RV-Archive.digest.vol-nj
August 27, 2002 - September 02, 2002
>
> Bernie Kerr, 6A,O-320,tipup,Sensenich metal,SE Fla
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Choices--does anyone have one? |
I am using a 4.3 chevy V6 on my RV9a. Belted Air Power's belt drive,
engine mount, radiator, exhaust and cowling. The same people that make
the mount and nose for Van, make it for Jess Meyers. Jess is one of the
'good guys'. I am using a bowtie aluminum block, and Brodix heads.
Jess's setup is made to have a good CG with the cast iron stock stuff,
so I will be moving a lot of accessories, forward, because of my lighter
engine. I'll keep you all posted.
Barry Pote RV9a finishing
Bernie Kerr wrote:
>
>
> Hi JR,
>
> You completely overlooked Tracy Crook and the rotary. Tracy has about 1300
>snip
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael D. Crowe" <tripacer(at)bellsouth.net> |
Dave,
For a Sensenich wood prop for a 7/16 bolt it is 250 +/- inch pounds
See
http://www.sensenichprop.com/sen_html/aircraft_cet/install/installation.html
A lot of good information on wood props can be found at their site.
If your prop is not a Sensenich I would contact the manufacture for there
recommendations.
Mike Crowe
RV8A EMP
McDonough GA
Subject: RV-List: prop tension
What is the recomended tension for 7/16th prop bolts on a Rv6 with 0-320 and
wood prop?
Dave Tennant
RV 6 australia
VH-DJT 5hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
Subject: | Re: prop tension |
It depends on the prop. I've heard anywhere from 20 ft pounds to 40 ft
pounds. Mine was 35. Alot depends on how it is made and what kind of wood
it is. Call the manufacturer of your prop and they can tell you.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: prop tension
>
>
> What is the recomended tension for 7/16th prop bolts on a Rv6 with 0-320
and
> wood prop?
>
> Dave Tennant
> RV 6 australia
> VH-DJT 5hrs
>
>
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Prop Gov line |
Thanks Jim.
I've seen that installation on the solid lines, but the flexline doesn't 'want'
to sit that close to the sump. In a relaxed state, it wants to rest on the
intake pipes. Is it best to route it where it wants to go, or persuade (not
force, but preload a little) it you go where you want? Anyway, that's what
prompted the question -- it wants to be clamped to the intake pipes, not the
case. Is this necessarily bad?
Also, this line is rated to 1500 psi -- so I test to 3000?
Thanks.
Larry
--- Jim Jewell jjewell(at)telus.net wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: Jim Jewell
jjewell(at)telus.net
Hi Larry,
I believe the generally accepted practice is to attach the prop governor
flex line with two Adel clamps to the crank case sump mounting bolts.
Doing
this will mean that longer bolts by about 1/8 might be required.
There will be a lot of pressure pulsing this line so be sure to use best
quality strong clamps.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: Larry Bowen Larry(at)bowenaero.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Prop Gov line
-- RV-List message posted by: Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
I finally got started on my prop governor oil line. I'm using
Aeroquip
666 flexline. I'm routing it in the same general area as the solid
SS
line would go. Is it taboo to use cushion clamps on the intake tubes
to
anchor this line, or is that fine? What about firesleeve?
Thx,
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Subject: | Re: Lost Propeller |
Safety Wiring is MANDATORY. The problem with a wooden prop is the wood
expands and contracts with the moisture levels in the air. The prop hub can
and does dry out from lower humidity and engine heat. That is why you
should check the bolt torques every 25 hours.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7(at)b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Lost Propeller
What about safety-wiring the bolts? I have yet to see a wooden
propellor at my airport that didn't have safety wire on the bolts.
Wouldn't this be a great indicator that the bolts were loosening? Or
better yet, a prevention from that happening in the first place?
-Rob P.
RV-7 Empennage
rv7 "at" b4.ca
Oldsfolks(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Back in the '80's Van had an article in the RVator about this. He had,I
>believe 3 , broken bolts in his RV-4 prototype. This was due to bolts being
>loose. The power impulses on these 4 Cyl. opposed engines really work on
>loose bolts! There is no friction between prop and engine flange .
>The prop bolts should be checked ( With torque wrench ) after 5 hours on a
>new plane, then at no more than 25 hour intervals. Losing one can easily
ruin
>your whole DAY & PLANE !
>Bob Olds RV-4 , N1191X .
>Charleston Ark.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Huft" <rv8tor(at)lazy8.net> |
Replying to this one and the one from Rick Jory...
See my website at http://www.lazy8.net/rv8.html
for a description of how I cracked my canopy. It was exactly the same
situation, and I was able to trim and drill the rivet holes, but when I
pulled the first keeper rivet, it cracked due to insufficient edge distance,
then the second, and so on.
I do think that Van's is being a little too frugal with the plexi, and a
little more material would help a lot. Rick is right that we should be
calling Van's, but good luck getting the change.
I bought a replacement from Todd's canopies (954-579-0874). It had plenty of
material to work with, and I did have to notch it for the vertical ribs. I
feel very confident about this canopy. It is fully installed now, with the
skirt on.
My recommendation is to delete the canopy from your finish kit ($580), and
buy one from Todd ($375). You can choose from a wider selection of tints (I
got a dark bronze), and the service from him is unbeatable.
I will get some pictures posted soon.
John Huft
RV8 almost done, Pagosa Springs, CO
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jack Fromm
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-8 Canopy
Sam,
I sympathize with you. I just finished fitting mine and had the exact same
problem. Maybe we got a couple from a bad batch.
I could tell as soon as I started trimming that I was going to have a hard
time getting it to come down low enough to meet the tubes on the canopy
frame along the sides. I did finally get it down low enough to have enough
edge distance along the sides to be safe, but just barely, and there were
two things I did to account for that. First, when I cut the flashing off, I
kept the cutoff disk vertical; i.e.; I left some of the material from the
flashing on the canopy. That adds almost 1/4", even though it's a radius
and is not full thickness. Second, I moved the canopy forward a little
further than Van's marks would indicate (this made it slide lower on the
front bows) then when I pulled it in tight around the sides of the rear bow,
it pulled the whole bubble down lower. Of course, it also pulled the rear
bow down too. I had started with the recommended clearance of 3/4" from
bottom of rear bow to the top of the slide and ended up with about 3/8"
after pulling the canopy down. I don't think that will cause a problem,
though.
So I ended up with just over the recommended 5/16" from center of side rail
to bottom edge of canopy along the middle of the sides, and that's including
that material that I left on from the flashing. I never came close to
having to notch the sides to clear the vertical ribs, because the canopy
wouldn't come down that low.
I considered calling Van's about it, but I figured I would just anticipate
their "just make it work" answer.
Jack Fromm
RV-8 QB #81120
Canopy skirt (fitting much better than the canopy)
>-----Original Message-----
> >From: Samjjake(at)cs.com
> >Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:45:36 EDT
> >Subject: RV-8 canopy
> >To: rv8-list(at)matronics.com
> >
> >
> >We have started fitting the canopy for our -8, and are finding the
> >canopy too short on the sides. We were short about 3/4" before cutting
> >off the windscreen, and are still lacking about 1/2" on both sides >SNIP<
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent(at)hotmail.com> |
Just curious, what is the difference between the internal tooth lock washers
and the external tooth washers? Why would you select one over the other, or
doesn't it make a difference? I have checked several books and they are
both described the same way and used for the same purpose, therefore why are
there two different types?
Vince Welch
RV-8A Canopy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Prop Gov line |
----Original Message Follows----
From: Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Gov line
Thanks Jim.
I've seen that installation on the solid lines, but the flexline doesn't
'want' to sit that close to the sump. In a relaxed state, it wants to rest
on the intake pipes. Is it best to route it where it wants to go, or
persuade (not force, but preload a little) it you go where you want?
Anyway, that's what prompted the question -- it wants to be clamped to the
intake pipes, not the case. Is this necessarily bad?
Also, this line is rated to 1500 psi -- so I test to 3000?
Thanks.
Larry
--- Jim Jewell jjewell(at)telus.net wrote:
RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" jjewell(at)telus.net
Hi Larry,
I believe the generally accepted practice is to attach the prop governor
flex line with two Adel clamps to the crank case sump mounting bolts. Doing
this will mean that longer bolts by about 1/8" might be required. There will
be a lot of pressure pulsing this line so be sure to use best quality strong
clamps.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" Larry(at)bowenaero.com
Subject: RV-List: Prop Gov line
RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen"
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
I finally got started on my prop governor oil line. I'm using
Aeroquip 666 flexline. I'm routing it in the same general area as the solid
SS line would go. Is it taboo to use cushion clamps on the intake tubes to
anchor this line, or is that fine? What about firesleeve?
Thx,
Larry Bowen
http://BowenAero.com
Larry:
Jim is correct. The line needs to be mounted to the SUMP. I have an
Aeroquip stainless braided tefelon hose rated at 3,000 psi since day one.
Will be 5 years old next month. Lycoming uses firesleve on the hose they
sell but I did not on my locally obtained line.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,166 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | independent minds, accidents, pilot behavior |
From: | "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu> |
SNIP There are a couple of pilots at my airfield that I will not fly with because
of
their flight behavior and if asked, I will tell them why. Does it change their
behaviour? Not that I can see. Do we need to organize pilot/AA-type
meetings--"Hello, my name is George and I really screwed up yesterday,
again--this is number 5--almost killed myself and my best friend". Would the
pilots who need it most show up? I don't think that "counseling", in general,
works with pilots because they tend to be too independent and tend to resist
authority. SNIP
I have been a tech counselor for 17 years now. I consider myself to have only
the minimal knowledge required for the job. (Ouch, hurts to admit that!)
There is one ABSOLUTE truth that I have learned from being a TC... LISTEN UP! Some
of you will be guilty of this. The builders who ask for a TC to come look
at their projects almost never need much help at all. OTOH, the builders who
say "No thanks. Everything is fine." are quite often an accident looking for
a place to happen.
Why does this happen? The first group is truly in it for the education. They
want all their ducks in a row and have usually done lots of homework.
The second group, well, I can't explain it. They live in their own dream world.
They're doctors, engineers, plumbers, and average joes. But when you talk to
them they can't/won't hear a word. You can hit them over the head and nobody
is home.
We had one ultralight guy who put his prop on backwards and wouldn't believe anyone
until after he tried to fly it! It didn't perform very well either. Duh!
Another independent minded, HIGH TIME pilot didn't listen when told that his new
low wing, fixed pitch speedster (similar to an RV-6, but made of wood) was likely
to have very different manners than his Cessna. First, he put it on it's
nose during high (too high) speed taxi tests. Broke one of his IVO blades.
I recommended checking the crank. No time for that though.
After getting a new blade and taking off, he took about 5 attempts to land because
he was trying to land it like his Cessna. His words were "You were right.
That @#$% thing won't slow down." He's had 3, yes 3!, accidents in that plane
since then. 2 off airport landings and 1 gear collapse. (More prop damage..
no engine checks though.)
I don't know the reasons but I suspect that all the accidents were easily preventable
if he'd get some mechanical advice. The man flies with a guardian angel.
He's the nicest guy in the world and I feel bad when he asks me to fly with
him in that plane.... but NO THANK YOU!
I hope everyone out there is smart enough to realize that an extra set of eyes
looking at your project is a VERY GOOD IDEA that might save your life. Even if
it's not a TC, get any qualified person, show them what you're doing, and then
LISTEN to what they say!!!!! The same thing goes for flying advice... talk
to those who've already flown similar machines and LISTEN to them.
Vince Frazier
1946 Stinson, NC97535, flying
F-1H Rocket, "Six Shooter", N540VF reserved,
http://www.usi.edu/science/chemistry/vfrazier/page1.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
Since John brought it up . . . I, too, bought a second canopy . . . one from
Todd's . . . mainly because I wanted something a bit thicker, plus the tint
that Todd offers. Todd's product had less of an edge than Van's . . . but
it was pretty much trimmed correctly so all I had to do was set it in place.
Todd even sends a bottle of plexi cleaner with his product (nice touch).
Rick Jory
----- Original Message -----
From: John Huft <rv8tor(at)lazy8.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: RV-8 Canopy
>
> Replying to this one and the one from Rick Jory...
>
> See my website at http://www.lazy8.net/rv8.html
>
> for a description of how I cracked my canopy. It was exactly the same
> situation, and I was able to trim and drill the rivet holes, but when I
> pulled the first keeper rivet, it cracked due to insufficient edge
distance,
> then the second, and so on.
>
> I do think that Van's is being a little too frugal with the plexi, and a
> little more material would help a lot. Rick is right that we should be
> calling Van's, but good luck getting the change.
>
> I bought a replacement from Todd's canopies (954-579-0874). It had plenty
of
> material to work with, and I did have to notch it for the vertical ribs. I
> feel very confident about this canopy. It is fully installed now, with the
> skirt on.
>
> My recommendation is to delete the canopy from your finish kit ($580), and
> buy one from Todd ($375). You can choose from a wider selection of tints
(I
> got a dark bronze), and the service from him is unbeatable.
>
> I will get some pictures posted soon.
>
> John Huft
> RV8 almost done, Pagosa Springs, CO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jack Fromm
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: RV-8 Canopy
>
>
> Sam,
>
> I sympathize with you. I just finished fitting mine and had the exact
same
> problem. Maybe we got a couple from a bad batch.
>
> I could tell as soon as I started trimming that I was going to have a
hard
> time getting it to come down low enough to meet the tubes on the canopy
> frame along the sides. I did finally get it down low enough to have
enough
> edge distance along the sides to be safe, but just barely, and there were
> two things I did to account for that. First, when I cut the flashing off,
I
> kept the cutoff disk vertical; i.e.; I left some of the material from the
> flashing on the canopy. That adds almost 1/4", even though it's a radius
> and is not full thickness. Second, I moved the canopy forward a little
> further than Van's marks would indicate (this made it slide lower on the
> front bows) then when I pulled it in tight around the sides of the rear
bow,
> it pulled the whole bubble down lower. Of course, it also pulled the rear
> bow down too. I had started with the recommended clearance of 3/4" from
> bottom of rear bow to the top of the slide and ended up with about 3/8"
> after pulling the canopy down. I don't think that will cause a problem,
> though.
>
> So I ended up with just over the recommended 5/16" from center of side
rail
> to bottom edge of canopy along the middle of the sides, and that's
including
> that material that I left on from the flashing. I never came close to
> having to notch the sides to clear the vertical ribs, because the canopy
> wouldn't come down that low.
>
> I considered calling Van's about it, but I figured I would just anticipate
> their "just make it work" answer.
>
> Jack Fromm
> RV-8 QB #81120
> Canopy skirt (fitting much better than the canopy)
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Samjjake(at)cs.com
> > >Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:45:36 EDT
> > >Subject: RV-8 canopy
> > >To: rv8-list(at)matronics.com
> > >
> > >
> > >We have started fitting the canopy for our -8, and are finding the
> > >canopy too short on the sides. We were short about 3/4" before cutting
> > >off the windscreen, and are still lacking about 1/2" on both sides
>SNIP<
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Speaking of way to go,
I just got my fourth edition copy of RVator,,,
Looking very good Randy.
Question for the list???? I heard a rumor about someone claiming an increase
of top speed by venting the tail cone via an aft facing, V shaped clam
shell, located somewhere in the forward bottom section of the tail cone.
As per previous discussion here I didn't think one could get that much
venting doing it that way.
Also not sure how the airspeed would increase, unless it was either a change
in static pressure, or the airflow change actually caused a slight change in
pitch. This is all third person to me so I don't know the credibility of the
testing, etc.
any thoughts?
I had an idea of replacing the rear elevator control horn access panel with
some kind of venturi device to try this, in a manner that wouldn't highly
modify the airplane
W
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Lock Washers |
From: | Gary Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
The external tooth variety have more gripping surface than the internal tooth.
the internal tooth looks better.
My $0.02
Gary
Quoting Vincent Welch :
>
>
>
> Just curious, what is the difference between the internal tooth lock
> washers
> and the external tooth washers? Why would you select one over the
> other, or
> doesn't it make a difference? I have checked several books and they are
>
> both described the same way and used for the same purpose, therefore why
> are
> there two different types?
>
> Vince Welch
> RV-8A Canopy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: Prop Gov line |
Hi Larry,
This oil line should not be attached to the oil return lines nor should it
be attached to the intake tubes.
The mass of this line is more than that of oil return lines. (Good house bad
foundation syndrome) to say nothing of the potential lost oil due to abraded
or pulled apart oil return tubing connections.
Due to severe oil pressure pulsing in this oil line the possibility of
wearing a hole in the intake tubes exists so that's a no go as well.
This leaves strapping the line to the case with the Adel clamps as described
earlier.
As for testing the line; I have this oil line supplied by Bart at Aerosport
engines. It is firesleeved and tested and tagged at the source.
I am unsure at present as to testing procedures and the various pressure
limits per hose suppliers. I will be seeking out a hydraulics shop for doing
the testing of all lines before final assembly.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop Gov line
>
> Thanks Jim.
>
> I've seen that installation on the solid lines, but the flexline doesn't
'want'
> to sit that close to the sump. In a relaxed state, it wants to rest on
the
> intake pipes. Is it best to route it where it wants to go, or persuade
(not
> force, but preload a little) it you go where you want? Anyway, that's
what
> prompted the question -- it wants to be clamped to the intake pipes, not
the
> case. Is this necessarily bad?
>
> Also, this line is rated to 1500 psi -- so I test to 3000?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Larry
>
>
> --- Jim Jewell jjewell(at)telus.net wrote:
> -- RV-List message posted by: Jim Jewell
> jjewell(at)telus.net
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I believe the generally accepted practice is to attach the prop
governor
> flex line with two Adel clamps to the crank case sump mounting bolts.
> Doing
> this will mean that longer bolts by about 1/8 might be required.
> There will be a lot of pressure pulsing this line so be sure to use
best
> quality strong clamps.
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Larry Bowen Larry(at)bowenaero.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Prop Gov line
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
>
> I finally got started on my prop governor oil line. I'm using
> Aeroquip
> 666 flexline. I'm routing it in the same general area as the
solid
> SS
> line would go. Is it taboo to use cushion clamps on the intake
tubes
> to
> anchor this line, or is that fine? What about firesleeve?
>
> Thx,
>
> -
> Larry Bowen
> Larry(at)BowenAero.com
> http://BowenAero.com
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
"'rv-list(at)matronics.com'"
Subject: | Torx Screws are here! |
Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree countersunk
Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the time
I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't yet
replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
better. No more stripped screw heads!
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Torx Screws are here!
Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100
degree countersunk Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a
little pricey by the time I received them up here, north of 49, but
they sure look good. I haven't yet replaced all the old Phillips
screws, but I expect they will look allot better. No more stripped
screw heads!
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Lock Washers |
Hey, Gary: I think that they are both the same as to spec. I have used
only the internal - where you see a smooth ring on the outside, and the
teeth are hidden inside. When your Visa bill shows up with many
Vans/Avery/ACS items would you like to see your spouse's teeth showing ? ?
> > Just curious, what is the difference between the internal tooth lock
washers and the external tooth washers? Why would you select one over the
other, or doesn't it make a difference? <<
>>>> The external tooth variety have more gripping surface than the internal
tooth. The internal tooth looks better. Gary <<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Hine" <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup |
Hi Chuck
I'll try and explain better, this wiring is extra to wiring up the
alternator so it will work. What I mean is if you leave out the idiot light
wiring, the alternator will work as it should.
What you do is start with some sort of warning device, could be a buzzer or
a light or both I guess, that has a positive terminal and a negitive or
ground terminal, you run a power wire to the positive side of the light, if
you ran a ground wire now, the light would function when the master switch
was on. Instead of a wire to ground, you run a wire from the negative side
of the light to the terminal on the alternator that is indicated as the
correct one for the warning light. This acts as a ground when the engine
and alternator are not turning, and the light is illuminated. Once the
alternator begins to turn and produce power, power is send to the light
through this wire that was acting as the ground. The warning light now has
power coming to both terminals and because there is no ground the light goes
out.
This has the effect, that when you pull the mixture and the engine quits,
the light is on until you turn off the master switch. If the alternator
quits working for whatever reason in flight, the light will illuminate as
well. I think I would notice my light before I noticed from the volt meter
that the alternator wasn't producing
I hope this is a bit clearer.
Joe Hine
RV4 C_FYTQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com>
Subject: Fw: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup
>
> Joe,
>
> Would you explain how you wire the idiot lite to the alternator (and I
> assume the battery to the alt.) for this "test"? Thanks,
>
> Chuck
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Hine <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup
>
>
> >
> > Gentlemen
> >
> > One other thing you can do with alternator wiring is hook up the idiot
> > light. This is a good master switch on warning light. I have it hooked
> up
> > to a large red light in my 4, but you could use a light and a buzzer as
> > well.
> >
> > The wiring is a little weird, you basicly send power to both sides of
the
> > light. ie, a 12 volt wire from the wire harness, and another wire from
> the
> > light to the terminal that is for the light on the alternator. What
> happens
> > is when the alternator is not turning, it acts as the ground for the
> light,
> > once it startes producing power, it sends power to the light as well,
> there
> > is now no ground and the light goes out.
> >
> > Its saved me a dead battery a couple of times.
> >
> > Joe Hine
> > RV4 C-FYTQ
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup |
Joe,
Thanks, that's what I needed.
Chuck
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Hine <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup
>
> Hi Chuck
>
> I'll try and explain better, this wiring is extra to wiring up the
> alternator so it will work. What I mean is if you leave out the idiot
light
> wiring, the alternator will work as it should.
>
> What you do is start with some sort of warning device, could be a buzzer
or
> a light or both I guess, that has a positive terminal and a negitive or
> ground terminal, you run a power wire to the positive side of the light,
if
> you ran a ground wire now, the light would function when the master switch
> was on. Instead of a wire to ground, you run a wire from the negative
side
> of the light to the terminal on the alternator that is indicated as the
> correct one for the warning light. This acts as a ground when the engine
> and alternator are not turning, and the light is illuminated. Once the
> alternator begins to turn and produce power, power is send to the light
> through this wire that was acting as the ground. The warning light now
has
> power coming to both terminals and because there is no ground the light
goes
> out.
>
> This has the effect, that when you pull the mixture and the engine quits,
> the light is on until you turn off the master switch. If the alternator
> quits working for whatever reason in flight, the light will illuminate as
> well. I think I would notice my light before I noticed from the volt
meter
> that the alternator wasn't producing
>
> I hope this is a bit clearer.
>
> Joe Hine
> RV4 C_FYTQ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut(at)coalinga.com>
> To: "RV-List"
> Subject: Fw: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup
>
>
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Would you explain how you wire the idiot lite to the alternator (and
I
> > assume the battery to the alt.) for this "test"? Thanks,
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Joe Hine <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Alternator Hookup
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Gentlemen
> > >
> > > One other thing you can do with alternator wiring is hook up the idiot
> > > light. This is a good master switch on warning light. I have it
hooked
> > up
> > > to a large red light in my 4, but you could use a light and a buzzer
as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > The wiring is a little weird, you basicly send power to both sides of
> the
> > > light. ie, a 12 volt wire from the wire harness, and another wire
from
> > the
> > > light to the terminal that is for the light on the alternator. What
> > happens
> > > is when the alternator is not turning, it acts as the ground for the
> > light,
> > > once it startes producing power, it sends power to the light as well,
> > there
> > > is now no ground and the light goes out.
> > >
> > > Its saved me a dead battery a couple of times.
> > >
> > > Joe Hine
> > > RV4 C-FYTQ
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Altimeter calibration |
PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed calibration
using a Manomenter. (See below)
Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate vacuum
level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table reflecting
vacuum levels with altitudes?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
San Antonio
----------------------------------------------
> From: P M Condon
> Subject: RV-List: 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.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
>
>PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed calibration
>using a Manomenter. (See below)
>
>Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate vacuum
>level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table reflecting
>vacuum levels with altitudes?
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
>San Antonio
>
Formulae from Aviation Formulary, by Ed Williams:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm
At sea-level on a standard day:
the pressure, P_0 = 29.92126 "Hg = 1013.250 mB = 2116.2166 lbs/ft
2
= 760.0 mmHg = 101325.0 Pa = 14.69595 psi = 1.0 atm
Variation of pressure with altitude:
p= P_0*(1-6.8755856*10
-6 h)
5.2558797 h<36,089.24ft
So, I cranked up a quick spreadsheet and got
Variation of pressure with altitude:
ft in H20 in hg mm hg mb psi
0 407.1 29.92126 760 1013.25 14.69595
1000 392.6 28.86 732.9 977.2 14.17
2000 378.5 27.82 706.7 942.1 13.66
3000 364.9 26.82 681.1 908.1 13.17
4000 351.6 25.84 656.4 875.1 12.69
5000 338.7 24.9 632.4 843.1 12.23
6000 326.2 23.98 609.0 812.0 11.78
7000 314.1 23.09 586.4 781.9 11.34
8000 302.4 22.22 564.5 752.6 10.92
9000 291.0 21.39 543.3 724.3 10.5
10000 280.0 20.58 522.7 696.8 10.11
But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you can
find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
I'm in the process of adding the glider rating to my private ticket. I've
also recently purchased an old Schweizer 1-26. So guess I'm qualified to
respond.
I suspect the market for something like this is pretty small. All of the
glider pilots I know are far more interested in flying than building. As
Van points out, there are now a number of smaller, cheaper motorgliders
(emphasis on glider) just coming onto the market in the $35K range. A
couple of these vendors are offering kit versions at an approximate $10K
savings. A couple of my friends are considering purchase of one of these,
but not a single one of them is considering the kit version. A $10K break
isnt enough to make it worthwhile.
I guess I'm a purist, but if I'm going to soar, I dont want the
weight/drag penalty associated with an engine. And I doubt Van could price
the RV11 competitively enough to attract me. The cost and weight of the
Jabiru engine would also be a negative in my book. Finally, there is the
aesthetics of the RV11. In my opinion it just doesnt compare with the
Silent, Russia, or Apis which are all composite designs. The kit version of
the Apis WR (pure sailplane) is probably my next project assuming I ever
finish the current project. See:
http://www.apisgliders.com/15m-S.htm
http://www.russiasailplanes.com/
http://www.alisport.com/pag_ing/silent_in.htm
Mike Wills
RV4 (firewall forward details; Mazda powered)
>
>R.V. has a good article on his thoughts concerning the RV-11 . . . a
>powered sailplane with emphasis on sailplane . . . in the latest
>RV-ator. Are any of you interested in something along these lines?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net> |
Subject: | Re: Torx Screws are here! |
Hi Todd,
Would you define "pricey" please?
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
> Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree countersunk
> Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
time
> I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
yet
> replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
> better. No more stripped screw heads!
>
> S. Todd Bartrim
> 13B rotary powered
> RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> C-FSTB (reserved)
> http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> 5.5.2653.12">
> Torx Screws are here!
>
>
>
>
FACE"Arial">Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100
> degree countersunk Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a
> little pricey by the time I received them up here, north of 49, but
> they sure look good. I haven't yet replaced all the old Phillips
> screws, but I expect they will look allot better. No more stripped
> screw heads!
>
>
S. Todd Bartrim
>
13B rotary powered
>
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
>
C-FSTB (reserved)
>
HREF"http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm"
> TARGET"_blank">http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm> T>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | kempthornes <kempthornes(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Used Engine Costs |
> I purchased an AEIO-360 off of a pitts
>with 685 TSNEW.
I've heard that aerobatic use shortens engine life. Any truth to this? If
so, what happens?
I suppose most salvage yards are reputable but I had a real bad experience
with Surprise Valley Aviation. Part returned due to non-fit got no refund
of money in spite of heavy threats.
Finally, one last sour note. A crank that is bent enough to be dangerous
can be put back to where it dials okay. An oldtimer told me he can whack
the crank with a sledge and get it to dial straight. He seemed to think
that the crank was then good to go.
Be wary out there.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jeff Point" <jpoint(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Choices--does anyone have one? |
That looks like quite a price drop since Oshkosh. Any idea why?
Jeff Point
Milwaukee WI
RV-6 finish
As a matter of interest Aero Sport Power is now able to supply a new
0-360-A1A/A2A for $19,900.00 US and a new I0-360-B1B/B2B for $22,990.00.
Eustace Bowhay-Blind Bay, B. C.
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
Or you could just get out your AC 43.13-1A It has a table in inches of water
for a water manometer and it is accurate and simple. New version
unfortunately does NOT have the table nor instructions.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Altimeter calibration
>
>PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed calibration
>using a Manomenter. (See below)
>
>Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate vacuum
>level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table reflecting
>vacuum levels with altitudes?
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
>San Antonio
>
Formulae from Aviation Formulary, by Ed Williams:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm
At sea-level on a standard day:
the pressure, P_0 = 29.92126 "Hg = 1013.250 mB = 2116.2166 lbs/ft
2
= 760.0 mmHg = 101325.0 Pa = 14.69595 psi = 1.0 atm
Variation of pressure with altitude:
p= P_0*(1-6.8755856*10
-6 h)
5.2558797 h<36,089.24ft
So, I cranked up a quick spreadsheet and got
Variation of pressure with altitude:
ft in H20 in hg mm hg mb psi
0 407.1 29.92126 760 1013.25 14.69595
1000 392.6 28.86 732.9 977.2 14.17
2000 378.5 27.82 706.7 942.1 13.66
3000 364.9 26.82 681.1 908.1 13.17
4000 351.6 25.84 656.4 875.1 12.69
5000 338.7 24.9 632.4 843.1 12.23
6000 326.2 23.98 609.0 812.0 11.78
7000 314.1 23.09 586.4 781.9 11.34
8000 302.4 22.22 564.5 752.6 10.92
9000 291.0 21.39 543.3 724.3 10.5
10000 280.0 20.58 522.7 696.8 10.11
But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you can
find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Lost Propeller |
In a message dated 8/27/02 9:06:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cgalley(at)qcbc.org
writes:
<< Safety Wiring is MANDATORY. The problem with a wooden prop is the wood
expands and contracts with the moisture levels in the air. The prop hub can
and does dry out from lower humidity and engine heat. That is why you
should check the bolt torques every 25 hours.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh >>
Aymar Demuth's directions are to set prop bolt torque with the engine cold
(at least for wood props).
As a point of reference, Aymar Demuth recommends 18 ft-lb of torque on their
props which are made of hard maple.
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael J. Veth" <vethm(at)vsrtechnology.com> |
Subject: | Re: Torx Screws are here! |
Todd,
That's a great idea. A buddy of mine in the area is building a show-quality -8
and is using hex heads for the same reason. Nice touch.
Mike
RV-8A (Wings)
Dayton, OH
"Bartrim, Todd" wrote:
>
> Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree countersunk
> Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the time
> I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't yet
> replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
> better. No more stripped screw heads!
>
> S. Todd Bartrim
> 13B rotary powered
> RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> C-FSTB (reserved)
> http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
>
>
>
>
> 5.5.2653.12">
> Torx Screws are here!
>
>
>
>
FACE"Arial">Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100
> degree countersunk Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a
> little pricey by the time I received them up here, north of 49, but
> they sure look good. I haven't yet replaced all the old Phillips
> screws, but I expect they will look allot better. No more stripped
> screw heads!
>
>
S. Todd Bartrim
>
13B rotary powered
>
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
>
C-FSTB (reserved)
>
HREF"http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm"
> TARGET"_blank">http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm> T>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
I'm puzzled, folks. Why not just pay for a pitot/static/transponder check and
let it go at that? You get everything calibrated, leak tested, etc. all in one
shot.
Bill Marvel
Cy Galley wrote:
>
> Or you could just get out your AC 43.13-1A It has a table in inches of water
> for a water manometer and it is accurate and simple. New version
> unfortunately does NOT have the table nor instructions.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Altimeter calibration
>
>
> >
> >PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed calibration
> >using a Manomenter. (See below)
> >
> >Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate vacuum
> >level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table reflecting
> >vacuum levels with altitudes?
> >
> >Charlie Brame
> >RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
> >San Antonio
> >
>
> Formulae from Aviation Formulary, by Ed Williams:
>
> http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm
>
> At sea-level on a standard day:
>
> the pressure, P_0 = 29.92126 "Hg = 1013.250 mB = 2116.2166 lbs/ft
2
> = 760.0 mmHg = 101325.0 Pa = 14.69595 psi = 1.0 atm
>
> Variation of pressure with altitude:
>
> p= P_0*(1-6.8755856*10
-6 h)
5.2558797 h<36,089.24ft
>
> So, I cranked up a quick spreadsheet and got
>
> Variation of pressure with altitude:
>
> ft in H20 in hg mm hg mb psi
> 0 407.1 29.92126 760 1013.25 14.69595
> 1000 392.6 28.86 732.9 977.2 14.17
> 2000 378.5 27.82 706.7 942.1 13.66
> 3000 364.9 26.82 681.1 908.1 13.17
> 4000 351.6 25.84 656.4 875.1 12.69
> 5000 338.7 24.9 632.4 843.1 12.23
> 6000 326.2 23.98 609.0 812.0 11.78
> 7000 314.1 23.09 586.4 781.9 11.34
> 8000 302.4 22.22 564.5 752.6 10.92
> 9000 291.0 21.39 543.3 724.3 10.5
> 10000 280.0 20.58 522.7 696.8 10.11
>
> But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you can
> find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.
>
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832 7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
> logical extension to that strength. If I had his ear I would
> strongly suggest he pursue the -10 full speed ahead, skip the
> -11 and just dominate the market in the area he knows best.
> This really reminds me of some airlines that extended beyond
> their profitable markets to try for bigger and better things,
> only to fold in failure.
That depends upon what motivates Van. These statements might be true if
his only motivation is increasing profits. He has really hit a string
of home runs with the RV series to date, and I suspect he is looking for
a new technical challenge, in an area that interests him. He already
dominates the market he is in by a huge amount.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 198 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dave Bristol <bj034(at)lafn.org> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
> Actually the only instrument you need is a known good altimeter to use as a
> reference.
Dave -6 SoCal
>
> But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you can
> find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.
>
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Hi All:
"R. Craig Chipley" wrote:
> Bill, I just wanted to publicly thank you for giving
> me my first RV-8 ride. I enjoyed every minute of it. I
> apologize for having to run off like that. having four
> kids keeps me going! Thank you for a well done
> flight. To bad the turbulence was so bad in the st
> louis area that day. really knocked us around
> some..lol. check out my signature.
>
> Craig Chipley
> St Louis
> EMP!!
> N198AB res.
>
Bill,
I also want to publicly thank you for the RV 8 ride. It has re-energized
my
building efforts. Your plane flew great and was everything I expected.
You,
my new friend, are quite the gentleman, flying so far out of your way to
demo your plane to a guy you don't even know. Your lunch will be waiting
when you come through again. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed the
flight.
Tom in Ky Rv 8 n38NE about 6 months to go.
Got a hanger today at LUK in Cincinnati
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tom and Craig:
You guys are most welcome and I enjoyed meeting both of you. When I
told you that I was flying my 8A from Los Angeles to the east coast and
back and would stop by and give you demo rides, I meant it! I LIKE
doing this. I LIKE these airplanes. I LIKE meeting RV enthusiasts.
And I LIKE accepting the only payment I ever accept for doing this --
lunch. No more, no less and no arguments.
For you other listers, I gave another ride today to a United pilot in
L.A. on a layover. He's the third I have met and flown, and at 6 feet 2
inches and 240 pounds, the biggest. They have bicycles available at
their hotel and the ones who enjoy light planes pedal over to Torrance
airport, about 7 miles south of LAX. My standard demo routine only
takes about half an hour and involves the following:
1. The 300 foot takeoff with half flaps (180 HP O-360 and CS prop)
2. The 60 degree banked level turn with feet on the floor and the ball
in the center. Few would believe this until they see it.
3. The impossible stall. This is one of the things I experienced in
the demo flight from Van's the day I bought my kit. Drop full flaps
below 100 mph. Pitch up 15 degrees and hold that attitude as the
airplane slows. When you get to within about 5 mph of stall and the
controls and airframe start to indicate that stall is imminent, throw in
full power and maintain the pitch attitude. The airplane will actually
climb at 500 FPM with full flaps, airframe buffeting and a 15 degree
nose up attitude. NO ONE believes this, even after doing it. You can
power this airplane into a climb while on the edge of a stall.
4. Let the engine cool and then do a couple of rolls. Everyone likes
this.
5. Collect on lunch.
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Nellis" <mike(at)bmnellis.com> |
Subject: | Re: Torx Screws are here! |
About $14.50/100
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell(at)telus.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Would you define "pricey" please?
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
> To: ;
> Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
>
> >
> > Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree
countersunk
> > Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
> time
> > I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
> yet
> > replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
> > better. No more stripped screw heads!
> >
> > S. Todd Bartrim
> > 13B rotary powered
> > RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> > C-FSTB (reserved)
> > http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 5.5.2653.12">
> > Torx Screws are here!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> FACE"Arial">Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100
> > degree countersunk Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a
> > little pricey by the time I received them up here, north of 49, but
> > they sure look good. I haven't yet replaced all the old Phillips
> > screws, but I expect they will look allot better. No more stripped
> > screw heads!
> >
> >
S. Todd Bartrim
> >
13B rotary powered
> >
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> >
C-FSTB (reserved)
> >
> HREF"http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm"
> > TARGET"_blank">http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm> > T>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Engine Choices--does anyone have one? |
My quote from Aero Sport for a new O-360 with a few extras came to $21,115.00
U.S$.
The extras were, high compression pistons, custom cylinder porting and chrome
package.
Cash Copeland
RV6 Hayward, Ca.
>
>
>
> That looks like quite a price drop since Oshkosh. Any idea why?
>
> Jeff Point
> Milwaukee WI
> RV-6 finish
>
> As a matter of interest Aero Sport Power is now able to supply a new
> 0-360-A1A/A2A for $19,900.00 US and a new I0-360-B1B/B2B for $22,990.00.
>
> Eustace Bowhay-Blind Bay, B. C.
>
> -----
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
Subject: | Re: Engine Choices--does anyone have one? |
As I understand it, due to the high volume of parts purchased, they are
getting a better rate and are passing the savings on to the customer. Also,
they are contacting customers that have recently bought these engines and
will be crediting or refunding the difference.
They have also increased their warranty to 3 years.
Eustace
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Point" <jpoint(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine Choices--does anyone have one?
>
> That looks like quite a price drop since Oshkosh. Any idea why?
>
> Jeff Point
> Milwaukee WI
> RV-6 finish
>
> As a matter of interest Aero Sport Power is now able to supply a new
> 0-360-A1A/A2A for $19,900.00 US and a new I0-360-B1B/B2B for $22,990.00.
>
> Eustace Bowhay-Blind Bay, B. C.
>
> -----
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Weather Stripping on the canopy of a 6a tip up |
> Is everbody happy with the weather stripping Van
> supplies. I am getting ready to stick it on and
> realize I don't have enough, unless I am suppose to
> cut it in half. If it is to be cut in half, it doesn't
> seem like it would work very well.
>
> Does anybody use anything different?
I was leafing through the latest JC Whitney catalog the other day and
noticed that they have a huge selection of weatherstripping. There is a page
where they show the cross sections of their offerings. Many odd shapes and
all the conventional ones. Surf to their web page and order the printed
catalog. Lots of good stuff and all the cheapo stuff too. Sorry I don't have
the link handy. I'm off line hanging out at work.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Lock Washers |
In a message dated 8/27/2002 7:11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
welchvincent(at)hotmail.com writes:
> Just curious, what is the difference between the internal tooth lock washers
>
> and the external tooth washers? Why would you select one over the other,
> or
> doesn't it make a difference? I have checked several books and they are
> both described the same way and used for the same purpose, therefore why
> are
> there two different types?
Like Zilik says, the external types have greater biting surface and that
surface is farther from the axis of rotation, so they lock better and also
are recommended between terminal ring lugs and a surface in grounding stud
and bonding applications because they have more teeth to cut thru surface
oxidation, paint and such.
The internal types have their teeth turned in so they don't catch on
anything, like tender fingers, but are somewhat less effective in the locking
department.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 560hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
> I'll be more blunt. This is a bad business decision for Van if he
> goes through with it. His strength is in reliable, fast, simple to
> build airplane kits and the 4-seater is the logical extension to that
> strength.
Aw, com'mon, guys. Give the man a break.
Back in the dark ages, Van built this great little single-seater, RV-3,
and people said "Hey that's great - how about a two place?"
So Van built a two place RV-4 and folks said "Hey that's great, but how
about side-by-side?"
So Van built the RV-6, and people said "Hey that's great, but how about
tricycle gear?"
So he did the 6A and people said "Hey that's great, but how about a
larger -4 cause I don't fit and I want more power"
So Van built the -8 and -8A
And people said "Hey that's great, but that -6 is a little much for me
to handle.. how about a pussycat in -6 clothing?"
So Van built the -9A
And on the other hand people said "Hey that's great, but I want to put
an IO-360 in my -6 and I keep banging my head and cramping my legs"
So Van built the -7 and 7A (well, production enhancements had something
to do with it too)
And then people said "Hey that's great but how about a four-place?"
So Van heads out to build the -10(A?)
What is "the market" going to ask for next? Bigger... faster... more
expensive engines... a twin?
The point is, the man has been responding to the market for years - to
his and our benefit - and if he now wants to follow his own heart on a
project that he's been putting off for a decade or more, I say, GO FOR
IT, VAN!
And when the kit's ready, I'd probably buy one.
- 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!
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Al Karpinski" <karpinski(at)ldai.com> |
Very well thought out posting..
Van's made is playground.. Now Let Van Play !
(We could all be so lucky / skilled / ...)
Al Karpinski
_________________________________
Laser Diode Array, Inc.
110 Genesee Street
Auburn, NY 13021
Work: 315-253-8292
Fax : 315-253-6368
Home: 315-689-0094
karpinski(at)ldai.com
www.ldai.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Thompson" <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-11
>
> > I'll be more blunt. This is a bad business decision for Van if he
> > goes through with it. His strength is in reliable, fast, simple to
> > build airplane kits and the 4-seater is the logical extension to that
>
> > strength.
>
>
> Aw, com'mon, guys. Give the man a break.
>
> Back in the dark ages, Van built this great little single-seater, RV-3,
>
> and people said "Hey that's great - how about a two place?"
>
> So Van built a two place RV-4 and folks said "Hey that's great, but how
>
> about side-by-side?"
>
> So Van built the RV-6, and people said "Hey that's great, but how about
>
> tricycle gear?"
>
> So he did the 6A and people said "Hey that's great, but how about a
> larger -4 cause I don't fit and I want more power"
>
> So Van built the -8 and -8A
>
> And people said "Hey that's great, but that -6 is a little much for me
> to handle.. how about a pussycat in -6 clothing?"
>
> So Van built the -9A
>
> And on the other hand people said "Hey that's great, but I want to put
> an IO-360 in my -6 and I keep banging my head and cramping my legs"
>
> So Van built the -7 and 7A (well, production enhancements had something
>
> to do with it too)
>
> And then people said "Hey that's great but how about a four-place?"
>
> So Van heads out to build the -10(A?)
>
> What is "the market" going to ask for next? Bigger... faster... more
> expensive engines... a twin?
>
>
> The point is, the man has been responding to the market for years - to
> his and our benefit - and if he now wants to follow his own heart on a
> project that he's been putting off for a decade or more, I say, GO FOR
> IT, VAN!
>
> And when the kit's ready, I'd probably buy one.
>
>
> - 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!
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Altimeter calibration |
"""""" But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you
can
find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.""""""""
I purchased a medical blood pressure kit from the local big drug store
chain for 16.99 and the counter person gave me a 5 dollar coupon. The
kit had a traditional velcro cuff, cheapie stethoscope (ear thingie the
doctors wear) and a traditional hand pump-up bulb with a very precision
looking meter that measures mm or Hg. I used this 12 dollar tester to
pump up my pitot to 20 mm of Hg. and read 135 MPH. There was a 45 second
bleed down from the aircraft system. I did this test to 3 other aircraft
on the field and had the same results. Now, all 4 aircraft are equally
bad or mine is now like all the others I tested. I am looking for a
calibration table for mm or Hg. and bleed down time to "fine tune" this
test technique.
From: Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re:
>
>PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed calibration
>using a Manomenter. (See below)
>
>Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate vacuum
>level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table reflecting
>vacuum levels with altitudes?
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
>San Antonio
>
Formulae from Aviation Formulary, by Ed Williams:
http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm
At sea-level on a standard day:
the pressure, P_0 = 29.92126 "Hg = 1013.250 mB = 2116.2166 lbs/ft
2
= 760.0 mmHg = 101325.0 Pa = 14.69595 psi = 1.0
atm
Variation of pressure with altitude:
p= P_0*(1-6.8755856*10
-6 h)
5.2558797 h<36,089.24ft
So, I cranked up a quick spreadsheet and got
Variation of pressure with altitude:
ft in H20 in hg mm hg mb psi
0 407.1 29.92126 760 1013.25 14.69595
1000 392.6 28.86 732.9 977.2 14.17
2000 378.5 27.82 706.7 942.1 13.66
3000 364.9 26.82 681.1 908.1 13.17
4000 351.6 25.84 656.4 875.1 12.69
5000 338.7 24.9 632.4 843.1 12.23
6000 326.2 23.98 609.0 812.0 11.78
7000 314.1 23.09 586.4 781.9 11.34
8000 302.4 22.22 564.5 752.6 10.92
9000 291.0 21.39 543.3 724.3 10.5
10000 280.0 20.58 522.7 696.8 10.11
But, I think this will be a difficult thing to measure unless you can
find some specialized (read expensive) equipment.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
This thread may have taken a left turn. The original posting simply said,
if you are interested in the RV-11, let him know. Per his article in his
publication he is looking for the level of interest so that he can decide
what is best for him and his company. For people NOT interested to let him
know that they aren't interested doesn't make much sense, now, does it?? If
you're interested, let him know and let's move on.
Rick Jory - original poster re: RV-11
----- Original Message -----
From: Alex Peterson <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: RV-11
>
> > logical extension to that strength. If I had his ear I would
> > strongly suggest he pursue the -10 full speed ahead, skip the
> > -11 and just dominate the market in the area he knows best.
> > This really reminds me of some airlines that extended beyond
> > their profitable markets to try for bigger and better things,
> > only to fold in failure.
>
>
> That depends upon what motivates Van. These statements might be true if
> his only motivation is increasing profits. He has really hit a string
> of home runs with the RV series to date, and I suspect he is looking for
> a new technical challenge, in an area that interests him. He already
> dominates the market he is in by a huge amount.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 198 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gannon, Terence" <Terence.Gannon(at)trican.ca> |
I'm with those that think the RV-11 motorglider is a great idea, and would
definitely give it consideration as a follow on project to my -6 (assuming I
get through that project). Although I don't have the facts handy, I believe
that one of the underlying factors for motorgliders (and 'near
motorgliders') being more popular in Europe is the high price of fuel, and
aggressive noise management legislation, both of which are likely be factors
in North America's aviation future as well.
Of course, the bigger question is whether to buy the RV-11 or RV-11A, and
while he's at it, may be he could come up with a two-place version.
Side-by-side. Can anybody offer some advice as to what primer to use on it?
Cheers!
Terry in Calgary
RV-6 S/N 24414
"Wings, and fuselage ordered."
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Thompson [mailto:grobdriver(at)yahoo.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-11
> I'll be more blunt. This is a bad business decision for Van if he
> goes through with it. His strength is in reliable, fast, simple to
> build airplane kits and the 4-seater is the logical extension to that
> strength.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
Pat:
>
> 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.
Personally, I have never liked the spark plug style CHT probes as opposed to
those screwed into the boss below each cylinder. The latter position is as
close as you can get to the exhaust valve, and it is exhaust valve and guide
distress that seems to pop up first in parallel valve cylinders. Start with
replacing the rest of the probes so that you have an apples and apples
comparison.
> 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?
Contemporary Lycoming wisdom is not to lean to peak EGT when pulling 75% power
or more. Engine overhauler Bill Scott and I did an extensive study on valve
problems in Lycs several years ago and concluded, among other things, that
valve and guide distress is much less likely if one uses cruise power settings
of 65% and below. I cannot tell you what EGTs you ought to get at any given
altitude since they are dependent on probe location and several other factors,
but I can say that you will probably not get very close to the usual 1600 degree
F EGT red line with a normally aspirated engine. In my airplane (8A with 180
HP and CS prop) I see the mid 1400s at peak EGT. However, what matters most is
not the absolute value of peak EGT but how far rich or lean of peak EGT you
operate. Peak EGT ops at 75% power or more is asking for trouble. Many use
peak EGT at 65% power in cruise, and many also lean to 25, 50 or 100 rich of
peak. Some can operate lean of peak, but not generally with carbureted
engines. So anywhere from peak EGT to 100 rich when in cruise flight at cruise
power will probably serve you well.
> 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?
As before, I cannot give you any absolute values to look for regarding EGT.
However, as far as full rich to peak EGT temp change is concerned, somewhere in
the vicinity of 150 to 200 degrees F shows adequate rich mixture. Go up to 7500
feet or so, set 65% to 75% power and write down the EGT levels for each jug at
full rich. Then lean to max EGT on number 1 and write that down. Then lean for
max EGT on number 2 and write that one down, etc. If you are in the 150-200
degree range of temp spread you probably have no carb problem. If you get very
little EGT spread something is wrong with the mixture.
> 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.
Idle mixture and flight mixture stem from two separate flow paths and are not
related. When you shut down the engine you ought to see an RPM rise of 50 to 75
or so. If it is below or above this, you can easily adjust it with a knurled
knob on the exterior or the carb. However, this does not affect flight
mixture. Flight mixture is determined by mixture control setting, jet size,
economizer settings, float settings and carb design. Checking to see that you
have the 150-200 degree spread mentioned above is the easiest way to see that
your carb is providing an adequately rich mixture when set to full rich.
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RV-11:light-sport aircraft (RV-12) |
From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
>
>
>
>I agree with the light sport aircraft community, Van's does need a NEW
>light-sport aircraft. (RV-12)
>
>As much as Van loves soaring, I also doubt that the RV-11 would be MORE of
>a viable commercial venture than a NEW light-sport aircraft (RV-12).
>
>I also agree, that the company has PLENTY to do with the -10 and support of
>all the other models, add-ons, plans revisions, accessories, future engine
>options, on and on, BUT, please do not forget about the NEW light-sport
>aircraft community.
>
Kinda of topic, but this thread and Van's article on motorgliders made me
think of it.
I just got back from the Open Class/World Class national glider
championships in Uvalde, TX. There were a couple of ASH-15M self
launching gliders there. Van mentioned this ultra-high performance, self
launching glider in his article. One of the fellows flying this glider
is a local to Uvalde and quite a successsful businessman. In addition to
the ASH-25, his hangar contains a T-28, T-33, Twin Cessna and a Citation,
oh, and an RV-4. Guess which one he flies the most, especially for the
business jaunts over to San Antonio. Yep, the 4.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts(at)unionsafe.com> |
Can anyone point me to a good-sized, clean .bmp, .gif, or .jpg of the VAF
logo? My sister has a fancy sewing machine that can embroider from image
files. I want some VAF boxers!
--
Scott (too much information) VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
Network Manager
Union Safe Deposit Bank
209-946-5116
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
Rick,
If the only people who express an opinion are those that are interested
dont you think that skews the survey a little bit? If you put out a survey
and 100% of the respondents support your position and you get no negative
responses, do you really get the answer to your question? I think negative
responses are very sensible.
As for my opinion, I certainly could be wrong. Could be the market for
the RV-11 would come from the existing RV builder base rather than from the
existing soaring community.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda power)
>
> For people NOT interested to let him
>know that they aren't interested doesn't make much sense, now, does it?? If
>you're interested, let him know and let's move on.
>Rick Jory - original poster re: RV-11
________________________________________________________________________________
The upcoming sport pilot regulation will generate a boom in home building
the likes of which has never been seen. If one runs on the idea of making
money for a company then they should prepare product for this upcoming
market. If it is so satisfy an old itch to produce a motor glider then he
should scratch it. This will only enter a market nitch and not generate a
mainstream income.----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-11
>
> Rick,
>
> If the only people who express an opinion are those that are interested
> dont you think that skews the survey a little bit? If you put out a survey
> and 100% of the respondents support your position and you get no negative
> responses, do you really get the answer to your question? I think negative
> responses are very sensible.
>
> As for my opinion, I certainly could be wrong. Could be the market for
> the RV-11 would come from the existing RV builder base rather than from
the
> existing soaring community.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda power)
>
> >
> > For people NOT interested to let him
> >know that they aren't interested doesn't make much sense, now, does it??
If
> >you're interested, let him know and let's move on.
> >Rick Jory - original poster re: RV-11
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
No . . . this isn't a statistically valid survey . . . it's an attempt to
find level of interest. If 50 people are interested, and Van's can justify
the project if more than 40 are interested, it doesn't matter that
1,434,232,601 are not interested.
Rick
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Wills <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-11
>
> Rick,
>
> If the only people who express an opinion are those that are interested
> dont you think that skews the survey a little bit? If you put out a survey
> and 100% of the respondents support your position and you get no negative
> responses, do you really get the answer to your question? I think negative
> responses are very sensible.
>
> As for my opinion, I certainly could be wrong. Could be the market for
> the RV-11 would come from the existing RV builder base rather than from
the
> existing soaring community.
>
> Mike Wills
> RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda power)
>
> >
> > For people NOT interested to let him
> >know that they aren't interested doesn't make much sense, now, does it??
If
> >you're interested, let him know and let's move on.
> >Rick Jory - original poster re: RV-11
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca> |
Subject: | Torx Screws are here! |
Hi Jim;
I'm at work, so I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but I
think it was about $140cdn for 500 screws after exchange, shipping, taxes &
brokerage fees.
Not a huge amount of money, but considering that it really is only
an extra that won't make the plane fly any better, it is a little bit of an
extravagance. It does look good, adding to the fit & finish, but the real
value will be in future maintenance.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell(at)telus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:35 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Would you define "pricey" please?
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
> To: ;
> Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
>
> >
> > Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree
> countersunk
> > Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
> time
> > I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
> yet
> > replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
> > better. No more stripped screw heads!
> >
> > S. Todd Bartrim
> > 13B rotary powered
> > RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> > C-FSTB (reserved)
> > http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> >
>
RE: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
Hi Jim;
I'm at work, so I don't have the exact figure in front
of me, but I think it was about $140cdn for 500 screws after exchange,
shipping, taxes brokerage fees.
Not a huge amount of money, but considering that it
really is only an extra that won't make the plane fly any better, it is
a little bit of an extravagance. It does look good, adding to the fit
finish, but the real value will be in future
maintenance.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: <FONT
SIZE1 FACE"Arial">Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell(at)telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:35 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx Screws are
here!
-- RV-List message posted by:
Jim Jewell jjewell(at)telus.net
Hi Todd,
Would you define pricey
please?
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: Bartrim, Todd
sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca
To:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com;
rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are
here!
-- RV-List message posted by:
Bartrim, Todd sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca
Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree
countersunk
Torx head screws from
MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
time
I received them up here, north
of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
yet
replaced all the old Phillips
screws, but I expect they will look allot
better. No more stripped screw
heads!
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish
kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Scott Kuebler" <skuebler(at)cannondesign.com> |
Subject: | Re: Torx Screws are here! |
That's not too bad considering I received a quote from a local supplier for Long-Lok
self-sealing fasteners (Viton O-rings) with a socket cap, internal hex head:
Min. order - 500
Price for 500 - $2200.00
That's $4.40 for a 8-32 machine screw, 1/2" long. Kind of pricey to me. Needless
to say I didn't order them
Scott Kuebler
Buffalo, NY
RV-6 (wings)
>>> "Bartrim, Todd" 08/28 11:40 AM >>>
Hi Jim;
I'm at work, so I don't have the exact figure in front of me, but I
think it was about $140cdn for 500 screws after exchange, shipping, taxes &
brokerage fees.
Not a huge amount of money, but considering that it really is only
an extra that won't make the plane fly any better, it is a little bit of an
extravagance. It does look good, adding to the fit & finish, but the real
value will be in future maintenance.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell(at)telus.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:35 PM
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
>
> Hi Todd,
>
> Would you define "pricey" please?
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca>
> To: ;
> Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
>
>
> >
> > Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree
> countersunk
> > Torx head screws from MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
> time
> > I received them up here, north of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
> yet
> > replaced all the old Phillips screws, but I expect they will look allot
> > better. No more stripped screw heads!
> >
> > S. Todd Bartrim
> > 13B rotary powered
> > RV-9endurance (finish kit)
> > C-FSTB (reserved)
> > http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> >
>
RE: RV-List: Torx Screws are here!
Hi Jim;
I'm at work, so I don't have the exact figure in front
of me, but I think it was about $140cdn for 500 screws after exchange,
shipping, taxes brokerage fees.
Not a huge amount of money, but considering that it
really is only an extra that won't make the plane fly any better, it is
a little bit of an extravagance. It does look good, adding to the fit
finish, but the real value will be in future
maintenance.
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: <FONT
SIZE1 FACE"Arial">Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell(at)telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:35 PM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Torx Screws are
here!
-- RV-List message posted by:
Jim Jewell jjewell(at)telus.net
Hi Todd,
Would you define pricey
please?
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: Bartrim, Todd
sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca
To:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com;
rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Torx Screws are
here!
-- RV-List message posted by:
Bartrim, Todd sbartrim(at)mail.canfor.ca
Last week I received a box of 500, 8-32, 100 degree
countersunk
Torx head screws from
MicroFasteners. They were a little pricey by the
time
I received them up here, north
of 49, but they sure look good. I haven't
yet
replaced all the old Phillips
screws, but I expect they will look allot
better. No more stripped screw
heads!
S. Todd Bartrim
13B rotary powered
RV-9endurance (finish
kit)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
From: | Don Jordan <dons6a(at)juno.com> |
I am having mine Overhauled by JPM at Stinson airport there in SAT.
But to answer your question, you will find the criteria in Part 43.
Appendex E.
on the altimeter. I think Phillip advertizes to certify it for $45.00
Don Jordan - N6DJ - RV6A
Arlington, Tx
*******************************
writes:
>
>
> PM Condon posted some fine information regarding airspeed
> calibration
> using a Manomenter. (See below)
>
> Can someone come up with a similar device producing an accurate
> vacuum
> level for calibrating the altimeter? Also is there a table
> reflecting
> vacuum levels with altitudes?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB (Res.)
> San Antonio
>
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
> > From: P M Condon
> > Subject: RV-List: 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.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
> Can anyone point me to a good-sized, clean .bmp, .gif, or .jpg of the VAF
> logo? My sister has a fancy sewing machine that can embroider from image
> files. I want some VAF boxers!
>
> --
> Scott (too much information) VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
> Network Manager
> Union Safe Deposit Bank
> 209-946-5116
While I'm sure that would make for a very interesting pair of boxers, be
advised that the VAF logo is registered, and that registration is owned by
Randall Henderson. As long as you don't sell your shorts you should be fine!
Randy Lervold
RV-8, friend of Randall's
Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com> |
Subject: | Fuel level sensors |
I'm nearing completion of my emp and have my wings on order, so I started
thinking about fuel sensors. I have seen three types - two capacitance
types (Van's and EIS) and the Van's float-resistance type. Does anyone out
there have any specs on the accuracy of these? Also, the reliability of the
float types? I assume the capacitance type are very reliable since there
are no moving parts, but wondered about the accuracy. Yes, I do realize
that you never trust your gauges, so maybe the accuracy issue is moot.
Phil Wiethe
RV8A emp
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Duckett <perfeng(at)3rivers.net> |
Subject: | Alternator Bolt Security |
George,
What we do on our applications is not use the split lock washer but
rather a cooper compression washer, coat the threads of the bolt with
Lock-Tite 242 removeable "Thread Locker" and run it down with a 3/8"
Impact. We check final torque using a strap wrench around the pulley
and a torque wrench. We torque the large bolt type to 62 Ft/Lbs and the
smaller bolt type to 38.
never had one come loose yet...
Hope this helps...
Jim Duckett
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Fuel level sensors |
Phil,
I believe one of the other advantages of the capacitance type is that it is
linear whereas the floats are usually not. I have Van's capacitance sensors
in my RV-6 along with the Electronic International fuel gauge and have found
it to be very accurate and tracks even with the flowmeter fuel-remaining
reading. The float types will probably read high because of the geometry of
the float arm relative to the tank (the dihedral effect). The EI gauge
indicates gallons in each tank to the nearest gallon, whereas the EI
flowmeter indicates fuel remaining in tenths of gallons. You can calibrate
the flow transducer by comparing your indicated fuel burns to actual fuel
used when you fill up, and change the K factor as necessary in the software.
Pat Hatch
RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
O-320, Hartzell C/S
RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
O-360, Hartzell C/S
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fuel level sensors
>
> I'm nearing completion of my emp and have my wings on order, so I started
> thinking about fuel sensors. I have seen three types - two capacitance
> types (Van's and EIS) and the Van's float-resistance type. Does anyone
out
> there have any specs on the accuracy of these? Also, the reliability of
the
> float types? I assume the capacitance type are very reliable since there
> are no moving parts, but wondered about the accuracy. Yes, I do realize
> that you never trust your gauges, so maybe the accuracy issue is moot.
>
> Phil Wiethe
> RV8A emp
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Fuel level sensors |
Phil:
I installed the Van's float gauges in my 8A and here are my numbers:
Both tanks read the same--
Actual fuel 5; gauge says 4
Actual fuel 10; gauge says 9.5
Actual fuel 15; gauge says 17 (interpolating beyond the 15 mark)
The gauge tops out at 15 so I have no data beyond that.
Of course, how you bend the float attachment wires will affect the accuracy. I
have a fuel totalizer aboard and use it for knowing actual fuel state. It seems
accurate to about a gallon.
In the alternative, capacitance gauges I have seen in larger airplanes are very
accurate. I assume they are equally accurate in the RV when calibrated but have
no first hand data in that regard.
Bill Marvel
"Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" wrote:
>
> I'm nearing completion of my emp and have my wings on order, so I started
> thinking about fuel sensors. I have seen three types - two capacitance
> types (Van's and EIS) and the Van's float-resistance type. Does anyone out
> there have any specs on the accuracy of these? Also, the reliability of the
> float types? I assume the capacitance type are very reliable since there
> are no moving parts, but wondered about the accuracy. Yes, I do realize
> that you never trust your gauges, so maybe the accuracy issue is moot.
>
> Phil Wiethe
> RV8A emp
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Subject: | Re: Fuel level sensors |
Pat Hatch wrote:
>
>
> Phil,
>
> I believe one of the other advantages of the capacitance type is that it is
> linear whereas the floats are usually not.
I have found the standard float senders driving the EI gauge to be very
linear and accurate. The only time the system does not give an accurate
reading is when the tanks are within three gallons of *full*. The
highest reading I see on the gauge is 15-16 gallons; this is due to the
dihedral of the wing "pinning" the floats against the top of the tanks.
Once three gallons is burned off the tank, the reading is very accurate
and agrees at refueling with the flowmeter in the RMI uMonitor.
Be sure you get the "float version" of the EI gauge if you decide to use
the float senders.
Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
"rv-list(at)matronics.com"
Hi all:
Before I get into looking further for a water leak in my 8A I thought
I'd question others if they have had the same problem.
When I wash the airplane or when it is out in the rain on a cross
country, I find a lot of water accumulation in the belly below the rear
stick area. By a lot, I mean enough that I have to squeeze out a good
sized spongeseveral times to remove it. When I remove the sponge, I can
see more water seeping in from outboard of the two center floor ribs.
The water is not entering through the canopy, cowl/firewall or forward
baggage door. This pretty well leaves the tail area or wings, and I
suspect wings. The reason is that one night in Oklahoma I had the
airplane in an old WWII hangar that leaked. The outboard right wing was
wet the next morning but that was the only place water got on the
plane. The belly was again filled with water. The upper wing to
fuselage fairings are screwed down tight against the wing skin and the
rubber channel between that fairing and fuselage is a tight fit. I have
not yet pulled panels and taken a hose to it but I am perplexed at how
so much water can get in through what appears to be very small openings.
Before I launch into an investigation, has anyone else run into this?
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: 8A water leak |
Bill,
I had/have this same problem with my -8A. I found that the water came in
through three different spots. Each wing and the tail area all let water
in.I first tried some easier fixes and seemed to slow down the water but I
could not stop it. I finally just drilled a couple of 3/16" holes in the
area under the aft seat and let it go at that. Lots of luck to you.
Mike Robertson
>From: Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: So Cal RV Group ,
>"rv-list(at)matronics.com"
>Subject: RV-List: 8A water leak
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:03:17 -0700
>
>
>Hi all:
>
>Before I get into looking further for a water leak in my 8A I thought
>I'd question others if they have had the same problem.
>
>When I wash the airplane or when it is out in the rain on a cross
>country, I find a lot of water accumulation in the belly below the rear
>stick area. By a lot, I mean enough that I have to squeeze out a good
>sized spongeseveral times to remove it. When I remove the sponge, I can
>see more water seeping in from outboard of the two center floor ribs.
>
>The water is not entering through the canopy, cowl/firewall or forward
>baggage door. This pretty well leaves the tail area or wings, and I
>suspect wings. The reason is that one night in Oklahoma I had the
>airplane in an old WWII hangar that leaked. The outboard right wing was
>wet the next morning but that was the only place water got on the
>plane. The belly was again filled with water. The upper wing to
>fuselage fairings are screwed down tight against the wing skin and the
>rubber channel between that fairing and fuselage is a tight fit. I have
>not yet pulled panels and taken a hose to it but I am perplexed at how
>so much water can get in through what appears to be very small openings.
>
>Before I launch into an investigation, has anyone else run into this?
>
>Bill Marvel
>
>
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Ginn" <ginnwj(at)optushome.com.au> |
Subject: | Fuel level sensors |
I put EI capacitor sensor in my tank. However I am concerned that should
there be a problem with the outboard plate of the EI capacitor fuel level
sensor then you will have to dismantle the whole tank to get to it. The
outer sensor consists of a flat plate of Al and a wire connected to it. Not
much to go wrong, but you never know, bolts can come loose, wires break etc.
Also the EI system is a lot more expensive than the float one.
I hope that eventually we will have an electronic fuel monitor that measures
fuel remaining in the tanks and uses the flow meter to determine how much
flying time you have left. I understand that the current flow meter systems
rely on the manual input of the initial fuel.
My 2c worth
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bill Marvel
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel level sensors
Phil:
I installed the Van's float gauges in my 8A and here are my numbers:
Both tanks read the same--
Actual fuel 5; gauge says 4
Actual fuel 10; gauge says 9.5
Actual fuel 15; gauge says 17 (interpolating beyond the 15 mark)
The gauge tops out at 15 so I have no data beyond that.
Of course, how you bend the float attachment wires will affect the accuracy.
I
have a fuel totalizer aboard and use it for knowing actual fuel state. It
seems
accurate to about a gallon.
In the alternative, capacitance gauges I have seen in larger airplanes are
very
accurate. I assume they are equally accurate in the RV when calibrated but
have
no first hand data in that regard.
Bill Marvel
"Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" wrote:
>
> I'm nearing completion of my emp and have my wings on order, so I started
> thinking about fuel sensors. I have seen three types - two capacitance
> types (Van's and EIS) and the Van's float-resistance type. Does anyone
out
> there have any specs on the accuracy of these? Also, the reliability of
the
> float types? I assume the capacitance type are very reliable since there
> are no moving parts, but wondered about the accuracy. Yes, I do realize
> that you never trust your gauges, so maybe the accuracy issue is moot.
>
> Phil Wiethe
> RV8A emp
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: 8A water leak |
Bill,
The majority of water comes in from our vertical stablizer fairing. But I
would also suspect alittle might also come in from the wing fuselage
fairings. We built a small ramp to give us a good drain angle for any water
to drain out the emp.
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: So Cal RV Group ,
>"rv-list(at)matronics.com"
>Subject: RV-List: 8A water leak
>Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:03:17 -0700
>
>
>Hi all:
>
>Before I get into looking further for a water leak in my 8A I thought
>I'd question others if they have had the same problem.
>
>When I wash the airplane or when it is out in the rain on a cross
>country, I find a lot of water accumulation in the belly below the rear
>stick area. By a lot, I mean enough that I have to squeeze out a good
>sized spongeseveral times to remove it. When I remove the sponge, I can
>see more water seeping in from outboard of the two center floor ribs.
>
>The water is not entering through the canopy, cowl/firewall or forward
>baggage door. This pretty well leaves the tail area or wings, and I
>suspect wings. The reason is that one night in Oklahoma I had the
>airplane in an old WWII hangar that leaked. The outboard right wing was
>wet the next morning but that was the only place water got on the
>plane. The belly was again filled with water. The upper wing to
>fuselage fairings are screwed down tight against the wing skin and the
>rubber channel between that fairing and fuselage is a tight fit. I have
>not yet pulled panels and taken a hose to it but I am perplexed at how
>so much water can get in through what appears to be very small openings.
>
>Before I launch into an investigation, has anyone else run into this?
>
>Bill Marvel
>
>
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary & Carolyn Zilik <zilik(at)bewellnet.com> |
Subject: | Re: 8A water leak |
My 6A leaks a little so I put drain holes in the belly skin at each bulkhead
to allow water to drain.
Gary
Bill Marvel wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
> Before I get into looking further for a water leak in my 8A I thought
> I'd question others if they have had the same problem.
>
> When I wash the airplane or when it is out in the rain on a cross
> country, I find a lot of water accumulation in the belly below the rear
> stick area. By a lot, I mean enough that I have to squeeze out a good
> sized spongeseveral times to remove it. When I remove the sponge, I can
> see more water seeping in from outboard of the two center floor ribs.
>
> The water is not entering through the canopy, cowl/firewall or forward
> baggage door. This pretty well leaves the tail area or wings, and I
> suspect wings. The reason is that one night in Oklahoma I had the
> airplane in an old WWII hangar that leaked. The outboard right wing was
> wet the next morning but that was the only place water got on the
> plane. The belly was again filled with water. The upper wing to
> fuselage fairings are screwed down tight against the wing skin and the
> rubber channel between that fairing and fuselage is a tight fit. I have
> not yet pulled panels and taken a hose to it but I am perplexed at how
> so much water can get in through what appears to be very small openings.
>
> Before I launch into an investigation, has anyone else run into this?
>
> Bill Marvel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Allen Checca" <achecca(at)concentric.net> |
I struggled trying to make the bottom rear flange match the curve in the
fuselage. Then I went to Oshkosh and saw that nobody had a prefect fit.
Don't get to frustrated trying to make it perfect. Use some body putty if it
really bothers you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Don Jordan
Subject: RV-List: side steps
I bent it in my vise. Don't remember trimming any area. It will work.
Don Jordan - N6DJ - RV6A
Arlington, Tx
*******************************
writes:
>
> List:
>
> Those of you that have installed the side steps for a 6A......I
> have
> trial fitted my first side and find that the aft edge of the step
> flange, that mounts onto the side skin, appears as though it will
> stick
> out from the surface of the side skin. This is in the area where
> the
> skin transitions to the coneshaped rear fuselage. I realize that
> the
> flange needs to be trimmed to fit in this area, but it looks like
> once I
> do that, the step tube inboard of the step flange will be exposed
> outside of the fuselage.
>
> I have the step flange clamped nicely to the bulkhead flange (F624??
>
> plans are not infront of me) as well as the side flange of F623, so
> I
> cannot extend the step inboard any further.
>
> It just seems that if I trim the step flange right to the step
> tube,
> there will be a rather ragged, unfinished looking hole in the side
> skin
> where the tube exits.
>
> What have others done?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A
> fuse
> Peshtigo, WI
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)attbi.com> |
All: the VAF emblem terms of use can be found at
http://www.edt.com/homewing/emblem.html.
Scott, shoot me a private email and we'll talk about your shorts :-}
Randall
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: VAF Logo
>
> > Can anyone point me to a good-sized, clean .bmp, .gif, or .jpg of the
VAF
> > logo? My sister has a fancy sewing machine that can embroider from
image
> > files. I want some VAF boxers!
> >
> > --
> > Scott (too much information) VanArtsdalen, MCSE, CCNA
> > Network Manager
> > Union Safe Deposit Bank
> > 209-946-5116
>
>
> While I'm sure that would make for a very interesting pair of boxers, be
> advised that the VAF logo is registered, and that registration is owned by
> Randall Henderson. As long as you don't sell your shorts you should be
fine!
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, friend of Randall's
> Home Wing VAF
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
Well, I guess it depends on how accurate you want your altimeter to
be. If you only ever fly down at low altitudes, and never go
anywhere you might run into IFR traffic, and stay away from any place
big enough to have a business turboprop or business jet, then I might
not worry about it too much. But, if you ever go anywhere that IFR
aircraft could be flying you could be cruising 500 ft off their
altitudes. Given the accuracy of their altimeter, static system
accuracy, how accurately they are flying the assigned altitude,
whether you and them are using the same altimeter setting, etc, the
IFR aicraft could easily be 200 ft off his altitude. If you've got
some error in your altimeter or static system, plus you fly a bit off
the nominal altitude, you could end up pretty close to his altitude.
Those IFR guys don't look out as much as they should, and they could
be coming from your six o'clock.
And if you ever could get anywhere close to an aircraft with TCAS,
you need to understand that the TCAS system is counting on your
transponder to be putting out accurate info. If not, the TCAS could
easily give the other guy commands that sent him closer to your
altitude, not away from you. I've seen one report on this list of an
RV-4 that had a large static system error. He noted that the
altimeter would indicate 75 ft below his airfield elevation when he
did a high speed pass down the runway. I bet his altimeter and
transponder agreed though, as they were both hooked up to the
erroneous static system.
Personally, I think everyone should do the flight testing required to
measure the accuracy of their static system. See:
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rvlinks/ssec.html
Kevin Horton
>
>You guys are just picking the flyspecs out of the pepper. I occasionall>y fly
an unusual altitude (8230for example) and call my local radar for a>n altitude
check. They always hit me right on the nose. You can argue t>hat my transponder
may be inaccurate but I want to fly where they think I> am relative to
everyone else. gene w. - Air Sapphire.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Michael J. Veth
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Altimeter calibration
>
>>
>
>
>Seems like you could just use ATIS and get the ambient pressure ... if yo>u're
doing
>the cal at an airport.
>
>Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
I know a 7A builder who ground the weld away on the bottom, matched the curve
to the fuselage, then re-welded it. It looks great.
Bob Trumpfheller
in Western Colorado
7A QB N67BT (reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan&Patty Krueger <pndkrueg(at)infi.net> |
Subject: | 15 Minutes of pure joy |
After nine years and 25 days, N926DK went airborne at 5:50 PM 28 Aug
for it's maiden flight. Don't know any numbers but it flew like a dream
- no heavy wing and ball in center(after I got my heavy foot on the
deck). Feels good to be back in the air after a 26 year lapse.
I have been lurking on the list for the past three years, answering off
list when no responses were forth coming and getting my questions
answered before I had to ask. To the few I have helped - you're welcome.
To the many that have unknowingly helped me a HUGE THANK YOU.
Dan Krueger
RV-6A N926DK 1/4 hr
Now maintaining and of course flying
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: Altimeter calibration |
>
>I purchased a medical blood pressure kit from the local big drug store
>chain for 16.99 and the counter person gave me a 5 dollar coupon. The
>kit had a traditional velcro cuff, cheapie stethoscope (ear thingie the
>doctors wear) and a traditional hand pump-up bulb with a very precision
>looking meter that measures mm or Hg. I used this 12 dollar tester to
>pump up my pitot to 20 mm of Hg. and read 135 MPH. There was a 45 second
>bleed down from the aircraft system. I did this test to 3 other aircraft
>on the field and had the same results. Now, all 4 aircraft are equally
>bad or mine is now like all the others I tested. I am looking for a
>calibration table for mm or Hg. and bleed down time to "fine tune" this
>test technique.
>
Well, the airspeed reading for a given pitot pressure can be
calculated using a spreadsheet I cranked out. If you want to use mm
Hg, you just need to tell my spreadsheet that the sea level standard
pressure is 760, and it will now be using mm Hg as the pressure
units. See:
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rvlinks/asi.zip
20 mm of Hg should give you 147 mph. So, something is screwy
somewhere. Maybe you've got a leak in the blood pressure thingie
(this also fits with the bleed down you are seeing).
Now, as far as the 45 second bleed down goes, I'm not sure I
understand what is happening there. You've just pumped a bunch of
air into the pitot tube. The airspeed reading should stay constant
until the air pressure is released. Where does that air go when the
pressure bleeds down? There must be a leak somewhere - does it fit
perfectly on the pitot tube? There is definitely more to this story,
or I'm unusually confused.
Maybe they gave you the stethoscope so you could listen for the leaks
in the cheap blood pressure thingie :)
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "3 rotor" <rv8r300(at)attbi.com> |
Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
when I was having some problems with my engine at one point I had the spark
plug Westach probes installed as well as the supposedly better(and
sefinitely more expensive) EI bayonet probes and gauge. The absolute temps
varied a bit, but I could find no difference in the information displayed as
far as trends between the two brands.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Marvel" <bmarvel(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: lean-running Lyc
>
> Pat:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Personally, I have never liked the spark plug style CHT probes as opposed
to
> those screwed into the boss below each cylinder. The latter position is
as
> close as you can get to the exhaust valve, and it is exhaust valve and
guide
> distress that seems to pop up first in parallel valve cylinders. Start
with
> replacing the rest of the probes so that you have an apples and apples
> comparison.
>
> > 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?
>
> Contemporary Lycoming wisdom is not to lean to peak EGT when pulling 75%
power
> or more. Engine overhauler Bill Scott and I did an extensive study on
valve
> problems in Lycs several years ago and concluded, among other things,
that
> valve and guide distress is much less likely if one uses cruise power
settings
> of 65% and below. I cannot tell you what EGTs you ought to get at any
given
> altitude since they are dependent on probe location and several other
factors,
> but I can say that you will probably not get very close to the usual 1600
degree
> F EGT red line with a normally aspirated engine. In my airplane (8A with
180
> HP and CS prop) I see the mid 1400s at peak EGT. However, what matters
most is
> not the absolute value of peak EGT but how far rich or lean of peak EGT
you
> operate. Peak EGT ops at 75% power or more is asking for trouble. Many
use
> peak EGT at 65% power in cruise, and many also lean to 25, 50 or 100 rich
of
> peak. Some can operate lean of peak, but not generally with carbureted
> engines. So anywhere from peak EGT to 100 rich when in cruise flight at
cruise
> power will probably serve you well.
>
>
> > 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?
>
> As before, I cannot give you any absolute values to look for regarding
EGT.
> However, as far as full rich to peak EGT temp change is concerned,
somewhere in
> the vicinity of 150 to 200 degrees F shows adequate rich mixture. Go up
to 7500
> feet or so, set 65% to 75% power and write down the EGT levels for each
jug at
> full rich. Then lean to max EGT on number 1 and write that down. Then
lean for
> max EGT on number 2 and write that one down, etc. If you are in the
150-200
> degree range of temp spread you probably have no carb problem. If you get
very
> little EGT spread something is wrong with the mixture.
>
> > 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.
>
> Idle mixture and flight mixture stem from two separate flow paths and are
not
> related. When you shut down the engine you ought to see an RPM rise of 50
to 75
> or so. If it is below or above this, you can easily adjust it with a
knurled
> knob on the exterior or the carb. However, this does not affect flight
> mixture. Flight mixture is determined by mixture control setting, jet
size,
> economizer settings, float settings and carb design. Checking to see that
you
> have the 150-200 degree spread mentioned above is the easiest way to see
that
> your carb is providing an adequately rich mixture when set to full rich.
>
> Bill Marvel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Memorial for Scott & John Tampa Crash |
After a week and a half of putting Scott's affairs in order, I've finally got
around to checking his emails. I was moved by all the sympathy and love
filling his mailbox. It is truly amazing how many lives he touched. He will
be deeply missed by so many. Therefore, I would like to make the following
announcement:
Memorial services will be held for Scott Reviere and John Malecki at
Vandenberg Airport in Tampa Saturday August 31, 2002. Food (BBQ & Gumbo)
will be served starting at 2pm with formal services at 4pm. Those planning
on attending should RSVP Bruce Reviere at Breviere(at)tampabay.rr.com especially
those planning on speaking. Vandenberg Airport is located at 6582 Eureka
Springs RD, Tampa, FL 33610 (813) 626-1515.
Thank you all for the kind words and condolences for my brother and friend.
Bruce Reviere
N747ES Flew the bird once and loved it!!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <sgesele(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Mountain High O2 |
Can anyone recommend a vendor (lowest cost) to
purchase a Mountain High portable O2 system from?
Thanks in advance,
Scott Gesele
N506RV 500+ hrs
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Doug Gray <douggray(at)ihug.com.au> |
Subject: | Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
See accident report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
Doug Gray
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "hal merritt" <merritthal(at)hotmail.com> |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Ya know, since we're on the subject, I've been thinking about how cool it
would be to build a canoe out of aerospace products, like carbon fiberglass
rod structures with a Polyfiber cover.
So whaddya think folks, the RV-13 ought to be a super light canoe with
wings, and auto-retract fishing reels in each wingtip. So as that sucker
strikes hit the throttle, rotate and yank that big daddy right out of the
water.
;{)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
Subject: | Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
Subject: RV-List: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June
See accident report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
Doug Gray
Anyone know which engine & prop that was installed on this aircraft?
George McNutt
Langley B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Aerobatic weights |
How seriously do folks take the aerobatic weight limitations for the RVs? I'm
curious because you read/hear about demo rides with loops, rolls, etc. thrown
in. For example, lets say an average RV-6A weighs 1050# (on the light side).
Two FAA standard people at 170lbs each brings the weight up to 1390#, which
is past the 1350# aerobatic category limit and we haven't added a drop of fuel
yet.
I was under the impression that this number couldn't be fudged by the builder,
unlike gross weight. Is that assumption not correct?
Brad Benson, Software Architect
Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1990-1951
RV6AQ under way....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Re: Airspeed Calibration - Using 16 dollar blood pressure kit |
Courtesy of Kevin Horton, I ran his excel spreadsheet program to get
the mm or HG (millimeters of mercury) to calibrate the 16 dollar drug
store blood pressure kit/airspeed instrument tester. (see earlier post
on using manometer (water coulomb))
For posterity, and in the archives...
2.5 mm/hg = 52.2 mph
5.0 = 73.7
10 = 104.1
15 = 127.4
20 = 146.9
25 = 164.1
30 = 179.5
35 = 179.5
The 16 dollar blood pressure tester(old fassion squeeze
bulb/cuff/stethoscope type)from my local drug store chain has easily
readable increments of 5 units, that's why the odd MPH on the above list
(Its easier to "squeeze bulb" in at 5 mm increments). Look for smooth
Airspeed needle movement with no airspeed needle stiction or jumpiness
on bleed down. This is a delicate instrument so don't start pumping the
squeeze bulb while not paying attention, 2 light-to-medium squeezes is
enough to register 52 MPH. Each subsequent medium squeeze will up the
Hg. (mercury) reading by 5 mm.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
Wheeler North wrote:
>
>
> Ya know, since we're on the subject, I've been thinking about how cool it
> would be to build a canoe out of aerospace products, like carbon fiberglass
> rod structures with a Polyfiber cover.
Wheeler, your ship has come in! :-)
http://www.theboatshop.com/plans/nimrod.shtml
Sam Buchanan (RV-6 and cedar strip canoe builder)
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/canoe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 8A water leak |
My 6A does the same, and from the same places, I believe. Yesterday, while
fooling with little homemade fairings for the fuel sump drains, I noticed my
belly strobe head was half-full of water, presumably from the last time I
washed the plane (no rain here in weeks and I keep it hangared). I was
almost curious enough to fire up the strobes and see if they would work with
wet tube/trigger coil, but decided this would be a foolish and expensive
experiment if it failed. Now I'm pondering a drain hole in the glass lens of
the belly strobe. Diamond burr in a Dremel tool, perhaps?
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
Guys, gals, and those who aren't sure. Bill Marvel has mentioned a
great custom-made towbar for the 8A. It fits in the front baggage area
(right next to the bowling ball). The guy who made Bill's (Glen
Beringer) is making me one, but can gear up to make more at the same
time. If you are interested, contact Glen directly, and do so ASAP. He
does not have e-mail, but can be reached at 310-322-1627 (El Segundo).
Rick Jory RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
In a message dated 08/29/2002 11:19:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca writes:
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
>
Interesting report. I wonder what weight should be given to the issues
raised: the aftermarket ignition system may have been deleterious to the
engine's mechanical function and integrity, overtaxing the bearings and
lubrication system. The cockpit sides of RV-3's and -6's, at least in the
southern hemisphere, seem a bit too flimsy in actual crash "tests," and may
bear reinforcement. Reckon Van will issue an SB and market a sidewall
reinforcement kit, or should we roll our own? Just kidding, kind of. Seeing
how beefing up structure one place can lead to failure in another, in
addition to adding cost and weight every time, I would leave this to the
designer to fix, if a fix is even appropriate.
I wonder what Klaus and Jeff Rose will say...
-Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe(at)ford.com> |
Subject: | Bending rudder leading edge |
I was bending my rudder leading edge last night, and found this to work well for
me.
I basically bent each edge in 3 sections - corresponding to the hinge cutouts.
I started with the top small one, and only duct taped that section to the pipe
and rolled it. Then I untaped that one, moved the pipe down to the middle section
and only taped that one and rolled it. Finally I moved it to the bottom
section and taped and rolled it. I found it much easier to roll, since you
weren't having to apply enough force to roll all the aluminum at once. Since
the hinge cutout goes all the way back to the spar, there was no problem in splitting
it up this way.
Phil Wiethe
8A emp
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Pardue <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Las Cruces
>Sent: 8/29/20 9:23 AM
>Received: 8/29/02 11:45 AM
>From: Konrad Werner, Connywerner(at)wans.net
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>
>
>Andy,
>Go to Doug Reeves' VERY FINE Website, as all the Data is there:
>Date (Oct 25-27), Hotel-, Rental Car-, Airport info, etc.etc.
>C.U. @ LRU!
>Konrad
>ABQ
>
http://www.vansaircraft.net
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | RV-8 Canopy, short on sides. |
On Aug. 23, I wrote an e-mail to this list concerning my problems with
a canopy for our RV-8 ( short on the sides ). Van's has been very responsive
in dealing with this matter. I would like to follow up with what has
happened to date.
On Friday, the 23rd, we talked with one of Van's shop people about our
problem. On Monday morning, the 26th, Van's contacted us and said a new
canopy was being shipped the next day. I also talked to the canopy vendor,
and it sounded like they had already taken steps to correct the problem we
had. So, back to work....
Sam, RV-8, canopy time....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June - electronic ignition |
causing engine dammage too?
I think the essence of the accident report focused on the electronic
ignition and the engine dammage that occured. Yes, the prop was the
immediate accident cause, but the engine dammage caused by the
electronic ignition is also in this picture.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
This is a very well written report. I don't like reading these, but our
FAA/NTSB reports leave a lot to be desired when compairing to these
reports.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Re: Austrailian rv-6a accident report (Prop and Electronic Ignition) |
crash accident incident report injuries damage
Note - both crash rv's failed at the same location (see end of report)
Is this a area of improvement vor vans ??
Note - Electronic Ignition causing engine dammage
FACTUAL INFORMATION
The owner/builder of the the Vans RV-6A aircraft was conducting a flight
from Townsville to Toowoomba. The aircraft departed Townsville at 0846
local time. The pilot subsequently contacted
Oakey Approach at 1324, and the aircraft was identified on radar at 3500
feet. The pilot was instructed to maintain that altitude. When the
aircraft was about 26 nautical miles from
Toowoomba, the pilot transmitted a mayday distress message stating that
the aircraft's engine had failed. A short time later he reported that a
propeller blade had failed. No further
transmissions were heard from the aircraft. About 30 minutes later, a
searching helicopter located the wreckage in a flat clear area amongst
hilly, tree covered terrain.
The area apparently chosen by the pilot for an emergency landing was
about 300 m long and relatively flat. There were trees under the likely
approach path of the aircraft and rising ground at
the far end. The surrounding hills were above the level of the landing
area.
Examination at the accident site revealed that the aircraft struck the
ground while banked about 90 degrees left, and descending at an angle of
about 34 degrees. A 200 mm section of one
propeller blade tip had broken off and could not be located at the
accident site. Witness marks indicated that the propeller was rotating
under power when the blades contacted the ground. Aside
from the broken tip, the propeller blades were in good condition. No
other faults were found that might have prevented the aircraft from
operating normally.
During the impact sequence, the section of the fuselage forward of the
pilot's seat was deflected upward relative to the rear fuselage. The
cockpit sides had buckled outwards. That resulted in
the pilot striking the instrument panel, even though his shoulder
harness remained fastened.
Aircraft information
The pilot purchased the aircraft in 1996 and he first flew it in 1998.
At the time of the accident, the aircraft had accumulated 383 hours time
in service.
The pilot fitted a new engine and propeller to the aircraft during
construction. The engine was modified to improve and balance the airflow
through the valves of each cylinder to enhance
engine performance. In an apparent further attempt to improve engine
performance, the pilot replaced one magneto with an electronic ignition
system that was capable of varying the ignition
timing in response to changes in engine RPM and manifold pressure. That
variation contrasted with the fixed timing ignition provided by the
other "standard" magneto fitted to the engine.
The aircraft's wing was a constant chord, low aspect ratio wing. A
characteristic of low aspect ratio wings is high induced drag at low
speed. Unless the pilot controls the speed carefully, the
effect on aircraft performance can be a rapid speed loss and a high rate
of descent. If such a situation arose during an approach to land, the
only means of regaining speed and arresting the
rate of descent would be to increase engine power. If little or no
engine power was available, the outcome could range from a heavy landing
to a loss of control of the aircraft.
Examination of the failed propeller blade
A fatigue crack had initiated near the leading edge of the blade 216 mm
from the blade tip. Crack growth had occurred as a result of alternating
thrust loads, and had propagated along the thrust
face (rear surface) of the blade. The characteristics of the crack
indicated that it had grown under constant amplitude loading. There was
no evidence of flight by flight striations. The
propeller material was of the correct type and no damage or other reason
for the crack to initiate was found.
All propellers are subject to alternating thrust loads during normal
operation. Propellers are designed so that those loads will not exceed
the design value, thus preventing the development of
fatigue cracks during operation. The firing of each cylinder in a
reciprocating engine produces torsional vibrations. That means that the
crankshaft momentarily speeds up at each firing
stroke, and then slows down again prior to the next firing stroke. The
vibration leads to alternating thrust loads in the propeller.
Examination of the engine connecting rod big-end bearings revealed
distress on the bearing surfaces. That distress was indicative of firing
loads exceeding the designed capacity of the
bearing lubrication. For optimum operation of spark ignition engines,
the peak pressure developed by the combustion of the fuel air mixture
should occur approximately 15 degrees after the
crank has located past top centre.
Ignition timing was a critical factor, influencing engine power, fuel
economy, and the operating condition of the engine. Timing depended on
the rate of propagation of the flame front through
the fuel-air mixture. Increased or advanced ignition timing resulted in
increased combustion chamber pressures. Magneto timing was fixed and was
optimised for the operating range of the
engine. If the response of the electronic ignition system to reductions
in manifold pressure created by part throttle opening was to advance the
timing of ignition, that could increase cylinder
head pressures and increase the magnitude of torsional vibration.
Pilot information
The pilot, aged 64, held a New Zealand Private Pilot Licence and a
current Class 2 Medical Certificate. The medical certificate was subject
to three restrictions; the pilot was required to wear
spectacles, he was granted an exemption regarding his hearing standard,
and he was subject to a restriction regarding a drug he was taking for
tinnitus (a ringing or similar sensation in the
ears, due to disease of the auditory nerve).
The post-mortem examination of the pilot revealed that he had previously
suffered at least one myocardial infarction and had coronary artery
disease. Specialist examination of the pilot's
electrocardiogram traces over a number of years did not reveal any
pre-existing signs of a heart problem. Specialist medical opinion was
that the possibility of the pilot suffering a heart attack
induced by high stress levels after the propeller failed could not be
excluded.
According to the pilot's logbook, he had a total flying experience of
1,179.6 hours at the time of the accident, of which 1,109.9 hours were
in command. He had 383.2 hours on the accident
aircraft, all of which were in command. On the day before the accident,
the pilot had flown the aircraft from Auckland, New Zealand to
Townsville, Queensland. That flight took 13 hours.
ANALYSIS
The evidence indicated that the flight proceeded normally until the
propeller failed. The pilot correctly diagnosed the nature of the
problem and appeared to have been attempting an emergency
landing when the accident occurred. It is possible that, with little
effective power being available from the engine, the aircraft entered a
low speed/high rate of descent situation during the
final landing approach. Any yaw existing at the time could have been
sufficient to cause the aircraft to roll left or right. The impact
dynamics were consistent with such a sequence.
It is possible that vibration caused by the out-of-balance propeller
limited the pilot's ability to accurately interpret the aircraft
instruments, including the airspeed indicator. Such a situation
might have affected his control of the airspeed during the final
approach to the landing area and may have contributed to the loss of
control.
The distortion to the cockpit sides was very similar to the damage
sustained in a fatal accident involving an RV-3 aircraft on 12 March
2000 (ATSB Occurrence Brief 200000885). Both
aircraft were originally designed under US Federal Aviation Regulation
Part 121-191 (experimental - amateur). As such, they were not required
to meet any design standard.
The degree to which the pilot's medical conditions may have affected the
final outcome could not be established.
The investigation was unable to determine the factors leading to the
accident, other than the failure of the propeller blade.
SAFETY ACTION
Independent of the ATSB investigation, an assessment of both accidents
was undertaken (B A Llewellyn, November 2001). That report suggested,
among other things, that the fuselage upper
longeron in the area of the cockpits of RV-3 and RV-6 aircraft be
strengthened. The writer of the independent report sent copies to the
Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, as the
airworthiness certification authority for Australia and to the aircraft
designer.
________________________________________________________________________________
Anyone have detailed photo's of Lyle Hefels modified canopy (front part)
that they can email me?
Thanks,
Francis Butler
Butler Machinery Co.
(701) 298-1758 direct
(701) 476-3208 fax
francis_butler@butler-machinery.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Re: SAFETY ACTION |
SAFETY ACTION
" Independent of the ATSB investigation, an assessment of both (RV)
accidents was undertaken (B A Llewellyn, November 2001). That report
suggested, among other things, that the fuselage upper longeron in the
area of the cockpits of RV-3 and RV-6 aircraft be strengthened. The
writer of the independent report sent copies to the Australian Civil
Aviation Safety Authority, as the airworthiness certification authority
for Australia and to the aircraft designer. "
This is the last paragraph in the Aussie RV-6a Accident analysis. (See
this URL)
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
Question to the Group:
Has anyone seen RV's , post accident, with simular bent cockpit areas
as the report suggests ? The reason this is important is that at least
one death occured when the cabin area failed in this area, with pilot
stilled strapped in, contacted the instrument pannel due to cabin area
failure. If so, would strengthing this area be in order. The orginal
poster gave VANS a copy of this report....Has anyone heard of this
report before ???
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "van Bladeren, Ron" <rwv(at)nwnatural.com> |
Subject: | RE: RV8-List: RV-8 Canopy, short on sides. |
I cut my canopy last night and will trial fit it tonight. Hope I have the
"corrected" canopy.
One suggestion. I had difficulty cutting the side flange while working from
above because the mandrel screw would occasionally touch the vertical part
of the bubble if I tried to get real close to the flange radius. I
discovered that it was MUCH easier to hold the die grinder underneath the
flange and cut while looking down through the plastic from above. You can
easily see the disc as it cuts through from below and once through, you can
cut at about 1/4" per second right up against the vertical part of the
bubble! Use your thumb on the flange edge to steady and guide the tool.
You'll have to allow about 3 inches of canopy to hang over the edge of the
table for access and be sure to remove the plastic film as it tends to slow
down the cutting rate. Cut the sides, then the ends. The front and rear
end cuts are still best made from above.
I haven't been real happy with my method for finishing the edges. I
inverted the bubble in a large box full of foam rubber and have been using a
belt sander on the edge. Still very slow and will try the modifed hacksaw
draw blade tonight. Any other edge finishing secrets out there?
Ron
RV-8A.
-----Original Message-----
From: Samjjake(at)cs.com [mailto:Samjjake(at)cs.com]
Subject: RV8-List: RV-8 Canopy, short on sides.
--> RV8-List message posted by: Samjjake(at)cs.com
On Aug. 23, I wrote an e-mail to this list concerning my problems
with
a canopy for our RV-8 ( short on the sides ). Van's has been very responsive
in dealing with this matter. I would like to follow up with what has
happened to date.
On Friday, the 23rd, we talked with one of Van's shop people about
our
problem. On Monday morning, the 26th, Van's contacted us and said a new
canopy was being shipped the next day. I also talked to the canopy vendor,
and it sounded like they had already taken steps to correct the problem we
had. So, back to work....
Sam, RV-8, canopy time....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aerobatic weights |
Remember that the aerobatic category limit is for +6 g's. RV aerobatics can be
flown very well and in a spirited manner at or below +3.5 g's which keeps the
plane nicely in the UTILITY category, and hence allows for greater payload.
However, the lower g limit means that the plane is less forgiving of mistakes.
I do wonder, however, how many RV pilots are willing to fork over $1000 for
a
parachute just for their occasional aerobatic passemger?
Boyd
Brad Benson wrote:
>
> How seriously do folks take the aerobatic weight limitations for the RVs?
I'm curious because you read/hear about demo rides with loops, rolls, etc. thrown
in. For example, lets say an average RV-6A weighs 1050# (on the light side).
Two FAA standard people at 170lbs each brings the weight up to 1390#, which
is past the 1350# aerobatic category limit and we haven't added a drop of
fuel yet.
>
> I was under the impression that this number couldn't be fudged by the builder,
unlike gross weight. Is that assumption not correct?
>
> Brad Benson, Software Architect
> Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
> Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
> Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force. 1990-1951
> RV6AQ under way....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
The strength of the spark and the "large" gap of the automotive plugs of a LSE
ignition burns the fuel/air mixture so well that the spark from the magneto
plugs just cleans up some left over fumes. My engne runs very noticeably
smoother with the EI system on as compared to the mag. The EI spark advance
control runs from 0 - +40 deg btdc depending on rpm and MAP--the setting of the
mag timing +20 or 25 deg is a rough average setting. All the new engine control
systems (FADEC, etc.) use variable spark timing--it's a proven concept--look at
your car. The examiner or controlling authority in the Australian RV crash
obviously had no experience with the technology.
There's nothing wrong with the RV structural design--the force of the crash
exceeded the ultimate design limit.
SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 08/29/2002 11:19:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca writes:
>
> > http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
> >
>
> Interesting report. I wonder what weight should be given to the issues
> raised: the aftermarket ignition system may have been deleterious to the
> engine's mechanical function and integrity, overtaxing the bearings and
> lubrication system. The cockpit sides of RV-3's and -6's, at least in the
> southern hemisphere, seem a bit too flimsy in actual crash "tests," and may
> bear reinforcement. Reckon Van will issue an SB and market a sidewall
> reinforcement kit, or should we roll our own? Just kidding, kind of. Seeing
> how beefing up structure one place can lead to failure in another, in
> addition to adding cost and weight every time, I would leave this to the
> designer to fix, if a fix is even appropriate.
>
> I wonder what Klaus and Jeff Rose will say...
>
> -Bill B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June - |
electronic ignition causing engine dammage too?
>
>I think the essence of the accident report focused on the electronic
>ignition and the engine dammage that occured. Yes, the prop was the
>immediate accident cause, but the engine dammage caused by the
>electronic ignition is also in this picture.
>
>http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=402
>
>This is a very well written report. I don't like reading these, but our
>FAA/NTSB reports leave a lot to be desired when compairing to these
>reports.
>
I wonder where the timing was set on this engine. I wonder how the
curves of ignition timing vs rpm and MP for the various experimental
electronic ignition systems compare to the LASAR system that is now
available on type certificated Lycoming engines. Are there any
changes to the lubrication system, oil pressure, bearings etc on the
engines that have the LASAR system?
There seem to be a lot of engines flying with homebuilt electronic
ignition systems, and I am not aware of any other reports of bearing
wear attributed to these engines. As I understand it, they should
have the same ignition timing as the standard magneto at high
manifold pressures. The timing is only advanced at lower manifold
pressures, when power is lower, so I am told. I'm not a powerplant
engineer, but would the bearing pressure really be higher at lower
power, with ignition advanced than it would be at high power with the
ignition at the standard setting?
I'm not convinced by this ATSB report that we have a basic problem
with electronic ignition systems.
I would be interested to hear what the overhaul shops tells us about
engines that have electronic igntions - what shape are the bearings
in when they come in for overhaul?
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Graham <beeb(at)teleport.com> |
Water trapped in the airplane can give you a whole new perspective on how
the airplane flies and handles. It also contributes to corrosion. If we
can't be sure that it won't get in, then we should take efforts to make sure
that it can get out by draining and evaporation. Water can accumulate in
any compartment defined by ribs, bulkhead, stringers, panels and skin. These
compartments exist everywhere in the airframe including the fuselage, wings,
control surfaces, etc. Some of us builders go to great lengths to seal up
everything for air speed and esthetics. In doing so we sometimes create a
problem compartment. Most areas of the basic RV's allow for natural
drainage due to gravity and the nature of the parts we build with, But many
areas need a little extra help from the builder.
Food For Thought: (not a complete list)
Have you eliminated natural drainage by sealing up control or other
surfaces?
Will the accumulation of dirt and crud create water traps over time?
Did you use Pro-Seal, (or other sealant) as vibration dampeners in the
trailing edge of the control surfaces?
Did you use insulation or sound absorbers that will hold or trap water/water
vapor?
Did you foam (without a water seal over the high end) in the gear leg
fairings that will trap or hold moisture/condensation and contribute to
corrosion?
Did you vent the rudder bottom (and other water traps)?
TIPS:
Create gravity drains between compartments that will not plug and that lead
to the outside (drill holes or file off corners).
Create low pressure drains. One way to do this (in metal) is to drill
holes. Stick the shank of the drill bit in the hole and tip in the
direction of the air flow (practice in scrap first). This creates a
mini-louver low pressure vent. In FRP create the the same look. On the
fuselage belly snap a chalk line so the holes line up (good for trophy
points).
After washing check for water before flying. Same goes for rain when tied
down outside.
Water in the air intakes can change the system humidity (drain the low
points).
Make sure the air plane can breath to minimize condensation.
Others may make my point with their ideas.
Gary and Pugsley
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Subject: | X-Air/Microair/Xcom 760 |
Anyone else seen this? Looks like the Microair line of little radios
has another competitor:
http://www.mcp.com.au/microair/
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Brick" <jbrick(at)wolfenet.com> |
Subject: | Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
I agree that the report doesn't say much...what engine? what prop? what
ignition? But Hartzell does have problems with some engine / prop
combinations using electronic ignition and FADEC.
Here is a series of email exchanges with Hartzell chronological order.
I am building an RV-4 and have ordered an Aero Sport Power O-360 with 9.2:1
pistons, Airflow Performance fuel injection and Lightspeed electronic
ignition. I am planning to order your C2YK-1BF/F7666A4 prop from Van's. What
are the restrictions for this combination? Problems?
Thanks,
John Brick
Hello John,
We would recommend that you stay with stock pistons and ignition.
We have tested the stresses on the F7666A-4 prop with both of these "mods",
and have found that they increase the blade stresses above the allowable
limits. If you plan to continue with these mods, I would suggest you have
the engine built with Crankshaft Dampers to reduce the torsional stress.
This would be an O-360-B1B6 type configuration. The "6: denotes a "dampened"
crank.
Regards,
Brad Huelsman
Hartzell Propeller Inc.
Brad,
Thanks for the info. I'm a bit surprised about the caution on electronic
ignition. Seems like that's the wave of the future. What about Unison Lasar
or FADEC on certified aircraft?
To make sure I understand, is it the combination of 9.2 pistons and ignition
that becomes a problem or is either one, by itself, a problem?
Thanks,
John Brick
Hi John,
Either one, by itself, is a problem on the un-dampened 360 engine.
We tested on the stock piston engine configuration and found the stresses to
be above the allowable limits, with the lightspeed electronic ignition. The
testing we did on the FADEC equipped engine showed that the stresses were
even higher than the lightspeed electronic ignition. So.........we would
recommend you stay with a "stock" engine configuration.
We will be testing a new blade design at Van's later this year, to see if we
can pass a prop for these type of engines.
You may want to wait for these results, if you can.
Again, if you have a dampened crankshaft in the engine, these vibrational
concerns are greatly diminished.
Best Regards,
Brad Huelsman
In a subsequent telephone conversation with Brad, I asked if Lightspeed
specifically was the problem, or all electronic ignitions. His answer was
that they had only tested Lightspeed but that he would expect problems from
all of them. The prop for the O-360 is right on the edge of stress limits
now. Lightspeed did not exceed the allowable stress limits by much, but...it
did. He had no specific info on Unison LASAR or Jeff Rose ignitions.
I asked, if I had to give up one or the other, pistons or ignition, which
should it be. He said "unofficially" pistons, but that Hartzell could not
endorse either based on the testing they had done at Van's.
They will be testing a new prop at Van's in a couple of months. I asked if
it would be higher in weight. He said he didn't think so, they would just be
redistributing material.
According to Bart at Aerosport Power, the dampened crank would cost an extra
$2500 and weigh an extra 5 to 8 pounds. Only Lycoming manufactures that
crank.
I put all the same questions via telephone to the MT Propeller people.
According to Jorgen, USA dealer in DeLand, Fla., the only restriction they
have is to avoid RPM from 2050 to 2300, similar to Hartzell which is 2000 to
2250. He had no problem with the pistons or electronic ignition, although
they do recommend dampers on the crank for the IO-360 (200 hp) engine.
Unrelated to this issue but very interesting, is the CAFE report on
electronic ignition. Go to the website below. I printed out the three
reports...32 pages total. Very interesting.
http://www.cafefoundation.org/research.htm then click on RESEARCH and then
find the three reports on IGNITION DYNAMICS.
jb
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June -electronic |
ignition causing engine dammage too?
Kevin Horton wrote:
> I'm not convinced by this ATSB report that we have a basic problem
> with electronic ignition systems.
Not long ago one of the Avweb authors took serious exception to another ATSB
report on a downed Navajo in Oz. Like this one it seemed to shoot from the
hip. Your skepticism is quite healthy and justified and no doubt held by
quite a few others.
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Al Mojzisik <prober(at)iwaynet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June - |
electronic ignition causing engine damage too?
>It would seem to me that if an electronic ignition make the engine run
>"smoother" and idle "smoother", then it would also make sense that the
>engine is probably running with less stress at each fireing of the
>cylinders. I base this on the fact that when an engine is bluprinted it
>also runs "smoother" and idles "smoother" and usually last longer than a
>non-blueprinted engine. I think the person who wrote that report does not
>have any research to back up his theory. AL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)Islandnet.com> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June - electronic |
ignitioncausing engine dammage too?
There was a lot of time devoted to the electronic ignition in the report,
but IMHO the report did not definitely conclude that the electronic ignition
was the cause of the propeller failure. The relevant sentence is:
"If the response of the electronic ignition system to reductions
in manifold pressure created by part throttle opening was to advance the
timing of ignition, that could increase cylinder
head pressures and increase the magnitude of torsional vibration."
The "if" and "could" would have been omitted if there were definite
conclusions although no other probable cause was identified.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 80% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
> I think the essence of the accident report focused on the electronic
> ignition and the engine dammage that occured. Yes, the prop was the
> immediate accident cause, but the engine dammage caused by the
> electronic ignition is also in this picture.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bob Busick" <panamared1(at)brier.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aerobatic weights |
I take aerobatic weight very serious. But, I measure it differently. The
way I view it, my aerobatic weight is 6Gs X 1350 pounds = 8100 pounds. So
to stay inside the gross aerobatic weight limit, a weight of 1390 pounds I
can do no more than 5.8 Gs, or at 1600 pounds no more than 5 Gs. And to add
an extra margin, in my airplane, I will not exceetd 4Gs at 1600 pounds for a
total of 6400 pounds gross aerobatic weight. It is really difficult to
measure or read 5.8 Gs unless you have a digital instrument. For me it is
difficult enough just reading the G meter during aerobatics. I normally
read it after the maneuver is complete.
Additionally, the 6 G limit is really only valid when you are not rolling
with ailerons or using rudder. A full 6 G pull up with full aileron or
rudder would be very bad indeed. I learned in aerobatic instruction, either
pull, or roll, but do not do both at the same time.
Just my solution, yours may vary.
Bob Busick
> How seriously do folks take the aerobatic weight limitations for the RVs?
I'm curious because you read/hear about demo rides with loops, rolls, etc.
thrown in. For example, lets say an average RV-6A weighs 1050# (on the
light side). Two FAA standard people at 170lbs each brings the weight up
to 1390#, which is past the 1350# aerobatic category limit and we haven't
added a drop of fuel yet.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "russell parr" <rrparr12(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: RV-7 R/C model, was Smooth Prime |
Steve, I'd be interested if you kit your RV-7. Please let me know. thanks,
Russ Parr (RV-4 owner)
>From: Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-7 R/C model, was Smooth Prime
>Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 14:36:13 -0500
>
>
>James E. Clark wrote:
>
> >
> > I seemed to have missed it but was there a reference made earlier to
>RV-7
> > R/C model that is available??
> >
> > I have a friend who is into RC and was just asking about the RV6/RV7.
>Any
> > link or any other info available??
> >
> > James
>
>I don't like to sell futures but I am thinking about kitting my carbon
>fiber/foam wing RV-7 model. You can see a picture of it at:
>
>http://63.69.213.180/newtech/photos/P1010040.JPG
>
>Steve Eberhart
>RV-7A - working on wings
>N14SE reserved
>
>
Ste
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Subject: | BV's Wingtip lights? |
Anyone have a product report on Bill Vondane's MR75 Landing Light kit?
Quality of kit, instructions, etc. Anyone else besides Bill flying with
them? Are they bright enough?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
Bill Marvel wrote:
>
>
> Dan:
>
> Funny thing. In nearly 6000 hours of light plane flying since 1967 and a lot
> of first rides, I have yet to have anyone lose lunch, breakfast, dinner or a
> snack in my airplane. They lose the COST of lunch, of course, since buying me
> lunch in trade for flying is my rigid policy, but no barf bags have been
> filled yet. Call me if you want a ride....and, I'm REALLY hungry!! Lunch --
> no more, no less and no arguments.
>
> Cheers mate, as my Aussie friends say --
>
> Bill Marvel
>
You'd better be careful about admitting to receiving
'compensation' for rides in your experimental. With the
'Patriot' Act on the horizon & the potential for the FAA to
have access to Carnivore software from the CIA, You could
lose a lot more than lunch.
Charlie
(Written with only 1/2 a smile. Pilots have had their
tickets pulled for giving a free ride to someone else who
got paid for work related to the trip. The FAA has even
ruled that logged time is compensation if the pilot is
building time toward additional ratings or employment.)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
Subject: | RE: RV8-List: canopy photo's |
I don't have any photos right now, but I do have one of the modified
windscreens. Call Airplane Plastics 937.669.2677. Jeff or Becky. Very
personable folks.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv8-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv8-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BUTLER, FRANCIS
Subject: RV8-List: canopy photo's
--> RV8-List message posted by: "BUTLER, FRANCIS"
<FRANCIS_BUTLER@butler-machinery.com>
Anyone have detailed photo's of Lyle Hefels modified canopy (front part)
that they can email me?
Thanks,
Francis Butler
Butler Machinery Co.
(701) 298-1758 direct
(701) 476-3208 fax
francis_butler@butler-machinery.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | Van's seat belts |
Can anyone tell me how to make Van's seat belts stay locked together? My new ones
click together OK and resist a little test tug but soon fall undone. I know
they get better with use and no amount of different angles or pressures seems
to have any effect on whether or not they will lock this time.
Obviously the rectangular hole in the part that the harness links slide over needs
to be filed a little, but , unable to view the assembly when it's together,
I don't know where to do it.
Thanks in advance, again..
Scott in Vancouver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | KBoatri144(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Aerobatic weights |
In a message dated 8/29/02 7:29:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
panamared1(at)brier.net writes:
<< I take aerobatic weight very serious. But, I measure it differently. The
way I view it, my aerobatic weight is 6Gs X 1350 pounds = 8100 pounds. So
to stay inside the gross aerobatic weight limit, a weight of 1390 pounds I
can do no more than 5.8 Gs, or at 1600 pounds no more than 5 Gs. And to add
an extra margin, in my airplane, I will not exceetd 4Gs at 1600 pounds for a
total of 6400 pounds gross aerobatic weight. It is really difficult to
measure or read 5.8 Gs unless you have a digital instrument. For me it is
difficult enough just reading the G meter during aerobatics. I normally
read it after the maneuver is complete. >>
Bob and others...
It isn't as simple as described above. The force you're describing is the
shear load. The force that generally breaks airplanes is bending moment.
There is some info in the archives on this subject, but I've proven to myself
several times that the internet ain't a good place to teach or study
structural engineering...
Kyle Boatright
0-320/Aymar Demuth RV-6 Slider
Kennesaw, GA
http://www.angelfire.com/my/rv6
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Hi Charlie and Tupper:
Well, if it's gotten that bad, I guess I'm willing to be the poster boy. Someone
has to stand up to nonsense now and then.
Bill Marvel
Charlie and Tupper England wrote:
>
> Bill Marvel wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > Funny thing. In nearly 6000 hours of light plane flying since 1967 and a lot
> > of first rides, I have yet to have anyone lose lunch, breakfast, dinner or
a
> > snack in my airplane. They lose the COST of lunch, of course, since buying
me
> > lunch in trade for flying is my rigid policy, but no barf bags have been
> > filled yet. Call me if you want a ride....and, I'm REALLY hungry!! Lunch
--
> > no more, no less and no arguments.
> >
> > Cheers mate, as my Aussie friends say --
> >
> > Bill Marvel
> >
> You'd better be careful about admitting to receiving
> 'compensation' for rides in your experimental. With the
> 'Patriot' Act on the horizon & the potential for the FAA to
> have access to Carnivore software from the CIA, You could
> lose a lot more than lunch.
>
> Charlie
>
> (Written with only 1/2 a smile. Pilots have had their
> tickets pulled for giving a free ride to someone else who
> got paid for work related to the trip. The FAA has even
> ruled that logged time is compensation if the pilot is
> building time toward additional ratings or employment.)
>
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832 7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Gooding <GOODING(at)hargray.com> |
Going to Maine to play with the float plane for a couple of weeks, so you
people will just have to soldier on without me lurking over your sholders
un/subscribe
L. Gooding
RV-6 fus in jig
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: Van's seat belts |
I would send it back for a replacement. Talk about unacceptable!
Bill Marvel
Jaye and Scott Jackson wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how to make Van's seat belts stay locked together? My new
ones click together OK and resist a little test tug but soon fall undone. I know
they get better with use and no amount of different angles or pressures seems
to have any effect on whether or not they will lock this time.
> Obviously the rectangular hole in the part that the harness links slide over
needs to be filed a little, but , unable to view the assembly when it's together,
I don't know where to do it.
> Thanks in advance, again..
> Scott in Vancouver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | deltab(at)erols.com |
Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
Pat Perry wrote:
>
>
> 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.
> 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.
At low altitudes you are not going to see much effect of the mixture
before it dies. It seems as if the control is there only for higher
altitudes, where you can actually run too rich. In the C152 that I
drove for a while with egt, i do remember the numbers being in the
1400's at cruise in the 2000-3500 foot range.
Bernie C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | hooker seat belts |
A while back, Hooker was having supplier problems, and lead times were
long. So, when I ordered a set at Oshkosh, this year, I held my breathe
when they told me 4-6 weeks.
Almost 4 weeks to the day, they arrived. They look good and the Schroth
buckles are very nice.
Hooker is back on schedule!
Barry Pote Rv9a finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: lean-running Lyc |
Lean Running update
After starting this thread some weeks ago i have done a little
experimenting.i have changed carbys and nozzles with almost no noticable
difference in performance or egt reading.
so i drilled out a nozzle to no 38 drill size and have now done 4 hours
running the results are the engine sounds better at full throttle static
rpm has dropped about 25 rpm and egt has dropped almost 200f, i have no
hesitation or surge in flight now.and i am happy im on the rich side of peak
and not cooking my engine.
However On the negative side i think i have gone a little to rich and i have
lost some smoothness in the mid range around 1500rpm were the engine runs
quite rich.
In conclusion while my engine now runs cooler and is quite safe to use i
would caution anyone about drilling out the nozzle and if you do drill go
one size at a time as little as 1 or 2 thou makes a lot of differance any
change you make is a compromise and may cost you smoothness or performance
in other areas.
I am buying a new nozzle next week and im going to run it as standard for a
couple of hours as well as testing on a automotive exhaust analyser i will
post the results if anyone is interested.
Dave Tennant
Rv6 australia 9.5hrs
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Hine" <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca> |
Subject: | Van's seat belts |
Scott
I had this problem with Vans belts as well. I only had the problem with the
front belts that have a crotch belt though, the rear without one and only
the shoulder belts to latch worked ok.
I had to file the shoulders on the side of the lap belt that slides into the
larger buckle. If you hold the release lever up as you slide the other side
in you can see where the two come togeather, and it is obvious where you
have to file. This is important, I had mine come undone once in flight
before I had them filed enough. No problem now though.
Joe Hine
C-FYTQ RV4
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jaye and Scott
Jackson
Subject: RV-List: Van's seat belts
Can anyone tell me how to make Van's seat belts stay locked together? My new
ones click together OK and resist a little test tug but soon fall undone. I
know they get better with use and no amount of different angles or pressures
seems to have any effect on whether or not they will lock this time.
Obviously the rectangular hole in the part that the harness links slide over
needs to be filed a little, but , unable to view the assembly when it's
together, I don't know where to do it.
Thanks in advance, again..
Scott in Vancouver
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: hooker seat belts |
Glad to hear the problems are resolved - We have their Schroth buckle sets
(F&R) and are very happy with them.
Chuck & Dave Rowbotham
RV-8A (120 hrs)
>From: barry pote <barrypote(at)comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To: RV-List Digest List
>Subject: RV-List: hooker seat belts
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:12:05 -0400
>
>
>A while back, Hooker was having supplier problems, and lead times were
>long. So, when I ordered a set at Oshkosh, this year, I held my breathe
>when they told me 4-6 weeks.
>
>Almost 4 weeks to the day, they arrived. They look good and the Schroth
>buckles are very nice.
>
>Hooker is back on schedule!
>
>Barry Pote Rv9a finishing
>
>
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | P M Condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Subject: | Re: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June - electronic |
ignitioncausing engine
It seems that unless you are 110% sure/tested/validated/legally certain
on a subject then you can hardly even mention it in today's society much
less then in a "official government report". To say that the Aussie
report has no facts.....well agreed BUT with the same logic, the FAA
reports, unless there is 110% factual,proven data, will completely
ignore a possibly contributing event. I think BOTH approaches must be
understood and used. I do give the Aussie inspector some credence in his
educated speculation that this may have been part the cause of the
sequence of events that caused the crash. Doing business the FAA way is
a bit like the ostrich with the head in the sand....The Aussie way --
maybe alarmist. I think the truth is somewhere in-between. At least with
the Aussie method of reporting, a educated guess may lead to some
further analysis. lets face it, I prefer some educated speculation
rather then FAA silence.
From: "Garth Shearing" <garth(at)Islandnet.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June -
electronic ignitioncausing engine
dammage too?
There was a lot of time devoted to the electronic ignition in the
report,
but IMHO the report did not definitely conclude that the electronic
ignition
was the cause of the propeller failure. The relevant sentence is:
"If the response of the electronic ignition system to reductions
in manifold pressure created by part throttle opening was to advance the
timing of ignition, that could increase cylinder
head pressures and increase the magnitude of torsional vibration."
The "if" and "could" would have been omitted if there were definite
conclusions although no other probable cause was identified.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 80% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Bill VonDane" <n8wv(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Speaking of harnesses... |
I have Vans low-buck harnesses. Van says they do not support a crotch
strap, but has anyone figured out a way to install a crotch strap on them
anyway?
Thanks...
-Bill
www.vondane.com
BTW Kevin, my landing lights ROCK! ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael D. Crowe" <tripacer(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Atlanta area RVers |
I am looking to buy some AKZO 463-12-8 Epoxy primer. Aircraft Spruce in
Griffin can get some in 33 days. Is there anyone in the area that carries
it?
I heard of an RV Fly-in in Thomaston GA in Sept. Does anyone know the
details?
With the large number of builders and fliers of RVs in the Atlanta area is
there some group to join?
Mike Crowe
RV8A EMP
McDonough GA
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ollie Washburn" <skybolt-aviator(at)msn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Atlanta area RVers |
M.Crowe---Check www.thomasvilleflyin.com for info on Ga. fly-in which by the
way outstanding.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Norman" <jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com> |
Subject: | hooker seat belts |
All,
To clarify, I just got off the phone with Hooker to ask about their Schlroth
(sp?) rotary latches.
They said that there is a manufacturer who makes a rotary buckle that allows
2 options: 1) rotate and all the belts come out, and 2) push a button and
the shoulder belts (only) come out.
HOWEVER, they assured me that they do not think this is a good design for
small sport planes and they do NOT use this type of rotary buckle. The one
that Hooker uses has only one option... turn the button and all the belts
are released.
jim
Tampa
Hooker Harness in RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Bowen <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: hooker seat belts |
Thanks.
Knowing me as I do, I would be afraid of losing the dial! Wouldn't it be
better if a big turn of the dial released all but the crotch strap so it is
more likely to stay with the plane?!
-Larry
--- Pat Hatch wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> Turn the the big dial and all 5 points disconnect, or squeeze a tab on top
> of the buckle and release just the shoulder harness.
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
> O-320, Hartzell C/S
> RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
> O-360, Hartzell C/S
> Vero Beach, FL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
>
>
> >
> > How do those buckles work? Turn the big dial and all 5 points disconnect,
> or
> > what?
> >
> > -Larry
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank Dombroski <f_dombroski(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Improved RV-8/8A Instrument Panel |
Hello All,
After trying to shoehorn all of the good toys in the
standard RV-8 panel, Todd Rudberg and I decided to
re-engineer the whole thing (mostly Todd :-}). The
result is an awesome panel that centers the
instruments, and provives better room and access to
radios and instruments. These are CAD designed and
CNC machined, so they fit perfectly (no side
shimming).
They will be offered for sale. You can see them at...
www.acubedllc.com
Thanks
Frank D
N84FM Finishing - Installing new Panel
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Wills" <willsm(at)spawar.navy.mil> |
If I take a ride and pay half the gas, and Bill chooses to spend the gas
money I give him on lunch, thats his business. I cant see how the FAA would
have any problem with that.
Mike Wills
RV-4 (firewall forward details; Mazda power)
> > >
> > You'd better be careful about admitting to receiving
> > 'compensation' for rides in your experimental. With the
> > 'Patriot' Act on the horizon & the potential for the FAA to
> > have access to Carnivore software from the CIA, You could
> > lose a lot more than lunch.
> >
> > Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
Larry,
A slight correction, turn the big dial and all release except one, the side
closest to the fuselage (in an RV-6, the left side for the pilot, right side
for the co-pilot) does not disengage. Sorry for the confusion.
Pat Hatch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
>
> Thanks.
>
> Knowing me as I do, I would be afraid of losing the dial! Wouldn't it be
> better if a big turn of the dial released all but the crotch strap so it
is
> more likely to stay with the plane?!
>
> -Larry
>
>
> --- Pat Hatch wrote:
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > Turn the the big dial and all 5 points disconnect, or squeeze a tab on
top
> > of the buckle and release just the shoulder harness.
> >
> > Pat Hatch
> > RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
> > O-320, Hartzell C/S
> > RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
> > O-360, Hartzell C/S
> > Vero Beach, FL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
> >
> >
> > >
> > > How do those buckles work? Turn the big dial and all 5 points
disconnect,
> > or
> > > what?
> > >
> > > -Larry
>
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: hooker seat belts - source |
From: | David_Rowbotham(at)dom.com |
08/30/2002 11:38:59 AM
Larry,
As I had mentioned, turn the dial either direction will only releases four
of the attachment points (dial staying with the plane). To answer Hal
Rozema's question, We purchased ours through the Team Rocket web site.
They had them for the same price the folks at Hooker offered them at the
time, 1 1/2 yrs ago.
David Rowbotham
RV-8a (120 hrs)
Larry Bowen
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: cc:
owner-rv-list-server@mat Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker
seat belts
ronics.com
08/30/2002 10:39 AM
Please respond to
rv-list
Thanks.
Knowing me as I do, I would be afraid of losing the dial! Wouldn't it be
better if a big turn of the dial released all but the crotch strap so it is
more likely to stay with the plane?!
-Larry
--- Pat Hatch wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> Turn the the big dial and all 5 points disconnect, or squeeze a tab on
top
> of the buckle and release just the shoulder harness.
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
> O-320, Hartzell C/S
> RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
> O-360, Hartzell C/S
> Vero Beach, FL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
>
>
> >
> > How do those buckles work? Turn the big dial and all 5 points
disconnect,
> or
> > what?
> >
> > -Larry
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner(at)wans.net> |
Subject: | Re: hooker seat belts |
Dear Hal,
Instead of searching for just a "Hooker", try this one:
www.hookerharness.com
It will get you the info you are asking for!
Konrad Werner
ABQ - NM
>
> Do you have a URL for Hooker seat belts? I've tried searches on the
internet but only get porno
> sites.
>
> Hal Rozema
> theplanefolks.net N701PF
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Konrad Werner" <Connywerner(at)wans.net> |
Subject: | Re: hooker seat belts |
Dear Larry,
The Rotary-Dial is connected to one strap and releases only the other four,
which is just what you want!
KLW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
>
> Thanks.
>
> Knowing me as I do, I would be afraid of losing the dial! Wouldn't it be
> better if a big turn of the dial released all but the crotch strap so it
is
> more likely to stay with the plane?!
>
> -Larry
>
>
> --- Pat Hatch wrote:
> >
> > Larry,
> >
> > Turn the the big dial and all 5 points disconnect, or squeeze a tab on
top
> > of the buckle and release just the shoulder harness.
> >
> > Pat Hatch
> > RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
> > O-320, Hartzell C/S
> > RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
> > O-360, Hartzell C/S
> > Vero Beach, FL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Larry Bowen" <lcbowen(at)yahoo.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: hooker seat belts
> >
> >
> > >
> > > How do those buckles work? Turn the big dial and all 5 points
disconnect,
> > or
> > > what?
> > >
> > > -Larry
>
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | glen j matejcek <aerobubba(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Accident report RV-6A - in Australia 24th June |
Food for thought, fellow listers...
>90 degree bank in a 35 degree dive at a likely high
speed <
Unless the pilot sufferred a MI, odds are it was a low speed loss of
control (IE, spin entry).
>make wild
statements about electronic ignitions or such that simply cannot be
substantiated within the context of their report. This report is full of
heresay and conjecture<
The report states that there was no pre-existing prop damage (dings in the
LE), and that the materials were correct. That implies cyclic over stress.
Crack propogation along the face of the blade implies an induced forward
bending moment (IE, thrust). The location of the crack implies a node
during steady state harmonic resonance.
>use variable spark timing--it's a proven concept--look at
your car. The examiner or controlling authority in the Australian RV crash
obviously had no experience with the technology.<
The ignition didn't fail, and neither did the engine. The prop did. If
you talk to the engineers at prop manufacturers about vibratory analysis,
you'll quickly see how complex a subject it is, and how it varies with the
prevailing conditions. That's why some engine / metal prop combinations
come with prohibited rpm bands. If you talk to them about HC pistons or
EI, as I did, they get very unhappy...
>I wonder what Klaus and Jeff Rose will say...<
Me too. From what I gather, including speaking to Klaus on this subject,
he discredits the accident report. I happen to be pretty impressed with
his products, and would like to own some, but I believe that the bulk of
his R&D involves composite props... and I don't think there are many high
time EI / metal prop combinations out there. The accideent aircraft had
less than 400 hrs on it... I have noticed that some engine overhaulers have
recently backed away from high compression pistons somewhat, at least for
metal, fixed pitch installations. ( As I understand it, wooden props are
not subject to this sort of failure).
>I would be interested to hear what the overhaul shops tells us about
engines that have electronic igntions - what shape are the bearings
in when they come in for overhaul?<
Amen, Kevin. The other question is was there any sign of fatigue or
cracking on the other prop blade? If it was a resonant issue, it seems to
me that there might be a clue there.
>It would seem to me that if an electronic ignition make the engine run
"smoother" and idle "smoother", then it would also make sense that...
The torsional vibes that cause this type of damage can't be felt in the
cockpit. Likewise, you can't tell if an engine has a counterweighted crank
by the way it runs, only by the overhaul cost ; ). As I understand it,
it's not the maximum amplitude of the combustion chamber pressure curve,
but rather it's shape. Supposedly, the sharper increase in pressure
attainable with EI increases torsional vibration.
None of the foregoing should be considered criticism, flaming, or anything
remotely like it. Like many folks, I dislike the ancient technology we
usually fly behind and have been poking around and asking questions over
the last six months or so. My original plans for a moderately pumped
engine for my project have been scaled back over this time period as a
result. As Kevin stated, it would be good to know what overhaulers are
finding on EI equipped engines, if any are comming in yet.
Just to confuse things slightly more, a good friend just took up skydiving
as a result of a con rod big end bearing failure in a Lyc that was less
than 600 hrs out of O/haul. Seems it's the second IO-360 self-disassembly
in about 6 weeks...
gm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Ron Schreck <RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com> |
Subject: | Primer for fiberglass parts |
At the risk of starting the next primer war, I have a simple question:
What sort of primer are folks useing on fiberglass parts. Does Variprime
work? I intend to fly my airplane unpainted, but feel I should at least
prime the fiberglass to avoid any fuel/oil contamination in parts that may
be slightly porus.
Before the flamers start to work on me, I have researched the archives
without success and I don't want to hear another word about priming metal
parts.
Thanks,
Ron Schreck
RV-8, Charlotte
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Hawkins <lhawkins(at)giant.com> |
Subject: | Primer for fiberglass parts |
K-38 is the answer, you need it anyway to fill the pin holes.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, finishing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Schreck [mailto:RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com]
Subject: RV-List: Primer for fiberglass parts
At the risk of starting the next primer war, I have a simple question:
What sort of primer are folks useing on fiberglass parts. Does Variprime
work? I intend to fly my airplane unpainted, but feel I should at least
prime the fiberglass to avoid any fuel/oil contamination in parts that may
be slightly porus.
Before the flamers start to work on me, I have researched the archives
without success and I don't want to hear another word about priming metal
parts.
Thanks,
Ron Schreck
RV-8, Charlotte
RE: RV-List: Primer for fiberglass parts
K-38 is the answer, you need it anyway to fill the
pin holes.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL,
finishing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Schreck [<A
HREF"mailto:RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com">mailto:RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com]
Sent: August 30, 2002 11:17 AM
To: INTERNET:rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: Primer for fiberglass parts
-- RV-List message posted by: Ron Schreck
RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com
At the risk of starting the next primer war, I have a
simple question:
What sort of primer are folks useing on fiberglass
parts. Does Variprime
work? I intend to fly my airplane unpainted,
but feel I should at least
prime the fiberglass to avoid any fuel/oil
contamination in parts that may
be slightly porus.
Before the flamers start to work on me, I have
researched the archives
without success and I don't want to hear another
word about priming metal
parts.
Thanks,
Ron Schreck
RV-8, Charlotte
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
Share: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
List: http://www.matronics.com/browselist/rv-list
http://www.matronics.com/search
Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
http://www.matronics.com/rv-list
Lists: http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
http://www.matronics.com/
From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Subject: | Primer for fiberglass parts |
If you have an epoxy cowl, use an epoxy primer - i.e. PPG K-36. If you
have a polyester resin cowl, use a polyester primer - i.e. Evercoat
Featherfil or SW Primer #25.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
Can anyone report on the suitability of a couple of Dupont primers, specifically
Dupont products 1020 and 1040, as undercoats for Dupont Centari as a finish
coat ? (1020 is beige, 1040 is a darker grey; I will be going with a yellow finish
coat - probably.)
Promo sheet says put the primer on bare (scuffed ?) aluminum as it has its own
etching component.
I am assuming primer, touch up sanding and filling, then Centari on top of this.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A - gotta paint it soon !
PS - this is not intended to be a must prime - no need to prime question - I'm
just trying to get paint to stick to the outside of the aircraft!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells(at)sympatico.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Dupont Primers |
>> Can anyone report on the suitability of a couple of Dupont primers,
specifically ts for Dupont Centari?
> Promo sheet says put the primer on bare (scuffed ?) aluminum as it has its
own etching component.
> I am assuming primer, touch up sanding and filling, then Centari on top of
this.
Jim: I am using Dupont Imron but these products are developed as "families".
To me bare metal means: after the metal is "clean" you use an acid wash
(Dupont) using a mild scuff pad - followed by a water rinse, then scrub
with a metal conditioner (Dupont) using medium Scotchbrite - followed by a
water rinse. Dry thoroughly. Only then are you ready to shoot your coats
of Imron or Centari. Seems like a lot. The builders in the desert will
yell "not necessary" - the builders in the salty air regions will grumble
"not enough". Up to yopu, Jim. By the way, I chose Imron for its track
record - there have been a few negative comments in the archives about
Centari. You can check it out.
Ernest Kells - RV-9A O235-N2C, Wood Prop
Finish Kit 30% Complete
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Rick Jory" <rickjory(at)msn.com> |
Just noticed on Van's website . . . the 3000th RV has taken flight (give
or take . . . Van's count is 3000).
My congratulations to the 3000 that have gone before me. I hope to add
to this number soon.
Rick Jory RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
There is a new RV-10 update on Van's web site, for those who are interested.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | ACS 2002 engine monitor |
I noted a new link on Van's page to an ACS 2002 engine monitor, a new
unit that I had not heard of before.
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=ei&product=acs-2002
http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
Sam,
Suggested design looks great but I was kinda thinking along the lines of one
of those auto-unfold sunscreens used in cars. Just pull the RV-13 winged
canoe out of its bag and it auto-ejects itself into flying/floating shape,
and away you go? You might need one person on either end to get to folded
back up though???
:{)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)apex.net> |
RV-List
I called TruTrak today to ask a few questions about DigiTrak. I was
thinking that I needed to order one now before closing up the wings. I
said something about hating spending money now for something that I
won't get to use for 3 yrs. They ask me which model RV was I building
and I told them 7A and they said, that is the easiest intallation, and
that it would not be any harder to install it in a closed up wing as it
would during building. They did suggest running the wires for it while
building. So if you guys were thinking about having to order your
autopilot while working on the wings, good news we can wait!
More good news that they gave me is that they plan on making an
announcement in about a week or so about a new added feature, that will
be just what everyone has been wanting. After that I think everyone will
then agree that DigiTrak will be the better autopilot. After talking it
over with them, I feel even more sure that I will be installing one on
my plane, just a little later now :-)
--
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 E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
Subject: | ACS 2002 engine monitor |
It was referenced here on the list some time ago. The
designer/developer/builder flew the BLACK & WHITE predecessor in his RV4 for
some time.
Have been following the development for some time (I am one of probably many
who urged him to make sure it would fit within a standard radio rack) and
plan to use it. I like the fact that it can be "enhanced" over time with
stuff like checklists. And oh, the color is nice.
James
A prototype version was on display at Sun-N-Fun and at OSH.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:02 PM
> To: rv8-list(at)matronics.com; rv8list(at)yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RV-List: ACS 2002 engine monitor
>
>
> I noted a new link on Van's page to an ACS 2002 engine monitor, a new
> unit that I had not heard of before.
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=ei&product
> =acs-2002
> http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Primer for fiberglass parts |
In a message dated 8/30/2002 10:20:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
RonSchreck(at)compuserve.com writes:
> At the risk of starting the next primer war, I have a simple question:
> What sort of primer are folks using on fiberglass parts.
DuPont URO Primer works well.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 565hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Finding web addresses |
In a message dated 8/30/2002 8:17:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jnorman(at)intermapsystems.com writes:
> Having said that, I expect 2 things, 1) there will never be another question
> on this list about what some Web address is, and 2) lots of flame from
> people who actually think AOL is good.
How about option 3) Go to my Yeller Pages and if perchance you find some
critical info that these groovy pages are missing, drop me a line. Every rev
just keeps getting better thanks to your info.
As to AOL being good or not.....not... and I'm on it.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 565hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Primer for fiberglass parts |
just don't uses anything out of a rattle can u will most likely sand it off
later.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | WPAerial(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: Primer for fiberglass parts |
van's rv 7 8 9 used valspare that is what i have used not fying
yet. nexet month
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jaye and Scott Jackson <jayeandscott(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Van's seat belts |
Thanks to all you kind folks who took the time to answer this.
I'm takin' a file to the hangar tomorrow...
Scott in Vancouve-6,3hrs TTAFE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Hine" <joehine(at)nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Van's seat belts
>
> Scott
>
> I had this problem with Vans belts as well. I only had the problem with
the
> front belts that have a crotch belt though, the rear without one and only
> the shoulder belts to latch worked ok.
>
> I had to file the shoulders on the side of the lap belt that slides into
the
> larger buckle. If you hold the release lever up as you slide the other
side
> in you can see where the two come togeather, and it is obvious where you
> have to file. This is important, I had mine come undone once in flight
> before I had them filed enough. No problem now though.
>
> Joe Hine
> C-FYTQ RV4
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jaye and Scott
> Jackson
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Van's seat belts
>
>
>
> Can anyone tell me how to make Van's seat belts stay locked together? My
new
> ones click together OK and resist a little test tug but soon fall undone.
I
> know they get better with use and no amount of different angles or
pressures
> seems to have any effect on whether or not they will lock this time.
> Obviously the rectangular hole in the part that the harness links slide
over
> needs to be filed a little, but , unable to view the assembly when it's
> together, I don't know where to do it.
> Thanks in advance, again..
> Scott in Vancouver
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Dan Reeves <reevesfamily(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | 7A Wing Spar Platenut Question |
I recently completed my 7A Empennage and have received a tremendous amount
of help from reading the list and from searching through the archives.
Thanks for all of the great assistance! I do have a question though, now
that I have started on the wings...
I just completed countersinking all of the holes for the nutplates on my 7A
wing spar flanges and was showing my wife how I would eventually rivet the
nutplates in place. While I was holding one of the K1100-08 countersunk
nutplates on the inside of one of the flanges it occurred to me that since
the flanges are countersunk to eventually accept the dimpled skins and since
the inside face of these flanges are flat, why do the plans call for using
countersunk nutplates (K1100-08) rather than flat K1000-08 nutplates? It
seems to me that the flat nutplates would be more appropriate. Has anyone
used the flat nutplates instead?
Thanks,
Dan Reeves
7A Wing Spar ready for nutplates
Mechanicsburg, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
That's a patented product.
To obtain details on it you will have to write to:
Q C/O James Bond
Section MI-5, Scottland Yard
London, England
Sam,
>
> Suggested design looks great but I was kinda thinking along the
> lines of one
> of those auto-unfold sunscreens used in cars. Just pull the RV-13
> winged
> canoe out of its bag and it auto-ejects itself into flying/floating
> shape,
> and away you go? You might need one person on either end to get to
> folded
> back up though???
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: 7A Wing Spar Platenut Question |
>
>I recently completed my 7A Empennage and have received a tremendous amount
>of help from reading the list and from searching through the archives.
>Thanks for all of the great assistance! I do have a question though, now
>that I have started on the wings...
>
>I just completed countersinking all of the holes for the nutplates on my 7A
>wing spar flanges and was showing my wife how I would eventually rivet the
>nutplates in place. While I was holding one of the K1100-08 countersunk
>nutplates on the inside of one of the flanges it occurred to me that since
>the flanges are countersunk to eventually accept the dimpled skins and since
>the inside face of these flanges are flat, why do the plans call for using
>countersunk nutplates (K1100-08) rather than flat K1000-08 nutplates? It
>seems to me that the flat nutplates would be more appropriate. Has anyone
>used the flat nutplates instead?
>
>Thanks,
>Dan Reeves
Dan,
The dimples for the #8 screws are quite deep, and they may extend
past the inner surface of the flange. So, a flat nutplate could
interfere with the dimples.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | art stavro <art79(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Tail wheel instructor |
Hi guys..I am looking for a tail wheel instructor with lots and lots of
hours preferably but not necesarily with RV time..Said instructor must
weigh 180 lbs or less..Must live somewhere realatively close to the bay
area and must have 6.5 hours of free time some weekend to go fly around
with me in my 150 HP RV4. I am not looking for instruction, just
someone to give my hard earned money to so I can satisfy my insurance
requirements.You can contact me off line at 510 278 0260 or my cell 510
541 4979..Thanks, Art
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 7A Wing Spar Platenut Question |
In a message dated 8/31/2002 5:09:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
reevesfamily(at)comcast.net writes:
> While I was holding one of the K1100-08 countersunk
> nutplates on the inside of one of the flanges it occurred to me that since
> the flanges are countersunk to eventually accept the dimpled skins and
> since
> the inside face of these flanges are flat, why do the plans call for using
> countersunk nutplates (K1100-08) rather than flat K1000-08 nutplates? It
> seems to me that the flat nutplates would be more appropriate. Has anyone
> used the flat nutplates instead?
The dimpled nutplates when combined with the dimpled flange provide for
greater strength in shear, which is what a lot of these attachments to the
spar require. In the same way a riveted dimpled lap joint between two sheets
provides for better shear strength than a simple countersunk riveted lap
joint. The dimples provide the extra shear strength due to their "nesting".
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 565hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Wheeler North <wnorth(at)sdccd.cc.ca.us> |
I didn't see anything in the report about whether the prop had been modified
out of certified length/shape. Other than pre-existing damage, this is one
of the most common cause of prop blade failures. Another common cause is
miss-installation, either not torqued/wired correctly etc. or wrong (not
engineered) combination of prop/engine/airframe.
If your metal prop installation has never been tested via strain/analysis,
then you will be a test pilot for the life of that installation.
If you are using a combination you are unsure of, see if you can find an
aircraft type certificate that lists your combination of engine/prop. And
make sure the match is to the complete engine model and prop model number.
If you can find such a match you can be assured its been pretty well tested
for that airframe. Although being on a different airframe (your RV) can
affect this, at least you have some data to support the appropriateness of
the engine/prop combo.
W
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Matthew Gelber <n48pp(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Help! Distance from ring gear to back of spinner? |
First my plan, and then a question.
(Plane is an 8A with IO-360-A1B6 and hartzell
compact-hub prop, but would proably apply to all
engines)
I'm about to begin my cowl. I don't have a prop yet,
but I do have a plan - make a wooden disk to simulate
the back of the spinner. Once I get it spaced the
correct distance from the front of the engine, I can
use it for a reference for location my cowl.
For spacers I was going to use 6 simple PVC tubes cut
to the proper length. My difficulty is in finding the
proper length to cut them to.
Does anyone know the distance from the rear spinner
bulkhead to the front of the starter ring gear?
Actually, that would be great if I had a proper
spinner but since I'm using a wood disc, the real
measurement I need is from the backmost edge of the
spinner (i.e. on the edge, not in the bulkhead proper)
to the front face of the ring gear (i.e. where the
prop attaches).
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Matthew Gelber
N48PP reserved, finishing kit, restarting after a year
layoff
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "James Lawliss" <ARG1(at)capital.net> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor |
Not trying to be negative about this, Art, but maybe you should list your TD
experience for those instructors?
Particularly since you say you "...are not looking for instruction..."
Just a thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: "art stavro" <art79(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
> --> RV4-List message posted by: art stavro
>
> Hi guys..I am looking for a tail wheel instructor with lots and lots of
> hours preferably but not necesarily with RV time..Said instructor must
> weigh 180 lbs or less..Must live somewhere realatively close to the bay
> area and must have 6.5 hours of free time some weekend to go fly around
> with me in my 150 HP RV4. I am not looking for instruction, just
> someone to give my hard earned money to so I can satisfy my insurance
> requirements.You can contact me off line at 510 278 0260 or my cell 510
> 541 4979..Thanks, Art
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | glenn williams <willig10(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: 8A water leak |
Guys: I have mentioned this several times and will
again for those who might have missed my previous
posts on this subject. DO NOT WASH YOUR AIRPLANES WITH
A WATER HOSE. All who do are going to have corrosion
sooner rather than later Only use a spray bottle with
a damp rag to wash your plane. If anyone doubts what I
am saying just go look at any seam where the skin and
bulkheads meet where water pools up you will see the
beginnings of corrosion there if you have had water
pool there in the past. It pains me to see a brand new
airplane being washed like a car. If anyone needs tips
on how to care for their airplane off list let me
know. Again no water hoses please.
Glenn Williams
A&P
Fort Worth, Texas
--- Gary & Carolyn Zilik wrote:
>
>
> My 6A leaks a little so I put drain holes in the
> belly skin at each bulkhead
> to allow water to drain.
>
> Gary
>
> Bill Marvel wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Hi all:
> >
> > Before I get into looking further for a water leak
> in my 8A I thought
> > I'd question others if they have had the same
> problem.
> >
> > When I wash the airplane or when it is out in the
> rain on a cross
> > country, I find a lot of water accumulation in
> the belly below the rear
> > stick area. By a lot, I mean enough that I have
> to squeeze out a good
> > sized spongeseveral times to remove it. When I
> remove the sponge, I can
> > see more water seeping in from outboard of the two
> center floor ribs.
> >
> > The water is not entering through the canopy,
> cowl/firewall or forward
> > baggage door. This pretty well leaves the tail
> area or wings, and I
> > suspect wings. The reason is that one night in
> Oklahoma I had the
> > airplane in an old WWII hangar that leaked. The
> outboard right wing was
> > wet the next morning but that was the only place
> water got on the
> > plane. The belly was again filled with water.
> The upper wing to
> > fuselage fairings are screwed down tight against
> the wing skin and the
> > rubber channel between that fairing and fuselage
> is a tight fit. I have
> > not yet pulled panels and taken a hose to it but I
> am perplexed at how
> > so much water can get in through what appears to
> be very small openings.
> >
> > Before I launch into an investigation, has anyone
> else run into this?
> >
> > Bill Marvel
> >
>
>
>
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
====
Glenn Williams
8A
A&P
N81GW
http://finance.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Re: Help! Distance from ring gear to back of spinner? |
>
>First my plan, and then a question.
>
>(Plane is an 8A with IO-360-A1B6 and hartzell
>compact-hub prop, but would proably apply to all
>engines)
>
>I'm about to begin my cowl. I don't have a prop yet,
>but I do have a plan - make a wooden disk to simulate
>the back of the spinner. Once I get it spaced the
>correct distance from the front of the engine, I can
>use it for a reference for location my cowl.
>
>For spacers I was going to use 6 simple PVC tubes cut
>to the proper length. My difficulty is in finding the
>proper length to cut them to.
>
>Does anyone know the distance from the rear spinner
>bulkhead to the front of the starter ring gear?
>Actually, that would be great if I had a proper
>spinner but since I'm using a wood disc, the real
>measurement I need is from the backmost edge of the
>spinner (i.e. on the edge, not in the bulkhead proper)
>to the front face of the ring gear (i.e. where the
>prop attaches).
>Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Matthew Gelber
>N48PP reserved, finishing kit, restarting after a year
>layoff
I measured somewhere between 1 5/8 and 1 21/32 on my aircraft, from
the aft most edge of the spinner bulkhead to the front face of the
ring gear. I had to use a steel straight edge to put against the
front face of the ring gear, and I measured from the spinner to the
straight edge, so these measurements are not guaranteed to be
perfect. I measured in several places, and got similar answers
though, so I think they are fairly close.
I've got an IO-360-A1B6 and a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF prop bought through Van's.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | art stavro <art79(at)pacbell.net> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor |
Maby I should clarify, I am looking to fly off mandatory hours for my insurance
to kick in. They demanded an RV4 pilot, CFI with 250 hrs tail wheel time 1000
hours TT. I believe I have talked them into a CFI with lots of tail wheel time.
I have already had tail wheel instruction and check out and am currently
commuting with the airplane but thought it would be nice to have some insurance
seeing as how I have paid for it already. Thanks again, Art
James Lawliss wrote:
> --> RV4-List message posted by: "James Lawliss"
>
> Not trying to be negative about this, Art, but maybe you should list your TD
> experience for those instructors?
> Particularly since you say you "...are not looking for instruction..."
> Just a thought.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "art stavro" <art79(at)pacbell.net>
> To:
> Subject: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
>
> > --> RV4-List message posted by: art stavro
> >
> > Hi guys..I am looking for a tail wheel instructor with lots and lots of
> > hours preferably but not necesarily with RV time..Said instructor must
> > weigh 180 lbs or less..Must live somewhere realatively close to the bay
> > area and must have 6.5 hours of free time some weekend to go fly around
> > with me in my 150 HP RV4. I am not looking for instruction, just
> > someone to give my hard earned money to so I can satisfy my insurance
> > requirements.You can contact me off line at 510 278 0260 or my cell 510
> > 541 4979..Thanks, Art
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)bowenaero.com> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor |
Related, but different:
What are the requirements under the VanGuard program to have first
flight coverage?
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of art stavro
> Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 5:30 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
>
>
> Maby I should clarify, I am looking to fly off mandatory
> hours for my insurance to kick in. They demanded an RV4
> pilot, CFI with 250 hrs tail wheel time 1000 hours TT. I
> believe I have talked them into a CFI with lots of tail wheel
> time. I have already had tail wheel instruction and check out
> and am currently commuting with the airplane but thought it
> would be nice to have some insurance seeing as how I have
> paid for it already. Thanks again, Art
>
> James Lawliss wrote:
>
> > --> RV4-List message posted by: "James Lawliss"
> >
> > Not trying to be negative about this, Art, but maybe you
> should list
> > your TD experience for those instructors? Particularly
> since you say
> > you "...are not looking for instruction..." Just a thought.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "art stavro" <art79(at)pacbell.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
> >
> > > --> RV4-List message posted by: art stavro
> > >
> > > Hi guys..I am looking for a tail wheel instructor with lots and
> > > lots of hours preferably but not necesarily with RV time..Said
> > > instructor must weigh 180 lbs or less..Must live somewhere
> > > realatively close to the bay area and must have 6.5 hours of free
> > > time some weekend to go fly around with me in my 150 HP RV4. I am
> > > not looking for instruction, just someone to give my hard earned
> > > money to so I can satisfy my insurance requirements.You
> can contact
> > > me off line at 510 278 0260 or my cell 510 541 4979..Thanks, Art
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
Subject: | Safety and operating costs |
Until the time I built my first RV and started flying it in 1992 I had
no involvement with the experimental group. Since then I have tried to
keep as well informed as possible mainly for safety reasons. I have
subscribed to the RVator since 1988 and have been on the RV-list for a
number of years.
When I first started flying in 1938, on my first flight I was not
disappointed, it was and still is everything I had imagined it would be,
but coming from a farm and ranch background were one is involved in the
handling and mechanics of servicing and repairing of all types of
equipment I realized that an aircraft was going to require some very
special attention. The importance of this has stayed with me ever since.
It has been a steady learning process, but the remarkable thing about it
is, the more you know about it the more you realize that with proper
training and experience and a well maintained aircraft the chances of
having a mishap are nearly zero.
The key for me has been staying a bit on the cautious side, not pushing
the limits of my ability, be it weather, runway conditions, the aircraft
or what ever. Fight against being over confident and the tendency to
get careless and a show-off as your pilot in command time builds. ( Hard
to do when flying a P51) The ability to fly instruments is the icing on
the cake and makes you a far safer pilot.
After flying the RV for the past ten years and just finishing a 6A and
being totally involved in the RV world since 1988 I would like to pass
on some of my thoughts to the low time RV builders to safely transition
into these fine aircraft.
This post is triggered by the Tampa accident and the post by Jim Norman,
Jim has to be given full marks for this knowing how hard it must have
been for him. Jim's post has caused the best discussion on safety since
I have been on the list.
Build your RV to the drawings using standard aircraft practices and
inlist the help and advice of experienced people.
Know how to select a safe engine or get professional advice.
Everything firewall forward done to certified standards or better.
After final inspection is complete have a AME with at least ten years of
experience go over it again.
First flight should be done by experienced pilot with a minimum of 100
hours on same type of RV.Ideally someone who has a instructors rateing
or has held one in the past and is willing to fly with the builder until
he is satisfied that the builder is ready to fly on his own.
All snags to be cleared before next flight or as many flights as it
takes to get it done.
An ideal scenario would be when snags are cleared and say five to ten
hours have been flown off the builder should start his or her transition
with the qualified pilot from the right seat in the case of the side by
side, then when comfortable switch to the left side and let the check
pilot make the decision when to turn the builder loose.
While the RV's are a straight forward aircraft to fly and have no bad
habits, it is a big jump from a 150 or a172 kind of like going from a
golf cart to Mustang, you have to learn to stay ahead of a much higher
performing aircraft. I have found little difference in the flight
characteristics of the various RV's that are properly built and rigged.
The numbers are much different from say at 172.
Thought it might be of interest to pass on some numbers using my RV 6 as
an example. All the numbers are indicated air speeds in miles per hour
and taken between 5 and 6000 feet.
My RV 6 weighs 1120 lbs. has a 0360 fuel injected engine with a Hartzell
constant speed prop and a full gyro panel, flux gate compass nav- com,
com, transponder and GPS. It flies hands off at 65% with no aileron or
rudder trim tabs and the elevator trim tab is in neutral at 65% cruise.
At full gross at standard temperature the initial rate of climb at 120
mph indicated is 1200 fpm, at 75% it is 1000 fpm. At the end of a climb
to 6000 the head temps are 400 and the oil is at 180. Indicated speeds
are as follows stalls at idle power at 6000 are, clean 65 mph, half flap
60 mph with a noticeable left wing drop at the break, full flap 58 mph
with a sharp left wing drop at the break.
With a throttle setting of 10" and maintaining 100 mph the vertical
fpm, half flap 10" and 100 vertical speed is -800 fpm. full flap 10"
With throttle at 10" and maintaining 90 mph and half flap vertical is-
fpm, 90 and idle and full flap is 1300 fpm.
Idle RPM at 90 is around 2200-2300 with a governor setting of 2400 rpm
which would indicate that the prop is in full flat pitch.
To maintain level flight and 100 mph in takes about 14 " manifold
pressure.
Cruising at 6000 at standard temperature (was 98 F here the other day)
indicated airspeed at 65% was between 170 & 180 (some light thermal
activity) and the GPS was showing 185 and 194 on a reciprocal heading.
Flying my aircraft at 85 in the circuit would only give a 20 mile
spread, just not enough of a safety factor for someone just getting to
know his aircraft.
Eustace Bowhay -Blind Bay B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | aileron roll shudder |
I have just started doing aileron rolls in my -6. Rolling to the left ( not
full deflection ) is great
then i tried one to the right full deflection and i got a shudder thru the
stick( well at least i think it was thru the stick)
then tryed one left full deflection and got the same thing (maybe not quite
as bad)
seems to be ok rolling with less aileron
Has anyone else experienced this ?
i have the ailerons set at or close to max throw could the aileron be
stalling or something like that??
Dave Tennant
VH-DJT RV-6 australia
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Pardue" <n5lp(at)carlsbad.net> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
>
>
> I have just started doing aileron rolls in my -6. Rolling to the left (
not
> full deflection ) is great
> then i tried one to the right full deflection and i got a shudder thru the
> stick( well at least i think it was thru the stick)
> then tryed one left full deflection and got the same thing (maybe not
quite
> as bad)
> seems to be ok rolling with less aileron
>
> Has anyone else experienced this ?
>
Yes. All RV's do this. Van's has investigated mods but has not released
any. The solution is to use less aileron. Less is plenty.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
Seem to recall that Van did some testing for this some time ago and there
was an article in the RVator about adding a strip on the leading edge of the
ailerons that would eliminate most of this. Seems like it is caused by the
leading edge of the aileron protruding into the slipstream on the bottom of
the wing causing separation of the airflow over the bottom of the aileron.
Not really a problem if you are not too agressive with the ailerons.
Pat Hatch
RV-4, N17PH, 700 hrs
O-320, Hartzell C/S
RV-6, N44PH, 30 hrs
O-360, Hartzell C/S
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ & LM Tennant" <dltenno(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: aileron roll shudder
>
>
> I have just started doing aileron rolls in my -6. Rolling to the left (
not
> full deflection ) is great
> then i tried one to the right full deflection and i got a shudder thru the
> stick( well at least i think it was thru the stick)
> then tryed one left full deflection and got the same thing (maybe not
quite
> as bad)
> seems to be ok rolling with less aileron
>
> Has anyone else experienced this ?
>
> i have the ailerons set at or close to max throw could the aileron be
> stalling or something like that??
>
> Dave Tennant
> VH-DJT RV-6 australia
>
>
> MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
> http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Subject: | Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor |
I would use the member resources of the EAA and NAFI. Find the phone number
in one of the EAA magazines and ask for Jan Streblow who can look for CFI's
that have a "transition waiver" for certain experimental aircraft and Sean
Elliott of NAFI who might have a data base of experienced CFIs. Hopefully
Sean has CFIs listed by Tailwheel endorsements. Why do I say that? Because
unless Jan has a new applicant, there is only one RV-4 pilot in Tennessee
with the "transition training" waiver in all the data as of the beginning of
August.
Cy Galley
Editor- EAA Safety Programs
----- Original Message -----
From: "art stavro" <art79(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: RV-List: Re: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
>
> Maby I should clarify, I am looking to fly off mandatory hours for my
insurance
> to kick in. They demanded an RV4 pilot, CFI with 250 hrs tail wheel time
1000
> hours TT. I believe I have talked them into a CFI with lots of tail wheel
time.
> I have already had tail wheel instruction and check out and am currently
> commuting with the airplane but thought it would be nice to have some
insurance
> seeing as how I have paid for it already. Thanks again, Art
>
> James Lawliss wrote:
>
> > --> RV4-List message posted by: "James Lawliss"
> >
> > Not trying to be negative about this, Art, but maybe you should list
your TD
> > experience for those instructors?
> > Particularly since you say you "...are not looking for instruction..."
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "art stavro" <art79(at)pacbell.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: RV4-List: Tail wheel instructor
> >
> > > --> RV4-List message posted by: art stavro
> > >
> > > Hi guys..I am looking for a tail wheel instructor with lots and lots
of
> > > hours preferably but not necesarily with RV time..Said instructor must
> > > weigh 180 lbs or less..Must live somewhere realatively close to the
bay
> > > area and must have 6.5 hours of free time some weekend to go fly
around
> > > with me in my 150 HP RV4. I am not looking for instruction, just
> > > someone to give my hard earned money to so I can satisfy my insurance
> > > requirements.You can contact me off line at 510 278 0260 or my cell
510
> > > 541 4979..Thanks, Art
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
Larry Pardue wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have just started doing aileron rolls in my -6. Rolling to the left (
> not
> > full deflection ) is great
> > then i tried one to the right full deflection and i got a shudder thru the
> > stick( well at least i think it was thru the stick)
> > then tryed one left full deflection and got the same thing (maybe not
> quite
> > as bad)
> > seems to be ok rolling with less aileron
> >
> > Has anyone else experienced this ?
> >
>
> Yes. All RV's do this. Van's has investigated mods but has not released
> any. The solution is to use less aileron. Less is plenty.
>
> Larry Pardue
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
Or more entry speed, if you aren't already at cruise speed.
Just so you will know what's happening, Van's folks told me
that that the phenomenon is aileron stall. (It's NOT
*snatch* as I at first thought,which is a serious thing.)
Charlie
RV-4 (sold)
________________________________________________________________________________
My analog EGT gage waves around such that it is very hard to know where peak
is.
It is a westach.
Am thinking about a digital EGT. The info on the Sigtronics EGT-101
indicates the ability to simply use the existing probe.
T he aerospace logic advertising recently received looks pretty good; do any
of you have experience/recommendations on either of these?
Thanks.
Jimmy Hill
8A
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | tom sargent <sarg314(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Altimeter quality vs cost |
I started looking at altimeter prices a few days ago. Apparently
the imports are around $200 or less. The U.S. made United and Aerosonic
brands are in the $350 - $500 range - about double the cost of the
foreign units.
Are the cheaper foreign-made units reliable?
The United instruments are always the most expensive. Are they
worth it?
--
Tom Sargent.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)attbi.com> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
> Not really a problem if you are not too agressive with the ailerons.
Doesn't really seem to be a problem even if you are agressive. Yes you get
the shudder but it still makes it around okay. Just guessing here but its
probably either that the aileron is only partly stalling or the other
aileron doesn't stall. Never heard of anyone having more of a problem than
just the "shudder", though if anyone has I'm sure we'll hear from them!
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~400 hrs)
Portland, OR
www.vanshomewing.org
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
>
>
> > Not really a problem if you are not too agressive with the ailerons.
>
>Doesn't really seem to be a problem even if you are agressive. Yes you get
>the shudder but it still makes it around okay. Just guessing here but its
>probably either that the aileron is only partly stalling or the other
>aileron doesn't stall. Never heard of anyone having more of a problem than
>just the "shudder", though if anyone has I'm sure we'll hear from them!
>
>Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~400 hrs)
>Portland, OR
>www.vanshomewing.org
>
This brings to mind a comment Scott McDaniels made when I posted about this
a while back. With the ailerons hard over (to the stops), one must be
cautious about airspeed. Not only does maneuvering speed limitations for
full control surface input apply to the elevator, but to the ailerons as
well. That's something I hadn't thought about as I was merrily flying along
at 165mph indicated then firmly throwing the ailerons out into the wind
expecting the fastest roll rates. Just doesn't work out that way. Not only
does the buffeting, semi-stalled aileron impart a ton of drag on the
airframe, but it doesn't roll the airplane any faster than a lesser (read
MORE EFFICIENT) amount of input. Find the point where the buffet is felt in
the stick, then back off a bit and note the roll rate. I now use much less
stick throw, get the same roll rate, and scrub off less speed due to reduced
drag penalty.
As Larry P said, less is more in this case!
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
298 hrs.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
Subject: | Re: aileron roll shudder |
This is truly odd. I have a left-rotating (opposite Lycomings) prop on my
RV-3, yet experience the same phenomena on right rolls. So if it's not prop
wash, then what is it?
Finn
RV-3 Mazda 13B rotary powered.
Randall Henderson wrote:
>
> > Not really a problem if you are not too agressive with the ailerons.
>
> Doesn't really seem to be a problem even if you are agressive. Yes you get
> the shudder but it still makes it around okay. Just guessing here but its
> probably either that the aileron is only partly stalling or the other
> aileron doesn't stall. Never heard of anyone having more of a problem than
> just the "shudder", though if anyone has I'm sure we'll hear from them!
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~400 hrs)
> Portland, OR
> www.vanshomewing.org
-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
I may be the suspicious type, but to me it apears awfully coincidental
that Vans counting of the 3000th complete aircraft was timed perfectly to
be celebrated during Vans homecoming weekend.
Doesn't matter I guess, just a thought. Tom,
Ohio RV-9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Vanremog(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 9/1/2002 8:40:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tlutgring(at)juno.com writes:
> I may be the suspicious type, but to me it appears awfully coincidental
> that Vans counting of the 3000th complete aircraft was timed perfectly to
> be celebrated during Vans homecoming weekend.
Some people see conspiracies everywhere and then others are just not paying
attention ;
). The 3000th flying RV was confirmed in the July 2002 Sport
Aviation on pg 31. No coinkydink at all.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 565hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
I would guess that was confirmed with, Vans maybe?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
I guess that was confirmed with, Vans maybe?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Lutgring <tlutgring(at)juno.com> |
I would guess that was confirmed with, Vans maybe?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
Subject: | Elevator attachment |
I'm just about to finish the left elevator. The plans then call for trial
fitting the elevators to the horz stab and drilling the WD-605's for
attachment to the VA-146. Is it best to do this now or wait until further in
the construction?
Thanks.
Ken
(8 empennage)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Subject: | Getting Bounced From Matronics Lists... |
Dear Listers,
I have two programs I run regularly to purge the various Matronics email
lists of bad email addresses. I referred to these as my Email Weasels and
there is a daily version that is run automatically every night at midnight
and there is a and a monthly version that I run by hand at roughly 30-day
intervals.
The Daily Weasel grinds through the 8 to 10mb of bounced email that is
generated each day looking for obvious things like "user unknown", "host
unknown", and other things that usually mean the user's email address
doesn't exist any longer. The Daily Weasel has been purging 5 to 10 email
addresses each night.
The Monthly Weasel gets more serious about the task and sends a single
message to each list member with specially generated headers and content
information. Any bounces or replies to these messages are considered
errors and the email address is eligible for purging. This program is
particularly useful for "weaseling out" email addresses that are actually
being forwarded to by another email address that is subscribed to a List
and otherwise would not be identifiable. The Monthly Weasel purges roughly
100 nonexistent email addresses each month when it is run.
To check to see if your address has been removed by either of the Email
Weasel programs, you can check the Weasel Status Web Page at the following URL:
http://www.matronics.com/unsubscribed
If you find your email address on the Weasel List, but are certain that
everything is working fine now, simply go the Matronics Subscription page
and resubscribe your address. No harm, no foul. The subscription URL is:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
That all having been said, I've noticed that the Daily Weasel may have been
getting a little too aggressive in purging addresses recently and a number
of people have written asking if and why they'd been dropped from the List.
A couple of months ago I rewrote the Daily Weasel program to include a
wider variety of errors and more aggressively purge. One of the new purge
criteria that I added seems to occur a fair amount of the time (Connection
Deferred) even though the address is really okay.
As of today, I've removed the Connection Deferred criteria from the Daily
Weasel Rule set and this should decrease the number of "false positives"
and unnecessary unsubscribed.
Again, if you get unsubscribed by either of the Email Weasel utilities,
simply go to the subscription page and resubscribe:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Admin.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
Subject: | Safety and operating cost |
As it is impossible to cover in detail some of the subjects on the list
without the post getting far to long I have picked a couple of items
from yesterday,s post that I think deserve a bit more discussion and
will post them in two separate posts.
On the subject of airspeed, there is going to be some variation from one
installation to another but usually will not be great. This has to be
checked on the first flight in order to establish a reference for speeds
in the circuit and on final. Stalling the aircraft in level flight at
idle clean will give us a reference to work with, for me it doesn't
really matter it is reading a bit slow or fast, the important part we
now know how much speed to add to be safe while maneuvering at lower
speeds.
One can also note the indicated speed at cruise and this will give a
idea of how accurate the instrument is through its full range.
Kind of like the EGT, it not as important to know what the exhaust gas
temperatures are is it to know were peak is and lean accordingly.
Euatace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "baremetl" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com> |
Subject: | Annealing rivets |
Some years ago an article was published (probably Sport Aviation or
Kitplanes) that described a process to anneal aluminum rivets. A subsequent
rebuttal/commentary appeared in the RVator newsletter. Does anyone know in
what issues I might find these?
Thanks in advance.
Ivan Haecker RV-4 825 hrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Sally and George" <aeronut58(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: RV8-List: Elevator attachment |
Ken:
You may do it now, but you may wait if you want to. It can be done any time
prior to mounting the HS on the fuselage (after most of the fuselage is
completed. It is not difficult to do, but it is important that the holes be
accurately located and not oversized.
George
N888GK
75 hours
>From: "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com>
>Reply-To: rv8-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RV8-List: Elevator attachment
>Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:28:33 -0600
>
>--> RV8-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
>
>I'm just about to finish the left elevator. The plans then call for trial
>fitting the elevators to the horz stab and drilling the WD-605's for
>attachment to the VA-146. Is it best to do this now or wait until further
>in
>the construction?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Ken
>(8 empennage)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)apex.net> |
RV-List
Subject: | wrong rivets :-( |
Ok guy's tell me what you think. I riveted my top main skins on and when
I got to the area inboard where the doubler plate is, I thought the
rivet size should have changed, I checked the print and accidently
looked at the bottom drawing instead of the top drawing and put 3.5
rivets in instead of the 4.0. Should I leave them they look great, or
drill them out and put 4.0 in? I think by the time I drilled them out
and replace them I might not be gaining anything. It is just the rivets
on the doubler area, that we are talking about.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Working on the wings :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
Subject: | wrong rivets :-( |
Drilling out rivets is not too big of a deal. Your decision should be based
on if you got an adequate shop head or not. In this area I don't see how a
3.5 rivet would even be close.
Side note - for the 3/32" rivet call out on Van's prints I found the
specified rivets to be always a half to a full size short. I quickly got
use to measuring for the right size rivet vice sticking to the plans. The
1/8" rivets where usually per Van's drawings, but some where again a size
too short.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (flying)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bobby Hester
Subject: RV-List: wrong rivets :-(
Ok guy's tell me what you think. I riveted my top main skins on and when
I got to the area inboard where the doubler plate is, I thought the
rivet size should have changed, I checked the print and accidently
looked at the bottom drawing instead of the top drawing and put 3.5
rivets in instead of the 4.0. Should I leave them they look great, or
drill them out and put 4.0 in? I think by the time I drilled them out
and replace them I might not be gaining anything. It is just the rivets
on the doubler area, that we are talking about.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Working on the wings :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ross A. Scroggs" <rscroggs(at)attbi.com> |
Subject: | Re: Annealing rivets |
Ivan,
Do a search on the RVList database and look for "Annealing Rivets". It
refers to an
April, 1993 RVator article on this subject.
Ross Scroggs
Conyers, Ga.
RV4 #3911 Wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "baremetl" <baremetl(at)gvtc.com>
Subject: RV-List: Annealing rivets
>
> Some years ago an article was published (probably Sport Aviation or
> Kitplanes) that described a process to anneal aluminum rivets. A
subsequent
> rebuttal/commentary appeared in the RVator newsletter. Does anyone know in
> what issues I might find these?
> Thanks in advance.
> Ivan Haecker RV-4 825 hrs.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Harvey Sigmon <rv6hes(at)comcast.net> |
Subject: | Re: wrong rivets :-( |
Bob: The answer is are you happy with the way the rivet set, if it is not
flatter than 1/2 rivet diameter they should be fine. Pay a lot of attention
to what the plans say to use, it is better to make your own mind up on what
the final length to use. There is very little difference in -3.5 and -4.0.
My view only after two RVs.
Harvey Sigmon RV-6A N602RV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bobby Hester" <bhester(at)apex.net>
Subject: RV-List: wrong rivets :-(
>
> Ok guy's tell me what you think. I riveted my top main skins on and when
> I got to the area inboard where the doubler plate is, I thought the
> rivet size should have changed, I checked the print and accidently
> looked at the bottom drawing instead of the top drawing and put 3.5
> rivets in instead of the 4.0. Should I leave them they look great, or
> drill them out and put 4.0 in? I think by the time I drilled them out
> and replace them I might not be gaining anything. It is just the rivets
> on the doubler area, that we are talking about.
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Working on the wings :-)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
Subject: | wrong rivets :-( |
Hi Bobby,
Don't worry, this won't be the last time this happens to you! I'd hesitate
to give you a sure answer, but I'll give you my thoughts.
If the rivet "shop heads" or bucktails are within limits both diameter and
height, then of course leave them. If the shop heads are very close to
being OK, I'd probably leave them, however, if you don't have much of a
bucktail, then certainly drill them out.
That being said, if you already haven't found out, each time you drill out a
rivet to "make it better", you will usually end up with something worse.
Unless the rivets are completely beyond limits, I'd be inclined to leave
them.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
FINAL, Final assembly, getting ready for FAA inspection.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bobby Hester
Subject: RV-List: wrong rivets :-(
Ok guy's tell me what you think. I riveted my top main skins on and when
I got to the area inboard where the doubler plate is, I thought the
rivet size should have changed, I checked the print and accidently
looked at the bottom drawing instead of the top drawing and put 3.5
rivets in instead of the 4.0. Should I leave them they look great, or
drill them out and put 4.0 in? I think by the time I drilled them out
and replace them I might not be gaining anything. It is just the rivets
on the doubler area, that we are talking about.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Working on the wings :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Kitz" <JKITZ1(at)columbus.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: wrong rivets :-( |
>
> Side note - for the 3/32" rivet call out on Van's prints I found the
> specified rivets to be always a half to a full size short. I quickly got
> use to measuring for the right size rivet vice sticking to the plans. The
> 1/8" rivets where usually per Van's drawings, but some where again a size
> too short.
>
When I got my -4 kit, serial # 164, I received from Van's what must be 2000
3/32" rivits in the 3.0 length. I still have them all. I also found Van's
plans to be short by at least a half and many times a full size.
John Kitz
N721JK
Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Amit Dagan" <amitdagan(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Wiring for rudder lights (Tail dragger). |
In the Plans, Van's gives you recommended places for drilling holes for
running electrical wires through the aft fuse bulkheads.
This is true untill you get to the aft two (F-711 and F-712 in the -7).
So I called Van's to ask where would be an acceptable place for a
snap-bushing through those bulkheads, since I am using the rudder
light/strobe combo.
The answer I got from [name withheld] was "Oh, anywhere is fine", and when I
pushed for something more specific, he added that "As long as you don't
drill through the vertical stabilizer spar, I'll be alright.
Back to the garage, I drilled through the F-711 at about the middle, but
found that there is no way I can drill a hole for the 1/2" snap-bushing
through F-712 and not hit the VS spar.
hmm....
Today I went to Van's Homecoming, and checked each and every tail dragger
that had a rudder light fixture.
This is what I found:
After the wires exit the rudder bottom fairing at the rudder/VS space,
people have drilled a hole for a snap bushing or a conduit in 4 different
places:
1. Right through the lower rudder hinge bracket bottom half (bottom VS-410
PP).
2. Between the bottom and tho top brackets of the lower rudder hinge, beside
the hinge.
3. Right through the top bracket of the lower hinge.
or-
4. Run the wires about half way up the rudder, secured with tie-wraps, and
penetrate the VS above the HS line.
(!)
If that wasn't enough, I checked the factory RV-7, and sure enough, they
chose option #1 above.
I hope this info is usefull, and I for one will, in the future, take the
advice/help given by that Van's phone "helper" with a grain of salt.
Amit.
7, fuse.
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay(at)jetstream.net> |
Subject: | Safety and operating costs |
In my post yesterday " An ideal scenario would be when" this was based
on the record of the RV's. We now have over 3000 of them flying and if
we selected a conservative number say 200 hours flown on each one this
would mean we have accumulated 600,000 hours of flight time on these
airframes and I suspect it is closer to 1,000,000 hours. In reality it
is no longer an Experimental aircraft.
If it has been built to the drawings and is equipped with a Lycoming
engine of proven quality, and passed the inspection process as I
suggested, the first five to ten hours will easily clear any snags and
by checking the filter or screen for any sign of metal at the five hour
interval , the reliability of the engine will also be established within
this time frame.
I realize that the rules say no passengers until X number of hours have
been flown off. But wouldn't it make sense to count the builder and
check pilot (or call him what you may) as crew, this would allow the
builder to get properly checked out during the fly off period. The
contribution to safety would be enormous.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | wrong rivets :-( |
Leave them. There was a study done (by Alcoa?) of the strength of
mis-set/formed rivets (see post from last week or so) that showed
there's a very wide range that yields strength within 95% of the best
set. So if it looks good, leave it.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
>
> Ok guy's tell me what you think. I riveted my top main skins
> on and when I got to the area inboard where the doubler plate
> is, I thought the rivet size should have changed, I checked
> the print and accidently looked at the bottom drawing instead
> of the top drawing and put 3.5 rivets in instead of the 4.0.
> Should I leave them they look great, or drill them out and
> put 4.0 in? I think by the time I drilled them out and
> replace them I might not be gaining anything. It is just the
> rivets on the doubler area, that we are talking about.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
Subject: | Re: How to fly the wing |
Dick,
There is chart showing survivability Vs angle of impact and speed posted
somewhere (can't remember where). The bottom line appears to be that
gaining a lower landing speed and buying a higher vertical rate of descent
does not buy you much (if anything). The charts show that hitting the
ground at a shallower angle does more for you than any other parameter in
surviving the crash. The biggest thing is the de-acceleration -can your
body stand it and can the airframe keep from collapsing into the cockpit. .
Hitting it in a 90 deg nose down attitude at 50 mph looks to be much, much
worst that hitting at a 10 deg angle doing 80 mph. Obviously there is a
trade off as hitting a field at 150mph at a 10 deg angle is not the way to
go either.
My recent 12 mile engine-out glide indicates that knowing your best glide
speed (mine was 87mph IAS) helps with a minimum rate of descent (mine was
750fpm with the prop stopped). I came over the fence with around 100 mph
but fortunately had a 4000ft runway to put her down on (did not need
anywhere near all of that - but it was nice to have). I would be very leery
of flirting with marginal airspeed as I think it will greatly increase your
rate of descent and also pose the risk you mention to flying too close to
the edge of the stall. At too slow an airspeed, even if you do not stall,
the rate of sink can get pretty high and without the energy to flare and
break you descent - the end result may be worst than need be. Just my 0.02
worth.
Ed Anderson
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: 7A Wing Spar Platenut Question |
Dan:
I built an 8A, not a 7A, but for what it's worth, I found MANY areas in the
plans with mistakes like you may have found. I tried to advise Van's of all of
them to help the company in updating their documents in the future.
My suggestions to you regarding this:
1. Be alert for errors. They exist.
2. When you encounter one, think through the entire big picture to see if it
really is an error in the plans or just a misunderstanding on your part. I ran
into that also. This method of thinking, by the way, is a great education.
3. If you still think the plans are wrong, send an email into Vans to request
a
clarification. In my experience, they always answered the next day. This will
do two things: clarify your concern and give them a heads up on something they
should plan on fixing in the future.
Bill Marvel
Dan Reeves wrote:
>
> I recently completed my 7A Empennage and have received a tremendous amount
> of help from reading the list and from searching through the archives.
> Thanks for all of the great assistance! I do have a question though, now
> that I have started on the wings...
>
> I just completed countersinking all of the holes for the nutplates on my 7A
> wing spar flanges and was showing my wife how I would eventually rivet the
> nutplates in place. While I was holding one of the K1100-08 countersunk
> nutplates on the inside of one of the flanges it occurred to me that since
> the flanges are countersunk to eventually accept the dimpled skins and since
> the inside face of these flanges are flat, why do the plans call for using
> countersunk nutplates (K1100-08) rather than flat K1000-08 nutplates? It
> seems to me that the flat nutplates would be more appropriate. Has anyone
> used the flat nutplates instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan Reeves
> 7A Wing Spar ready for nutplates
> Mechanicsburg, PA
>
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832 7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JGSinger(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: RV6-List: Getting Bounced From Matronics Lists... |
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
Hi all:
A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
group. At the time I was not
subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
problem, but
when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
results interesting.........
The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
mostly with civil
engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
done. What do you think would hold best?
That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
.032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
going strong.
Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
compared to properly driven rivets.
4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
real faith in it.
5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
joint make of grossly under driven ones.
6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
under driven AN 426 joint.
7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
rivets.
AN 426 AD 3 Table
Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
Slight under 1775 Same
Correct 2025 Same
Slight over 1975 Same
Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
AN 470 AD 3 Table
Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
rivet line
Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
from this. I certainly did.
Bill Marvel
--
Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
7617
P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Will You Find True Love?
Will You Meet the One?
Free Love Reading by phone!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | ACS 2002 engine monitor |
These are made by Rob Hickman of the HomeWing group. He has just shipped
the first two out to the field. They are exceptional units that have a
serial port for future upgrades. They are a true color screen and have
everything you will need for systems monitoring.
Mike Robertson
RV-8A, 6A, and 9A
>From: "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: RV-List: ACS 2002 engine monitor
>Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:30:50 -0400
>
>
>It was referenced here on the list some time ago. The
>designer/developer/builder flew the BLACK & WHITE predecessor in his RV4
>for
>some time.
>
>Have been following the development for some time (I am one of probably
>many
>who urged him to make sure it would fit within a standard radio rack) and
>plan to use it. I like the fact that it can be "enhanced" over time with
>stuff like checklists. And oh, the color is nice.
>
>James
>
>
>A prototype version was on display at Sun-N-Fun and at OSH.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Horton
> > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:02 PM
> > To: rv8-list(at)matronics.com; rv8list(at)yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: RV-List: ACS 2002 engine monitor
> >
> >
> >
> > I noted a new link on Van's page to an ACS 2002 engine monitor, a new
> > unit that I had not heard of before.
> >
> > http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=ei&product
> > =acs-2002
> > http://www.advanced-control-systems.com/
> > --
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
Subject: | Left elevator tabs |
As a follow up to my left elevator being almost finished, the bending of the
tabs for the trim tab opening didn't turn out so well. From reading other
posts it's no big deal to cut off these tabs and insert a rib. The question
is what's the best way to do this? Specifically, which way should the rib be
positioned and how many rivets on each side? Unfortunately I didn't make
this decision until the left elevator was riveted so that will add a level
of difficulty.
Thanks.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "david(at)hom.net" <david(at)hom.net> |
Subject: | RV-7 Empennage jig |
I have purchased the RV-7 preview plans and as I have looked over them I
have found myself a bit confused about the jig (it's bad to be confused
before you order the kit :) ). On page 7-1 of the preview plans under the
"Getting Ready" section it says to modify the vertical stabilizer jig into
a wing assembly stand by adding arms and supports. I have looked through
the empennage section several times and have yet to see where it tells to
build this vertical stabilizer jig? Can someone please tell me the page
number that tells when and how to build this jig?
Thanks,
-David Taylor
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson(at)mcleodusa.net> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
good test, thanks for sharing this with us....
Phil RV6 in a few more months..... no need to hurry now...
Bill Marvel wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
> A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
> group. At the time I was not
> subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
> testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
> think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
> arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
> get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
>
> Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
> year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
> critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
> building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
> the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
> which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
> problem, but
> when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
> rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
> rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
> damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
> doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
> issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
>
> What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
> two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
> These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
> two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
> total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
> and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
> pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
> done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
> the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
> lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
> positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
>
> Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
> think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
> do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
> up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
> 1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
> suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
> inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
> clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
> sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
> 1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
> weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
> sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
> may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
>
> Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
> moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
> and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
> grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
> the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
> over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
> were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
> did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
> into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
> really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
> driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
> joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
> see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
> results interesting.........
>
> The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
> riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
> done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
> mostly with civil
> engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
> and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
> indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
> cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
> in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
> nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
> happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
> indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
> state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
> how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
> the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
> undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
> the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
> true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
> done. What do you think would hold best?
>
> That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
> pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
> in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
> was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
> .032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
> load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
> going strong.
>
> Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
>
> 1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
> much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
> failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
> occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
> initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
> catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
> riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
>
> 2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
> observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
>
> 3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
> results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
> compared to properly driven rivets.
>
> 4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
> actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
> been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
> real faith in it.
>
> 5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
> joint make of grossly under driven ones.
>
> 6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
> under driven AN 426 joint.
>
> 7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
>
> To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
> that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
> in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
> rivets.
>
> AN 426 AD 3 Table
>
> Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
>
> Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
> Slight under 1775 Same
> Correct 2025 Same
> Slight over 1975 Same
> Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
>
> AN 470 AD 3 Table
>
> Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
> Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
> Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
> Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
> Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
> rivet line
>
> Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
> thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
> occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
> is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
> these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
> another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
> probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
> underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
> from this. I certainly did.
>
> Bill Marvel
>
> --
> Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
> 7617
> P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
> San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
> One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Arthur and Christine" <act1(at)reap.org.nz> |
Subject: | ZK-VBC Aussie accident report |
REAP-MailScanner: Found to be clean
Just a note that Brian Knight and ZK-VBC feature in the, second issue,
2000 RVator, page 15.
Brian did a flight around the islands of the South West Pacific from New
Zealand.
The RV-6A was equipped with a o-320-D1A and a Hartzell propeller.
do not achive
Arthur Whitehead
RV-8 ZK-KCA finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Doug Gray <douggray(at)ihug.com.au> |
Subject: | Re: ZK-VBC Aussie accident report |
At last some facts...
I put a request to the ATSB for just this information, so far just a stony
silence.
Hartzell need to have a good long think about this accident.
Thanks,
Doug Gray
Arthur and Christine wrote:
>
> Just a note that Brian Knight and ZK-VBC feature in the, second issue,
> 2000 RVator, page 15.
>
> Brian did a flight around the islands of the South West Pacific from New
> Zealand.
>
> The RV-6A was equipped with a o-320-D1A and a Hartzell propeller.
>
> do not achive
>
> Arthur Whitehead
> RV-8 ZK-KCA finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
Bill, I also understand the countersunk structural pop rivets now available
from different sources are much stronger than we thought.
Although super expensive compared to driven rivets they are now
obtaining strength numbers at about 91 % according to an article I saw in a
trade magazine at the local FBO. I guess having to use a few here and there
should not be a large concern.
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Marvel" <bmarvel(at)cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results
>
> Hi all:
>
> >
> What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
> two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
> These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
> two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
> total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
> and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
> pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
> done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
> the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
> lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
> positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
> --
> Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
> 7617
> P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
> San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
> One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kevin Horton <khorto1537(at)rogers.com> |
Subject: | Canada - rules changes for homebuilts |
This message is really only of interest to those building in Canada,
or who may want to import a foreign-built aircraft to Canada.
The Director General of Civil Aviation issued an exemption to a
couple of the rules recently. It is intended that the Canadian
Aviation Regulations will be similarly amended, but that process will
take some time. The exemption allows two things:
1. builders may contract professional assistance without fear that it
will violate the 51% rule, as long as the builder "personally
oversees" the construction and assembly. I spoke with one of the
Transport Canada managers involved in these discussions, and he said
that the clear feeling was that safety would be improved if builders
were allowed to contract assistance where needed, without fear of
jeopardizing the 51% rule.
2. homebuilts may now be imported into Canada, subject to a Transport
Canada inspection.
The text of the exemption may be read at:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/maintenance/aarpg/Exemption-Appendix-C.doc
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (spinner, cowling)
Ottawa, Canada
http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
Doesn't say "Flying". Says "... completed and flown". There is a difference.
Maybe as much as a couple of hundred.
Finn
Tom Lutgring wrote:
>
> I guess that was confirmed with, Vans maybe?
>
-------------------------------------------
Introducing NetZero Long Distance
Unlimited Long Distance only $29.95/ month!
Sign Up Today! www.netzerolongdistance.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
Bill,
Thanks for your interest and efforts. I have often wondered why such
results were not already published somewhere (and readily available).
The experiment must have been done more than once.
You have done the RV community a real service.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A finishing panel wiring and moving toware FWF.
Bill Marvel wrote:
>
>
> Hi all:
>
> A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
> group. At the time I was not
> subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
> testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
> think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
> arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
> get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
>
> Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
> year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
> critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
> building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
> the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
> which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
> problem, but
> when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
> rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
> rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
> damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
> doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
> issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
>
> What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
> two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
> These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
> two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
> total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
> and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
> pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
> done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
> the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
> lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
> positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
>
> Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
> think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
> do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
> up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
> 1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
> suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
> inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
> clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
> sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
> 1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
> weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
> sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
> may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
>
> Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
> moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
> and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
> grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
> the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
> over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
> were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
> did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
> into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
> really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
> driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
> joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
> see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
> results interesting.........
>
> The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
> riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
> done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
> mostly with civil
> engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
> and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
> indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
> cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
> in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
> nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
> happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
> indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
> state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
> how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
> the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
> undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
> the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
> true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
> done. What do you think would hold best?
>
> That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
> pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
> in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
> was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
> .032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
> load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
> going strong.
>
> Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
>
> 1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
> much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
> failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
> occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
> initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
> catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
> riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
>
> 2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
> observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
>
> 3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
> results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
> compared to properly driven rivets.
>
> 4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
> actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
> been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
> real faith in it.
>
> 5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
> joint make of grossly under driven ones.
>
> 6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
> under driven AN 426 joint.
>
> 7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
>
> To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
> that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
> in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
> rivets.
>
> AN 426 AD 3 Table
>
> Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
>
> Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
> Slight under 1775 Same
> Correct 2025 Same
> Slight over 1975 Same
> Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
>
> AN 470 AD 3 Table
>
> Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
> Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
> Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
> Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
> Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
> rivet line
>
> Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
> thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
> occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
> is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
> these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
> another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
> probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
> underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
> from this. I certainly did.
>
> Bill Marvel
>
> --
> Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
> 7617
> P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
> San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
> One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Terry Jantzi" <terry(at)iwantarocket.com> |
Subject: | time to speak up... a rant |
Dear Listers,
I've been quiet on the List for a long time but still take the opportunity
to scan the digest on a regular basis.
The reason for this rant? I'm just really p-ssed over an accident that
happened this weekend. How many of us during our hangar flying make comments
about fellow pilots like, "he's gonna kill himself someday", or "it's too
bad that when he kills himself, he's gonna take a friend". Well, it happened
to our flying community this weekend. In Canada, we have a class of aircraft
that are called Advanced Ultralights. These are built from approved kits and
have restrictions as to how far from the manufacturer's guidelines one can
stray. As a result, you build one exactly to plans and apply for an
ultralight registration and go flying. No test period, no climb tests, and
no inspections required. I won't comment if that's right or wrong but would
assume that a responsible builder/flyer would do maybe a short test period.
About 6 weeks ago a brand new Zodiac 601 showed up on the field. Airplanes
are airplanes, even non-RV's, so I sniffed around and met one of the owners.
It was a shared project with three people. The workmanship looked OK and the
panel and finishing touches were well turned out. He did mention that the
wings had been built by someone else who had sold the entire project for a
reasonable sum. The fellow I was talking to was preparing to fly the first
flight. He mentioned that the installed radio wasn't working and he was
going to use a handheld. However the headset adapter wasn't working so he
was just going to hold it... on the first flight. I thought that a little
odd and offered the use of my Icom handheld with working headset adapter. He
thanked me and I went to prep the RV-6 for a local flight. I watched him
depart and do two very low circuits with a crowd of his friends and partners
and spouses that had come to watch. I heard him request taxi to the pumps
for gas while I was taxiing out.
On my return about three hours later, the 601 was just finishing off a
fun-filled, ride hopping afternoon. Thanks to my radio, many people enjoyed
rides in this brand new airplane. Did I mention that an extreme wing twist
resulted in a very out of trim condition. I was thanked again for the radio
and was offered a ride. I declined.
I mentioned my observations to another builder/pilot who his also an
executive on several aircraft associations. He shook his head and commented,
that's the "Ray of hope" for you. Ray was a pilot of very questionable
judgment making skills. Exactly one year ago he ran another 601 out of gas
and force landed just south of the airport. He was celebrating his
anniversary with his wife by flying all over the countryside. He had a big
reputation for doing not the right thing.
Somehow Transport Canada was informed of this latest lack of common sense
and they were investigating some unapproved modifications to the 601. I
suspect this was the only avenue open within the current regs to try and
stop an accident from happening. A Transport rep was at the airport as late
as Friday morning.
On Saturday at dinner time the 601 crashed and burned in London (CYXU)
killing the pilot and passenger. Two families are grieving and the knowing
people are shaking their collective heads about those dangerous little
homemade airplanes.
End of story? Not really. There is another pilot just next door to me who is
short on intellectual/motor skills and is having great difficulty in passing
the practical and written test for his private license. He's taking
passengers for rides in his brand new 172. He's gonna kill himself someday
and it's too bad that when he kills himself, he's gonna take a friend.
Terry Jantzi
Kitchener, ON
F1 Rocket
http://www.iwantarocket.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | gert <gert(at)execpc.com> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
Wow, excelent test !!!!!!
Were the slightly over and underdriven rivets still acceptable rivets
per milspec ??
(I found some at http://www.flash.net/~gila/rivet_spec/rivet_a.htm)
Seems there was some article in the RVator a while back pointing out
that the often sited 1.5 times shaft diameter is the ideal but that the
milspec tolerances alow for some deviation from the 1.5 standard.
Gert
Bill Marvel wrote:
>
> Hi all:
>
> A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
> group. At the time I was not
> subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
> testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
> think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
> arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
> get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
>
>
> Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
> year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
> critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
> building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
> the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
> which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
> problem, but
> when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
> rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
> rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
> damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
> doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
> issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
>
> What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
> two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
> These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
> two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
> total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
> and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
> pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
> done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
> the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
> lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
> positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
>
> Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
> think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
> do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
> up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
> 1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
> suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
> inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
> clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
> sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
> 1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
> weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
> sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
> may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
>
> Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
> moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
> and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
> grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
> the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
> over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
> were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
> did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
> into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
> really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
> driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
> joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
> see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
> results interesting.........
>
> The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
> riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
> done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
> mostly with civil
> engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
> and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
> indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
> cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
> in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
> nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
> happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
> indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
> state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
> how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
> the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
> undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
> the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
> true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
> done. What do you think would hold best?
>
> That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
> pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
> in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
> was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
> .032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
> load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
> going strong.
>
> Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
>
> 1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
> much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
> failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
> occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
> initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
> catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
> riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
>
> 2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
> observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
>
> 3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
> results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
> compared to properly driven rivets.
>
> 4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
> actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
> been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
> real faith in it.
>
> 5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
> joint make of grossly under driven ones.
>
> 6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
> under driven AN 426 joint.
>
> 7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
>
> To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
> that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
> in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
> rivets.
>
> AN 426 AD 3 Table
>
> Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
>
> Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
> Slight under 1775 Same
> Correct 2025 Same
> Slight over 1975 Same
> Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
>
>
> AN 470 AD 3 Table
>
> Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
> Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
> Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
> Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
> Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
> rivet line
>
> Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
> thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
> occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
> is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
> these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
> another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
> probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
> underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
> from this. I certainly did.
>
> Bill Marvel
>
>
> --
> Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
> 7617
> P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
> San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
> One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: time to speak up... a rant |
The reason for this rant? I'm just really p-ssed over an accident that
happened this weekend. How many of us during our hangar flying make comments
about fellow pilots like, "he's gonna kill himself someday", or "it's too
bad that when he kills himself, he's gonna take a friend". Well, it happened
to our flying community this weekend.
Terry:
There's not one of us reading your post who cannot identify with the frustration
and anguish you have to feel right now. And, I am sad to say, I don't believe
any of us could have done anything to prevent the accident. There are people
who are receptive to constructive criticism that might well save their lives and
there are others who are not. I don't know any foolproof way to crack through
that shell.
As to the deceased, that is just another needless, negative headline. More
20/20 hindsight. And yet we see this type of situation regularly at airports in
countries all over the planet. Why is it so difficult for us collectively to
use that hindsight to see into the future? Why cannot the next victim use his
knowledge of the misfortunes of others to alter his future conduct so as to
avoid being next? I have never understood this.
Regarding the guy next door, you can only give it the old college try and then
you have done all you can do. Get him alone when you both have some time, sit
down over coffee and tell him there's something important you have to talk to
him about. I'd start with the 20/20 hindsight concept of all we have learned as
aviators from those before us -- both dead and alive. Then I'd suggest a couple
of examples of how you, Terry, have learned from the past and altered your
conduct accordingly. Lie and make it up if you have to. Once you have put
yourself into the status of a violator of good flying sense who lived to tell
about it, and who made changes as a result, you can then couple that into his
flying and your concerns about it.
Anyway, this is my view about how you might try to break the chain of events
that is leading to another headline. And you have to try. All of us in
aviation owe it to others to try. And most important, all of us in aviation,
if on the receiving end of that serious discussion over coffee, have to open the
mind and the ears and listen up. The life that is saved may well be yours.....
Bill Marvel
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Bill Marvel <bmarvel(at)cox.net> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
gert wrote:
>
> Wow, excelent test !!!!!!
>
> Were the slightly over and underdriven rivets still acceptable rivets
> per milspec ??
>
Gert:
Good question and frankly, I don't know. The slightly under driven and
slightly over driven were set so as to just miss filling the hole in an Avery
rivet gauge. In other words, the rivets were chosen to be the proper length
to begin with. Then I set them so that the slightly overdriven one just
barely failed to go into the hole while the slightly underdriven one went in
with a little play around it.
For me, this was a good real-life test. I freely admit to not checking every
rivet in my 8A with a gauge, even when they were easily available. I checked
every 5th one or so and eyeballed the others based on that. It is my belief
that many of the rivets in RVs, both flying and being built, are probably in
the slightly underdriven to slightly overdriven category. I just wanted to
satisfy my own curiosity as to relative strength of joints and particularly
the strength of the double dimple, flush riveted joints that are common in the
design.
Bill Marvel
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Brian Denk" <akroguy(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: time to speak up... a rant |
>
>
>The reason for this rant? I'm just really p-ssed over an accident that
>happened this weekend. How many of us during our hangar flying make
>comments
>about fellow pilots like, "he's gonna kill himself someday", or "it's too
>bad that when he kills himself, he's gonna take a friend". Well, it
>happened
>to our flying community this weekend.
>
>
>Terry:
>
>There's not one of us reading your post who cannot identify with the
>frustration
>and anguish you have to feel right now. And, I am sad to say, I don't
>believe
>any of us could have done anything to prevent the accident. There are
>people
>who are receptive to constructive criticism that might well save their
>lives and
>there are others who are not. I don't know any foolproof way to crack
>through
>that shell.
>
>As to the deceased, that is just another needless, negative headline. More
>20/20 hindsight. And yet we see this type of situation regularly at
>airports in
>countries all over the planet. Why is it so difficult for us collectively
>to
>use that hindsight to see into the future? Why cannot the next victim use
>his
>knowledge of the misfortunes of others to alter his future conduct so as to
>avoid being next? I have never understood this.
>
>Regarding the guy next door, you can only give it the old college try and
>then
>you have done all you can do. Get him alone when you both have some time,
>sit
>down over coffee and tell him there's something important you have to talk
>to
>him about. I'd start with the 20/20 hindsight concept of all we have
>learned as
>aviators from those before us -- both dead and alive. Then I'd suggest a
>couple
>of examples of how you, Terry, have learned from the past and altered your
>conduct accordingly. Lie and make it up if you have to. Once you have put
>yourself into the status of a violator of good flying sense who lived to
>tell
>about it, and who made changes as a result, you can then couple that into
>his
>flying and your concerns about it.
>
>Anyway, this is my view about how you might try to break the chain of
>events
>that is leading to another headline. And you have to try. All of us in
>aviation owe it to others to try. And most important, all of us in
>aviation,
>if on the receiving end of that serious discussion over coffee, have to
>open the
>mind and the ears and listen up. The life that is saved may well be
>yours.....
>
>Bill Marvel
GREAT stuff guys. Yes, I too have seen some really scary stuff in my short
time as a full scale aviator. (I've ALSO seen some really dangerous stuff
with some very large and VERY fast RC models!)
There is an RV4 driver locally that has a somewhat "not good" rep around
here. This lad likes the radical departures: roll on takeoff, seriously
steep bank angles close to the ground, etc. I've never witnessed any of
this myself, but many local fliers all have said the same things....and how
freakin' scary it was each time. This airplane and pilot haven't been seen
anywhere locally in quite a while. Maybe he sold it, moved out of town, or
??
I talked with him at a local IAC Christmas party a couple years ago. Very
quiet, unassuming guy. Seemed pretty level headed. He said how he likes to
do gyroscopics in his RV and flew a full aerobatic routine with his
girlfriend for her FIRST RV ride. I could feel the frustration well up
inside me. I thought "man, are you TRYING to kill yourself? Do you want to
freak out your gal so much that she won't want to fly with you again?" She
seemed to have that ignorance-is-bliss look, thinking "aren't ALL RV pilots
like that?". I could just scream.
I asked him if he had taken any formal aerobatic training before performing
these maneuvers in his airplane. He said "no". Nothing more, nothing
less...just NO, as if such a question had no meaning or relevance. Oh, and
on top of this, his airplane leaked oil bigtime. I saw it in it's hangar
with oil streaks coming out THE SIDE of the firewall/cowling junction. Not
on the belly, like we all have to live with to some extent...but blowing
along the side of the fuselage. Man, that's just not right.
So, I gave up the pursuit to try and at least show my concern for a fellow
RV flier and pilot. It was obviously not sinking in.
I've done some stupid pilot tricks myself. We all have. Those of us who
RECOGNIZE when we do these things have a future in aviation. Those who do
not, or ignore the well-meant advice of others, will become statistics.
Rant mode off.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | Re: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results |
Hi Bill;
Interesting data - thanks for providing same.
A couple of comments. Referring especially to the RV- series aircraft, these
aircraft most often use a line of AN-426-3 rivets - your example of the wing
skin joins is typical and the pull tests that you have done are indeed
valuable assessments in the "usual" RV loading situation. However I know of
(almost) no RV construction situations that use AN 470-3 rivets in either a
shear or tensile loading. I think Van's simply avoids AN-470-3 rivets as a
matter of design policy - basically, they can be mis-driven (from a cosmetic
standpoint) rather easily and don't provide much strength and so he simply
doesn't bother using them.
Instead a typical RV joint with AN-470 rivets is a tension joint using
AN-470-4 rivets - as in the wing rib to spar connections and in the fuselage
cockpit floor structure. I think it is debatable whether these are used for
manufacturing convenience or because the strength is actually needed (after
all, in most cases a .025 or .032 or thicker skin will be attached nearby
using a line or double line of AN-426-3 rivets).
The latter might be a useful loading situation to test if you find yourself
doing some more testing in the future.
Jim Oke
CYWG, MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Marvel" <bmarvel(at)cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: [SoCAL-RVlist] Riveted joint test results
>
> Hi all:
>
> A couple of months ago I sent the following post to the So. Cal RV
> group. At the time I was not
> subscribed to the matronics list. Since the subject is real life
> testing I had done to determine the strengh of improperly set rivets, I
> think you will be interested in the results. And since the bill just
> arrived ($280), I need to share the knowledge with a lot of people to
> get my money's worth!! Here's the post:
>
>
> Two days ago I got around to doing something that I had planned last
> year -- actual pull tests on riveted aluminum coupons to see how
> critical it is to drive rivets to the correct height. All of us
> building or with completed RVs (as will those those planning on it in
> the future) have had to wonder which imperfect rivets to drill out and
> which are OK. The answer is obvious when there is a severe cosmetic
> problem, but
> when strength is at issue, how much does a slightly under or overdriven
> rivet affect strength? How much does a grossly under or overdriven
> rivet affect it? Frankly, I had made the decision that the risk of
> damage from drilling out a flush rivet is greater than the benefit of
> doing so, unless an obvious cosmetic defect or really bad rivet is at
> issue. Now I have some hard data to go by.
>
> What I did was to make up 10 test coupons. Each of these consisted of
> two pieces of .032 2024-T3 sheet 1.5 inches wide and 4 inches long.
> These two pieces were overlapped by 1.5 inches and riveted together with
> two parallel rows of 3 rivets each. Of the 10
> total coupons, five involved the use of universal head AN 470 AD3 rivets
> and the other 5 used AN 426 AD3 flush rivets. In the latter case, both
> pieces of aluminum were dimpled at each rivet location, as is routinely
> done in Van's airplanes. In fact, the coupon construction is similar to
> the double rivet line where the lower outboard wing skin overlaps the
> lower inboard wing skin. This joint is loaded in tension normally for
> positive G flight and gave me the idea to mimic it for the pull tests.
>
> Before getting into the results, let me ask you a question. Please
> think about the answer before proceeding. Just how many pounds of force
> do you think it would take to destroy one of the sheets used in making
> up the coupons? Remember this is .032, 2024-T3 sheet 4 inches long and
> 1.5 inches wide with no holes or rivets in it. Think about grabbing and
> suspending it at one end with some sort of clamp across the entire 1.5
> inch width and then hanging weights on the other end from another
> clamp. How much weight would it take to break this .032 inch thick
> sheet? Would a 100 pound set of barbells do it? A 500 pound set? A
> 1200 pound small car? A gross weight RV8 at 1800 pounds? A gross
> weight Grumman Tiger at 2400 pounds? More than that? Come up with some
> sort of gut feel before proceeding. I was surprised by the answer. You
> may or may not be, depending on your knowledge in this area.
>
> Since some of you will cheat and read on, I'll hold the answer for a
> moment! Each of the 5 test coupons, both with the universal head rivets
> and the flush head rivets, was riveted to a different degree. One was
> grossly under driven, one was slightly under driven, one was correct per
> the rivet gauge, one was slightly over driven and the last was grossly
> over driven. The slightly under driven and slightly over driven rivets
> were such that you would probably need a rivet gauge to detect them -- I
> did this because I suspect that most of the rivets in our planes fall
> into this category. The grossly over and under driven rivets were
> really gross. The over driven were squashed nearly flat and the under
> driven were barely set at all. I did this to see just how poorly a
> joint make of this sort of gross error would hold up. You would easily
> see these and know there was a problem immediately. You'll find the
> results interesting.........
>
> The idea was to put each coupon in a pull test machine and expose the
> riveted joint to a slowly increasing force until it yielded. This was
> done at a structural test lab in Paramount (Southern CA city) that works
> mostly with civil
> engineering construction materials. A stress/strain graph was running
> and we monitored it to see the first indication of joint failure as
> indicated by a decrease in force required as the coupon stretched,
> cracked, broke in two, sheared or tipped rivets, etc. I was interested
> in the force required to cause the initial failure, as well as the
> nature and appearance of that initial failure; ie, what actually
> happened first. We agreed to stop the machine at the incipient
> indication of failure, thus preserving the coupon in its early failure
> state without destroying the joint completely. I was very curious as to
> how things would fail and really had no idea other than the thought that
> the dimpled, flush riveted joint would probably be stronger than the
> undimpled one with the 470 universal head rivets. In contrast, one of
> the owners of the lab came in to watch and thought the opposite would be
> true. In his 50 years in the business, he had never seen this test
> done. What do you think would hold best?
>
> That said, here is the answer to my prior question. A force of 2300
> pounds was required to break the test material with no rivets or holes
> in it. It failed catastrophically shortly after some initial stretching
> was noted. I had no idea that a cross section of this 2024 T3 sheet,
> .032 inches thick and 1.5 inches wide, would sustain anywhere near that
> load. Frankly, I was surprised when it passed 1000 pounds and still
> going strong.
>
> Before showing you the numbers, I will give a brief summary of them:
>
> 1. The dimpled, flush riveted construction was stronger, but not by as
> much as I had thought. However, and this is really important, initial
> failure of the dimpled construction was generally not catastrophic and
> occurred as rivet tipping and rivet head distortion. In contrast,
> initial failure of the AN 470 undimpled construction was generally
> catastrophic by rivet shear. I am really happy Van uses the flush
> riveted, double dimpled joints throughout most of the airplane!
>
> 2. Slightly under driving or slightly over driving a rivet makes an
> observable and thus measurable difference in the joint strength.
>
> 3. Slightly over driving is stronger than slightly under driving and
> results (in my opinion) in an insignificant difference in strength as
> compared to properly driven rivets.
>
> 4. In the one test of slightly over driven AN 470 rivets, the joint was
> actually stronger than with properly driven rivets. This may have just
> been the luck of the draw for this single sample, so I wouldn't put any
> real faith in it.
>
> 5. A joint made of grossly over driven rivets is stronger joint than a
> joint make of grossly under driven ones.
>
> 6. A grossly under driven AN 470 joint is much weaker than a grossly
> under driven AN 426 joint.
>
> 7. No joint was as strong as the parent material itself.
>
> To summarize the summary, try for properly driven rivets but realize
> that minor over driving is preferable to minor under driving and results
> in nearly the same strength as does the condition of properly driven
> rivets.
>
> AN 426 AD 3 Table
>
> Condition Force at failure Nature of failure
>
> Gross under 1650 Rivet tipping, head distortion
> Slight under 1775 Same
> Correct 2025 Same
> Slight over 1975 Same
> Gross over 1825 Sheet tear at rivet line
>
>
> AN 470 AD 3 Table
>
> Gross under 1100 Rivet tip plus one sheared rivet
> Slight under 1600 5 sheared rivets!
> Correct 1625 6 sheared rivets!
> Slight over 1750 6 sheared rivets!
> Gross over 1500 Rivet tip plus sheet tear at
> rivet line
>
> Anyway, those are some real numbers for an area we have undoubtedly
> thought about at one time or another. My opinions, FWIW: I think an
> occasional rivet that is slightly under driven or slightly over driven
> is utterly no big deal and can safely be ignored. We all have some of
> these flying in formation in our airplanes. A line of them would be
> another matter. Even an occasional grossly over driven rivet is
> probably OK, especially if getting rid of it could cause damage. And if
> underdriven too much, just whack it again. Hope you learned something
> from this. I certainly did.
>
> Bill Marvel
>
>
> --
> Bill Marvel Home/office 310 832
> 7617
> P.O. Box 784 Cell 310 293 2013
> San Pedro, CA 90733 Fax 310 832 5334
>
> One good deed beats 100 good intentions...
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Will You Find True Love?
> Will You Meet the One?
> Free Love Reading by phone!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/ps3dMC/R_ZEAA/Ey.GAA/SyTolB/TM
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> socal-rvlist-unsubscribe(at)yahoogroups.com
>
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | RGray67968(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Buffalo Farm Report - pics |
August 27, 2002 - September 02, 2002
RV-Archive.digest.vol-nj