very well at slow speeds (one of
the many great things about this design) and are very well behaved in
the pattern as a result. If the pilot is familiar with the airplane and
all flight-critical systems are working. Flying a standard pattern at
pattern speeds is easy if planned for. Drives me nuts to hear someone
telling how hard it is to "slow down in the pattern". Should have slowed
down before you got there, pal. That no-radio Champ you just cut out of
the pattern could have been just a little low and at your 2
o'clock.......
>It didn't seem like we flew the plane the last part of the
>pattern, but rather we rode in it while it coasted on its way down...
A small indication of things not being right is when the airplane is in
control, not the pilot. And we all know that feeling of gradual lack of
complete control. Usually happens as the airplane takes over just before
we touch down when landing (starting to drift here whereistherunway ah,
there it is). It can happen at any time in the flight. I have been with
pilots that fly "differently" than I do and I have more than once pushed
the stick/yoke ahead to avoid what I perceived was a dangerous
situation. I didn't mind doing it one bit. It was also my butt in the
airplane. I did mind the airplane taking over. Not a good way to fly.
>John hopped in and they flew away.
Sometimes having a more experience pilot in the right/back seat is a
detriment. The less experienced pilot may be relying on the more
experienced pilot to bale them out if something happens and the more
experienced pilot is reluctant to do anything. We all probably have
stories about "who is flying this airplane".
>They made a left turn to the north, and again, according to witnesses,
the >plane was sluggish, eventually stalling and falling to the
shipyards below. >It is not clear, if they were trying to get aligned
for runway 21, however >the wreckage is more or less on the extended
center line
>of runway 21. This may be coincidental.
Or not. Prior to flying Suzie Q for the first time, I was fortunate
enough to fly with a very experienced -4 pilot and aerobat (also flew a
Skybolt). At one point at altitude we lined up on a road far below,
simulating a turn from base to final, the road being the "runway". We
were at approach speed for base to final, 80-85, and we were going to
overshoot the centerline of the runway (on purpose). It is pretty easy
to want to push the tail of the airplane around (left rudder in a left
turn) to get the airplane to line up with the runway. Now the right wing
is flying faster and the left wing is flying slower and the left wing
STALLS, dropping and suddenly you are looking at Ma Earth at the
beginning of a spin. Pushing forwards (towards Ma) and right rudder are
the way out, of course. Right rudder: easy. Stick forward: isn't that
pushing towards where you are trying to avoid: the Hard Green Ground?
Yes, which makes it very hard to do at pattern altitude. But you have to
and NOW. Go up and try this at altitude. In any airplane, but especially
these short wing ones we fly. It will make you not be so inclined to
ham-foot rudders in the pattern. I have always just barely tapped the
rudders anywhere in the pattern, for exactly that reason, especially in
a turn. The differential ailerons in these airplanes makes the turns
more or less coordinated even without a whole lot of rudder input.
>My opinion of the cause of this crash: They stalled while performing a
>missed landing and go-around. Contributing factors potentially
(likely?)
>was the faulty pitot/static system, including airspeed and vertical
speed
>indicators.
You bet, as stated above.
>There was no stall warning device installed.
Not necessary unless you are very used to flying with one. Knowing the
airplane is the key. If the stall warning device was dependent on the
pitot system being functional, it may not have worked anyway. This will
start the AOA thread again, I am sure. But nothing takes the place of
knowing your airplane and FLYING THE AIRPLANE, especially when things go
sour.
>What we must do together:
>1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right
way
>for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down
wind,
>crosswind and final.
But again, without a functioning ASI, mute point here. These airspeeds
have to be determined for each airplane during TEST FLIGHTS as the
average speeds that are by now well known may not work best with your
setup of pitot system and airplane rigging. It will also vary with
temperature, wind, load, CG placement, prop and on and on. Getting to
know your airplane. Flying a lot helps. If I have not flown in a week, I
can feel the rust. I HAVE to keep current for my own piece of mind and
to keep up to the (anal) standards I have for my own piloting skills. My
family appreciates this. Besides, I REALLY like to fly!!
For reference: O-320 with a Bernie Warnke (the best prop there is) RV-4:
85mph IAS in the pattern with half flaps, 70-75mph IAS on final with
full flaps. FWIW. The key to a good landing is a good approach/pattern.
>We can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder that their techniques,
>tools, instruments, or building practices are not good enough...
Or flying skills. But, you can lead a horse to water.... There is a
pilot that flies around here that, among other really stupid things,
does rolls in the pattern, is always buzzing something (the crowd when
flying Young Eagles) and has been talked to numerous times about the
idiot things he does in his (not an RV) airplane. He is no longer
allowed to fly Young Eagles. But he insists on doing stupid things again
and again. I saw him do a roll on downwind after dark a few months ago.
What else can be done? He has been discussed with the FAA but they
apparently have to catch him in the act. I don't want to hear how he
ends this. Some pilots are just too hard headed to be reasoned with and
will eventually put another smear on general aviation and experimental
aircraft in particular.
So: Scott, I don't pretend to know what happened to you but those of us
still here pause to remember you, thank you for your List input and
learn from what we think may have happened. You will be missed and may
we fly safer in your honor.
Van gave us a great design. It is up to US, as builders and pilots, to
build safe airplanes and fly them with the skill they deserve. Van is
not responsible for that; his job is done. We now fly the most popular
custom-built aircraft flying. It is our job to also make it one of the
best flown and safest. These airplanes will make you better pilots if
you let them. You can also choose to maintain your usual level of
mediocrity. It's up to you.
I'm going flying.
IMHO only
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
You're going to LOVE your new airplane; fly it well
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
| Subject: | Re: RV7 wing kit (Correction) |
Bob,
Still doesnt make sense to me if the turn is coordinated.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
>
>Sorry guys, in my original post I meant to say" the left wing when fuel
>level is half full or below will unport the fuel pickup when the right wing
>is high"
>
>Bob Busick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine corrosion heads up |
LPS-3 is made by LPS Laboratories, TEL: (800) 241-8334 or (770) 243-8800:
http://www.lpslabs.com/Products/CorrosionInh/Lps3.asp
Bart told me that I could find the stuff at automotive parts places,
but I checked three of the big ones up here and struck out. So, I
phoned LPS, told them I was looking for someplace to buy the stuff,
and they handed me off to someone in the sales department. 15
seconds later the sales girl gave me the name of a local industrial
supply place, so I called them up and they had it in stock. I was
very impressed that LPS knew exactly who carried their products.
I'll attack the corrosion tonight.
Kevin
>
>What is the LPS-3 and where can you get it. (brand, etc)
>Earl RV4
>
>Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>>
>> Here is a heads up that might save someone some heartache.
>>
>> I was ready to mount my Hartzell on my IO-360-A1B6 yesterday, so I
>> pulled the plastic cover off the front end of the crankshaft. I
>> peered inside, and to my horror, I saw some corrosion (read rust) on
>> the inside diameter of the crankshaft. Major depression. Bad night
>> sleeping with nightmares of needing a new crank :(
>>
>> I called Bart Lalonde today to talk to him. He told me that he has
>> seen this before, and that it is easy to deal with. The IO-360-A
>> series has a lot more metal in the crank in this area than the O-320
>> and O-360 engines, so there is a much more margin on how much metal
>> can be removed to get the rust out. He suggested to put some tape on
>> the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
>> sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
>> Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
>> inspect for pits (bad thing), remove the tape from that oil tube and
>> spray a bunch of LPS-3 over the whole area to protect it. The LPS-3
>> will dissolve in the hot oil once we run the engine.
>>
>> So, I suggest that anyone who has an engine sitting (I've had mine
>> for about 15 months) should pull that plastic cover off the end of
>> the crank, and take a good look inside. Spray some LPS-3 in there to
>> protect it.
>>
>> Bart also said that LPS-3 was a good thing to spray in the cylinders
>> once in a while. Pull the bottom plugs, spray a bunch of LPS-3 in
>> there, put them back in then spray through the top plug holes.
>> --
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>>
>
>
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine corrosion heads up |
Some Lycoming Service info is available of the web:
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/maintenance.html
http://www.prime-mover.org/Aviation/Manuf.html
Service Bulletin 505B is the one that Steve is talking about:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Aviation/Bulletins/sb505.html
It only applies to O-320s and O-360s with fixed pitch props, but it
looks like engines with constant speed props that sit for a long time
are affected by the same problem. SB 530 covers the application of
special paint to protect the area, but that would probably not be a
good thing to do if the engine was going to have a constant speed
prop, as it isn't clear what might happen if the paint were to come
off later.
There is a Service Letter on long term storage, but it doesn't
discuss the problem I had:
<http://www.lycoming.textron.com/document.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/maintenancePublications/serviceLetters/SL180B.pdf>
Note: the above link may get split onto two lines - you need to cut
and paste it back into one line or it won't work. Remove the < and >
at the ends if you have to cut and paste.
Kevin
>
>Kevin,
>
>Thanks much for the warning. A few years ago there was an AD on Lycomings
>for internal crankshaft corrosion on the fixed pitch models with plug
>installed. Some of the info may apply. The real can of worms you have
>opened up is this: what about engines that have been sitting for awhile
>with prop installed? It sounds like the best strategy is to delay the prop
>installation as much as possible and keep checking until then. Does anyone
>know if there's a Lycoming service letter on long term storage?
>
>Steve Johnson
>RV-8 #80121 fuse
>sending deposit for new IO-360 today
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
>To: ;
>Subject: RV-List: Engine corrosion heads up
>
>
>>
>> Here is a heads up that might save someone some heartache.
>>
>> I was ready to mount my Hartzell on my IO-360-A1B6 yesterday, so I
>> pulled the plastic cover off the front end of the crankshaft. I
>> peered inside, and to my horror, I saw some corrosion (read rust) on
>> the inside diameter of the crankshaft. Major depression. Bad night
>> sleeping with nightmares of needing a new crank :(
>>
>> I called Bart Lalonde today to talk to him. He told me that he has
>> seen this before, and that it is easy to deal with. The IO-360-A
>> series has a lot more metal in the crank in this area than the O-320
>> and O-360 engines, so there is a much more margin on how much metal
>> can be removed to get the rust out. He suggested to put some tape on
>> the slot in the piece of tube where the oil comes in, fabricate some
>> sort of mandrel with a slot in it to hold a piece of scotchbrite pad.
>> Use the scotchbrite to remove the rust. Clean out the debris,
>> inspect for pits (bad thing), remove the tape from that oil tube and
>> spray a bunch of LPS-3 over the whole area to protect it. The LPS-3
>> will dissolve in the hot oil once we run the engine.
>>
>> So, I suggest that anyone who has an engine sitting (I've had mine
>> for about 15 months) should pull that plastic cover off the end of
>> the crank, and take a good look inside. Spray some LPS-3 in there to
>> protect it.
>>
>> Bart also said that LPS-3 was a good thing to spray in the cylinders
>> once in a while. Pull the bottom plugs, spray a bunch of LPS-3 in
>> there, put them back in then spray through the top plug holes.
>> --
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lean running MA-4SPA |
| From: | Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com> |
Errata:
Post on 8/19/02
Says: old two piece nozzle....... should read: ...two piece venturi.........
PS. Factory installed venturis, as in new carbs, are tested and should be
OK. However thousands were field installed.(stamped on data plate "V")
Sorry, Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michel Boucher" <michelboucher594(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Jim, I notice there is no tower at O'Night but were you able to established
if they had planned to work in the circuit?
I just find it suprising that if this was John's first flight with Scott he
did not plan on airwork to familiarize with aircraft and student.
Or was it circumstance that made them return for landing.
Michel Boucher
RV81117 W&B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Norman
Subject: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Jim,
This must be very difficult for you to do, but I aplaud your efforts.
Maybe we can learn a few things from this that will help save other
lives.
Landing techniques - Scott sounds like we wanted to do idle power
approaches so that he could still make the runway if the engine quit.
Some folks like to do this, but most seem to prefer power-on
approaches, and accept the risk of landing short of the runway if the
engine has a problem. I think that power-off approaches can be done
safely, but they offer less margin for the flare, and the aircraft
may be so high on final that other aircraft may not see it because
they expect to see traffic on a more "normal" approach angle. To a
certain extent this depends on the airport. Airports that have a lot
of old taildraggers may see a lot of steep approaches, so the local
flyers may be more likely to see such traffic.
Note to fixed-pitch aircraft pilots - aircraft with constant speed
props have a lot more drag at idle than one with a fixed pitch prop,
so they can have a very steep descent angle.
Speeds for approach and landing - it is not possible to recommend a
specific set of indicated airspeeds to fly, because every RV has it's
own errors in the airspeed system. Errors are may be due to faulty
airspeed indicators, leaky pitot or static systems, or static system
position error. The bottom line is that indicated airspeeds that
work just fine for one RV may be very dangerous for another one.
Snags - the purpose of the flight test phase is to allow any problems
with the aircraft to be identified and fixed. Builders should fix
all major snags, not just accept and fly with them. Flying with major
snags reduces the level of safety. Even something as "simple" as an
intercom problem can become a distraction that could lead to
something else being overlooked. In my opinion, we shouldn't be
flying with passengers until all the major snags have been fixed, and
we have done enough testing to be satisfied that the aircraft is well
behaved in the weight and CG envelope we will have with a passenger
on board.
Just my two cents worth,
Kevin Horton
>
>
>RV Friends,
>
>After a couple days to consider what has transpired, I will tell what I
>know, believe, and think about the tragic fatal crash in Tampa on Sunday.
>The purpose of this (long) note is not to put blame, and not to second
>guess. It is simply because I want to know (as I'm sure you do as well) what
>likely transpired. Because I do not want to spend 7+ years building my own
>casket. I do not want to leave my wife and 2 perfect kids without a
>husband/dad, and I do not want to loose any more buddies. We simply cannot
>live this close to the edge without understanding where the edge is.
>Recall, these guys were my buddies. I was with them on Saturday. We worked
>together putting the wings on another RV6 on Saturday... We went out for
>lunch on Saturday... And I flew this plane Saturday afternoon.
>
>N747ES was an RV-6A Slow Build, built in a garage attached to Scott's
>air-conditioning business. I have visited Scott's project countless times.
>There was a group of us that always visited each other's projects, and were
>there for big days like engine mounting, engine starting, wing hanging, etc,
>but we were also there just hanging out being friends.
>
>The engine was a used 0-360 with a used CS Hartzell. Both were removed from
>a gov't airplane of some sort about 6 years ago and they had been sitting
>since. 2 magnetos. The engine started fine every time we saw it. It
>started easily. It shut down nicely. Two others said that they observed the
>engine sputter a bit during a run-up (or two) during the past 2-3 weeks, but
>I did not observe this.
>
>It received its airworthiness certificate about 5-6 weeks ago. It was a
>non-event, and some of us here were disappointed. This was a plane of
>average build quality, yet there was not a single squawk by the FAA
>inspector. I wasn't there for the inspection, but word has it that
>paperwork was the real emphasis, not the safety of the plane. Again... it
>is NOT the duty of the FAA examiner to keep us safe, however, it would be
>nice to have an objective eye... This will be addressed again at the end of
>this note...
>
>Scott has had a license for about 9 years, but has never owned a plane, and
>did not fly very often. He did the smart thing and allowed a test pilot to
>fly off his initial 25 hours. He then transitioned into it, and had put
>'roughly' 25 hours on it himself, prior to me getting into it on Saturday.
>
>You all may recall from this list, that as soon as Scott's plane went
>airborne (we were all there to watch), it was noticed that the vertical
>speed indicator (VSI) did not work. Scott wrote to this list several times
>looking for advice as to why the VSI did not work. A new VSI was put in the
>plane, and it did not work either... obviously suggesting that the problem
>was in the pitot/static system. The VSI was removed, and knowing this
>problem existed, Scott and several other pilots (about 4 others including
>me) flew the plane... but on beautiful clear days.
>
>The radios did not work well, nor did the intercom. If there was any
>outside radio transmissions, it would override the intercom. Thus, in my
>short 45 minutes in this plane, I found it very hard (frustrating) to
>communicate with the other person. Even when the intercom was on, it was not
>loud or clear enough, and was simply, not correct.
>
>The Navaid did not work. Emergency lights (alternator, etc) did not work.
>However, knowing these squawks, myself, and others, anxious for some RV
>time, jumped in. The plane was very well balanced. Flew hands off.
>Electric trim worked fine and the plane could be trimmed very easily. The
>electric flaps worked crisply and correctly. The controls were smooth and
>appropriate. I pre-flighted the plane (air frame only) on Saturday, and
>yanked very hard on every control surface, wing tip, cowl, etc... and all
>was just fine.
>
>When flying on Saturday (from the right seat), several things became
>apparent. First, Scott did not use a written checklist, however, when I
>asked him during our run-up, he spouted it off verbally, and went through
>what I believed to be a very appropriate check list that was in his head.
>The mag check was fine.
>
>While taking off, I noticed that the airspeed indicator seemed to be off a
>little, but I was not sure because it was completely on the other side of
>the cockpit. I have very little RV time, ( <2 hours), so some of my time
>was more 'observing' and asking. It did seem, however that when we took
>off, we didn't rotate until about 90 MPH as indicated by the airspeed
>indicator. It didn't look quite that fast (I have an Archer that I fly
>regularly), but that is what the airspeed indicator said. I didn't ask. We
>flew around a bit. I flew over my house and circled. The plane flew fine. We
>came back to the airport and he landed it (touch and go), and then we went
>around again and I made the second landing... full stop, and we got out. I
>do not know the correct way to land an RV-6 with a CS prop, and this is
>where this list MUST help out, because I think this plays a role in the
>cause of the crash. Scott's landing procedure was to push the prop control
>all the way in, and keep the plane high and fast (100 MPH)... Compared to my
>500+ hours in an Archer, this was very different. We stayed high, almost
>1000 feet and made a short pattern (short downwind, short, base, and short
>final). Then we almost coasted (fell?) down to the runway rather than flying
>it to the runway. The VASI lights??? Too high to even be white. Again, my
>total of 10 or less RV landings do not allow me to discuss the correct way
>to land an RV, but this actually scared me. I rationalized this in my mind
>at the time that the short wings, CS prop, etc were very different from the
>Archer... However, I never get scared of landing the Archer, and this made
>me very un-easy. It didn't seem like we flew the plane the last part of the
>pattern, but rather that we rode in it while it coasted on its way down...
>
>After I got out, another RV builder (my hanger mate) Don Hughes (who's RV-6
>we were putting the wings on Saturday) flew with Scott, and I went home.
>(Don flies a Navion and I respect his judgment greatly). Don reports to me
>now (after the crash) that they flew with the purpose of staying in the
>pattern to get some time, and practice. They apparently made one circuit
>and landed because Don was uncomfortable with the airspeed indicator not
>working correctly at all times. Don's observations were that at speed it
>seemed to be correct, but at slower speeds, it was not moving, or was moving
>too slow and erratically. Don got out, Scott flew back to his base airport
>(not the same one where Don and I are based). Scott's stated plans were to
>fly to Peter O'Knight airport the next morning (Sunday) (~5 NM from my
>airport, and about 6 NM from Plant City airport where Scott was keeping his
>plane) to pick up John Woleki for some training. As you will recall, John
>is a VERY experienced pilot from the Marines (A6 Intruder pilot in Vietnam),
>and worked as a CFI at Flight Safety in Lakeland, and at Peter O'Knight
>airport.
>
>Scott arrived at Peter O'Knight airport at about 9:00 am Sunday. He pulled
>up to John's and Marvin's hanger (they are putting their wings on and
>getting their RV-6A ready to fly). John hopped in and they flew away. By
>witness accounts (I was not there), they took off, went around the pattern
>and lined up for a landing on runway 17. Witnesses (including Marvin,
>John's building partner and best friend) say that they were too high for
>landing on runway 17 (sound familiar?), and that over the runway they
>applied full power and began a go-around. Marvin is quoted in the paper as
>saying that the engine responded correctly, apparently delivering full
>power. They made a left turn to the north, and again, according to
>witnesses, the plane was sluggish, eventually stalling and falling to the
>shipyards below. It is not clear, if they were trying to get aligned for
>runway 21, however the wreckage is more or less on the extended center line
>of runway 21. This may be coincidental.
>
>I met with the FAA investigator at Peter O'Knight airport (with Don Hughes),
>and then went with them to the crash site (300 yards away-- have to drive 6
>miles because the airport is on a small island, and the crash was on the
>other side of a channel). With the exception of internal engine
>examination, the FAA will not be able to help us on this. The FAA
>investigator did not know anything about the RV series of planes. Knowing
>this, I wanted to see the plane myself to see If I could tell if the flaps
>were up, the ailerons were attached, etc, etc.
>
>The plane stalled and spun into the ground at near vertical. The final
>resting place of the plane was about 70 feet from the impact site. The
>impact site was within a HUGE dry dock, made of cement--- about 75 feet
>tall, 1000 feet long, and 175 feet wide. Thus every piece of the plane is
>contained within this area, nothing is buried in dirt...there is no dirt.
>The plane came to rest upside down. The engine is separated from the mount,
>but still within the vicinity of the firewall area. Other than the
>crankcase and its metal accessories, nothing FWF is recognizable, even to
>me.... consumed by fire.
>
>The fuselage forward of the empennage was consumed by fire. With the
>exception of the right wing tip and prop, all major pieces are still
>together. The empennage is intact, and structurally sound. Between the
>firewall and the empennage, however, all is destroyed. Nothing is
>recognizable as an airplane. The flap weldment is intact, but apparently
>not attached to anything. Same goes for the rudder pedals. This is not
>because they became un-attached, but because the surrounding structure has
>been burned/melted completely away, leaving these steel parts recognizable
>within what is otherwise unrecognizable.
>
>The main spar attachment appears intact, and thus the two wings remain
>attached to each other. The rear spar was not attached to the left wing...
>having been sheered (apparently). The ailerons and flaps are attached to
>their wings, but continuity to the control system cannot be established (at
>least on the left side that I could easily see). I looked for, but could
>not see the prop/throttle/mixture controls so could not comment on their
>positions.
>
>Bottom line, there is nothing than can be said about the airframe. No
>conclusions can be drawn in my opinion, from what I saw.
>
>Witnesses interviewed by the FAA and the local TV station say that the
>engine was sputtering. My opinion (again) is that people always say this.
>Seconds earlier, Marvin heard it rev up and develop power when it was
>performing the go around. Others say that seconds later... over the
>shipyards, it was sputtering.
>
>My opinion of the cause of this crash: They stalled while performing a
>missed landing and go-around. Contributing factors potentially (likely?)
>was the faulty pitot/static system, including airspeed and vertical speed
>indicators. There was no stall warning device installed. Also, the question
>that the engine sputtered (loss of power) is still an unknown, but obviously
>a major contributor to them stalling if this occurred. They could have been
>having engine trouble and trying to make the airport... or the water (they
>came very close to both) they simply ran out of airspeed... I don't believe
>that the engine is to blame... but I don't think we will ever know.
>
>What we must do together:
>1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right way
>for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down wind,
>crosswind and final. I've been on this list for several years, and I've seen
>different opinions, and different speeds on a regular basis. What
>invariably comes across is "dear XXXX, here are the speeds that work for
>me". There are too many of these things flying around for there to be 20
>different opinions on how this is done. We must come together and establish
>correct and incorrect, and publish it. This may take the form of
>"guidelines", where we all have to go to altitude and check our glide
>ratios, etc, etc, and we will need different numbers for 3's 4's 6's 7's
>8's, 9's, 0320, o-360, etc, etc, etc... but we have the Internet, we have
>ways of collecting data from hundreds of people flying. We can't have all
>these new RV pilots (myself included!!!) guessing what the correct landing
>procedures for these planes are.
>
>2) We must be more accountable to others. Several of us here are kicking
>ourselves for not forcing some of the 'minor' squawks to be fixed in N747ES.
>We need to have others pick our planes apart... every single bolt. We can't
>get our feelings hurt, and we can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder
>that their techniques, tools, instruments, or building practices are not
>good enough. We must take care of each other.
>
>Don't we realize, that there are thousands of these planes being built...
>that will be flying in the next year... ??? We can't be repeating this
>weekend's events every few months... and sadly, I believe that we might.
>
>I remain open to comments, and open to criticism. Please take this entire
>(lengthy) note in the way it was intended... for all of our goods, mine and
>my other buddies included.
>
>Jim
>
>James Norman, MD
>RV6A, N555JN. Almost ready to fly.
>IO-360, CS Hartzell, Sam James Cowl/plenum, Full Apollo Stack. 7+ long
>years.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
>
> > Even 75 mph is getting too slow
> > especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
>
> Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the
nonstandard-day
> factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter the
> indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will differ.
At
> least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
>
> -Bill B
Bill, I understand and agree with you that is what the theory says. That
basically -as the air gets less dense it takes more True airspeed to get the
air pressure to push on the billows with the same force as on a more dense
air mass day ( just to give you the same Indicated Airspeed). However, I
am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day. Could just
be my imagination and I have no theroy as to why, but that is what my
experience indicates.
Ed Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rudder light wire runs |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Hi Kevin,
It was good to meet you at OSH and put a face with the name....
I ran my wires through a hole I drilled about 3/4" above the bottom hinge line.
I s'pose it weakens the structure a bit just like any hole but I know others
have done it there and no RV that I'm aware of has pulled one of those A300 maneuvers
where the VS just breaks off : ) At any rate that was the easiest location
for me since I have a Lady -8 (nosedragger) which has the tie-down bracket
bolted to the aftmost fuse bulkhead....if I ran the hole any lower it would
run into the bracket, any higher and it would not fit through the opening in
the rudder L.E. skin around the lower hinge point. I had to run the wiring through
the rudder spar above the bottom rib and therefore another hole down through
the bottom rib into the lower fairing. Not a big deal...just put a small
conduit through the two holes so when it's time to mount the rudder and run
the wiring through it will be easy to do (I riveted my lower fairing on instead
of making it removeable with screws).
All that said if I had a manly -8 I might try to run the wiring under the lower
hinge brackets and straight into the fiberglass fairing, but I'm not sure exactly
where the tailwheel mounting structure is so that might not work out...
This is one of those little things like where to run the conduit through the wings
that I wish Vans would prepunch or at least indicate on the plans....not a
big deal at all but instead of everyone having to figure it out all over again,
it could be done once for all. I know, the guys who had to mine their own
aluminum are gonna pitch in here and tell me to quit my belly achin, so I'll shut
up now...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing....canopy....
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: RV-List: Rudder light wire runs
I've got the combination strobe and nav light that mounts on the
rudder bottom fairing on my RV-8. I'm interested in hearing about
any ideas on where to run the wires through the VS rear spar. I had
planned on bringing them through below the bottom hinge on the
rudder, but I see that I would either have to run through the tail
wheel mount, or put a hole in the hinge bracket. I don't like
weakening either of those, so now I'm pondering bringing the wires
out the front of the rudder, and then running them vertically up the
rear side of the VS rear spar, way over at the right edge next to the
fuselage skin. I would put a hole in the spar on the right side
above the bottom hinge.
Will this work? I still need to hang my rudder again and confirm
that I've got enough clearance between the leading edge of the rudder
and the VS rear spar when the rudder is hard left. Does anyone else
have a better idea?
Thanks,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
>>
>Jim,
>
>This must be very difficult for you to do, but I aplaud your efforts.
>Maybe we can learn a few things from this that will help save other
>lives.
>
>Landing techniques - Scott sounds like we wanted to do idle power
>approaches so that he could still make the runway if the engine quit.
>Some folks like to do this, but most seem to prefer power-on
>approaches, and accept the risk of landing short of the runway if the
>engine has a problem. I think that power-off approaches can be done
>safely, but they offer less margin for the flare, and the aircraft
>may be so high on final that other aircraft may not see it because
>they expect to see traffic on a more "normal" approach angle. To a
>certain extent this depends on the airport. Airports that have a lot
>of old taildraggers may see a lot of steep approaches, so the local
>flyers may be more likely to see such traffic.
>
>Note to fixed-pitch aircraft pilots - aircraft with constant speed
>props have a lot more drag at idle than one with a fixed pitch prop,
>so they can have a very steep descent angle.
>
>Speeds for approach and landing - it is not possible to recommend a
>specific set of indicated airspeeds to fly, because every RV has it's
>own errors in the airspeed system. Errors are may be due to faulty
>airspeed indicators, leaky pitot or static systems, or static system
>position error. The bottom line is that indicated airspeeds that
>work just fine for one RV may be very dangerous for another one.
>
>Snags - the purpose of the flight test phase is to allow any problems
>with the aircraft to be identified and fixed. Builders should fix
>all major snags, not just accept and fly with them. Flying with major
>snags reduces the level of safety. Even something as "simple" as an
>intercom problem can become a distraction that could lead to
>something else being overlooked. In my opinion, we shouldn't be
>flying with passengers until all the major snags have been fixed, and
>we have done enough testing to be satisfied that the aircraft is well
>behaved in the weight and CG envelope we will have with a passenger
>on board.
>
>Just my two cents worth,
>
>Kevin Horton
>
>
Outstanding evaluation, Kevin. I couldn't agree more. As a fixed pitch RV8
driver, I find the slipping from high base to final approach works best for
me. And yes, this may not work for all RV folks, for whatever reason, be it
comfort level, or just whatever one has been trained to accept as "normal".
My indicated airspeed is lower than most other RV's that I know of for a
solid approach without excessive float in the flare. 75mph is the maximum
speed I like to see to get the plane on the ground without the wings still
trying to yank me back into the air. I can hold full flaps and 68mph
indicated for a very steep, get over the trees and power lines type of
approach, but the flare has to be executed perfectly to avoid centerpunching
the runway with my comm antenna. !
These numbers, if given as gospel to a new RV owner, could likely kill that
person. We fly custom airplanes folks, they are built BY us, FOR us, and
like our signatures and fingerprints, are UNIQUE to us. You can only know
the envelope of your airplane by starting well tucked inside that envelope,
than gradually moving towards the edges.
Folks, when Kevin speaks out about flight testing practices, LISTEN up.
This man knows flight testing. He does it for a living! He's also a mighty
smooth stick, as demonstrated while in the back seat of my -8. Only one pax
has been smoother with ZERO RV time....a good friend of mine and former US
Aerobatic team alternate member. Oh, and this friend is female. I'm
convinced that most male pilots tend to be overly brutish in controlling
airplanes. She could make my airplane groove through a turn better than I
can to this day...even with over 300 hours of RV time.
Get in tune with the machine folks. Know what it likes, does not like, and
never forget that it will TERMINATE you if you ask more than it can provide.
My prayers and thoughts go out to the lads we've lost and their families.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine corrosion heads up |
----Original Message Follows----
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:01:21 -0400
Service Bulletin 505B is the one that Steve is talking about:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Aviation/Bulletins/sb505.html
It only applies to O-320s and O-360s with fixed pitch props, but it
looks like engines with constant speed props that sit for a long time
are affected by the same problem. SB 530 covers the application of
special paint to protect the area, but that would probably not be a
good thing to do if the engine was going to have a constant speed
prop, as it isn't clear what might happen if the paint were to come
off later.
Kevin
My O-320 has over 4,000 hours since new in 1961. It had a fixed pitch prop
the first 35 years of its life. It has been flying with PID and Constant
Speed proop for the last several years. If there is a problem with the
Painted Inside Diamater on a Constant Speed Propeller, I will find out about
it the hard way.
The crank was checked by a certified shop and they knew that it would have a
constant speed prop on it and supplied the PID to me.
BTW. The crank looked good with no rust or pits before it was taken to the
shop for magnaflux.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,164 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause |
of Tampa Cr...
>
>
> >
>> > Even 75 mph is getting too slow
>> > especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
>>
>> Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the
>nonstandard-day
>> factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter the
>> indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will differ.
>At
>> least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
>>
>> -Bill B
>
>Bill, I understand and agree with you that is what the theory says. That
>basically -as the air gets less dense it takes more True airspeed to get the
>air pressure to push on the billows with the same force as on a more dense
>air mass day ( just to give you the same Indicated Airspeed). However, I
>am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
>aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day. Could just
>be my imagination and I have no theroy as to why, but that is what my
>experience indicates.
>
>Ed Anderson
>
Just speculating here - I wonder if the engine idles at a lower rpm
at the high density altitude day? If so, the lower rpm could be a
factor in why the flare may work out differently. Certainly, the
theory says the same IAS should work for both cases. But, theories
usually ignore some things. So, if the theory doesn't work, throw it
out. Go with the airspeed your experience shows works for you.
Don't fly a lower speed just because someone else says it works for
him.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com> |
| Subject: | Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
To clarify,
The plan was to work in the pattern, to practice touch and goes.
jim
Jim, I notice there is no tower at O'Night but were you able to
established
if they had planned to work in the circuit?
I just find it suprising that if this was John's first flight with Scott he
did not plan on airwork to familiarize with aircraft and student.
Or was it circumstance that made them return for landing.
Michel Boucher
RV81117 W&B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause |
of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>
> I appreciate Jim taking the time and what must be an emotional drain to
>lay out his views of the potential factors leading up to Scott's crash. His
>suggestion about standarization of airspeeds, approaches, etc., also have
>considerable merit. But, lets not forget that these aircraft are
>manufactured differently - in each case: angles of incident, trims, balance,
>gross weight, pitot static systems, control surface alignment, individual
>flight instruments, etc., are all variables.
>
> Take final approach speed. A number of flyers have indicated they fly
>their approach at 70 - 75 mph with great results. My somewhat heavier RV-6A
>develops a high rate of sink at those speeds on final. I have bent the tail
>tie-down attesting to the degree of rotation I needed to arrest a sink on
>one such landing experimenting with the 70 mph approach. I believe that
>there already exists a proven and acceptable approach to determining
>airspeeds that takes into consideration many of these variables as they will
>exist in different aircraft. Find your stall speed (regardless of what it
>is). At gross weight, my stall speed (Full flaps) is 59 mph IAS, therefore
>my approach should be 1.3XVo or 77 MPH for my bird. Given I know that my
>airspeed indicator is 3 mph slow in that speed range, I should fly final at
>80 MPH. It turns out that 160 landing have shown that this is the airspeed
>that my bird finds just right for final. Even 75 mph is getting too slow
>especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight. I can and have
>landed it at those speeds, but must be prepared and rotate at the right
>instant to avoid a heavy landing.
>
>All I am suggesting is that the goal of standarization may be desirable but
>without standarized aircraft the attaintability of this goal may be
>questionable. You do need to known you bird's airspeeds down pat, but what
>is appropriate and fine for your RV class may not be appropriate for the
>next guy and his unique bird. FWIW
>
>Ed Anderson
>Rv-6A N494BW
>Matthews, NC
>eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
>
I agree with Ed that airspeed standardization is not possible.
However, I do need to comment on his suggested 1.3 Vs, as this "rule"
is not universally correct.
Large aircraft have historically used an approach speed of 1.3 times
the stall speed, with both speeds measured in calibrated airspeed,
not indicated airspeed (there has been a recent change to 1.23 times
the stall speed, but they changed the way the stall speed is
measured, so the approach speeds haven't really changed). Most
aircraft have large static source position errors at the stall speed,
and the sense of the usual error is to make the indicated speed lower
than the calibrated speed. I fly a C182 that has a ridiculously low
indicated airspeed at the stall. If I were to fly final at 1.3 times
the indicated stall speed I would be much too slow in that aircraft,
and would risk having a hard landing if there was the slightest wind
gust.
We need to keep in mind that this 30% margin over the stall speed is
actually quite a few knots on a big aircraft, as the stall speed is
fairly high. But 30% of a 50 mph stall speed is a much smaller
margin than 30% of a 100 mph stall speed. A 20 mph wind gust will
cause both aircraft to lose 20 mph on final, so the smaller aircraft
may need more than 30% speed margin to allow for the gusts.
In my opinion, the best way to figure out the best approach speed for
your aircraft is to simply try approaches at ever slower speeds on a
calm day. Reduce the approach speed by one or two mph each time.
The plane will talk to you, and you'll figure out where the lowest
practical approach speed is. Now, for "every day" flying, you should
add a small buffer above the demonstrated lowest practical approach
speed, to allow for a bit of pilot inattention, or minor wind gusts.
In flight testing, we have to demonstrate that the aircraft can be
landed safely when the approach speed is 5 kt less than the
recommended one. Operators typically add another 5 kts over the
recommended speed, so they are actually flying 10 kt faster than was
shown to be safe during flight testing.
And of course if the winds are gusting, you all know you need to add
even more speed.
And we know that you need a higher approach speed at higher weights.
And we also know that the stall speed (and thus the required
approach) is higher at forward CG than it is at aft CG. Note: the
aircraft will handle differently at forward and aft CG, and these
handling changes may require different approach speeds at different
CGs.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Johnson" <scottjohnson345(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Landing My RV6A - A technique that has always worked for me. |
This is a landing technique I have always used in my RV6A, that I feel
is very safe.
Note that short runways, RV6A's with fixed props, this technique will
not work.
I have been flying for 25 years and logged thousands of hours in light
planes. There is one thing I know for sure, if you stall, your dead.
Therefore, I make sure I have plenty of airspeed for my current
situation.
So I have a heavy RV6A with constant speed prop and usually always land
on runways that are 3000 to 4000 feet long. This technique has worked in
my RV6A for many years.
Heres approximately what I do:
Pattern speed is 115 mph.
Turning to final 100 mph.
Final approach speed is 90 mph, full flaps, constant speed prop all the
way in. I always cross check my airspeed indicator on final with my GPS
(accounting for wind, atltitude, and temperature). This gives me the
added insurance that I am at the speed that my airspeed indicator shows.
Over the fence at 85 mph. Note that my airspeed indicator shows stalling
a little less than 58 mph. The speed reduction from 85 to 58 is fast
with all the drag (from full flaps and constant speed prop) and weight.
Because of the drag of the prop and flaps, I am stopped in one-half to
two thirds of the runway.
Interestingly enough, even in high cross winds (20+), I make more
controlled landings when I land with full flaps. Something I would not
do in a Cessna high wing.
I use this technique, because I know I have ample runway space and speed
above stall.
Obviously shorter runways this would not be safe.
*** This method will not work with fixed pitch props, I had one before
the constant speed, and you have to be slower over the fence to make the
runway safely.
I have known and seen pilots fly an RV6A 10 mph over a stall on
approach. I believe this to be a very dangerous practice for all pilots
- except perhaps the designer :-)
RV's drop a lot faster than your average spam can when they get slow and
behind the power curve as well. Obviously, the shorter the runway and
slower the approach speed is, the more experience the pilot better have.
In my opinion, sombody flying 50 hours per year in an RV would not be
considered a short runway, slow approach speed - expert.
Scott Johnson / Chicago RV6A 4 Years
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Kinetic engergy factor on landing ?Caution on Standarization |
of airspeeds
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause
of Tampa Cr...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> >> > Even 75 mph is getting too slow
> >> > especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
> >>
> >> Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the
> >nonstandard-day
> >> factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter
the
> >> indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will
differ.
> >At
> >> least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
> >>
> >> -Bill B
> >
> >Bill, I understand and agree with you that is what the theory says. That
> >basically -as the air gets less dense it takes more True airspeed to get
the
> >air pressure to push on the billows with the same force as on a more
dense
> >air mass day ( just to give you the same Indicated Airspeed). However,
I
> >am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
> >aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day. Could
just
> >be my imagination and I have no theroy as to why, but that is what my
> >experience indicates.
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >
>
> Just speculating here - I wonder if the engine idles at a lower rpm
> at the high density altitude day? If so, the lower rpm could be a
> factor in why the flare may work out differently. Certainly, the
> theory says the same IAS should work for both cases. But, theories
> usually ignore some things. So, if the theory doesn't work, throw it
> out. Go with the airspeed your experience shows works for you.
> Don't fly a lower speed just because someone else says it works for
> him.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Good point, Kevin. Now you've got me to wondering why (if what I experience
is actual and not imagined) would this occur. Then I got to thinking that
on a high altitude density day there may be one other thing that is
different than on a cold dense air mass. On a high altitude density day, my
true airspeed would need to be higher to give me the same indicated
airspeed. So if I fly my approach at the same IAS on a High Altitude
Density day then my true airspeed is higher than it would be on a cold dense
airmass day. This in turn means my kinetic energy must be higher on the
high altitude density day given KE = 1/2MV
2. Assuming my mass is the same
on both days, then the difference would be in the Velocity squared term.
So assuming a 5 mph difference in true airspeed say 80 mph on a high
altitude density day and 75 mph on a cold air mass day for the same IAS.
Then at 75 mph =( 75*5280/3600)
2 = 12100 (ft/sec)
2 and at 80 mph
(80*5280/3600)
2 =1367 (ft/sec)
2 or slightly over 12% difference in the
Kinetic energy of my aircraft at the same Indicated Air Speed and gross
weight.
The energy level being higher on the hotter day (higher true airspeed) and
would therefore (I believe) require 12% more energy? force? lift? to
break/brake my rate of descent on hot day versus the cold day. There! I'm
happy as I now have an explanation and can continue in good conscience on by
steep landings, power off with my fixed pitched prop (just need to pay
attention on those hot summer afternoons to the flair).
Seriously, Kevin - would there be a difference in kinetic energy with the
same IAS as I suppose under the conditions cited? And could this account for
some of the differences especially if you are making a steep approach vs a
shallow power on approach? Higher descent rate to break? more energy
required to flair? I typically have 500 fpm on my VSI and have seen 750
fpm during landing. I am concentrating on landing once over the fence so
never notice what it is at that point - but hopfully have it slacked off
considerably before the wheels touch {:>)
Ed Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RW" <chiefs(at)teleport.com> |
Everything starts from the stall speed. One of the important things on the
first test flight is a power off stall. Once you know the stall speed
(indicated) the rest you can figure out with a little simple math. Even if
it stalls at 150MPH power off, you know that it will stall at that speed
indicated. We should all get used to going back and fixing the problem and
test fly the fix. I know how easy it is to fly with something that needs
fixing... It is even easier to fly with something that is about to need to
be fixed. Sometimes 1 + 1 = 0
Dick White
RV-8 N94DW
Newport, OR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>
> I have an airspeed indicator and an LRI...
>
> I have checked my AS against other RV's in flight and know that mine is
> about right at slow speeds, and a little fast at cruise speeds... I do
> stalls just about every I fly, so I can pretty much tell if my AS and/or
LRI
> is still reading correctly...
>
> -Bill
> http://vondane.com/rv8a
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Wittman" <fmico(at)iaxs.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
>
>
> >I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one against
> the other.
>
> Jim, how do you determine which gauge is correct when they don't agree?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of |
Tampa Cr...
Ed;
The obvious point about high density altitude (high or hot or both)
operations is that the same indicated airspeed will result in a higher true
airspeed.
Flying a particular final approach path angle (as indicated by the VASIS or
other device) with the same indicated airspeed but a higher true airspeed
will obviously require a greater vertical rate of descent to maintain the
same horizontal-vertical speed ratio. The aircraft will consequently possess
greater "vertical momentum" (for lack of a better term) that will require
either more "excess wing lift" for the same time or the same "excess wing
lift" for a longer time to convert from a descending flight path to a level
flight path (as during a landing flare). The usual way to produce "excess
wing lift" is of course by pulling back on the stick in the flare.
So, yes, it should be expected to have less "landing flare authourity"
during high density altitude operations. I used to fly a Dash-8 from
Winnipeg (800 ft asl) fairly often to KCOS (5600 ft ASl or so) and wondered
why it seemed to land differently, then one day I looked at the INS
groundspeed vs. wind vs. IAS, etc. and decided this was the reason.
As Kevin Horton is perhaps alluding to in a separate message, a change in
TAS will change the "advance ratio" of the propeller (the ratio of tip speed
to forward speed) which would be expected to have a minor effect on the
thrust produce by the engine assuming unchanged prop RPM but I think this
would be a rather minor effect. I'll have to think a bit more about if this
would be a positive or negative change for RV class operations. (Plus there
is the usual piston engine reduction in power available, but that more
applicable to the go-around & climb-out scenario)
Cheers,
Jim Oke
RV-3 (flies sometimes)
RV-6A (paint someday soon)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause
of Tampa Cr...
>
>
> >
> > > Even 75 mph is getting too slow
> > > especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
> >
> > Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the
> nonstandard-day
> > factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter
the
> > indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will differ.
> At
> > least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
> >
> > -Bill B
>
> Bill, I understand and agree with you that is what the theory says. That
> basically -as the air gets less dense it takes more True airspeed to get
the
> air pressure to push on the billows with the same force as on a more dense
> air mass day ( just to give you the same Indicated Airspeed). However, I
> am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
> aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day. Could
just
> be my imagination and I have no theroy as to why, but that is what my
> experience indicates.
>
> Ed Anderson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kinetic engergy factor on landing ?Caution on |
Standarization of airspeeds
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause
>of Tampa Cr...
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> >> > Even 75 mph is getting too slow
>> >> > especially on a high density altitude day at gross weight
>> >>
>> >> Ed: FWIW, the aircraft weight will make a difference, but the
>> >nonstandard-day
>> >> factors (humidity, pressure, temp, elevation above MSL) will not alter
>the
>> >> indicated airspeeds you should use. Only the true airspeeds will
>differ.
>> >At
>> >> least that is what I believe to be current aeronautical dogma.
>> >>
>> >> -Bill B
>> >
>> >Bill, I understand and agree with you that is what the theory says. That
>> >basically -as the air gets less dense it takes more True airspeed to get
>the
>> >air pressure to push on the billows with the same force as on a more
>dense
>> >air mass day ( just to give you the same Indicated Airspeed). However,
>I
>> >am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
>> >aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day. Could
>just
>> >be my imagination and I have no theroy as to why, but that is what my
>> >experience indicates.
>> >
>> >Ed Anderson
>> >
>>
>> Just speculating here - I wonder if the engine idles at a lower rpm
>> at the high density altitude day? If so, the lower rpm could be a
>> factor in why the flare may work out differently. Certainly, the
>> theory says the same IAS should work for both cases. But, theories
>> usually ignore some things. So, if the theory doesn't work, throw it
>> out. Go with the airspeed your experience shows works for you.
>> Don't fly a lower speed just because someone else says it works for
>> him.
>> --
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
>
>Good point, Kevin. Now you've got me to wondering why (if what I experience
>is actual and not imagined) would this occur. Then I got to thinking that
>on a high altitude density day there may be one other thing that is
>different than on a cold dense air mass. On a high altitude density day, my
>true airspeed would need to be higher to give me the same indicated
>airspeed. So if I fly my approach at the same IAS on a High Altitude
>Density day then my true airspeed is higher than it would be on a cold dense
>airmass day. This in turn means my kinetic energy must be higher on the
>high altitude density day given KE = 1/2MV
2. Assuming my mass is the same
>on both days, then the difference would be in the Velocity squared term.
>So assuming a 5 mph difference in true airspeed say 80 mph on a high
>altitude density day and 75 mph on a cold air mass day for the same IAS.
>Then at 75 mph =( 75*5280/3600)
2 = 12100 (ft/sec)
2 and at 80 mph
>(80*5280/3600)
2 =1367 (ft/sec)
2 or slightly over 12% difference in the
>Kinetic energy of my aircraft at the same Indicated Air Speed and gross
>weight.
>
> The energy level being higher on the hotter day (higher true airspeed) and
>would therefore (I believe) require 12% more energy? force? lift? to
>break/brake my rate of descent on hot day versus the cold day. There! I'm
>happy as I now have an explanation and can continue in good conscience on by
>steep landings, power off with my fixed pitched prop (just need to pay
>attention on those hot summer afternoons to the flair).
>
>Seriously, Kevin - would there be a difference in kinetic energy with the
>same IAS as I suppose under the conditions cited? And could this account for
>some of the differences especially if you are making a steep approach vs a
>shallow power on approach? Higher descent rate to break? more energy
>required to flair? I typically have 500 fpm on my VSI and have seen 750
>fpm during landing. I am concentrating on landing once over the fence so
>never notice what it is at that point - but hopfully have it slacked off
>considerably before the wheels touch {:>)
>
>Ed Anderson
>
Ed,
Yes, if you are at a higher density altitude, you will have a higher
TAS, and a higher kinetic energy. And if you are flying on the same
glide slope (e.g. you follow the VASIS both times), you will have a
higher rate of descent. During the flare, you are actually pulling
very slightly more than one g so you can "turn the corner" and break
the descent. At the same indicated airspeed, you have the same
amount of lift available, and thus the same amount of g available no
matter what the density altitude (ignoring effects of mach number,
which is probably valid for our airfoil).
So, at a higher density altitude, you have a higher rate of descent,
if you are on the same glide slope. You have the same amount of g
available, so you need to start the flare very slightly higher. Or,
if you start the flare at the same altitude you would on a low
density altitude day, you might detect a slightly higher "pucker
factor" as you realize that the flare isn't going quite like you
expected.
At the same g level, the turn radius is inversely proportional to the
square of the true airspeed. The altitude required to complete the
flare would be proportional to the radius of the turn we are making.
So, we are looking at a speed squared effect here. I.e. if your TAS
was 5% higher, you would ideally need to start the flare at about 10%
higher altitude. Or, if you started the flare at the same altitude,
you would need to pull 10% more g than you would normally during the
flare.
This is all theory though. Other effects (differences in engine idle
speed with altitude, different wind conditions, local effects due to
wind over hills, etc) could be greater than the effects we're talking
about here. And of course let's not forget the change in
gravitational "constant" with altitude :)
The bottom line is that we need to flight test in different
conditions to figure out what speeds work for us, with our aircraft.
And if we someday end up at a different density altitude than we are
used to seeing, we need to expect our aircraft may behave a bit
differently.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause |
of Tampa Cr...
>As Kevin Horton is perhaps alluding to in a separate message, a change in
>TAS will change the "advance ratio" of the propeller (the ratio of tip speed
>to forward speed) which would be expected to have a minor effect on the
>thrust produce by the engine assuming unchanged prop RPM but I think this
>would be a rather minor effect. I'll have to think a bit more about if this
>would be a positive or negative change for RV class operations. (Plus there
>is the usual piston engine reduction in power available, but that more
>applicable to the go-around & climb-out scenario)
>
>Cheers,
>Jim Oke
>RV-3 (flies sometimes)
>RV-6A (paint someday soon)
Jim,
I was thinking more about possible changes in engine idle rpm with
density altitude than I was prop advance ration changes. I don't
have any experience with the same piston powered aircraft at
different density altitudes, so I'm not sure if idle speed would
change or not.
In any case, my first answer to Ed was perhaps a bit quick off the
mark in pointing to idle rpm as the cause. He was quite possibly
seeing the effects of higher TAS, as he pondered in his later message.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com>
Subject: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 10:07:50 -0400
RV Friends,
---------- snip ---------
What we must do together:
1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right way
for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down wind,
crosswind and final. I've been on this list for several years, and I've seen
different opinions, and different speeds on a regular basis. What
invariably comes across is "dear XXXX, here are the speeds that work for
me". There are too many of these things flying around for there to be 20
different opinions on how this is done. We must come together and establish
correct and incorrect, and publish it. This may take the form of
"guidelines", where we all have to go to altitude and check our glide
ratios, etc, etc, and we will need different numbers for 3's 4's 6's 7's
8's, 9's, 0320, o-360, etc, etc, etc... but we have the Internet, we have
ways of collecting data from hundreds of people flying. We can't have all
these new RV pilots (myself included!!!) guessing what the correct landing
procedures for these planes are.
2) We must be more accountable to others. Several of us here are kicking
ourselves for not forcing some of the 'minor' squawks to be fixed in N747ES.
We need to have others pick our planes apart... every single bolt. We can't
get our feelings hurt, and we can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder
that their techniques, tools, instruments, or building practices are not
good enough. We must take care of each other.
Don't we realize, that there are thousands of these planes being built...
that will be flying in the next year... ??? We can't be repeating this
weekend's events every few months... and sadly, I believe that we might.
I remain open to comments, and open to criticism. Please take this entire
(lengthy) note in the way it was intended... for all of our goods, mine and
my other buddies included.
Jim
James Norman, MD
RV6A, N555JN. Almost ready to fly.
IO-360, CS Hartzell, Sam James Cowl/plenum, Full Apollo Stack. 7+ long
years.
Jim:
I have read the other posts responding to this so will now put in my
opinion.
As there are errors in every airspeed indicator, Pitot tube, and static
system; we will never get an airspeed that will work on any given model RV.
If we all go out and CALIBRATE our airspeed indicating system and post
Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) we will come up with numbers that will be close
if we are all flying at the same weight. I do not think anyone will want
the liability of publishing a number. These are EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and
we need to test it to verify what numbers work with them. Every builder
should generate a POH. There are several free ones out there on the
Internet and I have seen more than two that are generic that can be
purchased.
Best glide speed in my aircraft is 75 KIAS. At the best glide speed of 75
KIAS with the prop full forward and idle power, I have a little over 700-fpm
sink rate.
I am using a Piper Pitot / Static tube on my RV-6. With the tie-down ring
in full flaps, I stall at an indicated airspeed below 35 Kts. With the
tie-down ring out, I stall at 40 KIAS. Only flew with the tie down rings in
on the first flight.
Stall speed is needed to know what approach speed one flys in any airplane.
Typically it is recommend flying an approach speed of 1.3 times the stall
speed on most certificated aircraft. In the RV, I like a higher multiplier.
As you can see by my stall speed, I read on the low side. I believe that
I fly a lower indicated approach speed than other RVs due to errors on the
low end of my airspeed indicator. I use an approach speed of 65 KIAS. I
will slow to 60 KIAS over the fence. With more speed, I float too long and
with less, the bottom can fall out. I have flown some very nice approaches
at 50 KIAS. The problem is, you can flare and not have enough energy to
arrest the sink rate and hit the runway HARD. The only reason that I do not
fly a best glide speed is that I am too fast with the other certificated
aircraft in the pattern and tend to float way too far down the runway.
My landing technique: (I like to be able to glide to the airport if the
engine quits.)
Warn any passenger that I fly a high tight pattern. VASI will be HIGH till
short final.
65 KIAS in the pattern. Boost pump on. (Boost pump ON any time below 1,000
AGL or full power)
About 14" MP and 1,500-1,700 RPM
Get 1/2 flaps out by mid-field downwind and be at 65 KIAS.
I am at 800 AGL abeam the approach end of the runway.
I turn base at or before reaching 45 degree past runway.
All flaps out anytime before short final.
Short final prop goes full forward incase a go-around is needed.
When the field is made, I slow to 60 KIAS. (Last glance at ASI is here at
50 AGL.)
Flare and hold it off as long as possible. (Keep saying to myself; "Don't
let it touch. Don't let it touch.")
Most landings are 3 point as I wish to touch down as slow as possible.
One of the best instructors that I know told me the secret to GREAT
landings. "Make every landing like it is a 'short field, soft field,
precision landing' and all your landing will be great."
For the past 6 years, I have recommended that everyone get at least 3 sets
of eyes (other than the FAA / DAR) to look over their aircraft before making
the first flight.
It is not always possible to tell a friend that they should not do
something. I have no problem having a friend not talk to me because they
did not like that I told them about something wrong or unsafe on their
airplane. I have a problem with a friend not talking to me because I did
not tell them about something unsafe on their airplane and they are no
longer around to be angry with me.
Please do not shoot me, I am only the messenger.
My prayers and thoughts go out to the guys we've lost, their families, and
friends.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,164 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Springer <jsflyrv(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Jim, thank you for taking time to try to help us understand
what happened. I would like to write to you later in maybe a
couple weeks or a month and tell you about the personal feelings
I have gone through having lost 7 friends in RV here locally in the
last 5 years.
In your report you mentioned the airspeed indicator not looking/feeling
right. Had John flown Scott's airplane previously? Could it be that
with an airspeed that may have been reading fast at slower airspeed been
cause for John to want him to mistakenly slow down to a slower indicated
airspeed which may have caused a problem in a pattern type turn. I also find
most students when first flying an RV well tend to over shoot the turn on
final and try to tighten the turn or push rudder to "help" the turn causing a
good situation for stall spin. There is no reason any RV should be indicating
90 on rotation, I rotate consistently between 55 and 60 mph. I would also be
interested in what the indicated stall speed was in Scott's airplane. One of the
first things I recommend on any first flight is to do at least basic stall
to use as a reference airspeed for landings. This is really hard to take I've
stayed awake to many night agonizing over friends lost in airplanes.
Lets all fly with care.
Jerry
Jim Norman wrote:
>
>
> RV Friends,
>
> After a couple days to consider what has transpired, I will tell what I
> know, believe, and think about the tragic fatal crash in Tampa on Sunday.
> The purpose of this (long) note is not to put blame, and not to second
> guess. It is simply because I want to know (as I'm sure you do as well) what
> likely transpired. Because I do not want to spend 7+ years building my own
> casket. I do not want to leave my wife and 2 perfect kids without a
> husband/dad, and I do not want to loose any more buddies. We simply cannot
> live this close to the edge without understanding where the edge is.
> Recall, these guys were my buddies. I was with them on Saturday. We worked
> together putting the wings on another RV6 on Saturday... We went out for
> lunch on Saturday... And I flew this plane Saturday afternoon.
>
> N747ES was an RV-6A Slow Build, built in a garage attached to Scott's
> air-conditioning business. I have visited Scott's project countless times.
> There was a group of us that always visited each other's projects, and were
> there for big days like engine mounting, engine starting, wing hanging, etc,
> but we were also there just hanging out being friends.
>
> The engine was a used 0-360 with a used CS Hartzell. Both were removed from
> a gov't airplane of some sort about 6 years ago and they had been sitting
> since. 2 magnetos. The engine started fine every time we saw it. It
> started easily. It shut down nicely. Two others said that they observed the
> engine sputter a bit during a run-up (or two) during the past 2-3 weeks, but
> I did not observe this.
>
> It received its airworthiness certificate about 5-6 weeks ago. It was a
> non-event, and some of us here were disappointed. This was a plane of
> average build quality, yet there was not a single squawk by the FAA
> inspector. I wasn't there for the inspection, but word has it that
> paperwork was the real emphasis, not the safety of the plane. Again... it
> is NOT the duty of the FAA examiner to keep us safe, however, it would be
> nice to have an objective eye... This will be addressed again at the end of
> this note...
>
> Scott has had a license for about 9 years, but has never owned a plane, and
> did not fly very often. He did the smart thing and allowed a test pilot to
> fly off his initial 25 hours. He then transitioned into it, and had put
> 'roughly' 25 hours on it himself, prior to me getting into it on Saturday.
>
> You all may recall from this list, that as soon as Scott's plane went
> airborne (we were all there to watch), it was noticed that the vertical
> speed indicator (VSI) did not work. Scott wrote to this list several times
> looking for advice as to why the VSI did not work. A new VSI was put in the
> plane, and it did not work either... obviously suggesting that the problem
> was in the pitot/static system. The VSI was removed, and knowing this
> problem existed, Scott and several other pilots (about 4 others including
> me) flew the plane... but on beautiful clear days.
>
> The radios did not work well, nor did the intercom. If there was any
> outside radio transmissions, it would override the intercom. Thus, in my
> short 45 minutes in this plane, I found it very hard (frustrating) to
> communicate with the other person. Even when the intercom was on, it was not
> loud or clear enough, and was simply, not correct.
>
> The Navaid did not work. Emergency lights (alternator, etc) did not work.
> However, knowing these squawks, myself, and others, anxious for some RV
> time, jumped in. The plane was very well balanced. Flew hands off.
> Electric trim worked fine and the plane could be trimmed very easily. The
> electric flaps worked crisply and correctly. The controls were smooth and
> appropriate. I pre-flighted the plane (air frame only) on Saturday, and
> yanked very hard on every control surface, wing tip, cowl, etc... and all
> was just fine.
>
> When flying on Saturday (from the right seat), several things became
> apparent. First, Scott did not use a written checklist, however, when I
> asked him during our run-up, he spouted it off verbally, and went through
> what I believed to be a very appropriate check list that was in his head.
> The mag check was fine.
>
> While taking off, I noticed that the airspeed indicator seemed to be off a
> little, but I was not sure because it was completely on the other side of
> the cockpit. I have very little RV time, ( <2 hours), so some of my time
> was more 'observing' and asking. It did seem, however that when we took
> off, we didn't rotate until about 90 MPH as indicated by the airspeed
> indicator. It didn't look quite that fast (I have an Archer that I fly
> regularly), but that is what the airspeed indicator said. I didn't ask. We
> flew around a bit. I flew over my house and circled. The plane flew fine. We
> came back to the airport and he landed it (touch and go), and then we went
> around again and I made the second landing... full stop, and we got out. I
> do not know the correct way to land an RV-6 with a CS prop, and this is
> where this list MUST help out, because I think this plays a role in the
> cause of the crash. Scott's landing procedure was to push the prop control
> all the way in, and keep the plane high and fast (100 MPH)... Compared to my
> 500+ hours in an Archer, this was very different. We stayed high, almost
> 1000 feet and made a short pattern (short downwind, short, base, and short
> final). Then we almost coasted (fell?) down to the runway rather than flying
> it to the runway. The VASI lights??? Too high to even be white. Again, my
> total of 10 or less RV landings do not allow me to discuss the correct way
> to land an RV, but this actually scared me. I rationalized this in my mind
> at the time that the short wings, CS prop, etc were very different from the
> Archer... However, I never get scared of landing the Archer, and this made
> me very un-easy. It didn't seem like we flew the plane the last part of the
> pattern, but rather that we rode in it while it coasted on its way down...
>
> After I got out, another RV builder (my hanger mate) Don Hughes (who's RV-6
> we were putting the wings on Saturday) flew with Scott, and I went home.
> (Don flies a Navion and I respect his judgment greatly). Don reports to me
> now (after the crash) that they flew with the purpose of staying in the
> pattern to get some time, and practice. They apparently made one circuit
> and landed because Don was uncomfortable with the airspeed indicator not
> working correctly at all times. Don's observations were that at speed it
> seemed to be correct, but at slower speeds, it was not moving, or was moving
> too slow and erratically. Don got out, Scott flew back to his base airport
> (not the same one where Don and I are based). Scott's stated plans were to
> fly to Peter O'Knight airport the next morning (Sunday) (~5 NM from my
> airport, and about 6 NM from Plant City airport where Scott was keeping his
> plane) to pick up John Woleki for some training. As you will recall, John
> is a VERY experienced pilot from the Marines (A6 Intruder pilot in Vietnam),
> and worked as a CFI at Flight Safety in Lakeland, and at Peter O'Knight
> airport.
>
> Scott arrived at Peter O'Knight airport at about 9:00 am Sunday. He pulled
> up to John's and Marvin's hanger (they are putting their wings on and
> getting their RV-6A ready to fly). John hopped in and they flew away. By
> witness accounts (I was not there), they took off, went around the pattern
> and lined up for a landing on runway 17. Witnesses (including Marvin,
> John's building partner and best friend) say that they were too high for
> landing on runway 17 (sound familiar?), and that over the runway they
> applied full power and began a go-around. Marvin is quoted in the paper as
> saying that the engine responded correctly, apparently delivering full
> power. They made a left turn to the north, and again, according to
> witnesses, the plane was sluggish, eventually stalling and falling to the
> shipyards below. It is not clear, if they were trying to get aligned for
> runway 21, however the wreckage is more or less on the extended center line
> of runway 21. This may be coincidental.
>
> I met with the FAA investigator at Peter O'Knight airport (with Don Hughes),
> and then went with them to the crash site (300 yards away-- have to drive 6
> miles because the airport is on a small island, and the crash was on the
> other side of a channel). With the exception of internal engine
> examination, the FAA will not be able to help us on this. The FAA
> investigator did not know anything about the RV series of planes. Knowing
> this, I wanted to see the plane myself to see If I could tell if the flaps
> were up, the ailerons were attached, etc, etc.
>
> The plane stalled and spun into the ground at near vertical. The final
> resting place of the plane was about 70 feet from the impact site. The
> impact site was within a HUGE dry dock, made of cement--- about 75 feet
> tall, 1000 feet long, and 175 feet wide. Thus every piece of the plane is
> contained within this area, nothing is buried in dirt...there is no dirt.
> The plane came to rest upside down. The engine is separated from the mount,
> but still within the vicinity of the firewall area. Other than the
> crankcase and its metal accessories, nothing FWF is recognizable, even to
> me.... consumed by fire.
>
> The fuselage forward of the empennage was consumed by fire. With the
> exception of the right wing tip and prop, all major pieces are still
> together. The empennage is intact, and structurally sound. Between the
> firewall and the empennage, however, all is destroyed. Nothing is
> recognizable as an airplane. The flap weldment is intact, but apparently
> not attached to anything. Same goes for the rudder pedals. This is not
> because they became un-attached, but because the surrounding structure has
> been burned/melted completely away, leaving these steel parts recognizable
> within what is otherwise unrecognizable.
>
> The main spar attachment appears intact, and thus the two wings remain
> attached to each other. The rear spar was not attached to the left wing...
> having been sheered (apparently). The ailerons and flaps are attached to
> their wings, but continuity to the control system cannot be established (at
> least on the left side that I could easily see). I looked for, but could
> not see the prop/throttle/mixture controls so could not comment on their
> positions.
>
> Bottom line, there is nothing than can be said about the airframe. No
> conclusions can be drawn in my opinion, from what I saw.
>
> Witnesses interviewed by the FAA and the local TV station say that the
> engine was sputtering. My opinion (again) is that people always say this.
> Seconds earlier, Marvin heard it rev up and develop power when it was
> performing the go around. Others say that seconds later... over the
> shipyards, it was sputtering.
>
> My opinion of the cause of this crash: They stalled while performing a
> missed landing and go-around. Contributing factors potentially (likely?)
> was the faulty pitot/static system, including airspeed and vertical speed
> indicators. There was no stall warning device installed. Also, the question
> that the engine sputtered (loss of power) is still an unknown, but obviously
> a major contributor to them stalling if this occurred. They could have been
> having engine trouble and trying to make the airport... or the water (they
> came very close to both) they simply ran out of airspeed... I don't believe
> that the engine is to blame... but I don't think we will ever know.
>
> What we must do together:
> 1) Establish the correct way to land an RV... and establish the right way
> for planes with CS and fixed pitch props. Establish speeds for down wind,
> crosswind and final. I've been on this list for several years, and I've seen
> different opinions, and different speeds on a regular basis. What
> invariably comes across is "dear XXXX, here are the speeds that work for
> me". There are too many of these things flying around for there to be 20
> different opinions on how this is done. We must come together and establish
> correct and incorrect, and publish it. This may take the form of
> "guidelines", where we all have to go to altitude and check our glide
> ratios, etc, etc, and we will need different numbers for 3's 4's 6's 7's
> 8's, 9's, 0320, o-360, etc, etc, etc... but we have the Internet, we have
> ways of collecting data from hundreds of people flying. We can't have all
> these new RV pilots (myself included!!!) guessing what the correct landing
> procedures for these planes are.
>
> 2) We must be more accountable to others. Several of us here are kicking
> ourselves for not forcing some of the 'minor' squawks to be fixed in N747ES.
> We need to have others pick our planes apart... every single bolt. We can't
> get our feelings hurt, and we can't be afraid of telling a fellow builder
> that their techniques, tools, instruments, or building practices are not
> good enough. We must take care of each other.
>
> Don't we realize, that there are thousands of these planes being built...
> that will be flying in the next year... ??? We can't be repeating this
> weekend's events every few months... and sadly, I believe that we might.
>
> I remain open to comments, and open to criticism. Please take this entire
> (lengthy) note in the way it was intended... for all of our goods, mine and
> my other buddies included.
>
> Jim
>
> James Norman, MD
> RV6A, N555JN. Almost ready to fly.
> IO-360, CS Hartzell, Sam James Cowl/plenum, Full Apollo Stack. 7+ long
> years.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Ok, I'll say it again:
You can check the individual instruments on the ground, but that doesn't ensure
that the static/pitot systems will work right in the air.
I see no valid reason not to wait for a day with no (or less than 5mph) wind for
the first flight, and then use a GPS as the PRIMARY airspeed indicator and the
airspeed indicator as secondary to be verified against the GPS indicated speed.
A $100 GPS is not that expensive!
As for first flight airspeeds, I used 100 mph as the magic number. 100 mph climb
out, 100 mph or more in the pattern and 100 mph all the way down to a few feet
off the ground. GPS speed. That, of course, requires a longer runway than
otherwise needed, but it 's safe!
Please realize that RV's loose speed rather quickly when below best glide speed
(mine is around 88 mph) and no engine power (I hope I'm saying this right -
others may be able to express it better).
As for "correct" speeds, RV's are such easily handable planes that they have a
wide range of "correct" speeds. Personally, I prefer coming in high and fast in
a tight pattern and bleed off excess speed with flaps and slips close to the
runway. Others like to drag it along at a slow speed in a wide wide pattern - a
practice I consider unsafe. I prefer being able to comfortably fly the airplane
onto the runway from any point in the pattern with no engine power.
I'll surely miss Scott!
Finn
RV-3 Mazda 13-B Rotary powered, 250+ hours
Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> Jim and all,
>
> Thanks for the long post and all the new data.
>
> Your right about us as a community needing to relate our own experiences for
> the benefit of all so something like this won't be repeated.
>
> When I did the first flight on my plane last August I relayed the fact that
> my airspeed gage was 20 mph off on my first flight. In retrospect this was
> pretty irresponsible of me not to have checked this out before I flew.
> Since I have a Rocky Mtn Instruments Micro Encoder, all I had to do was go
> to the calibration section of the manual to find out how to build a simple
> manometer to check out the pitot system myself. The whole experience took
> me about 30 minutes to construct the tool ( a simple clear tubing and yard
> stick affair ) that only cost me about $10. Using the chart in the back of
> the manual you can tell down to about a mph where you are with regard to
> calibration. I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one
> against the other. You can also use this system to determine if you have a
> leak.
-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eugene Williams" <Ewill177(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: re:Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
You just described my landing procedure exactly--I fly anRV-6 at 1040lbs
with a wood prop. I was taught to fly power off approaches in the Air Corps but
guess who taught me the power on approach (1200 RPM)? Mike Seiger when he checked
me out. Gene Williams
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Buchanan
Subject: RV-List: re:Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
From: Danny King <wdking(at)flash.net>
Date: Tue Aug 20, 2002 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
Jim,
I was moved by your words and for the second time since I learned about
this accident, I find myself very sad.
First of all, you have NOT built your own coffin. You have built a
ticket to fun and adventure that will lift you sprit and help fulfill
your life. I mean that from the bottom of my heart.
I believe you are on the right road in trying to understand what
happened here and learn from it. I built and fly an RV-8 so I can only
comment on the similarity between the two models.
Clearly the pitot static system is of primary importance, and any
squawks must be corrected before further flight! Having said that, an
RV can be safely flown without any airspeed indication at all. A while
back a few of us on the RV-8 list, admitted to a less than perfect
preflight and finding ourselves airborne with the pitot cover still in
place. By maintaining power settings and being aware of the "feel" of
the aircraft, all of us made normal landings without the benefit of a
functioning airspeed indicator.
How fast should you fly the pattern? Each aircraft will be slightly
different as each aircraft will have a different empty weight. My 8
weights in 1149, kinda on the heavy side. I chose 85 mph to fly final
after stalling testing showed a clean stall of 60 mph and full flap
stall of 57 mph. Besides, she just feel "right" at 85 mph indicated on
final! I recently flew a light RV-8a which flew best a 80 mph on
final. Downwind should be flown around 100 mph (flap speed), base
about 90 mph and final 85 mph or so.
How does the CS prop affect this? It helps! The prop and mixture
should be placed forward as you slow to enter downwind. The prop pitch
will flatten out and the increased drag will help slow your RV to a flap
speed of 100 mph. Power should be increased to hold that speed on
downwind.
As you begin the turn to base and start your descent, power can be
reduced to slow to approx.. 90 mph. As you roll out on final, the
proper aim point to maintain a proper glide slope is a must! High
patterns that are too high for the VASI to work should trigger an early
go-around! Never try to salvage a poor pattern! Go around and get it
right! When on a proper glide path (approx. 3 degrees), you will have
some power on! Maintain aim point, glide path, and airspeed on final.
For my 8 that is 85 mph. As you cross the numbers a gentle flair as you
reduce the power to idle will result in a grease job touchdown in an
RV. These are easy airplane to fly and I have never flown one
(including and RV-3, two RV-4s, one RV-6, and three RV-8s) that didn't
fly as described above! The numbers I gave are for my 8 but I am sure
that they are "In the Ball Park" for any RV.
The RVs without a CS prop needs more planning on the part of the pilot
to slow the aircraft to flap speed on downwind. Without the CS prop,
these aircraft are so slick that getting them to slow down is a problem
for the average Spam can driver!
I grieve with you at this terrible loss. As you wrote in you letter, we
can all learn from this and help each other prevent future loss from our
RV family.
Danny King
Beautiful Doll 80434
Get mor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
Yes, Scott had several hours with Mike. As a matter of fact, Scott sponsored Mike
giving transition training at least two years around Sun'n'Fun.
One thing that irked me reading the Tampa Tribune article was the assumption that
Scott was handling the controls. How many hours did the instructor that was
with him have in RV's? I don't care how many hours he had in other makes.
Finn
Bob Japundza wrote:
>
> A few questions/comments I'd like to make. Did Scott ever get transitioned by
someone like Mike Seager, who is intimately familiar with RV's? Please, please,
guys, fly with an instructor who is very experienced in the RV's for transition
training. The knowledge you gather can save your life. I will have to
say here that a stall/spin accident is easily preventable in the RV if you know
what you're looking at without looking at the airspeed, as stalls occur at
a pretty steep pitch angle, the controls get pretty mushy. It will let you know
you're getting close to the edge without looking at the airspeed or having
a stall warning device. I think the proper training could have prevented this
accident--the RV's are a different airplane and I don't think it matters much
how much total time you have as a pilot or instructor, what matters is RV time.
It looks like to me that neither one of them was as familiar with the airplane
as they could/should have been.
>
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 350+ hours
> F1 QB under const.
FromX-Mozilla-Status: 0009 2002
FCC: /C|/Program Files/Netscape/Users/finnlass/mail/Sent
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 21:42:46 -0400
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long
Ok, I'll say it again:
You can check the individual instruments on the ground, but that doesn't ensure
that the static/pitot systems will work right in the air.
I see no valid reason not to wait for a day with no (or less than 5mph) wind for
the first flight, and then use a GPS as the PRIMARY airspeed indicator and the
airspeed indicator as secondary to be verified against the GPS indicated speed.
A $100 GPS is not that expensive!
As for first flight airspeeds, I used 100 mph as the magic number. 100 mph climb
out, 100 mph or more in the pattern and 100 mph all the way down to a few feet
off the ground. GPS speed. That, of course, requires a longer runway than
otherwise needed, but it 's safe!
Please realize that RV's loose speed rather quickly when below best glide speed
(mine is around 88 mph) and no engine power (I hope I'm saying this right -
others may be able to express it better).
As for "correct" speeds, RV's are such easily handable planes that they have a
wide range of "correct" speeds. Personally, I prefer coming in high and fast in
a tight pattern and bleed off excess speed with flaps and slips close to the
runway. Others like to drag it along at a slow speed in a wide wide pattern - a
practice I consider unsafe. I prefer being able to comfortably fly the airplane
onto the runway from any point in the pattern with no engine power.
I'll surely miss Scott!
Finn
RV-3 Mazda 13-B Rotary powered, 250+ hours
Jim Andrews wrote:
>
> Jim and all,
>
> Thanks for the long post and all the new data.
>
> Your right about us as a community needing to relate our own experiences for
> the benefit of all so something like this won't be repeated.
>
> When I did the first flight on my plane last August I relayed the fact that
> my airspeed gage was 20 mph off on my first flight. In retrospect this was
> pretty irresponsible of me not to have checked this out before I flew.
> Since I have a Rocky Mtn Instruments Micro Encoder, all I had to do was go
> to the calibration section of the manual to find out how to build a simple
> manometer to check out the pitot system myself. The whole experience took
> me about 30 minutes to construct the tool ( a simple clear tubing and yard
> stick affair ) that only cost me about $10. Using the chart in the back of
> the manual you can tell down to about a mph where you are with regard to
> calibration. I have two airspeed indicators in my panel so I can verify one
> against the other. You can also use this system to determine if you have a
> leak.
-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ahman <ahmanrv4(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RV4-List: RV-4 flap question |
Pat,
I believe you are looking for the Wing Kit Parts List. I have the list from
Kit #146, which is ca. 1982. I'll scan it and email directly if you'd
like.
Best regards,
Jim Ahman
RV-4, Empennage
BL-65 1938 TaylorCraft
VAA 7, President
http://www.vintage-aircraft-7.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <PGLong(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV4-List: RV-4 flap question
> --> RV4-List message posted by: PGLong(at)aol.com
>
> Hi and thanks Ken for your answers on the rivet questions. Just wish I had
> the bags with the numbers on them. With your descriptions, I think I can
> identify them in the unmarked bins. Is there a list that should have
> accompanied the kit that I should ask Van's to send me a copy of? If so,
what
> would I ask for?
> Thanks, again,
>
> Pat Long
> RV-4 in Michigan
> PGLong(at)aol.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
>
> I am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
> aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day.
Well, Ed. Definitely something to think about, there. You have a point, and
I believe I have noticed this effect, too, in my hot weather flying. Could
it be an effect of "scale magnification" in the less dense air? Not only
would everything happen at higher TAS, because wing and airspeed indicator
alike are encountering fewer molecules of air per unit of volume and time,
but perhaps the arc described by the plane in the flare/approach must be
enlarged by x percentage as the air gets less dense. This would feel the
same as a less authoritative flair, unable to turn upwards in the flair as
tightly as we can on a cooler day, and the ground zipping by faster due to
higher true airspeed, I agree it's bound to seem like the plane isn't
handling like it usually does. Makes sense to me. Of course, when things
start to make sense to me, I expect an expert is not far away, with a bag of
reasons why such things are never the way they seem. Can't trust "thought
experiments," you know. That's how old wives' tales like the "deadly
downwind turn" got started ;-)
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kinetic engergy factor on landing ?Caution on Standarization |
of airspeeds
> >Good point, Kevin. Now you've got me to wondering why (if what I
experience
> >is actual and not imagined) would this occur. Then I got to thinking
that
> >on a high altitude density day there may be one other thing that is
> >different than on a cold dense air mass. On a high altitude density day,
my
> >true airspeed would need to be higher to give me the same indicated
> >airspeed. So if I fly my approach at the same IAS on a High Altitude
> >Density day then my true airspeed is higher than it would be on a cold
dense
> >airmass day. This in turn means my kinetic energy must be higher on the
> >high altitude density day given KE = 1/2MV
2. Assuming my mass is the
same
> >on both days, then the difference would be in the Velocity squared term.
> >So assuming a 5 mph difference in true airspeed say 80 mph on a high
> >altitude density day and 75 mph on a cold air mass day for the same IAS.
> >Then at 75 mph =( 75*5280/3600)
2 = 12100 (ft/sec)
2 and at 80 mph
> >(80*5280/3600)
2 =1367 (ft/sec)
2 or slightly over 12% difference in the
> >Kinetic energy of my aircraft at the same Indicated Air Speed and gross
> >weight.
> >
> > The energy level being higher on the hotter day (higher true airspeed)
and
> >would therefore (I believe) require 12% more energy? force? lift? to
> >break/brake my rate of descent on hot day versus the cold day. There!
I'm
> >happy as I now have an explanation and can continue in good conscience on
by
> >steep landings, power off with my fixed pitched prop (just need to pay
> >attention on those hot summer afternoons to the flair).
> >
> >Seriously, Kevin - would there be a difference in kinetic energy with the
> >same IAS as I suppose under the conditions cited? And could this account
for
> >some of the differences especially if you are making a steep approach vs
a
> >shallow power on approach? Higher descent rate to break? more energy
> >required to flair? I typically have 500 fpm on my VSI and have seen 750
> >fpm during landing. I am concentrating on landing once over the fence so
> >never notice what it is at that point - but hopfully have it slacked off
> >considerably before the wheels touch {:>)
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >
>
> Ed,
>
> Yes, if you are at a higher density altitude, you will have a higher
> TAS, and a higher kinetic energy. And if you are flying on the same
> glide slope (e.g. you follow the VASIS both times), you will have a
> higher rate of descent. During the flare, you are actually pulling
> very slightly more than one g so you can "turn the corner" and break
> the descent. At the same indicated airspeed, you have the same
> amount of lift available, and thus the same amount of g available no
> matter what the density altitude (ignoring effects of mach number,
> which is probably valid for our airfoil).
>
> So, at a higher density altitude, you have a higher rate of descent,
> if you are on the same glide slope. You have the same amount of g
> available, so you need to start the flare very slightly higher. Or,
> if you start the flare at the same altitude you would on a low
> density altitude day, you might detect a slightly higher "pucker
> factor" as you realize that the flare isn't going quite like you
> expected.
>
> At the same g level, the turn radius is inversely proportional to the
> square of the true airspeed. The altitude required to complete the
> flare would be proportional to the radius of the turn we are making.
> So, we are looking at a speed squared effect here. I.e. if your TAS
> was 5% higher, you would ideally need to start the flare at about 10%
> higher altitude. Or, if you started the flare at the same altitude,
> you would need to pull 10% more g than you would normally during the
> flare.
>
> This is all theory though. Other effects (differences in engine idle
> speed with altitude, different wind conditions, local effects due to
> wind over hills, etc) could be greater than the effects we're talking
> about here. And of course let's not forget the change in
> gravitational "constant" with altitude :)
>
> The bottom line is that we need to flight test in different
> conditions to figure out what speeds work for us, with our aircraft.
> And if we someday end up at a different density altitude than we are
> used to seeing, we need to expect our aircraft may behave a bit
> differently.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
| Subject: | lean-running Lyc |
OK,
I was comfortable with my engine carb combo until reading these posts. Now
I'm getting paranoid that I may be overlooking something on my machine.
-----------------snip---------------------------
If I take the plane to 7500' what should I see as an EGT at full rich and
how much rise should I see before it starts to drop?
I will look next flight to see exactly what temp my EGT's are reading but I
believe 15-1600 is where they run at low altitude (<4000msl). My carb and
engine are off a 172, 320-E2D with a MA-4-SPA-?-?. Running Vans airbox with
the KN oval filter and flat plate. My prop is a 82" pitch Sensenich Wood.
I get about 2150 RPM static and very little if any rmp increase when cutting
off the mixture.
Pat P
N154PK 75+ hours.
Hi Pat
I do not have EGT's on my RV-6A, 0-320, fixed pitch, but I do have a good
Electronics Intl. digital Cylinder Head Temp gauge. The CHT gauge will
follow the same temperature pattern as the EGT's when you lean however the
reaction time will be slower.
My suggestion is to go up to about 8000 feet and slowly lean the engine in
small increments, maybe a 1/4 inch on the mixture control at a time, and
note the engine temperatures, EGT and CHT.
After everything stabilizes (4-5 min) record temp's and lean a bit more.
At full rich the engine should be running rich and the temperatures should
rise until you reach best power mixture and then as you lean further the
temperatures should begin to fall until eventually the fire goes out.
From full rich the cylinder head temp should increase 20 to 50 degrees F
before any decrease is noted.
So too repeat, what you are looking for as you start to lean is a increase
in both power (RPM) and temperatures followed by a decrease in power and
temperatures.
Initially, on my engine the temps started to decrease as soon as I started
leaning, this indicated that even at full rich setting the engine was
running on the lean side of the best power mixture.
The RPM increase when cutting off the engine is associated with the idle
mixture and is not an indication of the mixture at cruise power.
George McNutt 6-A
Member - Nozzle Drillers Club
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kinetic engergy factor on landing ?Caution on Standarization |
of airspeeds
.
> >
> > The energy level being higher on the hotter day (higher true airspeed)
and
> >would therefore (I believe) require 12% more energy? force? lift? to
> >break/brake my rate of descent on hot day versus the cold day. There!
I'm
> >happy as I now have an explanation and can continue in good conscience on
by
> >steep landings, power off with my fixed pitched prop (just need to pay
> >attention on those hot summer afternoons to the flair).
> >
> >Seriously, Kevin - would there be a difference in kinetic energy with the
> >same IAS as I suppose under the conditions cited? And could this account
for
> >some of the differences especially if you are making a steep approach vs
a
> >shallow power on approach? Higher descent rate to break? more energy
> >required to flair? I typically have 500 fpm on my VSI and have seen 750
> >fpm during landing. I am concentrating on landing once over the fence so
> >never notice what it is at that point - but hopfully have it slacked off
> >considerably before the wheels touch {:>)
> >
> >Ed Anderson
> >
>
> Ed,
>
> Yes, if you are at a higher density altitude, you will have a higher
> TAS, and a higher kinetic energy. And if you are flying on the same
> glide slope (e.g. you follow the VASIS both times), you will have a
> higher rate of descent. During the flare, you are actually pulling
> very slightly more than one g so you can "turn the corner" and break
> the descent. At the same indicated airspeed, you have the same
> amount of lift available, and thus the same amount of g available no
> matter what the density altitude (ignoring effects of mach number,
> which is probably valid for our airfoil).
>
> So, at a higher density altitude, you have a higher rate of descent,
> if you are on the same glide slope. You have the same amount of g
> available, so you need to start the flare very slightly higher. Or,
> if you start the flare at the same altitude you would on a low
> density altitude day, you might detect a slightly higher "pucker
> factor" as you realize that the flare isn't going quite like you
> expected.
This is my experience with my airframe. Whether due to the higher kinetic
energy due to the higher true airspeed or difference in thrust due to HP
difference due to different density altitude or other factors. On a hot day
near gross weight in an engine out style approach (trained to fly them that
way from the 1960s) with a fixed pitched prop, I find I dare not let the
bird get much under 80 MPH IAS or the pucker factor does impair the integry
of my seat cusion. It was reinforced about a month ago when on a 96F day I
came in at a couple of MPH under my 80 IAS target airspeed across the fence
and rotated to break the rate of descent. The nose came up as expected but
the rate of descent did not appear to subside to any degree and I got
current in one landing.{:<}
Thanks for your insight, Kevin
Ed
> At the same g level, the turn radius is inversely proportional to the
> square of the true airspeed. The altitude required to complete the
> flare would be proportional to the radius of the turn we are making.
> So, we are looking at a speed squared effect here. I.e. if your TAS
> was 5% higher, you would ideally need to start the flare at about 10%
> higher altitude. Or, if you started the flare at the same altitude,
> you would need to pull 10% more g than you would normally during the
> flare.
> This is all theory though. Other effects (differences in engine idle
> speed with altitude, different wind conditions, local effects due to
> wind over hills, etc) could be greater than the effects we're talking
> about here. And of course let's not forget the change in
> gravitational "constant" with altitude :)
Aha! Completely forgot about the gravitation microvariants as well as the
not so constant, G constant.
Another excellent point.
> The bottom line is that we need to flight test in different
> conditions to figure out what speeds work for us, with our aircraft.
> And if we someday end up at a different density altitude than we are
> used to seeing, we need to expect our aircraft may behave a bit
> differently.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
>
> Ed;
>
> The obvious point about high density altitude (high or hot or both)
> operations is that the same indicated airspeed will result in a higher
true
> airspeed.
>
> Flying a particular final approach path angle (as indicated by the VASIS
or
> other device) with the same indicated airspeed but a higher true airspeed
> will obviously require a greater vertical rate of descent to maintain the
> same horizontal-vertical speed ratio. The aircraft will consequently
possess
> greater "vertical momentum" (for lack of a better term) that will require
> either more "excess wing lift" for the same time or the same "excess wing
> lift" for a longer time to convert from a descending flight path to a
level
> flight path (as during a landing flare). The usual way to produce "excess
> wing lift" is of course by pulling back on the stick in the flare.
>
> So, yes, it should be expected to have less "landing flare authourity"
> during high density altitude operations. I used to fly a Dash-8 from
> Winnipeg (800 ft asl) fairly often to KCOS (5600 ft ASl or so) and
wondered
> why it seemed to land differently, then one day I looked at the INS
> groundspeed vs. wind vs. IAS, etc. and decided this was the reason.
>
> As Kevin Horton is perhaps alluding to in a separate message, a change in
> TAS will change the "advance ratio" of the propeller (the ratio of tip
speed
> to forward speed) which would be expected to have a minor effect on the
> thrust produce by the engine assuming unchanged prop RPM but I think this
> would be a rather minor effect. I'll have to think a bit more about if
this
> would be a positive or negative change for RV class operations. (Plus
there
> is the usual piston engine reduction in power available, but that more
> applicable to the go-around & climb-out scenario)
>
> Cheers,
> Jim Oke
> RV-3 (flies sometimes)
> RV-6A (paint someday soon)
>
Thanks Jim, that explanation makes a lot of sense to me and does not require
higher physics and mathematics to explain why I have less "Flare authority"
on a high altitude density day. The density altitude changes the landing
profile because we are sticking to the same IAS for different density
altitudes but different TAS. If I did not increase my rate of descent for
the same landing target then I would overshoot with the IAS held constant
because the higher TAS (on a higher density altitude day) would result in a
longer landing vector. Appreciate your input.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
>
> >
> > I am really convinced that on a high density altitude day (95F+ OAT) my
> > aircraft does not flair with the same authority as on a 32F day.
>
> Well, Ed. Definitely something to think about, there. You have a point,
and
> I believe I have noticed this effect, too, in my hot weather flying.
Could
> it be an effect of "scale magnification" in the less dense air? Not only
> would everything happen at higher TAS, because wing and airspeed indicator
> alike are encountering fewer molecules of air per unit of volume and time,
> but perhaps the arc described by the plane in the flare/approach must be
> enlarged by x percentage as the air gets less dense. This would feel the
> same as a less authoritative flair, unable to turn upwards in the flair as
> tightly as we can on a cooler day, and the ground zipping by faster due to
> higher true airspeed, I agree it's bound to seem like the plane isn't
> handling like it usually does. Makes sense to me. Of course, when things
> start to make sense to me, I expect an expert is not far away, with a bag
of
> reasons why such things are never the way they seem. Can't trust "thought
> experiments," you know. That's how old wives' tales like the "deadly
> downwind turn" got started ;-)
>
> Bill B
Good point, Bill
Jim Oke and Kevin Horton responses both point out some pertinent factors on
the topic. Kevin also provides an explanation about the difference in TAS
and kinetic energy on the altitude and/or Force you need to flare in
different density altitudes as you mention. But, you ideal about a scale
factor is intriging. Perhaps the easiest to accept is as Jim points out
that with a higher TAS flying the same approach profile I would have to
increase my rate of descent in order not to overshoot my landing target. So
I would arrive near the runway with the same IAS in both instances, but with
a higher rate of descent on the higher altitude density day. Therefore, I
would need to honk back more in order to break the rate of descent (with the
effects Kevin mentions) and might indeed find that I did not get the same
response to the same stick force input - kaPlung {:>) - slacking of "Flare
Authority"!.
Boy, it is nice to have so many considered inputs address an issue!
Best Regards
Ed A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | AeroElectric Connection Training September 7 & 8 |
We still have a few openings for Bob Nuckolls excellent training (designing,
building and maintaining aircraft electrical systems). Clearwater, Florida
September 7 & 8. $150.00. Regristration will be closing the end of this
week. Registration information and all the details at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Clearwater.html
Pete Hunt
RV-6 QB Starting panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Karie Daniel" <karied4(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | My RV-7A is on the way |
I've been looking for a plane for a year now and had a few great flights
in a buddy's RV-6A. Last weekend after we finished coming back from a
fly-in here in Washington I ordered the empennage kit for the RV-7A and
will be placing the order for the entire QB kit next Monday.
I'm excited about finally having a great performing aircraft. I'm pretty
sure that I will be getting the 180 HP fuel injected engine and it looks
like Vans has a good price. I would like a fully aerobatic engine with
inverted fuel and oil. I've always flown a fixed pitch prop and I'm
debating if I should stick to that or go the constant speed route?
Thanks.
Karie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
To:
Re the Tampa Crash-
I've just arrived home from a trip and this news has stunned me. Ironically,
it was only a few hours ago I looked over at my First Officer and remarked,
as we looked at the sunrise over the Pacific, that now, after six and a half
years and about fifty thousand Canadian dollars, I have a toy that I have to
watch like a hawk and stay very current and sharp to fly so that my creation
won't kill me..
Hearing of Scott's airspeed indicator problem also upsets me, but for a
different reason. Two weeks ago, after installing my wings at the airport
and hooking everything up, I bought a blood pressure testing kit. I removed
the hose from the cuff and, using elastic exercise tubing as an adapter,
slipped it over the end of the pitot tube. A few gentle squeezes on the
rubber bulb raised the pitot system pressure to 30mmgs. which is pretty darn
close to 150knots. 'the system held the pressure as I watched, then I very
gently opened the relief valve on the bulb and watched the pressure on the
dial drop to zero. I looked at the airspeed indicator and was shocked to see
that it was holding a steady reading of 90 knots! I got a cold chill and the
hair on the back of my neck stood up as I realized what this could mean if
I hadn't tested the system. I would have been flying for the first time and
trying to get the speed down on final, probably eventually stalling. It was
one of the Chinese indicators from Van's and a very understanding Amber at
their order desk had a new one on the way the very day-no charge.
I viewed it as just another obstacle that stood between me and flying this
thing. In hindsight, if I'd shared my experience here as so many have done
for the benefit of us all, perhaps Scott and John would still be with us..
Scott in Vancouver
Rv-6, 160/wood prop
3 hours TTAFandE>
>
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My RV-7A is on the way |
>
>I've been looking for a plane for a year now and had a few great flights
>in a buddy's RV-6A. Last weekend after we finished coming back from a
>fly-in here in Washington I ordered the empennage kit for the RV-7A and
>will be placing the order for the entire QB kit next Monday.
>
>I'm excited about finally having a great performing aircraft. I'm pretty
>sure that I will be getting the 180 HP fuel injected engine and it looks
>like Vans has a good price. I would like a fully aerobatic engine with
>inverted fuel and oil. I've always flown a fixed pitch prop and I'm
>debating if I should stick to that or go the constant speed route?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Karie
>
Karie,
Congratulations.
You'll be happy with the fixed pitch prop as long as you never take a
ride in an RV that has a constant speed. The constant speed prop
allows the engine to develop a lot more power at lower airspeeds, so
you get much more impressive take-off and climb performance. The
maximum cruise speed will be about the same, but you'll have the
option of cruising at a lower rpm and full throttle if you want to
quiet thing down a bit.
I've known many RVers that have switched from a fixed pitch to
constant speed. I've never heard of anyone who has gone the other
way.
If your budget is tight, a fixed pitch RV is still a fantastic
aircraft. If you've got the money, I would go with a constant speed
prop, personally. But it is your aircraft - you have to make the
decision that is right for you, not the one that everyone else says
is right for you.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael J. Veth" <vethm(at)vsrtechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: new alodine trick |
Dan,
That's a good idea -- I'll use it on my small parts from now on. Based
on some of the discussion on the Chapter 1000 website
(http://www.eaa1000.av.org/), I decided to build simple tanks to use
to acid etch and Alodine the larger parts (spars / skins). I used 2x4s
and some plastic sheeting, designed around the form of the largest
part. I could do an entire spar or 1/2 of a skin using only about a
gallon of liquid. When I was done, I siphoned it back into the
container. I took a picture and put it on the web site if you want to
see it.
http://www.vsrtechnology.com/alodine_and_etch_tanks.jpg
Seemed like it worked pretty well on the empennage parts!
Keep the good ideas coming.
Mike Veth
RV-8A Wings (Currently in ProSeal hell!)
http://www.vsrtechnology.com/rv-8a_project.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael J. Veth" <vethm(at)vsrtechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My RV-7A is on the way |
Karie,
Seems like you'd want a constant-speed for aerobatics. There's a lot less
pilot workload (and danger of overspeeds) with a CS.
Have fun with the kit!
Mike
RV-8A Wings
http://www.vsrtechnology.com/rv-8a_project.htm
Karie Daniel wrote:
>
> I've been looking for a plane for a year now and had a few great flights
> in a buddy's RV-6A. Last weekend after we finished coming back from a
> fly-in here in Washington I ordered the empennage kit for the RV-7A and
> will be placing the order for the entire QB kit next Monday.
>
> I'm excited about finally having a great performing aircraft. I'm pretty
> sure that I will be getting the 180 HP fuel injected engine and it looks
> like Vans has a good price. I would like a fully aerobatic engine with
> inverted fuel and oil. I've always flown a fixed pitch prop and I'm
> debating if I should stick to that or go the constant speed route?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Karie
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks to all who responded about my rivet identifications. Problem solved.
And yes, Jim, I would very much like to have a copy or your Wing Kit Parts
List. Thanks for offering to scan and email it. I'll would appreciate that
very much!
Pat Long
RV-4 in Michigan
PGLong(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cause of Tampa Crash on Sunday-very long |
In a message dated 8/20/2002 2:08:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
> Your results may vary. I know Mike Segar teaches approach speeds to long,
>
I just trained with Mike last week and he taught 85mph and half flaps abreast
the numbers and then full flaps on base.
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
Any week now !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Another Flap Question |
Boy, I had no idea that I would be using this list like I have so far. Only
ten or so hours into a partially built kit and I'm making a pest of my self
already.
I was having some difficulty with the dimensions on the root end of the left
flap. I emailed Scott at Van's and said that the inboard rib is installed at
angle both vertically and chordwise. I can see .25" in the vertical plane
from the top to the bottom, but not the chordwise. The drilling sheet shows
rib rivets at 90 degrees vertically in both top and bottom drilling
dimensions. Wondering if he is talking about the FL-6 part and not the FL-4R
rib. Has anyone else had a problem in this area?
Pat Long
RV-4 in Michigan
PGLong(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pat Perry" <pperryrv(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | lean-running Lyc |
Thanks for the info George, and everyone else who replied with suggestions.
I took your advise and ran some tests----
I was eager to take a closer look at my temperatures, the weather was
unusually clear, my wife was working late! Perfect oportunity and a good
excuse to go flying.....
I took the plane up to 5500' and did some test runs.
At full power cruise the EGT was showing 1525, as I started to lean it
slowly went to a peak at 1600 before the engine started to run rough. At
half throttle (I have no manifold pressure gauge) cruise with full rich the
EGT showed 1500, when leaned it went to 1575.
I then went up to 7000' and did some more test runs.
At full power cruise the EGT temp was at 1475, then leaned out to 1575
before running rough and dropping off. Half power cruise showed about the
same but maybe slightly cooler.
Since there was a rise in EGT on all runs my assumtion is the engine is on
the rich side of the mixute curve at these altitudes. When I got back on
the ground (639'msl) I did a run-up to about 1500 RPM then checked very
closely for the slight increase in RPM as I leaned it out to shut-down.
There was none but there was a slight increase in EGT while leaning.
From this test I think my engine is running right about where it should be.
Thanks again.
Pat P
N154PK
>From: "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Rv-List(at)Matronics.Com"
>Subject: RE: RV-List: lean-running Lyc
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 20:28:42 -0700
>
>
>OK,
>I was comfortable with my engine carb combo until reading these posts. Now
>I'm getting paranoid that I may be overlooking something on my machine.
>
>-----------------snip---------------------------
>
>If I take the plane to 7500' what should I see as an EGT at full rich and
>how much rise should I see before it starts to drop?
>
>I will look next flight to see exactly what temp my EGT's are reading but I
>believe 15-1600 is where they run at low altitude (<4000msl). My carb and
>engine are off a 172, 320-E2D with a MA-4-SPA-?-?. Running Vans airbox
>with
>the KN oval filter and flat plate. My prop is a 82" pitch Sensenich Wood.
>I get about 2150 RPM static and very little if any rmp increase when
>cutting
>off the mixture.
>
>Pat P
>N154PK 75+ hours.
>
>
>Hi Pat
>
>
>I do not have EGT's on my RV-6A, 0-320, fixed pitch, but I do have a good
>Electronics Intl. digital Cylinder Head Temp gauge. The CHT gauge will
>follow the same temperature pattern as the EGT's when you lean however the
>reaction time will be slower.
>
>My suggestion is to go up to about 8000 feet and slowly lean the engine in
>small increments, maybe a 1/4 inch on the mixture control at a time, and
>note the engine temperatures, EGT and CHT.
>After everything stabilizes (4-5 min) record temp's and lean a bit more.
>
>At full rich the engine should be running rich and the temperatures should
>rise until you reach best power mixture and then as you lean further the
>temperatures should begin to fall until eventually the fire goes out.
>
>From full rich the cylinder head temp should increase 20 to 50 degrees F
>before any decrease is noted.
>
>So too repeat, what you are looking for as you start to lean is a increase
>in both power (RPM) and temperatures followed by a decrease in power and
>temperatures.
>
>Initially, on my engine the temps started to decrease as soon as I started
>leaning, this indicated that even at full rich setting the engine was
>running on the lean side of the best power mixture.
>
>The RPM increase when cutting off the engine is associated with the idle
>mixture and is not an indication of the mixture at cruise power.
>
>George McNutt 6-A
>Member - Nozzle Drillers Club
>
>
Pat Perry
Dallas, PA
RV-4 N154PK Flies great!
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Bundy" <ebundy(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: My RV-7A is on the way |
Karie,
Congratulations and welcome to the sickness...
My advise is to not be too concerned about it right now. You'll have plenty
of things to do in the meantime, and you don't need to make this decision
right away. When it's time, you'll have a lot more information to draw
from. There is a ton of pro/con information in the archives that you can
read at your leisure.
My fixed pitch metal prop is great and I love it. That said, as soon as I
can justify the extra expense I'll probably go with a constant speed.
Ed Bundy - RV6A N427EM 500+ hours
160hp 0320 w/Sensenich 70x78
Eagle, ID
ebundy(at)velocitus.net
> I've been looking for a plane for a year now and had a few great flights
> in a buddy's RV-6A. Last weekend after we finished coming back from a
> fly-in here in Washington I ordered the empennage kit for the RV-7A and
> will be placing the order for the entire QB kit next Monday.
>
> I'm excited about finally having a great performing aircraft. I'm pretty
> sure that I will be getting the 180 HP fuel injected engine and it looks
> like Vans has a good price. I would like a fully aerobatic engine with
> inverted fuel and oil. I've always flown a fixed pitch prop and I'm
> debating if I should stick to that or go the constant speed route?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Parker Thomas" <me(at)parkerthomas.com> |
Can anyone elaborate on this method of testing the pitot? What is a nmg
and how do you know it is 150 knots?
Thanks,
Parker
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
To:
Re the Tampa Crash-
I've just arrived home from a trip and this news has stunned me.
Ironically,
it was only a few hours ago I looked over at my First Officer and
remarked,
as we looked at the sunrise over the Pacific, that now, after six and a
half
years and about fifty thousand Canadian dollars, I have a toy that I
have to
watch like a hawk and stay very current and sharp to fly so that my
creation
won't kill me..
Hearing of Scott's airspeed indicator problem also upsets me, but for a
different reason. Two weeks ago, after installing my wings at the
airport
and hooking everything up, I bought a blood pressure testing kit. I
removed
the hose from the cuff and, using elastic exercise tubing as an adapter,
slipped it over the end of the pitot tube. A few gentle squeezes on the
rubber bulb raised the pitot system pressure to 30mmgs. which is pretty
darn
close to 150knots. 'the system held the pressure as I watched, then I
very
gently opened the relief valve on the bulb and watched the pressure on
the
dial drop to zero. I looked at the airspeed indicator and was shocked to
see
that it was holding a steady reading of 90 knots! I got a cold chill and
the
hair on the back of my neck stood up as I realized what this could mean
if
I hadn't tested the system. I would have been flying for the first time
and
trying to get the speed down on final, probably eventually stalling. It
was
one of the Chinese indicators from Van's and a very understanding Amber
at
their order desk had a new one on the way the very day-no charge.
I viewed it as just another obstacle that stood between me and flying
this
thing. In hindsight, if I'd shared my experience here as so many have
done
for the benefit of us all, perhaps Scott and John would still be with
us..
Scott in Vancouver
Rv-6, 160/wood prop
3 hours TTAFandE>
>
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
Anyone in greater-Denver have a DAR they'd recommend to review, sign-off
my 8A, sooner rather than later. Thanks.
Rick Jory N184RJ (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Caution on Standarization of airspeeds Was Re: Cause of Tampa |
Cr...
In a message dated 08/20/2002 11:53:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com writes:
> might indeed find that I did not get the same
> response to the same stick force input - kaPlung {:>) - slacking of "Flare
> Authority"!.
>
> Boy, it is nice to have so many considered inputs address an issue!
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ed A
>
Ed, I should have considered this more before I shot off my mouth about how
IAS remains the same and that adjusts for everything else in the flair; it
doesn't.
We cannot fly just anywhere in the atmosphere, oblivious to the effects of
density altitude, with the philosophy that as long as the IAS is the same,
the wing will never know the difference. The engine will certainly feel the
difference, and it will make itself known in other ways, as in extended
takeoff and landing distances at Leadville, and the convergence of Vx and Vy
into the very same airspeed when one hits the aircraft service ceiling in
that corner of the performance envelope. I should have known better.
-Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | gear leg fairings- gap in back |
I have the Team Rocket gear leg and intersection fairings installed. The
leg-to-fuselage intersection fairings gap open rather widely at the trailing
edge when installed. Something about the screw pressure seems to turn a
perfect hand-fit when off the plane into a bit of aerodynamic ugliness when
all is snugged down.
I could just tape the trailing edge of the cuff closed, but clear tape
doesn't seem to want to hold this tension very long, and colored tape would
be conspicuous. Has anyone found a better option? This area is rather thin
and small for fooling with nut plates and screws, so I'm looking for
retention clip ideas or anything similar/clever. Must be removable for
service & inspection.
Thanks.
Bill B
looking for that final .02 mph increase.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eric.J.Henson(at)chase.com |
11:15:47 AM
Hey All,
I really hate to do this on such a dark week, but I have no choice. Next
week I will join millions of my fellow Americans that have been downsized
by corporate America. Since I won't be able to sit and watch the RV list
with one eye while the other one does some sort of work function, I'll
unplug for a while. The current plan is to be a semi-pro hired gun to some
F1 Rocket friends of mine and take a break from Corporate B.S. for a few
months. Need to get a Rocket up on its gear in the next month or so and
then see if I can remember where I left my -6 last year, well into the
finishing stage. Eventually I'll probably land back in some "suit monkey"
position where I can make my daily quota of instigating e-mails on THEIR
time.
If anyone needs me I'll be at Jarhed(at)bellsouth.net
You guys be safe, we don't need any more weeks like this one. See ya'll
down the road a piece.
Eric Henson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | Airspeed Calibration with Manometer Numbers |
17.4/20 0.20
26/30 0.44
34.8/40 0.79
43.5/50 1.23
50/57.5 1.63
69.6/80 3.16
70/80 3.20
86.9/100 4.94
100/115 6.56
104.3/120 7.13
110/126.5 7.95
120/138 9.48
130/149.5 11.14
130/150 11.18
150/172.5 14.87
173.9/200 20.04
200/230 26.71
217.4/250 31.63
First coulomb is the airspeed in knots/MPH, second coulomb is inches of
water. Very simple accurate manometer made with 4 feet if 1/4 inch clear
tubing from the hardware store and a yard stick and a wire tie. Wire tie
the tubing onto the yardstick in the form of a long, skinny "u" shape,
connect one end to the pitot tube and dribble water in the other end of
the "u" to calibrate AS indicator in your airplane. Leaks indicate
static or pitot connection leaks somewhere in your system, or AS
indicator problems. Don't allow water to enter the pitot tube. The
meniscus or "water level" or air-to-water lines indicate the pressure
differences as applied to the water coulomb in the poly tubing. The
length of differences between the two lines is what you are measuring
(as indicated in the second coulomb in the above table)
I've missed this handy table over the years and all the references at my
house don't have this table. I found this at the Rocky Mt. site, as
indicated by Jim Anders today.(A bunch of my friends don't have hi speed
internet or DSL to download the PDF file, or browsers that allow
external links. This ASCII version will be view able to all and also
reside in the archives.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Approach Techniques |
In a message dated 8/21/2002 5:02:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Lenleg(at)aol.com
writes:
> I just trained with Mike last week and he taught 85mph and half flaps
> abreast
> the numbers and then full flaps on base.
When flying a conventional pattern entry, I always fly my heavy RV-6A 0-360
c/s at 100 mph (IAS) on my "close in" downwind, boost pump on w/prop and
mixture full forward, pull power abeam the numbers or slightly later
depending on wind conditions, half flaps and trim nose up to slow to 90 mph
on base and then slow to 80 mph with whatever additional flaps might be
needed after turning short final (I fly a little steeper angle than VASI
would suggest), slow to 75 mph in steady or no wind conditions and round out
over the numbers. When we're loaded for bear (1830 lb gross w/full fuel) as
for our OSH trip and especially when landing in high density altitude
conditions, I keep it at 80-85 mph on final. I can always make the runway
from any place in the pattern.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 560hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Pohl" <planewiz(at)hotmail.com> |
First of all, I would like to express my deepest sypathy to those who
perished last Sunday, to their families and to their close friends. My
prayers are with all of you.
In the interest of flight training and safety, I have a question or two, but
first a little backround behind the question.
When I first learned to fly some 30 years ago, in addition to practicing
stalls, I was taught to "slow fly" the airplane at altitude. In otherwords,
fly the plane at reduced throttle, nose high and maintain altitude at an
airspeed to the point where the plane was just barely holding altitude
without going into a spin.
The purpose of the exercise was to obtain a feel for the airplane just at
the brink of stalling so that I would know what the plane "felt" like at the
point of spinning and also, to learn how to keep it from spinning at very
slow airspeed.
Doing this "slow flight" training gave me an excellent feel for the airplane
at slow speed. Also, I gained complete confidence in myself and the
airplane. I knew I was the master of the plane, that I was controling the
plane and the plane was not controlling me. It did what I wanted it to do,
period.
Other exercises I practiced and practiced to perfection were "short field"
and "soft field" take off's and landings. Again, these exercises allowed me
to really learn the capability and characteristics of the airplanes and
myself. I knew exactly how far I could slow them down, how to set up the
pattern, how long the rollout would be, etc.
My point is this. In all the posts I have read so far, I have not read where
anyone has mentioned "slow flight" testing their RV's or "short field/soft
field" landings and takeoffs. Without having to practice these exercises, I
doubt I would have ever felt completely confident flying an airplane.
Who of you has done this type of testing in your RV, how did it feel to you
and do you still practice these exercises? Or am I old school?
Dave Pohl
Bloomfield Hills, (Detroit), MI
RV7A emp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Textor" <jack(at)iajobs.com> |
| Subject: | 1/4" soft aluminum tubing |
For the tubing used as venting and static lines, has anyone treated it with
alodine, etc, since it is not clad. Mine had a small amount of corrosion.
Jack Textor
RV8, wings
DSM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "3 rotor" <rv8r300(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: gear leg fairings- gap in back |
heat them with a heat gun and you should be able to distort them enough to
hopefully fit perfectly.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SportAV8R(at)aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: gear leg fairings- gap in back
>
> I have the Team Rocket gear leg and intersection fairings installed. The
> leg-to-fuselage intersection fairings gap open rather widely at the
trailing
> edge when installed. Something about the screw pressure seems to turn a
> perfect hand-fit when off the plane into a bit of aerodynamic ugliness
when
> all is snugged down.
>
> I could just tape the trailing edge of the cuff closed, but clear tape
> doesn't seem to want to hold this tension very long, and colored tape
would
> be conspicuous. Has anyone found a better option? This area is rather
thin
> and small for fooling with nut plates and screws, so I'm looking for
> retention clip ideas or anything similar/clever. Must be removable for
> service & inspection.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bill B
> looking for that final .02 mph increase.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
| Subject: | Safety and operating costs (lean running Lyc) |
This post is related to Lycomings as installed in the RV's using Van's
filtered air box. I have not heard of any reports of lean running in any
engines purchased new either from Van's or Aero Sport Power or overhauled
engines from Aero Sport Power were the core was supplied by Aero Sport. The
reason I mention this is all these engines are equipped with the correct new
or overhauled carburetor for the particular engine and are test run and fuel
flow is set to the proper flow. If for some reason there needs to be an
adjustment after being flown it will probably be nothing more than a float
level adjustment.
Running on the test stand the full throttle fuel flow for a 160 HP 0320 is
between 14.5 -15 gals per hour and for the 0360 between 17.5-18 gals per
hour.
Aero Sport Power new and overhauled engines (cores supplied by Aero Sport)
are equipped with Precision carburetors, for the 0320 -160 HP engine the
part # is 10-5217 and for the 0360 the part # is 104164-1.
With EGT's available in a variety of models and some relatively
inexpensive,the installation of the engine should include one. A single
indicator with the probe installed correctly on #3 cylinder will give all
the information needed to monitor the mixture and enable one to set
accurately the correct mixture for any given condition of flight. Running at
the correct mixture setting has so many benefits. From a safety standpoint
it will give you the best valve life and overall engine life, will give the
best performance and will eventually pay for itself in fuel savings. If one
can afford a four cylinder graphic display you have the ultimate in a poor
mans engine analyzer.
It will take all the guess work out of it. For example if on your first
flight you are not able to get a rise on EGT when starting to lean you have
a lean carb. For me the actual EGT temp is not as important as the reference
it provides to peak EGT temperatures.
As I have said many times safety not performance or cost is my priority and
this is the reason for this post.
If it is established that you have a carburetor problem send it to a proper
overhaul facility for repairs were they have all the equipment and
experience necessary to do the job. There may be some of you out there
qualified and equipped to do your own carb. work but as has been discussed
on some recent posts was the drilling done using a lathe to achieve the
proper alignment.
The carburetor is the heart beat of your engine so we should not cut
corner's and cause it to have a seizure.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HalBenjamin(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Another Flap Question |
In a message dated 08/21/2002 8:27:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
PGLong(at)aol.com writes:
> I was having some difficulty with the dimensions on the root end of the left
>
> flap. I emailed Scott at Van's and said that the inboard rib is installed
> at
> angle both vertically and chordwise. I can see .25" in the vertical plane
> from the top to the bottom, but not the chordwise. The drilling sheet shows
>
> rib rivets at 90 degrees vertically in both top and bottom drilling
> dimensions. Wondering if he is talking about the FL-6 part and not the
> FL-4R
> rib. Has anyone else had a problem in this area?
Hi Pat,
Sometimes it's better to call Van's on the phone than to email. They're a
good bunch of guys, but sometimes their email answers are harder to figure
out than the original question.
I built my flaps with the FL-404 Rib perpendicular to the spar, with the 1/4"
bottom to top lean. The FL-406A,B&C assembly angles closer to the fuselage as
it extends aft along the edge of the flap.
Sometimes on RV-4s, people have trouble with the flap not fitting well at the
fuselage, so I left the inboard end cleckoed together for now until my
fuselage is finished. Hopefully I won't have to change anything, but this
way it will be easier if I have to.
Good Luck!
Hal Benjamin
RV-4, Fuselage
Long Island, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Stall speed - pitot tube orientaton |
I've been reading the commentary in two threads, both related to how we fly
final, which is partly a factor of our stall speed and partly a factor about
how we perceive handling in the pattern.
I'd like to throw out an idea that focuses on the stall speed issue: I've
always disliked the large errors between IAS and CAS in the Cessnas and some
other airplanes I've flown. As I believe that a fixed, single hole pitot
tube is the primary cause of the low speed errors (air is not directed
straight into the pitot tube at high AOA), I've been considering some
"pivoting" pitot tube, one which would stay aligned into the relative wind.
After "mental designing" that for a couple of years, this "simplify it"
thought popped up: Have a fixed tube that is not a cylinder, but a narrow
block (rectangular shape viewed from the front) with two holes drilled in
it - one "traditional orientation" hole that would be equivalent to the
existing single hole in a typical pitot tube; the 2nd hole being drilled
about 15 degrees (stall angle of attack) below the 1st - so when I'm near
stall in level flight (during airborne calibration runs and 3 inches over
the runway in the flare), the 2nd, additional hole is now pointing into the
relative wind, and should give me an acccurate airspeed indication, i.e.,
near zero difference between IAS and CAS.
Those two holes would join up just aft of their respective front openings
and the dynamic pressure be carried to the airspeed indicator by a typical
single hose configuration.
I suspect that the "average pressure" of the two holes would provide
accurate dynamic pressure (airspeed indication) at all angles of attack
between cruise and stall.
Any thoughts?
David Carter
RV-6 QB (roll bar)
Nederland, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder light wire runs |
I have an RV-6 tail-dragger with the combo tail position light/strobe in the
bottom fiberglass fairing. I have about 18 inches of "service loop" spliced
into the Whelen factory-furnished harness that stays in the rudder fairing.
The wire bundle then exits the front of the fiberglass through a slot that
allows the rudder to move sideways without moving the wires - the wires stay
basically "going forward" regardless of rudder deflection.
For entry into the aft end of the fuselage, I ran the wires in beside the
tail wheel steel "spring", after using the carbide tip on my rotary tool to
ground away the bottom tip edges of the bulkhead - about 1/8 or 3/16 of
metal off a corner. Before installing the wires, I bought some 3/8 soft
aluminum tubing and hand bent a piece about 12 inches long into a slight
horizontal 'S' shape, then slipped it in from the front, until it jammed
into the newly enlarged hole at bottom of aft bulkhead/end of airplane and
then slid the front end into a hole I drilled through the bulkhead just
forward of that. That provides me with a conduit that will allow easy
removal and re-installation of the wire bundle in the unlikely event that
should be necessary.
Per Bob Knuckles philosophy, I used no connectors - just soldered wires
together with extra wire to allow for pulling the light fixture out the back
for periodic replacement when strobe burns out; and for removal of the
rudder in event maintenance/repair were ever needed.
I then mounted the Whelen power supply on top of the horizontal deck just
fwd of the front spar of the Horiz Stab. I spliced in enough wires to allow
all this to reach as I was installing.
Didn't go thru the VS spar.
David Carter
RV-6
Nederland, Texas
>
> From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Rudder light wire runs
>
>
> I've got the combination strobe and nav light that mounts on the
> rudder bottom fairing on my RV-8. I'm interested in hearing about
> any ideas on where to run the wires through the VS rear spar. I had
> planned on bringing them through below the bottom hinge on the
> rudder, but I see that I would either have to run through the tail
> wheel mount, or put a hole in the hinge bracket. I don't like
> weakening either of those, so now I'm pondering bringing the wires
> out the front of the rudder, and then running them vertically up the
> rear side of the VS rear spar, way over at the right edge next to the
> fuselage skin. I would put a hole in the spar on the right side
> above the bottom hinge.
>
> Will this work? I still need to hang my rudder again and confirm
> that I've got enough clearance between the leading edge of the rudder
> and the VS rear spar when the rudder is hard left. Does anyone else
> have a better idea?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (fibreglas, yuck)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | Airspeed Indicator Test |
reposted
Airspeed Indicator Test Pitot Static testing
Very good idea of using a drug store blood pressure device to
verify/calabrate your airspeed indicator AND the airspeed system hookup
Subject:
pitot tube test
From:
F. Parker Thomas (me(at)parkerthomas.com)
Date:
Wed Aug 21 - 6:48 AM
Can anyone elaborate on this method of testing the pitot? What
is a nmg
and how do you know it is 150 knots?
Thanks,
Parker
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com>
To:
Re the Tampa Crash-
I've just arrived home from a trip and this news has stunned me.
Ironically,
it was only a few hours ago I looked over at my First Officer and
remarked,
as we looked at the sunrise over the Pacific, that now, after six
and a
half
years and about fifty thousand Canadian dollars, I have a toy
that I
have to
watch like a hawk and stay very current and sharp to fly so that
my
creation
won't kill me..
Hearing of Scott's airspeed indicator problem also upsets me, but
for a
different reason. Two weeks ago, after installing my wings at the
airport
and hooking everything up, I bought a blood pressure testing kit.
I
removed
the hose from the cuff and, using elastic exercise tubing as an
adapter,
slipped it over the end of the pitot tube. A few gentle squeezes
on the
rubber bulb raised the pitot system pressure to 30mmgs. which is
pretty
darn
close to 150knots. 'the system held the pressure as I watched,
then I
very
gently opened the relief valve on the bulb and watched the
pressure on
the
dial drop to zero. I looked at the airspeed indicator and was
shocked to
see
that it was holding a steady reading of 90 knots! I got a cold
chill and
the
hair on the back of my neck stood up as I realized what this
could mean
if
I hadn't tested the system. I would have been flying for the
August 16, 2002 - August 21, 2002
RV-Archive.digest.vol-nh