Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:10 AM - Re: Paint and filling tips (Kyle Boatright)
2. 04:21 AM - Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). (GRGSCHMIDT@aol.com)
3. 05:13 AM - Pre-Heaters (Lenleg@aol.com)
4. 05:15 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (barry pote)
5. 05:19 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (WALTER KERR)
6. 05:20 AM - AW: Prop (Eric Greindl)
7. 05:50 AM - AW: Re: Prop (Eric Greindl)
8. 07:14 AM - Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff (Stephen Johnson)
9. 07:17 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Sam Buchanan)
10. 08:16 AM - Re: AW: Re: Prop (owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com)
11. 08:21 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Charlie Kuss)
12. 08:23 AM - Traveling to SoCal this weekend (Rv8don@aol.com)
13. 09:32 AM - Re: Traveling to SoCal this weekend (Dan Checkoway)
14. 09:51 AM - Re: Traveling to SoCal this weekend (Laird Owens)
15. 09:53 AM - SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring (Steve J Hurlbut)
16. 10:12 AM - Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring (WALTER KERR)
17. 10:20 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
18. 10:30 AM - Re: Prop (czechsix@juno.com)
19. 10:31 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Doug Weiler)
20. 10:40 AM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Doug Rozendaal)
21. 10:44 AM - RV-7 Tail Question (John)
22. 10:48 AM - Re: Prop (Miller Robert)
23. 10:53 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Dean Pichon)
24. 10:56 AM - [Fw: Re: AW: Re: Prop] (Rob Prior)
25. 11:18 AM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Lenleg@aol.com)
26. 11:43 AM - paint (Glenn P. Wilkinson)
27. 12:21 PM - Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Mark Fowler)
28. 12:27 PM - smart plugs (Gary)
29. 12:30 PM - Leaky Tank (Gene)
30. 12:36 PM - Fw: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (C. Rabaut)
31. 12:56 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (Larry Hawkins)
32. 01:04 PM - Re: paint (RV4)
33. 01:08 PM - Re:baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 (Bert Forero)
34. 01:09 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Glenn Brasch)
35. 01:11 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Tedd McHenry)
36. 01:12 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Neil McLeod)
37. 01:34 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (panamared2@brier.net)
38. 01:38 PM - Re: Pre-Heaters (panamared2@brier.net)
39. 01:41 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (LarryRobertHelming)
40. 01:42 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (LarryRobertHelming)
41. 01:52 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Mark Fowler)
42. 01:56 PM - Brake resevoir/feeder line routing (dmedema@att.net)
43. 02:16 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Jim Jewell)
44. 02:33 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Rick Galati)
45. 02:56 PM - Re: smart plugs or not? (Bartrim, Todd)
46. 03:06 PM - Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Brian Denk)
47. 03:20 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Rob Prior)
48. 03:22 PM - Buffing Wheel Info (Donald Mei)
49. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: Prop (Randy Lervold)
50. 03:33 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Elsa & Henry)
51. 03:36 PM - RV6 Rear Spar Bolt (Garth Shearing)
52. 03:40 PM - Market value (Stephen Johnson)
53. 03:41 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (Alex Peterson)
54. 03:42 PM - Re: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? (Kyle Boatright)
55. 03:43 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (Doug Gray)
56. 03:45 PM - Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? (czechsix@juno.com)
57. 03:47 PM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Kyle Boatright)
58. 04:05 PM - Re: [Fw: Re: AW: Re: Prop] (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
59. 04:26 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (KAKlewin@aol.com)
60. 04:32 PM - Re: [Fw: Re: AW: Re: Prop] (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
61. 05:01 PM - Re: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? (Joe Hine)
62. 05:22 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Rv8forduane@aol.com)
63. 05:33 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (Ross Schlotthauer)
64. 05:37 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Larry Bowen)
65. 05:43 PM - more engines (Wheeler North)
66. 05:58 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (John Starn)
67. 06:10 PM - Major changes and the Feds (Rob W M Shipley)
68. 06:47 PM - Gyro suction bypass valve (Alex Peterson)
69. 06:52 PM - Re: Drill Sizes (Robert McCallum)
70. 06:55 PM - Re: more engines (barry pote)
71. 07:09 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Paul Besing)
72. 07:20 PM - Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring (RGray67968@aol.com)
73. 08:03 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Rob Prior)
74. 08:09 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (MeangreenRV4@aol.com)
75. 08:36 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Paul Besing)
76. 08:45 PM - Re: Leaky Tank (Gene)
77. 08:55 PM - Re: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? (Larry Pardue)
78. 09:44 PM - Re: Re:baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 (Randall Henderson)
79. 09:48 PM - Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear (Charlie Kuss)
80. 10:05 PM - Re: Drill Sizes (Larry Pink)
81. 10:10 PM - Re: Pre-Heaters (Jim Oke)
82. 10:11 PM - Re: paint (Robert McCallum)
83. 10:17 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Jim Oke)
84. 10:18 PM - Re: more engines (Charlie Kuss)
85. 10:18 PM - Re: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? (Charlie Kuss)
86. 10:39 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
87. 11:48 PM - Re: Prop (Randall Henderson)
88. 11:49 PM - Re: Alternative Engine Questions (Charlie Kuss)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Paint and filling tips |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
To avoid cracks you need to overlay the seam with a very thin layer of
fiberglass cloth, then fill and smooth.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry" <jdoyal@sport.rr.com>
Subject: RV-List: Paint and filling tips
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry" <jdoyal@sport.rr.com>
>
> I am building an 8A and I have seen some nice paint jobs; and some not so
nice. My question is about filling the tips on the ennpenage. What is a good
filler to blend the fiberglass tips into the aluminum? A lot of planes have
very obvious cracks in the paint after shrinkage. How do I avoid these? Some
planes have very smooth transitions with no sign of these cracks. I can only
guess that the preparation and quality of the filler is the reason for the
best results. Any recomendations will be appreciated!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry Doyal
>
> jdoyal@sport.rr.com
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV's, BAD Wind! & Larry Vetterman (Long). |
--> RV-List message posted by: GRGSCHMIDT@aol.com
Dear Stein,
Sounds like you had an exciting trip but hopefully your altitudes were
reversed as listed in your posting. I almost ran into a westbound Malibu at
9500' while I was flying eastbound and if it were not for the RYAN TCAD on
board it would have been much closer than comfort would allow. Your story is
great confirmation and justification to install a parking brake to hold that
aircraft in one place until deplaning on a winding day.
Thanks for the encouraging story,
Greg Schmidt
RV6S Finishing rigging and interior
DVT Phoenix AZ
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info as
I would like.
Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
with a preheater but can't find it there now.
Thanks !!
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
Gentlemen,
I have been following this post for several days now. I hesitated to get
involved, but I just can't hold back. I am one of those willing to
experiment with auto engines. I have been a hot rodder since I was 11
years old (about a hundred years ago!).
I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6, but it will have a Bowtie aluminum
block and heads. I am using Belted Air Power's (good people, by the way)
drive unit. So you now know my point of view.
That said, I was very impressed and heartened at OSHKOSH this summer,
when NASA (yes, the outer space people) gave a lecture making a case for
the auto engine in general aviation. They think it is ready now.
They want 'out of the crate' auto engines to be certified. They want to
bring down the cost of flying so more will fly. They like the latest all
aluminum Corvette motor. They wrote an article for CONTACT magazine
that pretty much covered the same ground as their talk at OSH. Get a
back copy.
I'll keep you posted on my endeavors.
Barry Pote RV9a working on that canopy
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb@msn.com>
Hi Hal,
Your story below is certainly how we did things in the 60's at P&W. I worked
on the SR71 engine when I went there in 59 and we had 17 engines running on
test stands at one time. Of course our computational capabilities were
pretty limited. We had a room full of Frieden mechanical calculators (non
square root type, they were not available when we started). We had a punch
card fed IBM 304 that filled two large rooms and I spent too many nights
there trying to get it to close an iteration on one engine match point. We
were certainly in the build'em and bust'em development in that time period.
When I retired in 92, we had computation fluid dynamics simulations that
literally told us what was happening at every point thru out the engine flow
path. We could not afford to stay in business if we were still in the build
them and bust them stage. We maybe ran 4 engines simultanously on the F-22
program.
Now agreed that my 9A rotary powered vehicle has not had any CFD
calculations , but it has had a host of individuals such as Finn Lassen,
Tracy Crook, Ed Anderson, Ed Graham, Everett Hatch, and many others that
have stepped out and sucessfully flown with rotary powered aircraft. It is
from their efforts that I hope to build and fly a 9A at much lower cost and
be in the air approximately 1 year from the time I ordered the kit.
You can see the progress todate on Tracy's web site at
www.rotaryaviation.com
Bernie Kerr, 350 hours on 6A with O-320 and building 9A rotary
>
>There is a story about an engineering manager, at Baldwin Locomotive Works
>I think. After a new locomotive was all designed he gathered his engineers
>together and said, "Okay, guys, let's build one and see what doesn't work".
>
>The development of new products involves many corrections along the
>way. Guys who do engine conversions right, like your buddy, are bold
>adventurers. They have the courage (and funds) the rest of us lack.
>
>Aren't there builders with a few engine related emergency landings who are
>flying Lycomings?????
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK flying!
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl <Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
> Do you know if this new prop is what Van will be selling?
YES
> Do you know if it will be faster than the Hartzel 2 blade that Van sells?
YES, but just a few knots
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Norman [SMTP:nhunger@sprint.ca]
> Gesendet am: Samstag, 30. November 2002 04:56
> An: rv-list@matronics.com
> Betreff: Re: RV-List: Prop
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
>
>
> Do you know if this new prop is what Van will be selling?
> Do you know if it will be faster than the Hartzel 2 blade that Van sells?
>
> Thanks,
> Norman Hunger
> Do not archive questions
>
>
> > There is a new scimitar shape blade design available for our 3-blade
> propeller,
> > which is optimized for cruise. The blade thickness comes close to a metal
> > blade and as important as the drag coefficient is also the lift
> coefficient.
> > A picture of this propeller installed on a Mooney M20K can be found at
> > www.mt-propeller.com/imgs/photos/m20k.jpg
> > Would be interesting how this propeller compares performance-wise with the
> > Aero Composite propeller.
> > By the way, this 3-blade MT-Propeller is FAA certified with a TBO of 1800
> hrs
> > or 72 months.
> >
> > Michael Muehlbauer
> > MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl <Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
Gentlemen,
I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it is
safe.
This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
in-flight unknown Experimental product.
Best Regards
Martin Albrecht
Engineering
MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
Jim,
Which drawing are you referring to? I'm going to be running a IO-360 as
well, so I'm trying to pick up all of the information I can. The oil cooler
requires a pressure differential between the front and back so the cooling
air will flow through it. I think the idea of using the oil cooler air
might be useful, as long as the air is diverted from the cabin to the under
cowl area when cabin heat isn't required. There is probably no harm in
trying this as long as you have an engine monitor that checks cylinder head
temps on all of the cylinders. Let us know how it works for you.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121 gear boxes (ugh!)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Bean" <jim-bean@att.net>
Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean <jim-bean@att.net>
>
> I have my oil cooler mounted on the baffle behind #3 cylinder, pretty
> much as Van's drawing shows. My heat muff is below on a cross tube. It
> would be rather convenient to run the heat muff scat tube off of the
> back of the oil cooler. I am picturing a 2" flange placed over the
> bottom of the back of the cooler.
>
> I am not looking to improve the heating effiency, it's just a
> mechanically convenient way to get the scat tube to the heat muff.
>
> The engine is an IO360 which seems to need all the cooling it can get.
> On the other hand there is constant air flow through the muff because
> the heat valve dumps it overboard when heat is not is use
> So what does the group think about the effect this might have on the oil
> cooler, IE might it raise the oil temp? Anybody tried this?
> Jim Bean
> RV-8
> Cooling Baffles (3 months)
> Starting third year building
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Lenleg@aol.com wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
>
> Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
> give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info as
> I would like.
>
> Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
> with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
> Thanks !!
=========================
Still there:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/cold.html
Sam Buchanan
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
helo=earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop
--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
>
Well... I guess this means no further propeller development is necessary by any
company, (MT included). We already have "the optimum performance you can get out
of a propeller."
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
>
No in-flight experience???
MT propellers may be very nice ...( they seem quite overpriced to me).
But a more objective discussion would be desirable, especially on the part of an
engineer at MT.
Then we would all learn ... this, instead, is a series of overstatements; an
advertisement really.
Robert
Eric Greindl wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl <Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
> question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
>
> First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
> shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
> nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
> stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
> portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
> be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
> lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
> thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
> propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
> airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
> Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
> reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
> accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
> without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
> certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
> Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
>
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it
is
> safe.
>
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Albrecht
> Engineering
> MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Tedd,
Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto mechanic, I
was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine in my aircraft project.
However, as I learned more about aircraft engine regimes, I've come to
realize that most (I won't say all) auto engines would make lousy aircraft engines.
Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end? These
auto engines are tested when connected to an automotive transmission or bare.
You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
Bear in mind the recent attempt by Toyota to certify their Lexus V-8 engine and
Orenda's experience. Both companies ended up changing the majority of the original
parts to obtain reasonable durability. Toyota still plans on building a
light plane. They did obtain certification for their (highly modified) Lexus
V-8. However, they have dropped the idea of using that engine. They are going
to purchase engines from Lycoming.
Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
learn from their experience rather than repeating it. Each of us can choose
his own path.
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>> Automotive engines are not designed to put out high HP for long periods of
>> time as are aircraft engines.
>
>You should have a look at the endurance tests the auto industry does and
>compare them to aircraft certification tests. The auto industry tests are much
>more rigorous.
>
>Tedd
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Traveling to SoCal this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rv8don@aol.com
Folks,
I'm traveling to the Los Angeles area this weekend, arriving midday Saturday
the 7th and will be looking to kill some time Saturday afternoon and/or
Sunday before my business meetings start on Monday. Thought I'd see if there
is any RV activity, planned or unplanned going on anywhere around.
Please respond off list.
Regards,
-Don
Don Kugler, CFII
RV8 NJ - Painting
Do not archive
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Traveling to SoCal this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I'm in Santa Monica, about a 15 minute drive from LAX. I've got an RV-7
going in my garage...fuselage is a day or two away from being flipped
upright. Feel free to drop by...email me off the list at dan@rvproject.com
if you want to coordinate.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rv8don@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Traveling to SoCal this weekend
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rv8don@aol.com
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm traveling to the Los Angeles area this weekend, arriving midday
Saturday
> the 7th and will be looking to kill some time Saturday afternoon and/or
> Sunday before my business meetings start on Monday. Thought I'd see if
there
> is any RV activity, planned or unplanned going on anywhere around.
>
> Please respond off list.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Don
> Don Kugler, CFII
> RV8 NJ - Painting
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Traveling to SoCal this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens <owens@aerovironment.com>
Don,
A good place to start is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socal-rvlist/
That's the local email group for a lot of us who fly in the SoCal
area. (I just looked, and we have 188 members signed up)! If
something is going on, you can usually find out there.
If you won't have access to a computer, shoot me a message, and I'll
exchange phone #'s to keep you apprised.
Laird
RV-6 Whiteman (WHP)
SoCal
PS HEY, check out that awesome RV-6 in Van's calendar this month..... ;-)
>--> RV-List message posted by: Rv8don@aol.com
>
>Folks,
>
>I'm traveling to the Los Angeles area this weekend, arriving midday Saturday
>the 7th and will be looking to kill some time Saturday afternoon and/or
>Sunday before my business meetings start on Monday. Thought I'd see if there
>is any RV activity, planned or unplanned going on anywhere around.
>
>Please respond off list.
>
>Regards,
>
>-Don
>Don Kugler, CFII
>RV8 NJ - Painting
>
>Do not archive
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
1. Avionics Ground
2. Transmit audio
3. Receive audio
4. Transmit Keyline
The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
diagram.
Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks. The
SL40 also
shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
be wired to these
as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
the 4 wires above
and you're done)?
Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
deciphering
these wiring diagrams.
Steve
RV7A
panel
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
--> RV-List message posted by: "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb@msn.com>
Steve, if you get this combination to work together, please send me a copy
of your wiring diagram. I tried, a friend who has a rather complex panel
that he did in his 6 tried, and another friend who was a radio tech tried.
We never did suceed and I currently am running a portable intercom, but
would really like to get the flightcom working.
Bernie Kerr, 6A 350 hours, building 9A rotary.
>From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: "RV-7 YAHOO" <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>, <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:43:42 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
>
>I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
>
>The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
>1. Avionics Ground
>2. Transmit audio
>3. Receive audio
>4. Transmit Keyline
>
>The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
>diagram.
>
>Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks.
>The
>SL40 also
>shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
>be wired to these
>as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
>the 4 wires above
>and you're done)?
>
>Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
>deciphering
>these wiring diagrams.
>
>Steve
>RV7A
>panel
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Charlie:
> Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end?
A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The Chrysler
V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost exclusively
wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in mind
that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated such
that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire Chyrsler
test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the aircraft
industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so the
Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto industry
test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's atypical.
You can read more about it at
http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
> You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
> Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
> engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
> learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the same
time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that it's
tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda just
didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources. Ditto
Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft use?"
Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to ask
about the first question.)
> Each of us can choose
> his own path.
Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful knowledge on
the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Roger,
I share your skepticism about AeroComposites' performance claims...when I saw them
at OSH they were talking it up really big about the huge improvements seen
on the Lancair. It sounded great at the time, but later on I was mulling it
over and did some rough rule-of-thumb calculations and figured if their test data
was accurate, somebody had to be lying....either Hartzell's prop was far less
efficient than advertised or else AeroComposites was over 100% efficient,
which would be a considerable achievement to say the least : ) Maybe they can
invent a perpetual motion engine next to go with their prop and then we can all
forget about avgas and fly for free (well, after the substantial initial investment
of course)...
Anyway, I don't doubt they have a great product and it may well be the best thing
out there performance-wise, but it certainly isn't proven in terms of quantifying
the performance increase you'll see over a Hartzell, MT, or Whirlwind.
For the price I expect Whirlwind gets us way more, and in fact, the Whirlwind
may even outperform the AeroComposites...three-blades can be faster at high-speed
and the lighter weight might make up for any advantage the AeroComposites'
two-blade prop will see in climb performance. I'm glad Randy Lervold and others
are willing to test it for us so we can get some objective and unbiased hard
data in the near future.
Meanwhile I throw a penny in the piggy bank every day so that by the year 2065
or so, I can afford any of the above...
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D still sanding fiberglass...
-------------------------------------------------------
Time: 09:35:12 PM PST US
21: 33:01 PST
From: Reinback <reinback@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Prop
--> RV-List message posted by: Reinback <reinback@yahoo.com>
Dave ,
Im in the same boat, Ive asked Aerocomposites
several times same questions you have specifically
weight of the entire propeller and also spinner kit
details (is it just raw materials or a finished
spinner?) and other detailed questions and have
gotten had no response.
And I asked for costumers I could speak to, preferably
with RVs again no response. Ive asked this
information of other propeller companies and I did get
answers and customer referrals.
I also wanted to ask Aerocomposites why the Lancair
Legacy (that they use to quote performance numbers for
their 3 blade prop) put the 3 blade Hartzell propeller
back on to fly in the Reno race rather than going with
the Aerocomposites prop. If the Aerocomposites prop
really had the claimed performance increase, wouldnt
they have kept it on for the race?
Makes a guy wonder ?
Roger
RV-7
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
> Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you
please
> give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info
as
> I would like.
>
> Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
> with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
I don't have any experience with these brands of pre heaters, but I have
used Easy-Heat engine heaters on three of my airplanes and they have been
100% trouble free. I bundle up the cowling of the RV-4 with a couple of
moving blankets and have measured the free air temps inside the cowl above
the cylinders at around 50 degrees F when the free air temp in my unheated
hangar is 20 degrees F.
Doug Weiler
Hudson, WI... 14 degrees F OAT as we speak!
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
>
> Tedd,
> Is there somewhere on-line where I can find this info. As an auto
mechanic, I
> was very excited about the prospects of using an auto engine
Snip
I am gonna throw gas on the fire then take off to Vegas for the airshow
convention.
Charlie makes some great points in his post and I agree heartedly. Still we
don't want to do is discourage those who wish to be "experimenters" and
"test pilots" They play an important role in "experimental" aviation. But
those people need to go into this with their eyes wide open, Accepting that
they are test pilots and they are experimenting.
Choosing an auto engine to save a buck and then trying to fly it as an X/C
cruiser is false economy. I don't care which conversion you use, they are
not as reliable as a Lycoming and prudent pilots fly them accordingly. I
have hauled my buddies soneri w/VW too many times.
If you want a X/C transportation airplane that can fly IFR or VFR, the
Lycoming is the answer. If you look at the cost over 2000 hours, assuming
even minimum wage for labor, I defy anyone to prove the total expenses of
an auto engine is cheaper per horsepower.
Can automotive ( or WWII) technology make the Lycoming better? You bet,
electronic ignition, EFI, tuned intake, tuned exhaust, all can and should be
proven by "experimenters" and "test pilots" to push that technology into the
certified market.
Decide which you want to be, THEN decide which engine you want.
Cya all Friday. Standing by with the Asbestos Underwear!
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
"It is great to be back!" Can we pleeeasssse start a T/W vs Trike thread
;-)
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-7 Tail Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
A friend liked my RV-6A so much he is building an RV-7A. He has almost
finished the tail and is expecting the rest of his quickbuild kit this week.
His problem: On the elevator 'tip' section, the "wrap-around" metal piece,
E-713, seems 'too long' - that is, it interferes with the horizontal
stablilizer skin, such that the elevator would be unmovable...the horiz.
stab. skin has a precut 'notch' that seems as if it will have to be cut out
another inch for the elevator to clear it.
Has anyone else had this problem? If so, did you merely cut out the horiz.
stab. skin enough for the elevator to rotate properly? It seemed the only
reasonable solution to me.
Thanks in advance.. I will relay any held to my friend who is not on the
matronics site
John at Salida, CO
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
>
Well... I guess this means no further propeller development is necessary by any
company, (MT included). We already have "the optimum performance you can get out
of a propeller."
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
>
No in-flight experience???
MT propellers may be very nice ...( they seem quite overpriced to me).
But a more objective discussion would be desirable, especially on the part of an
engineer at MT.
Then we would all learn ... this, instead, is a series of overstatements; an
advertisement really.
Robert
Eric Greindl wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl <Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I just want to clarify the concern about the three composite propellers in
> question (Aero Composite, Whirlwind and MT).
>
> First of all the MT-Propeller is the only certified propeller which has
> shown that ice strikes, bird strikes, lightning strikes and so on can do
> nothing to the MT-Propeller natural composite blade . The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller. The glasfiber cover also
> stiffens the blade and the wood is just filling material in the outside
> portion of the blade. The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95. A airfoil must not only
> be thin it must have a relative thickness between 4 to 12 % for maximum
> lift and therefore performance. In case if you have a airfoil extremely
> thin it is easier to stall than an optimized airfoil ( 4-12% thickness). A
> propeller is working like an aircraft wing and the super critical thin
> airfoils on a airplane also stall at a higher lift coefficient.
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance airplanes like
> Vans, Lancair, Glasair, Velocity and their MT-Propeller has shown their
> reliability. More than 18000 natural composite blades are flying worldwide
> accumulating more than 50 Million flight hours in 20 years of operation
> without any hazardous in-flight occurrences. MT-Propeller`s are flying on
> certified IFR turboprop multiengine, high performance single-engine (
> Malibu ) , aerobatics etc and if applicable with decing (hot prop).
>
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown that it
is
> safe.
>
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Martin Albrecht
> Engineering
> MT-Propeller Entwicklung GmbH / Germany
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" <deanpichon@msn.com>
Your question is quite timely. Several weeks ago, I ordered and installed a
Symtec (P/N 213240) sump heater in my -4. I have an IO-360 and followed the
recommendation in the Aircraft Spruce catalog to purchase the 220 watt
version - which has a smaller foot print than the 300 watt version.
I tried to buy the unit from Aircraft Spruce, but they were out of stock, so
I ended up purchasing it from Kennon Aircraft Products. I installed the unit
per manufacturer's instructions and had about 2 weeks of trouble-free
operation.
The unit apparently burned out. Upon measuring the resistance across the
plug, I found I had an "open circuit". I called Symtec and found the
company very helpful. They explained that these units do occaisionally
fail, but only rarely.
Unfortunately, I now have to return the unit to Kennon and have them request
Symtec to send me another. The first unit was drop-shipped to me from
Symtec. I have asked that the replacement heater be sent before I return
the failed unit so I can remove and replace at the same time - to minimize
down time (and removing the cowl).
One issue I did not appreciate before installing the unit was the need to
saftey wire it in the event the adhesive failed. Without the saftey wire,
the heater would dangle by the power cord and could foul a control linkage.
>From: Lenleg@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 08:10:35 EST
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
>
>Anyone with experience with Symtec or Reiff preheaters ... would you please
>give me advise. I have checked the archives but not finding as much info
>as
>I would like.
>
>Thought Sam Buchanan had put something on his website about his experience
>with a preheater but can't find it there now.
>
>Thanks !!
>
>Len Leggette RV-8A
>N901LL (res)
>Greensboro, N.C.
>16 hours !!
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Eric Greindl wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl
<Eric.Greindl@mt-propeller.com>
> The new
> MT-Propeller, thin like aluminum scimitar blade design has the optimum
> performance you can get out of a propeller.
Sounds like the marketing department speaking. A two-bladed design is
more aerodynamically efficient than a three-bladed design (although,
yes, it may not be as smooth-running). Are you working on a two-bladed
propellor? Someone else asked this as well and I haven't seen an answer.
> The airfoil is newly designed by the German NASA (
> DLR) and optimized for operation up to Mach. 0,95.
It's not clear to me that this is a benefit. If it's designed to be
efficient up to Mach 0.95, but efficiency drops off below Mach 0.80,
then it's not going to be very effective on an RV, where the propellor
tip will move at only about 540mph (assuming 67" prop and 2700rpm), or
about Mach 0.7 (assuming SoS is about 770mph at sea level).
Do you have any graphs of propellor efficiency versus RPM? A propellor
that's efficient "up to Mach 0.95" would require an engine to turn "up
to" about 3600rpm. (Hey, maybe the Automotive conversion guys'll be
interested... 8-).
> MT-Propellers are flying on all home build high performance
airplanes like
> Vans,
Is anyone on the list using an MT propellor on their RV?
> We can not make any comparison with the two other Composite Propellers
> because they are just Experimental without any in-flight experience
and TBO
> established. Salesmen can proof a lot of things but finally their
product must
> and a certified and in years of operation product already has shown
that it is
> safe.
Is anyone on the list using another brand of Composite Propellor on
their RV?
> This is just to remind you to think about spending a lot of money for an
> in-flight unknown Experimental product.
Always good advice.
-RB4
RV7 Empennage
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
Anyone tried the "Hot Strip"????
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL (res)
Greensboro, N.C.
16 hours !!
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn P. Wilkinson" <gpw@accucomm.net>
-Has anyone tried paint stripper for fiberglass? Results, Problems?
-Has anyone used Randolph water-based polyurethane paint? Results, Problems?
-Is there any reason why wooden props should not be painted?
Glenn
654RV
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Mark Fowler
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler
Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
OK Doug,
I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to go.
I don't
have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are lots
of pros and con
either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
Sincerely,
Mark Fowler
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gary" <rv9er@3rivers.net>
Jim.....regarding Smart Plugs.......
I had a set of smart plugs ordered for my 0-320 RV-9A. I attended 3 forums over
the past years at Arlington about the product, and visited with several people
involved in their development.
They work fine, but have 2 drawbacks that caused me to go a different route at
this point:
1. They won't tolerate lead in the fuel. It will deteriorate them just like the
catalytic converter in your car. Until we get our unleaded avgas, or have widespread
availability of mogas at airports, this won't work for me.
2. They are not 100% independent of the electrical system in an air-cooled aircraft
application. The heaters need to be on at very low power settings, or they
cool off and begin to misfire.
That said, they have been in use in several applications for years, and have great
efficiency, negligible emmissions, and are absolutely simple, reliable, and
extrememly light. Failure modes are hard to imagine. The will run on almost
any hydrocarbon fuel.
The engineer who invented them has been running them in his Mazda since the mid-1970's.
They put some significant time on a Comanche using Smart Plugs, and
flew a J-3 Cub on floats a number of hours. Their current major project is to
convert many thousands of portable generators to Smart Plugs for the military,
so they can run them on Jet fuel instead of gasoline. Their Continental 0-200
demo engine mounted on a test stand can be drained of car gas, and filled
with diesel, jet fuel kerosene, etc, and restarted.
They are self-timing, and the only variable for matching a plug to your engine
is the compression ratio. Compression, or combustion chamber pressure, is not
a factor. Only compression RATIO.
Last I heard they were $100 a piece, with wiring harness included.
Gary
---
---
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" <gene@nvaircraft.com>
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow and
it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank initially pressured
to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop"
short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to get to the
problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations and have stood the tank
in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this area with water and no
leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with water
with the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Oh God... not THIS thread again!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Fowler <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Hawkins <lhawkins@giant.com>
I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the water.
You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard to
find.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene [mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com]
Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" <gene@nvaircraft.com>
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow
and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank
initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
water, "snoop" short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not
know how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations
and have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this
area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap
and filled this with water with the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2655.35">
RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the water. You
have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard to find.
Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene [<A HREF"mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com">mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com]
Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
-- RV-List message posted by: Gene gene@nvaircraft.com
I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very slow and
it lowers the manometer level about 4 in 24 hours with the tank initially pressured
to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy water, snoop short
of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to get to the problem.
I have looked at all the suspect locations and have stood the tank in the
end with the sending unit up and flooded this area with water and no leaks.
I have also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with water with
the same results.
Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV4" <VansRV4GRVMJ@btinternet.com>
> -Has anyone tried paint stripper for fiberglass? Results, Problems?
fiberglass is not paint stripper resistant. Mask off with poly and speed
tape.
Marcel de Ruiter
RV4/G-RVMJ
Acft painter
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bert Forero" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Bob:
The only thing,You are not going to put the elt, itself
under the bagage floors no?
Just a thought, what one does, if need to reach
for it, in case of accident?
I have placed mine, along side, on the baggage section
where can be reach..
Bert
rv6a
Do Not Archive
Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at http://isp.BlueLight.com
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
If most of your experience is in tri-gear, then why would you consider a
tail dragger? Your answer may be as simple as that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ?
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Mark:
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I recently
read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way to
go.
The "best way to go" is to find out what you want and build that. If you're at
all interested in a tailwheel I strongly recommend that you get some tailwheel
time--in an RV, if you can! When I started I thought I wanted a tailwheel, but
hadn't flown one, ever. So I started getting some tailwheel time. After about
70 hours of tailwheel, including about 20 in RVs, I'm totally sold on the
tailwheel. But you might find the exact opposite. The only way you'll know is
to do some tailwheel flying.
What do I like about the tailwheel? Tailwheels make me work at my landings
more, and I enjoy that. I enjoy deciding if I'll do a wheel landing or a
three-pointer. I find each landing more rewarding because it took some effort
to make it nice. I like the way the airplane responds to aerodynamic contols
during the landing roll--even during taxiing! I like that I have to fly the
airplane through the whole take-off run, not just wait for it to gather speed.
I enjoy being able to pirouette around one wheel when parking or turning into
wind. Flying a tailwheel airplane also makes me feel connected to the
tradition of flying in a way that a nosewheel airplane doesn't. That's totally
subjective and irrational (or, at least, non-rational), but true nevertheless,
for me.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock@theriver.com>
Have you read the archives?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: panamared2@brier.net
Get what you really want. The RVs are the easiest taildraggers I have ever
flown, much easier than an Champ or Citabria! That said, ground handling
will be easier in a trigear, i.e. doing a 180 degree turn in side your
hanger, no way I could do that with my tailwheel. Visibility with the RV6
is not a problem, keep slider open and you have more than enough.
Your airplane, your decision. Don't be fooled or influenced by what others
think is best. IMHO the pros and cons come down to, what do you
like? Would you rather fly a Cub with a
BTW, I had no tailwheel time, and didn't have a pilots license when I started.
Bob
>I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
>recently read this
>article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
>to go. I don't
>have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
>are lots of pros and con
>either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
>http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: panamared2@brier.net
I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of the
paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place on
the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
Bob
>I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to answer
>the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
When this is the case, you should order one of each. When you get them
done, you sell the one you like the lest and pocket the profit. Then you
monitor the list and answer this question because it comes up about once
very two months.
Do not archive.
Larry in Indiana, building a taildragger and have never flown one before and
still wondering if I should have gone with the training wheel model.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
are lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Temperature change of air inside tank will affect the gauge. Maybe it is
not leaking.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Hawkins" <lhawkins@giant.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
> --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Hawkins <lhawkins@giant.com>
>
> I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the
water.
> You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very hard
to
> find.
> Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gene [mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com]
> To: rv-list
> Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" <gene@nvaircraft.com>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very
slow
> and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in 24 hours with the tank
> initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
> water, "snoop" short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not
> know how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect
locations
> and have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded
this
> area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler
cap
> and filled this with water with the same results.
> Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
>
> Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
>
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
>
>
> <META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2655.35">
> RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> I submerged mine in the hot tub took two people to hold it under the
water. You have to hold it still and be patient. those slow leaks are very
hard to find.
>
>
> Larry Hawkins, RV-4 Farmington, NM, N-345SL, will fly soon.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Gene [<A
HREF"mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com">mailto:gene@nvaircraft.com]
>
>
> To: rv-list
>
> Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank
>
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: Gene gene@nvaircraft.com
>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find. It is very
slow and it lowers the manometer level about 4 in 24 hours with the tank
initially pressured to 1 psi. I have used the suggested methods : soapy
water, snoop short of completely submerging the tank in water I do not know
how to get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect locations and
have stood the tank in the end with the sending unit up and flooded this
area with water and no leaks. I have also built a dam around the filler cap
and filled this with water with the same results.
>
>
> Does anyone have a suggestion for finding this leak ??
>
>
> Gene RV-9a N557RV (res.)
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
Sorry to beat a dead horse, and yes I have read the archives. I just thought
someone may have
some new insight before I sign on the dotted line.
Thanks,
Mark Fowler
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock@theriver.com>
>
> Have you read the archives?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler"
<mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
> >
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark Fowler
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> >
> >
> > OK Doug,
> >
> > I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ?
I
> recently read this
> > article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best
way
> to go. I don't
> > have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
> are lots of pros and con
> > either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
> >
> > http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> >
> >
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Brake resevoir/feeder line routing |
--> RV-List message posted by: dmedema@att.net
How important is it to have the lines coming from the brake
resevoir routed such that they are always below the resevoir?
Do they have to be below the whole resevoir or can they just
be below say halfway up the resevoir?
I am almost ready to rivet my top forward skin on but want
to make sure I don't need to reroute my brake resevoir lines.
Thanks,
Doug Medema
RV-6A N276DM (reserved)
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Relax folks,
The guys just pulling our legs.......I hope?!
What a card!!,..Mark you are kidding aren't ya?! ....
Mark?!,... I do believe I smell smoke...
Mark! .....Grab the fire extinguisher and get into thet thar firesuit, quick
boy Quick!!!!
Aw, C'mon, admit it you looked at the Archives, discovered that the RV6A is
by far the best and now your just yank'in our chain .. Right?!
Wow! Mark yah had me goin for a while there. Phew....
do not archive
Jim in Kelowna Dinky wheels, Sheesh!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Subject: Fw: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>
> Oh God... not THIS thread again!!!!!
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler"
<mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
> >
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Mark Fowler
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> >
> >
> > OK Doug,
> >
> > I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ?
I
> recently read this
> > article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best
way
> to go. I don't
> > have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There
> are lots of pros and con
> > either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
> >
> > http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mark Fowler
> > mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> >
> >
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Galati" <rick07x@earthlink.net>
Mark,
Whatever choice you ultimately make is a compromise in one area or another.
While researching your decision, ask your insurance carrier for quotes based
upon each configuration. Also, you may want to ask Van's
what they think which configuration tends to sell the fastest on the resale
market.
--- Rick Galati
--- rick07x@earthlink.net
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | smart plugs or not? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
HI Jim;
I have a set of SmartPlugs on order for my 13B. I went to Arlington
this year with the specific purpose of investigating these plugs. After a
long discussion with Mark Cherry (the inventor) I feel that they have a
great concept. As with any new product they are experiencing development
issues, but I'm betting my money (300 cdn) that they will overcome these.
They are currently only producing these for the Rotax engines, as survey's
indicated that this market was most receptive to an experimental ignition
system. Fortunately for me, they are all rotary buffs (Mark has a 13B in his
'67 mustang). After discussing my project with him, he agreed to hand build
me a set for the same price. Unfortunately they are experiencing some issues
with the longevity being less than expected and are working hard to address
this, so mine are on hold for a while. They have offered to refund my money
if I don't want to wait, but I have opted to wait it out, since it is not
really holding me up. I also realize that I snuck into their production list
with a special order that requires hand building, so I'm allowing more
leeway than I would if I had expected a product right away.
IIRC you're using a Lyc. aren't you? At Arlington he had a set of
plugs on display for a Cont. but they were hand made as well. It may be a
few years before he begins building them for Lycs, but I expect they will be
coming.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B rotary powered
RX-9endurance (FWF)
C-FSTB (reserved)
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jewell [SMTP:jjewell@telus.net]
> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 1:03 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: smart plugs or not?
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
>
> Listers,
>
> This is more a matter of curiosity than anything.
>
> I am curious to know if there are any number of people on the list who
> have any first hand experience or knowledge in regard to
> http://www.smartplugs.com/ .
>
> I would think a development of this sort that can be brought to present
> day or better aviation piston engine performance standards would be
> heralded as the best damn thing since the concept of the "mile high club"!
>
> Has anyone out there in the 'almost real world' converted their lawn
> mower, an old pickup or some such in an attempt to evaluate this as
> advertised "igniting the future" product.
>
> Could it be that there is another alternative to the two magnetos versus
> one magneto one electronic ignition, two electronic ignitions, no magnetos
> controversy just imagine; LOOK MA! No magnetos no electronic ignition and
> loops and rolls as well !!
>
> Of course we will then have to consider the various mandatory rules and
> regulations changes and then there will be the concerns of Hartzell and
> other players in the aviation industry.
>
> I don't know for sure but this could have the makings of a pretty good
> string on the list?!
>
> Speaking of strings; I'm thinking we could create a Best String of the
> year award (The BS award) with categories such as , Smartest, Cutest,
> shortest Longest, most confusing, Most Annoying, Dumbest, etc.
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
>
>
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Mark,
>
>Whatever choice you ultimately make is a compromise in one area or another.
>While researching your decision, ask your insurance carrier for quotes
>based
>upon each configuration. Also, you may want to ask Van's
>what they think which configuration tends to sell the fastest on the resale
>market.
Interesting you should mention the resale market. I've been watching the
want ads...Trade A Plane, Aircraft Shopper online, Ebay (where else can you
buy Elvis memorabilia AND an airplane at the same time?), etc.
Is it just me or is the crappy state of affairs in the economy slamming the
value of our beloved RV's? Specifically, as an RV8 builder/owner, I've been
watching the RV8 values since I may be facing selling mine to finance an
RV-10 project. It seems that lately there are some very nice -8's up for
sale with loads of goodies....new engines, IFR panels, constant speed props,
moving map GPS, etc...going for bargain basement prices. The sellers are
being up front about financial hardships motivating them to sell. I can
only pray I don't have to sell under such circumstances.
Not only is this making my wallet tremor in fear, but it's breaking my heart
too. I like to say to my friends, family and my wife, that airplanes are a
sound investment, and that my -8 will command a nice tidy sum at the selling
table. When I compare my day/night VFR w/gyros, O-360/Sensenich powered
airplane to these full-house, 200hp/IFR airplanes, it's like comparing a
Ferrari to a Yugo. For instance, there is a gorgeous RV8 on Ebay right now.
Opening minimum bid is $80K. That's what I honestly feel MY airplane is
(was??) worth. Yes, any item's value is simply what someone is willing to
pay for it. I'm just beginning to wonder if the airplane market is sliding
as fast as the stock market.
So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos as
other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and save
what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
interest.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
3 yrs. of RV grins
do not archive this diatribe
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
If you're willing to live with the weight penalty, it may be an option.
But I would agree with most people on the list that the best thing to
do is to try both, and pick the one you like. It's all cosmetic, in the
air the plane won't fly any different.
Just don't ask about slider vs. tip-up... whoops!
Do not archive.
-RB4
RV7 Empennage
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> When this is the case, you should order one of each. When you get them
> done, you sell the one you like the lest and pocket the profit. Then you
> monitor the list and answer this question because it comes up about once
> very two months.
>
> Do not archive.
>
> Larry in Indiana, building a taildragger and have never flown one before and
> still wondering if I should have gone with the training wheel model.
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Buffing Wheel Info |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
I purchased a Buffer/grinder from harbor freight. It starts out as a
buffer, but includes a tool rest and guard for one of the wheels. It was
around $70 for a 3/4 HP machine. A SUPER deal. They also sell the same
unit as a straight buffer without the guard and rest for about $60. Right
now I have 3M scotch brite wheel on one side and a buffing wheel with medium
compound on the other side. When I intend to buff a number of parts, It
takes me about 5 minutes to remove the rest and guard and remount a buffing
wheel. I use 3 to 4 steps after wet sanding with 600 then 1200 grit. Black
bar, brown bar, blue bar (same as jewelers rouge) then white. (if steel. I
stop at blue with aluminum)
Go to Caswellplating.com
They have a pdf of a buffing 101 type book.
Great info, and where I bought everything but the actual buffer. By the
way, they charge something like $150 for a 3/4 HP buffer that appears
identical to the harbor freight item.
Buffer is here $59
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40668
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40668>
Smaller 1/3 HP buffer is here:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40664
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=40664>
Combo Buffer Grinder is here: (not worth the extra $$ for one guard and one
tool rest)
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=45901
<http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=45901>
Hope this helps.
Don Mei
RV-4 N92CT
3B9 - Chester, CT
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
> Randy
> Im interested in the AC prop. You mention several
> times the AC prop has the best performance. Please
> help me because I have not seen or heard of a AC prop
> on an RV as of yet.
As far as RVs go it's all theoretical at this point... no hard data. Stay
tuned though, Dick Martin should have some real data soon. He's very focused
on speed and I'm sure he'll do a good job documenting the difference (if
any).
> Another question I have is you mention AC is using
> the McCauly 220 hub. The last time a spoke with them
> they said they where making there own hub and not
> using the McCauly hub?
Indeed they are transitioning to their own hub which is an "improved clone"
of the McCauley design. I went with the McCauley just for the comfort
factor. Supposedly their new design will have several improvements and will
be available Q1 '03.
> I am still pondering about 2 vs 3blade props. I had a
> good buddy some 20yrs ago who had several Cessna 185s
> some with 2 blade and some with 3 blade props. I asked
> him what performance difference there was. He said the
> larger diameter 2-blade prop climbed slightly better
> but the 3-blade was slightly faster than the 2-blade
> prop. He also said it took someone with a lot of time
> in the airplane the really notice any of these
> differences at all. The only thing I can say for
> myself after riding in my friends 185s is that the
> three bladed prop was incredibly smooth and quiet
> compared to the 2-bladed 185 , it was like a
> completely different airplane with the 3 blade prop.
And a Cessna 185 is a completely different application. Still, if you want a
3-blad for the smoothness then both MT and Whirlwind have great options for
you.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 284 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
I hope Van's has changed the design since the 6A on the 7A (can't comment on
the 8A or 9A) because there is considerably more work on the 6A compared to
the tail draggers. On my 6A with the fuselage still in the jig upside-down,
I had to install both wings in order to drill the u/c weldments through the
holes in the spars and the (F604) main bulkhead! You have to make spar
substitute spacers to fit the weldments and the legs during the on-going
construction work and you can't fit the legs until the wings are installed
at the 'planes final destination and its a real sweat to get the 36 bolts
per side to finally complete the installation. Many a time I cursed the
complexity of all this as compared to the tail dragger where the legs simply
plug into the engine mount and wished I had built the tail-dragger instead!
Cheers!!----------Henry Hore
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV6 Rear Spar Bolt |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" <garth@islandnet.com>
I read recently of an RV which flew for awhile without the wing rear spar
bolt installed. I can't find it in the archives, so maybe I read it
elsewhere. (Maybe I dreamt it!) Can anyone point me to it?
Many thanks.
Garth Shearing
VariEze and 80% RV6A
Victoria BC Canada
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
Brian,
According to Van's website, there are now some 254 RV-8's and 8A's total
flying right now. This is a thin market. Kind of like mansions in Malibu.
A couple of guys that have to sell can have a drastic impact on price. Do
not archive.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 #80121 gear boxes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Whatever choice you ultimately make is a compromise in one area or
another.
> >While researching your decision, ask your insurance carrier for quotes
> >based
> >upon each configuration. Also, you may want to ask Van's
> >what they think which configuration tends to sell the fastest on the
resale
> >market.
>
>
> Interesting you should mention the resale market. I've been watching the
> want ads...Trade A Plane, Aircraft Shopper online, Ebay (where else can
you
> buy Elvis memorabilia AND an airplane at the same time?), etc.
>
> Is it just me or is the crappy state of affairs in the economy slamming
the
> value of our beloved RV's? Specifically, as an RV8 builder/owner, I've
been
> watching the RV8 values since I may be facing selling mine to finance an
> RV-10 project. It seems that lately there are some very nice -8's up for
> sale with loads of goodies....new engines, IFR panels, constant speed
props,
> moving map GPS, etc...going for bargain basement prices. The sellers are
> being up front about financial hardships motivating them to sell. I can
> only pray I don't have to sell under such circumstances.
>
> Not only is this making my wallet tremor in fear, but it's breaking my
heart
> too. I like to say to my friends, family and my wife, that airplanes are
a
> sound investment, and that my -8 will command a nice tidy sum at the
selling
> table. When I compare my day/night VFR w/gyros, O-360/Sensenich powered
> airplane to these full-house, 200hp/IFR airplanes, it's like comparing a
> Ferrari to a Yugo. For instance, there is a gorgeous RV8 on Ebay right
now.
> Opening minimum bid is $80K. That's what I honestly feel MY airplane is
> (was??) worth. Yes, any item's value is simply what someone is willing to
> pay for it. I'm just beginning to wonder if the airplane market is
sliding
> as fast as the stock market.
>
> So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos
as
> other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and
save
> what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
> airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
>
> Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
> interest.
>
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> 3 yrs. of RV grins
>
> do not archive this diatribe
>
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
>
> I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I cannot find.
> It is very slow and it lowers the manometer level about 4" in
> 24 hours with the tank initially pressured to 1 psi. I have
> used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop" short of
> completely submerging the tank in water I do not know how to
> get to the problem. I have looked at all the suspect
> locations and have stood the tank in the end with the sending
> unit up and flooded this area with water and no leaks. I have
> also built a dam around the filler cap and filled this with
> water with the same results. Does anyone have a suggestion
> for finding this leak ??
>
If you found nothing with soapy water, you probably don't have a leak.
Air has very low viscosity and will produce a bubble in a soapy water
film or under water with even a tiny leak at 1psi. You've checked the
manometer setup itself?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Airplane value, especially on experimentals, is very subjective. I've seen
a VFR 160 hp RV-6a go for well under $40k, and know of similarly equipped
aircraft that have gone for $60K plus. One difference was build quality,
but another difference was that the $40K airplane was honest-to-gosh "For
Sale", and the guy needed to sell it. The more expensive aircraft commanded
a better price because they were not "For Sale", but a motivated buyer came
by, decided that he wanted a particular airplane, and asked "I want to buy
your airplane, what's your price?".
If you want top dollar for your airplane, build it well, make sure the paint
scheme is appealing (and not just to you), and stand around the airplane
answering questions at Osh, SnF, or equivalent. My experience is that if
the airplane is nice, a buyer will come along. At Oshkosh a year ago, I
turned away a guy who would have paid over $60k for my VFR/wood prop RV-6. I
finally told him that I wasn't selling unless he made an insane offer, and
even then, I'd have to think about it, 'cause I built it to fly, not sell.
Kyle Boatright
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Mark,
> >
> >Whatever choice you ultimately make is a compromise in one area or
another.
> >While researching your decision, ask your insurance carrier for quotes
> >based
> >upon each configuration. Also, you may want to ask Van's
> >what they think which configuration tends to sell the fastest on the
resale
> >market.
>
>
> Interesting you should mention the resale market. I've been watching the
> want ads...Trade A Plane, Aircraft Shopper online, Ebay (where else can
you
> buy Elvis memorabilia AND an airplane at the same time?), etc.
>
> Is it just me or is the crappy state of affairs in the economy slamming
the
> value of our beloved RV's? Specifically, as an RV8 builder/owner, I've
been
> watching the RV8 values since I may be facing selling mine to finance an
> RV-10 project. It seems that lately there are some very nice -8's up for
> sale with loads of goodies....new engines, IFR panels, constant speed
props,
> moving map GPS, etc...going for bargain basement prices. The sellers are
> being up front about financial hardships motivating them to sell. I can
> only pray I don't have to sell under such circumstances.
>
> Not only is this making my wallet tremor in fear, but it's breaking my
heart
> too. I like to say to my friends, family and my wife, that airplanes are
a
> sound investment, and that my -8 will command a nice tidy sum at the
selling
> table. When I compare my day/night VFR w/gyros, O-360/Sensenich powered
> airplane to these full-house, 200hp/IFR airplanes, it's like comparing a
> Ferrari to a Yugo. For instance, there is a gorgeous RV8 on Ebay right
now.
> Opening minimum bid is $80K. That's what I honestly feel MY airplane is
> (was??) worth. Yes, any item's value is simply what someone is willing to
> pay for it. I'm just beginning to wonder if the airplane market is
sliding
> as fast as the stock market.
>
> So, to get to my point, is the aircraft market subject to the same chaos
as
> other investment vehicles, or is this a sign that it's time to bail and
save
> what's left of my airplane's "value" to me? I'm new to buying and selling
> airplanes, and have no experience with the subtle issues involved.
>
> Sorry for my rambling. Just had to vent with those who share a common
> interest.
>
> Brian Denk
> RV8 N94BD
> 3 yrs. of RV grins
>
do not archive
>
>
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
> Temperature change of air inside tank will affect the gauge. Maybe it is
> not leaking.
with constant volume: water column changes 1.31" per degree C or 0.73" per
degree F.
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Guys,
This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my upper
main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure out the best
way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do the job, my problem
is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom front skin. Because
of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get to the other side
of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about getting some rivnuts to
solve the problem. Is this what others have done or is there a better solution?
Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even the slightest hint in this
area...
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Something to consider is a method for keeping your battery warm. I don't
know the numbers, but a battery that is at 70F has much more energy than one
that is at 35F. I've got a heating pad (like you might put on your forearm
after pulling about a thousand cleco's) that I wrap over the battery box if
I plan on a cold start. Leaving it on overnight gives me a toasty battery.
If I combine this with a 75-100W trouble light placed inside the cowl, it
makes for easy cold starts, even with a Prestolite starter and a wood prop.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: <panamared2@brier.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
> --> RV-List message posted by: panamared2@brier.net
>
> I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of
the
> paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place on
> the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
>
> Bob
>
>
> >I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to
answer
> >the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
>
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
In a message dated 12/02/2002 10:58:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7@b4.ca
writes:
> Is anyone on the list using an MT propellor on their RV?
>
I have a new MT Propeller for my RV-3, but I don't have it installed yet. It
is designed for cruise, with the optimum efficiency between 2400 and 2500
RPM.
It was very interesting visiting with Eric Greindl and Martin Albrecht when I
was at MT-Propeller for two weeks.
(BTW, Eric is on vacation for two weeks, so, last week and this week, his
e-mail address is apparently being covered by Martin Albrecht and Michael
Muehlbauer.)
I would guess that the aerobatic blades on an MT-Propeller would be designed
for optimum climb.
MT-Propeller normally provides blades designed to what the customer requests.
I spent two weeks in Germany last month learning as much as I could about MT
propellers, the company and the people at the company.
I believe someone on the list was looking for a propeller company like this.
In fact, I believe they were concerned that a company like this may already
exist, and had been overlooked.
Sometimes they are only there if the right questions are asked. When I have
my RV-3 flying with my MT propeller, maybe I'll have some answers.
And maybe I'll be willing to share. As long as it doesn't look like its
going to turn into an Ivoprop thread. :-)
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: KAKlewin@aol.com
My 2 cents....I am building a tri-gear for a few reasons:
1. Re-Sale....I think (I don't know for sure), but my feeling is that
there is a much larger market for re-sale of a tri-gear.
2. Ive flown in several straight -6's and I couldn't see a darn thing
over the nose..I know you can s-turn and crank the head around and its
probably not a big deal...but I like to see where I am going.
3. I feel more comfortable in a tri-gear...Ive flown a few taildraggers
(only a few hours)...but even with 3500 hours I feel the safest thing for me
is a tri-gear. Especially since it blows a lot in OK and I would not enjoy
my flying as much if I felt I had to limit myself in higher winds with a
tail-dragger.
4. Most accident reports I have read (relating only to loss of control
on the ground/takeoff/landing) are ground loop type accidents by
taildraggers. A few nose gears have caved in on -A planes too...but ground
loops take the cake.
5. All other things equal, a bit shorter takeoff roll.
There are many reasons for both...these are only mine for what thats
worth. Bottom line...everyone has a different mission intended for their
airplane, and come from different backgrounds...up to you to decide what your
"mission statement" is!!!
Hope that muddies the waters....
Kurt in OKC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
In a message dated 12/02/2002 10:58:14 AM Pacific Standard Time, rv7@b4.ca
writes:
> Sounds like the marketing department speaking. A two-bladed design is
> more aerodynamically efficient than a three-bladed design (although,
> yes, it may not be as smooth-running). Are you working on a two-bladed
> propellor? Someone else asked this as well and I haven't seen an answer.
>
Hi All,
I had just received the following reply from MT Propeller on the question of
whether a two blade propeller was "the fastest".
The maximum efficiency for a 2-blade is 91.5, for a 3-blade 91.0 and for the
4-blade 90.3%.
So the difference is only 1.2% from a 2 to a 4 blade prop.
In other words: If a 2-blade is off design, and a 3-blade or 4-blade is
optimized for this particular installation, it will always outperform the
2-blade.
More specifically, the theoretically maximum efficiency of my three blade
MT-Propeller could be 0.5% less efficient than an optimized design two bladed
propeller.
Should I worry about the possibility of losing 0.5% of efficiency, when I
remove my fixed pitch two blade prop which has a totally unknown efficiency?
Jim Ayers
RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A engine (A JAA certified alternate aircraft engine)
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe Hine" <joehine@nbnet.nb.ca>
Hi Mark
I had this problem with my four. One screw had to go in the little rounded
.16 skin on the sides of the forward fuselage. I orginally did them with
rivnuts, but this lasted about 10 minutes or one tightening of the screw and
the rivnut was turning. If the skin you want to put them in is thicker you
might have better luck. What I ended up doing, was drill a hole large
enough to get a plate nut inside (with a long screw threaded in for a
handle) This left just enough skin to get a pop rivit through each side of
the plate nut to hold it in place. No problems since. The fairing covers
the whole thing when in place. You may not be able or want to do this as I
believe the skin you are talking about is structural and it requires a
fairly large hole.
Joe Hine
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
czechsix@juno.com
Subject: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings?
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Guys,
This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
the slightest hint in this area...
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rv8forduane@aol.com
Mark:
Don't let the wiley veterens rattle you. I have the same decision to make.
I've got about 12 hours in Trigear, no PPL, and can't decide. I'm wanting to
build an aircraft for the joy of the project.
I haven't ordered, but I'm thinking I like the RV8. I would complete my
training in a taildragger. I think the biggest concern is the impact of
crosswinds and other unique conditions that impact handling. BOTTOM LINE: A
tail dragger looks like fun!!!
Duane
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
Alex,
I would say there is no leak. A change in barometric
pressure can cause 4 inches pretty easily.
Ross Schlotthauer
RV7 Fuse
--- Alex Peterson <alexpeterson@usjet.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have one of my RV-9 tanks with a leak that I
> cannot find.
> > It is very slow and it lowers the manometer level
> about 4" in
> > 24 hours with the tank initially pressured to 1
> psi. I have
> > used the suggested methods : soapy water, "snoop"
> short of
> > completely submerging the tank in water I do not
> know how to
> > get to the problem. I have looked at all the
> suspect
> > locations and have stood the tank in the end with
> the sending
> > unit up and flooded this area with water and no
> leaks. I have
> > also built a dam around the filler cap and filled
> this with
> > water with the same results. Does anyone have a
> suggestion
> > for finding this leak ??
> >
>
> If you found nothing with soapy water, you probably
> don't have a leak.
> Air has very low viscosity and will produce a bubble
> in a soapy water
> film or under water with even a tiny leak at 1psi.
> You've checked the
> manometer setup itself?
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
>
> Click on the
> this
> generous
> _->
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Nice, Tedd. I chose the RV-8 for the same reasons.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Do not archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tedd McHenry
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:12 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> Mark:
>
> > I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel
> or Trigear
> > ? I recently read this article online and was wondering
> what you guys
> > think would be the best way to go.
>
> The "best way to go" is to find out what you want and build
> that. If you're at all interested in a tailwheel I strongly
> recommend that you get some tailwheel time--in an RV, if you
> can! When I started I thought I wanted a tailwheel, but
> hadn't flown one, ever. So I started getting some tailwheel
> time. After about 70 hours of tailwheel, including about 20
> in RVs, I'm totally sold on the tailwheel. But you might
> find the exact opposite. The only way you'll know is to do
> some tailwheel flying.
>
> What do I like about the tailwheel? Tailwheels make me work
> at my landings more, and I enjoy that. I enjoy deciding if
> I'll do a wheel landing or a three-pointer. I find each
> landing more rewarding because it took some effort to make it
> nice. I like the way the airplane responds to aerodynamic
> contols during the landing roll--even during taxiing! I like
> that I have to fly the airplane through the whole take-off
> run, not just wait for it to gather speed. I enjoy being able
> to pirouette around one wheel when parking or turning into
> wind. Flying a tailwheel airplane also makes me feel
> connected to the tradition of flying in a way that a
> nosewheel airplane doesn't. That's totally subjective and
> irrational (or, at least, non-rational), but true
> nevertheless, for me.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> Its just that it makes no sense to me to redesign something to an
> application that no part in it was ever designed for,
Many people say this, or something like it (including Van), but never, ever
mention even one thing that would be done differently on an engine designed
for
automotive use as compared to aircraft use. I'm not suggesting that there
are
no differences, but I am suggesting that most of the people who say this
have
little idea what any of those differences are. Which makes me wonder what
makes them think they're qualified to offer an opinion.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
Tedd, and all
the digest isn't long enough for me to list all the differences, but every
part is different including the gasoline and oil.
A few aeromotive common differences are:
Crankshaft, different metal, hollow, heavier for equal hp, massive nose
section even on geared engines, may have harmonic dampers,
Con rods, lighter per BMEP, different metal, surface tensioned,
Camshaft, equal up/down slope, timed and lofted for max outout in small rpm
range
Case, different metal, very soft and flexible compared to auto aluminum
Cylinders, aircooled, different metals, very large bore, more displacement
for hp, commonly cut choked,
Pistons, big bore, large skirts, cam ground and fit loose due to wide
operating heat range,
Valves, stellite faces, sodium filled, tend to be larger due to large bore,
Ignition, self contained, redundant setup, no timing advance/retard (not
really needed)
All hardware grade 5 or grade 8, or NAS close tolerance
this could go on for awhile...
With respect to testing, actually I have worked on and studied projects
doing failure testing on both types of engines. I believe this was where I
really learned that they are very different, such that you can't compare the
two different types of testing and call that a valid comparison of rigor. It
all goes back to the mission, and the automotive mission is far harder to
simulate so it will always "look" more rigorous.
I agree that automotive engines are more throughly designed than aeromotive
ones, but that doesn't mean its very realistic to convert one into the
other. Its like trying to make a cat bark like a dog just because they are
both domestic animals that can be specialty bred. You might be able to train
a few cats to do this, but that won't change the fact that dogs will always
be better able to drool than cats.
With respect to design, the two significant areas that aeromotive could/are
really steal/ing from automotive is in cooling management systems (liquid)
and engine fuel/spark control(FADEC). But this must always retain redundant
function, while being fiscally sound. With respect to manufacturing,
aeromotive could probably learn lots from automotive, and this is where our
costs would eventually be reduced, which, by the way, is exactly what Van
has done to Beech, Piper and Cessna, thank you very much.
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/images/FADEC.ppt is a powerpoint
presentation we are working on for our annual IA renewal seminar that has
some good pics of the TCM Aerosance FADEC being installed on a Lyc 0-360. At
the current time, though, this baby cost as much as the engine did. (its
12megs so it will take some toe tapping time and is strictly meant to be
introductory). Their big costs have been quality and inherant system
redundancy. Weight wise I think its going to be close to an even wash.
do not archive
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Do Not Archive.
While building the HRII we taped a plastic glove to the outlet and sealed
everything else on the completed tanks. The gloves stayed inflated somewhat
in the cool/cold garage BUT when taken outside in direct sunlight (to make
more work room) they grew up with fingers extended and rounded palms. They
did this for more than two years while we were building. We did inflate them
a little at the start. 91.9 hrs fly time later we have one rivet that
showed a slight blue ring around its outer edge, no drips, no runs, no drops
at the "conditional inspection" time. Have not come up with a method to make
this one rivet 100 % again. KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Gray" <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Major changes and the Feds |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
"Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:-
Subject: Re: RV-List: Working on a non-owner built RV
........As to major alterations you have to go by whatever tyhe Operating
Linmitations state. The older ones say that any major change has to be
coordinated with the local FSDO, and the new ones state that the owner can
just make an entry in the maintenance logs, conduct a minimum 5 hour test
flight, sign it off and go on your merry way................
Mike. Would this also include changing to a different engine installation. I'm
considering a switch to a rotary a few months after I get my plane flying and
have time left to work on a firewall forward installation in the evenings.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley.
RV9A fuselage. N919RV resvd.
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Gyro suction bypass valve |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
Several have asked where I got the valves I used to switch the suction
on my gyros off for aerobatics. Go to http://www.mcmaster.com, and
search for P/N 4757K58, then hit catalog page. See also
http://www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson/misc.htm for a diagram of how I
installed them in my plane.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 235 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Norman wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how many thou's a #16 drill is?
>
> #11?
>
> I'm putting the plastic knob on my canopy latching mechanism.
>
> Thanks,
> Norman Hunger
> RV6A Delta BC
> Do not archive
Norman;
Try this kink. It is a chart of number drill sizes. (don't forget to patch it together
if it spills
over to a second line)
http://www.mhatt.aps.anl.gov/dohn/ref_exp_sci/number_drill.html
--
Bob McC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: more engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
Dear Wheeler North,
Forgive me but your post was well thought out, so I removed the 'dna'
tag at the end.
As I said in an earlier post, I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6 in my
RV9a. The last thing you talked about is what gives me most cause for
pause: "FADEC". Fadec, of course is an attempt to bring Lycoming into
the electronic age. But,and this is a big BUT, in seminars at Oshkosh,
the propeller guys where shaking their heads. They have concerns about
harmonics induced by Fadec. That is what concerns me with my Chevy
project; harmonics.
With the Bowtie block and aluminum heads and aluminum radiator, I may
come in about the same or lighter than a 160 Lycoming.
I am using a forged (Hank the Crank of Indy fame) oddfire crank. This
lets me use Eagle Chevy V8 rods.
9 to 1 compression dished pistons gives me good flame travel and I can
use Mogas or 100LL.
Dual MSD units, Dual coils and auto transfer mechanism (used in racing
for years) gives pretty good redundancy. And I can loose 2 plugs to
fouling and still have 4 firing. People that have done this, tell me it
is about as smooth (if you can say that) as a Lycoming at that point. I
am using ARP bolts and studs.
I think my set up will have most of the strong points that you attribute
to Aircraft engines. Not all of course.
And then there are those harmonics....................
Barry Pote RV9a
> Tedd, and all
>
> the digest isn't long enough for me to list all the differences, but every
> part is different including the gasoline and oil.
>
> A few aeromotive common differences are:
>
> Crankshaft, different metal, hollow, heavier for equal hp, massive nose
> section even on geared engines, may have harmonic dampers,
>
> Con rods, lighter per BMEP, different metal, surface tensioned,
>
> Camshaft, equal up/down slope, timed and lofted for max outout in small rpm
> range
>
> Case, different metal, very soft and flexible compared to auto aluminum
>
> Cylinders, aircooled, different metals, very large bore, more displacement
> for hp, commonly cut choked,
>
> Pistons, big bore, large skirts, cam ground and fit loose due to wide
> operating heat range,
>
> Valves, stellite faces, sodium filled, tend to be larger due to large bore,
>
> Ignition, self contained, redundant setup, no timing advance/retard (not
> really needed)
>
> All hardware grade 5 or grade 8, or NAS close tolerance
>
> this could go on for awhile...
>
> With respect to testing, actually I have worked on and studied projects
> doing failure testing on both types of engines. I believe this was where I
> really learned that they are very different, such that you can't compare the
> two different types of testing and call that a valid comparison of rigor. It
> all goes back to the mission, and the automotive mission is far harder to
> simulate so it will always "look" more rigorous.
>
> I agree that automotive engines are more throughly designed than aeromotive
> ones, but that doesn't mean its very realistic to convert one into the
> other. Its like trying to make a cat bark like a dog just because they are
> both domestic animals that can be specialty bred. You might be able to train
> a few cats to do this, but that won't change the fact that dogs will always
> be better able to drool than cats.
>
> With respect to design, the two significant areas that aeromotive could/are
> really steal/ing from automotive is in cooling management systems (liquid)
> and engine fuel/spark control(FADEC). But this must always retain redundant
> function, while being fiscally sound. With respect to manufacturing,
> aeromotive could probably learn lots from automotive, and this is where our
> costs would eventually be reduced, which, by the way, is exactly what Van
> has done to Beech, Piper and Cessna, thank you very much.
>
> http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/images/FADEC.ppt is a powerpoint
> presentation we are working on for our annual IA renewal seminar that has
> some good pics of the TCM Aerosance FADEC being installed on a Lyc 0-360. At
> the current time, though, this baby cost as much as the engine did. (its
> 12megs so it will take some toe tapping time and is strictly meant to be
> introductory). Their big costs have been quality and inherant system
> redundancy. Weight wise I think its going to be close to an even wash.
>
Message 71
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
How would you do this? The engine mounts are very different. Would you
weld a custom mount that had sockets for the nose gear and the main gear for
the tail dragger?
You would have holes in your cowl when you converted to the nose gear. You
would have a long hole in your scoop and 2 holes in the bottom of the fuse
when you converted to tailwheel. Also, you would have to have 2 different
weight and balances done, and carry the proper one with you. I would think
your DAR wouldn't be too keen on giving you operating limitations on two
different configurations! Seems like ALOT more work than it is worth.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
> attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
>
do not archive
Message 72
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring |
--> RV-List message posted by: RGray67968@aol.com
Steve,
This is the same set up I have in my RV6. I also included the 'music'
output (CD player) per page 10 of the Flightcom 403 diagram. It's not that
difficult. Just 'follow the diagram' one wire at a time. Using a terminal
stud (or other) to make your connections will make it MUCH simpler and easier
to label/troubleshoot down the road. Example: run pin #17 wire from the 403
(page 10) to your terminal labeled 'transmit audio'. Then run pin #8 wire
(mic 1of page 10 in the SL40 installation manual) to the SAME terminal. Then
run a connecting wire from the terminal to each mic jack (the 'other side' of
the mic will go to the TxKey later). Then continue......1 wire at a time.
Hint: if you view the black 'dots' on page 10 of the Flightcom schematic as
'terminals' it may make it easier for you. My set up was done by following
the diagrams you have in front of you and works as advertised with no hiccups
at all. Again, use terminals to connect each wire to and did I mention to do
it..............one wire at a time :
). Feel free to give me a yell if I can
help.........I dug out my schematics and have them right in front of me.
Rick Gray RV6 w/111.1 hours (Ohio) at the Buffalo Farm - headed out for some
acro practice in the morning. please archive
> I'm trying to wire the SL40 comm and the Flightcom 403 (stereo).
>
> The 403 wiring shows 4 wires going to radio:
> 1. Avionics Ground
> 2. Transmit audio
> 3. Receive audio
> 4. Transmit Keyline
>
> The ground is easy enough but I can't match the other 3 to the SL40 wiring
> diagram.
>
> Also the 403 shows all the wiring to the headphones, PTT, and mic jacks.
> The
> SL40 also
> shows these hook-ups (although not near as clearly). Does the SL40 need to
> be wired to these
> as well or are there internal circuits to take care of this (i.e. just wire
> the 4 wires above
> and you're done)?
>
> Does some one have a 'dumbed down' wiring diagram of this? I suck at
> deciphering
> these wiring diagrams.
>
> Steve
> RV7A
> panel
Message 73
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Paul Besing wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
>
> How would you do this? The engine mounts are very different. Would you
> weld a custom mount that had sockets for the nose gear and the main gear for
> the tail dragger?
My recollection was that the owner had two engine mounts, one for
trigear and another for tailwheel, but this is only from memory. Maybe
someone else here on the list has heard of this being done and can chime in.
> You would have holes in your cowl when you converted to the nose gear. You
> would have a long hole in your scoop and 2 holes in the bottom of the fuse
> when you converted to tailwheel.
Holes can be plugged easily with inspection covers, I would think,
probably using some of the same holes that the intersection fairings
would attach to?
> Also, you would have to have 2 different
> weight and balances done, and carry the proper one with you. I would think
> your DAR wouldn't be too keen on giving you operating limitations on two
> different configurations! Seems like ALOT more work than it is worth.
One builder here in BC has built an RV-6 that he converts between floats
and wheels, and has also built and flown amphibious floats on the
aircraft. I don't know what the arrangement was with Transport Canada
when these conversions are made, but I suspect he has them all approved.
Yes, the W&B will be different, but I don't suppose it would be so
onerous to do the calculations once for each configuration and carry all
three with you.
I agree it's more work, but I don't agree that it's a *lot* more work.
I'm considering building in any necessary mounts for floats in my RV-7
fuselage, just in case I decide that might be fun at a later date.
Haven't made the decision to build floats for it, but don't want to
limit myself either. BC is a very pretty province wth lots of lovely
lakes...
-RB4
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> http://www.kitlog.com
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>>
>>I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
>>attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
>>
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 74
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: MeangreenRV4@aol.com
In a message dated 12/2/2002 12:23:33 PM Pacific Standard Time,
mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" <mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com>
>
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mark Fowler
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
>
>
> OK Doug,
>
> I want to order but still can't make up my mind, Tailwheel or Trigear ? I
> recently read this
> article online and was wondering what you guys think would be the best way
> to go. I don't
> have much tailwheel time other than getting checked out in a cub. There are
> lots of pros and con
> either way. I want to be a better pilot but also a safe pilot.
>
> http://www.metronet.com/~dreeves/articles/nosewheelvstailwheel.htm
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Fowler
> mark@fowlerssheetmetal.com
>
>
Its about time this subject come up for review. This is a no-brainer. There
are only 2 types of pilots in this world...
#1 There are the taildragger pilots
#2 And there are the ones that whished they were taildragger pilots.
Planes all fly the same in the air
Tim Barnes
Meangreen RV4
Message 75
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
For floats it would make sense to me. But to switch between a taildragger
or nose gear seems a bit far fetched. If you built it in there with the
idea of selling it, so you could make any buyer happy, that would work. I
would think that one would get it in "taildragger" mode and want to keep it
there!
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
> >
> > How would you do this? The engine mounts are very different. Would you
> > weld a custom mount that had sockets for the nose gear and the main gear
for
> > the tail dragger?
>
> My recollection was that the owner had two engine mounts, one for
> trigear and another for tailwheel, but this is only from memory. Maybe
> someone else here on the list has heard of this being done and can chime
in.
>
> > You would have holes in your cowl when you converted to the nose gear.
You
> > would have a long hole in your scoop and 2 holes in the bottom of the
fuse
> > when you converted to tailwheel.
>
> Holes can be plugged easily with inspection covers, I would think,
> probably using some of the same holes that the intersection fairings
> would attach to?
>
> > Also, you would have to have 2 different
> > weight and balances done, and carry the proper one with you. I would
think
> > your DAR wouldn't be too keen on giving you operating limitations on two
> > different configurations! Seems like ALOT more work than it is worth.
>
> One builder here in BC has built an RV-6 that he converts between floats
> and wheels, and has also built and flown amphibious floats on the
> aircraft. I don't know what the arrangement was with Transport Canada
> when these conversions are made, but I suspect he has them all approved.
>
> Yes, the W&B will be different, but I don't suppose it would be so
> onerous to do the calculations once for each configuration and carry all
> three with you.
>
> I agree it's more work, but I don't agree that it's a *lot* more work.
> I'm considering building in any necessary mounts for floats in my RV-7
> fuselage, just in case I decide that might be fun at a later date.
> Haven't made the decision to build floats for it, but don't want to
> limit myself either. BC is a very pretty province wth lots of lovely
> lakes...
>
> -RB4
>
> > Paul Besing
> > RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> > http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> > Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> > http://www.kitlog.com
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
> >>
> >>I've seen mention in the past of people who have built their RV's with
> >>attach points for *both* sets of gear, and can switch back and forth.
> >>
> >
> > do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 76
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" <gene@nvaircraft.com>
Rob, I would tend to think you are correct, however I had both tanks hooked
up to manometers at the same time and one tank never move while the other
would drop off. I switched manometers just to eliminate the possibly of a
hole in the tygon tubing on the "bad tank" and got the same results.
Gene N557RV (res.)
Message 77
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@carlsbad.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
> Guys,
>
> This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
the slightest hint in this area...
>
I used rivnuts in this application on my 6. I only did it because those
screws do not need to be tight and I epoxied the rivnuts in addition to
normal installation, because I was worried they might rotate.
I install the screws very loosely and they have had no tendency to come out.
There has been no problem with the rivnuts.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://www.carlsbadnm.com/n5lp/index.htm
Message 78
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
> The only thing,You are not going to put the elt, itself
> under the bagage floors no?
>
> Just a thought, what one does, if need to reach
> for it, in case of accident?
I did that. Split the floorboard on the right side and screw/nut-plated that
section of floorboard only, and put the ELT under there (see
http://www.edt.com/homewing/rhproject/bungee.jpg) Gets it out of the way and
bolted to a rib which is per the ELT manuf. specs. HOWEVER, as you suggest
it would be difficult to access after an accident (I'm picturing crawling
into an upside down fuselage, battered and bruised, trying to remove 12 or
so phillips-head screws in self-locking nutplates -- not likely.) Of course
theres the remote activator but still you might need access in some
circumstances. Doing it over I'd probably either just stick it in the
baggage compartment somewere and not worry so much about the clutter of it,
or put it where I did but have an access hatch with camlocks or some other
type of quick-release fasteners.
One thing that I did, and recommend if its not in plain sight, is make a
plackard that says "ELT BEHIND PANEL".
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
Portland, OR
www.vanshomewing.org
Message 79
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Henry
The 8A and 7A both utilize the 8 wing. This wing uses the more traditional 3 piece
wing spar. the center section of the spar is part of the fuselage. Installing
the wings is not necessary to set up the gear. All the agony you suffered
is now gone. Installing the main gear weldments is much easier. The 8 main gear
boxes are a lot more work than the 8A main gear. (Heavier too)
Charlie Kuss
PS Don't you hate being told these things by folks with the newer kits? The local
9A guys tell me that their kits come completed. The fuel tanks come with gas
in them! :-)
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" <elsa-henry@darlor-watch.com>
>
>I hope Van's has changed the design since the 6A on the 7A (can't comment on
>the 8A or 9A) because there is considerably more work on the 6A compared to
>the tail draggers. On my 6A with the fuselage still in the jig upside-down,
>I had to install both wings in order to drill the u/c weldments through the
>holes in the spars and the (F604) main bulkhead! You have to make spar
>substitute spacers to fit the weldments and the legs during the on-going
>construction work and you can't fit the legs until the wings are installed
>at the 'planes final destination and its a real sweat to get the 36 bolts
>per side to finally complete the installation. Many a time I cursed the
>complexity of all this as compared to the tail dragger where the legs simply
>plug into the engine mount and wished I had built the tail-dragger instead!
> Cheers!!----------Henry Hore
Message 80
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pink <lpink@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Norman
A # 16 Drill is .1770"
A # 11 Drill is .1910"
L. Pink
RV7-A
Empenage
N7WT (Reserved)
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert McCallum [mailto:robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Drill Sizes
--> RV-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
<robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Norman wrote:
>
> Can anyone tell me how many thou's a #16 drill is?
>
> #11?
>
> I'm putting the plastic knob on my canopy latching mechanism.
>
> Thanks,
> Norman Hunger
> RV6A Delta BC
> Do not archive
Norman;
Try this kink. It is a chart of number drill sizes. (don't forget to patch
it together if it spills
over to a second line)
http://www.mhatt.aps.anl.gov/dohn/ref_exp_sci/number_drill.html
--
Bob McC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 81
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Those who reside in the GWN or the northern tier of states will be familiar
with a handy device called a "battery blanket" available from most any auto
parts store, Cdn tire, Wal Mart, etc. It is just a ruggedized electric
blanket in a convenient size to wrap around your car battery. Plug it in
along with your block heater and it keeps the battery warm enough to provide
lots of cranking amps when you need to get your car going on those
frosty -30 F mornings. Works fine on a car - no reason it shouldn't do the
same in an airplane.
Note - anyone who can immediately identify what a "block heater" probably
doesn't need a battery blanket. :-)
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB (where it is a cool -23 C as I write = - 10 F or so)
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
<kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
>
> Something to consider is a method for keeping your battery warm. I don't
> know the numbers, but a battery that is at 70F has much more energy than
one
> that is at 35F. I've got a heating pad (like you might put on your
forearm
> after pulling about a thousand cleco's) that I wrap over the battery box
if
> I plan on a cold start. Leaving it on overnight gives me a toasty
battery.
>
> If I combine this with a 75-100W trouble light placed inside the cowl, it
> makes for easy cold starts, even with a Prestolite starter and a wood
prop.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <panamared2@brier.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: panamared2@brier.net
> >
> > I use the HOT STRIP. No problems, easy to install, just get off all of
> the
> > paint. I have the dual stainless strips, could be hard to find a place
on
> > the sump to mount both strips. Measure first.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
> > >I am seriously considering the Reiff "Hot Strip" system. It seems to
> answer
> > >the concerns and problems Sam Buchanan had with his installation.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 82
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
RV4 wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV4" <VansRV4GRVMJ@btinternet.com>
>
> > -Has anyone tried paint stripper for fiberglass? Results, Problems?
>
> fiberglass is not paint stripper resistant. Mask off with poly and speed
> tape.
>
> Marcel de Ruiter
> RV4/G-RVMJ
> Acft painter
Fibreglass paint stripper is very effective and not too messy and most brands are
water
soluable/washable. Make absolutely certain you have purchased stripper specifically
meant for
fibreglass however, as regular paint stripper will attack the resins in the fibreglass.
I
successfully striped a Lotus Elan (fibreglass British sports car) using this type
of stripper and
was quite pleased with the result.
--
Bob McC
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 83
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Tedd;
Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in a
Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a business
case to produce it.
Jim Oke
CYWG
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> Charlie:
>
> > Do they test their engines at 75% - 100% rated power for hours on end?
>
> A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The
Chrysler
> V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost
exclusively
> wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in
mind
> that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated
such
> that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire
Chyrsler
> test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the
aircraft
> industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so
the
> Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto
industry
> test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's
atypical.
> You can read more about it at
>
> http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
>
> > You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
>
> Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
>
> > Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined
that aircraft
> > engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I
will
> > learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
>
> You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the
same
> time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
> achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that
it's
> tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda
just
> didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources.
Ditto
> Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
>
> I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
> business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
> addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft
use?"
> Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to
ask
> about the first question.)
>
> > Each of us can choose
> > his own path.
>
> Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful
knowledge on
> the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
> -6 wings
>
>
Message 84
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: more engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Barry,
How much weight will you save using the aluminium block and heads? I ask because
most Ford and Chevy V-6 projects come out about 100 pounds over weight. I think
that your use of the light weight parts is a great idea. However, can you
really save 100 pounds there? What PSRU will you use?
Charlie Kuss
Not knocking it, just asking
>--> RV-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
>
>Dear Wheeler North,
>Forgive me but your post was well thought out, so I removed the 'dna'
>tag at the end.
>
>As I said in an earlier post, I am going to use a Chevy 4.3 V6 in my
>RV9a. The last thing you talked about is what gives me most cause for
>pause: "FADEC". Fadec, of course is an attempt to bring Lycoming into
>the electronic age. But,and this is a big BUT, in seminars at Oshkosh,
>the propeller guys where shaking their heads. They have concerns about
>harmonics induced by Fadec. That is what concerns me with my Chevy
>project; harmonics.
>
>With the Bowtie block and aluminum heads and aluminum radiator, I may
>come in about the same or lighter than a 160 Lycoming.
>
>I am using a forged (Hank the Crank of Indy fame) oddfire crank. This
>lets me use Eagle Chevy V8 rods.
>9 to 1 compression dished pistons gives me good flame travel and I can
>use Mogas or 100LL.
>Dual MSD units, Dual coils and auto transfer mechanism (used in racing
>for years) gives pretty good redundancy. And I can loose 2 plugs to
>fouling and still have 4 firing. People that have done this, tell me it
>is about as smooth (if you can say that) as a Lycoming at that point. I
>am using ARP bolts and studs.
>I think my set up will have most of the strong points that you attribute
>to Aircraft engines. Not all of course.
>
>And then there are those harmonics....................
>
>Barry Pote RV9a
Message 85
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Mark
If you decide to use a rivnut, make sure you use the "keyed" variety. These have
a male "notch" on the barrel of the rivnut. The corresponding hole must also
be notched. I have the installation and notching tools for #6 screws. I found
them used on EBay. Since the belly skin is quite thin ( 020" I think ) , even
a keyed rivnut will probably come loose.
Joe's idea should work. You can avoid adding holes by removing the main landing
gear weldment (Wd-821). You can slip the nutplate in through the gear leg hole.
Use 3/32" blind rivets as Joe suggests.
How about fabricating "external" nutplates out of aluminium blocks? Remember doing
this on the F-869 gussets? The plans tell you to make aluminium nutplates
to hold the tie down rings on. You could do something similar. Cut several blocks
of 6061. Drill and tap for #6 or #8 screws. Drill two additional #40 holes
for 3/32" blind rivets to retain the blocks to the belly skin. Mount them externally
on the skin. They won't show. They'll be under the fairing.
Charlie Kuss
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe Hine" <joehine@nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>Hi Mark
>
>I had this problem with my four. One screw had to go in the little rounded
>.16 skin on the sides of the forward fuselage. I orginally did them with
>rivnuts, but this lasted about 10 minutes or one tightening of the screw and
>the rivnut was turning. If the skin you want to put them in is thicker you
>might have better luck. What I ended up doing, was drill a hole large
>enough to get a plate nut inside (with a long screw threaded in for a
>handle) This left just enough skin to get a pop rivit through each side of
>the plate nut to hold it in place. No problems since. The fairing covers
>the whole thing when in place. You may not be able or want to do this as I
>believe the skin you are talking about is structural and it requires a
>fairly large hole.
>
>Joe Hine
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>czechsix@juno.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings?
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
>Guys,
>
>This may only apply to RV-8A's...not sure about other models...I have my
>upper main gear leg intersection fairings laid up and am trying to figure
>out the best way to attach them. Seems to me that about 4 screws will do
>the job, my problem is at least one of the screws needs to be in the bottom
>front skin. Because of the double floor in this area, there's no way to get
>to the other side of the skin to install a nutplate. I'm thinking about
>getting some rivnuts to solve the problem. Is this what others have done or
>is there a better solution? Far as I can tell, the plans don't offer even
>the slightest hint in this area...
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Mark Navratil
>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>RV-8A N2D fiberglassing...
Message 86
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Jim:
> Didn't Porsche or perhaps BMW produce a prototype conversion of one of their
> engines for aviation use about 5 to 7 years ago? I recall that it was quite
> successful and the company did a N American demo tour with the engine in a
> Mooney 23 or similar class aircraft including a stop at Oshkosh.
>
> That would be "successful" from an engineering standpoint, of course, it
> faded from the scene soon afterwards doubtless due to the lack of a business
> case to produce it.
There was a Porsche-powered Mooney some years ago. I don't know a lot about
it, but it certainly wasn't a business success. As I understand it, the
Porsche engine didn't offer as much performance for the dollar as a Lycoming.
It seems odd to me that anyone thought the idea would work. The Porsche engine
was quite small, not much bigger than the Subaru engines that are becoming
popular with some RV builders. The European auto industry always seems to
underestimate the value of more displacement, probably the legacy of their
absurd laws that regulate and tax cars on the basis of engine size. It seems
pretty obvious to me that an engine half the size is going to have a hard time
competing unless it has some other, very significant advantage. Evidently, the
Porsche didn't.
If I were to do an auto conversion (I'm not, I have a Lycoming), I'd be
inclined to build the largest displacement V6 Chevy that I reasonably could,
and limit the RPM to about 3500 or so. Such an engine would have about the
same cylinder pressures and piston speeds as a Lycoming, and lower valvetrain
loads, so it would probably run quite a long time. The trade-off would be more
weight for less money.
Tedd
Message 87
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
You guys talking about props are totally missing the point. Blade profile,
optimal thickness, performance envelope, WHAT-EVER! None of them LOOK as
sweet as a Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF/F7666A-4 with the paint sanded off and
polished to a mirror finish. Try THAT with your composite/wood propeller!
:-) :-) :-) (donning flameproof suit and running for cover...)
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
Portland, OR
www.vanshomewing.org
PS. The best thing about this thread is that it makes me feel a whole lot
better about having "only" paid $4400 for my C/S prop!
do not archive
Message 88
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Tedd,
That's a very good test on the V-100 engine. Thanks for the web link. I would
agree that this test is probably typical of most automotive companies today.
Regarding rated power being above rated torque. This statement means nothing.
The Lycoming's rated power is just above it's peak torque. This is a GOOD thing.
When the cruise RPM of an engine is in it's peak torque area, it obtains it's
best fuel economy.
The implication that somehow the Chrysler engine is superior just because it's
peak power is produced far beyond it's peak torque means nothing as far as the
engine design being "superior". With any engine (assuming cylinder breathing
is adequate), more RPM, means more power and more stress. Since the V-10 is designed
to turn higher RPMs, it needs to be tested in that RPM band to prove the
strength of it's components.
I am unaware of the max HP and max torque RPM of the V-10. For argument's sake,
I'll assume 5800 RPM for max HP and 3000 RPM for max torque. Do you notice that
there is an almost 3000 RPM spread between max power and max torque (best
fuel economy)? This tells me that if you intend to use an engine like this in
an airplane, you must choose between great horsepower (high RPM and poor fuel
economy) or better fuel economy (lower RPM) and less than rated power.
The Chevy and Ford V-6 aircraft conversions only run at 4200 RPM, while the automotive
versions reach peak power at 4800 - 5400 RPM. The Mazda 13B conversion
engines run at 6000 RPM rather than the 7000 - 9000 RPM used in stock and automotive
racing applications. Why is this? Several reasons:
1) Reduce the maximum RPM to increase the life of the engine operating at a high
continuous power setting
2) Get the "cruise" RPM closer to the max torque range (2500 - 3000 RPM) for better
fuel economy.
3) To keep the propeller tip speeds sub sonic. Propeller efficiency drops off &
noise increases as the speed of sound is approached.
The fact that the Lycoming's rated power is only slightly above it's max torque
RPM range means that it will give good fuel mileage at high power (75%) ratings.
This is what you want in an aircraft engine. Auto engines have their max
torque at the RPMs they normally turn in high gear at highway speeds. (2000 -
3000 RPM)
They are designed that way because they are intended to be run in automobiles.
It does not mean that this can't be changed. Changing the camshaft profile,
valve and port (intake and exhaust) sizes will accomplish this. Auto engine output
(rear) main bearing are sized to meet the loads imposed by a clutch/torque
converter and transmission. An aircraft engine must have a much larger output
(front) main bearing size to support the loads of the propeller. Most V-8 output
main bearings are about 1.5 - 1.75" wide and 2.25- 2.50" diameter. A Lycoming
flat 4 or 6 cylinder has an output main bearing which is about 5" long (going
from memory here) and 2.375" in diameter.
Since the auto engine conversion will be transmitting power through a PSRU, I
am unsure as to what size output main bearing it will need. to understand better
the loads a propeller puts on the crankshaft and case halves (or engine block
in the auto engine's case) Go to:
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/sport_av92/sport_av92.html
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact2/contact2.html
After reading these articles, you may have some doubts as to the ability of the
stock automotive crankshaft to function long and well in the aviation environment.
Again, nothing that can't be overcome. Replace the crankshaft or modify
it as needed. The Lexus V-8 is an all aluminium engine. Most American V-6 engines
used for aviation purposes are not. The fix? Replace the stock block and heads
with aluminium parts.
Do you see where we are headed? Slowly but surely, we are replacing (upgrading)
major portions of the engine. This will NOT be cheap! This is exactly what
Toyota & Orenda found out (the hard way).
Toyota did in deed make a "business" decision as you phrase it. The decision was
one of economics. It was cheaper (and safer to their reputation) to buy a proven
engine from Lycoming than to produce their own "certified" Lexus V-8 engine.
Toyota continued the certification process long after their engineers knew
that the project would not be economically viable. Why? Because to quit without
finishing (ie obtaining the certification) would be tantamount to admitting
that one of the greatest Japanese auto makers could not achieve what a small,
old fashioned American company (Lycoming) has been doing for decades.
Regarding Formula 1 versus Indy car racing, Honda put it's money where it would
get the best "world wide" exposure for each Yen spent. As much as we Americans
hate to admit it, no one outside the US gives a hoot about Indy racing (or
NASCAR). Honda wanted to let the WORLD (not the USA) know it was the greatest
automotive engineering company in the world. They did it quite well.
The only things "ancient" about Lycomings and Continentials, are their fuel and
ignition systems. Electronic ignition systems and FADAC will finally bring these
engines into the new millennium.
Earlier, I mentioned PSRUs. Even if you develop a great engine, you need an equally
durable PSRU. There are several promising units being sold now. However,
NONE of them have say 1000 units which have demonstrated their ability to go
1000 hours before overhaul. This is not to say it won't happen, just to say it
hasn't yet. Those brave souls investing their money in these units, are true
pioneers. (and braver men than I)
Charlie Kuss
PS When I started my project, I intended to use an auto engine. As I learned more
and more, I've become much more conservative. Of all the conversions out there,
I think that the Mazda 13B has the brightest future. I want to fly in the
next few years, so I'm not willing to wait to much longer.
>A typical auto-industry test is 800 hours at a variety of loads. The Chrysler
>V10 was run through an abbreviated 500 hour test that was almost exclusively
>wide-open-throttle (WOT) between peak torque and peak horsepower. Bear in mind
>that aircraft engines never run much above peak torque. They are rated such
>that "rated power" is at, or just above, peak torque. So the entire Chyrsler
>test cycle is at OR ABOVE what would be considered rated power in the aircraft
>industry. FAA certification only requires 100 hours at rated power, so the
>Chrysler test is far, far more rigorous. Although it's the only auto industry
>test I have information on, I have no reason to suspect that it's atypical.
>You can read more about it at
>
> http://www.vansairforce.org/articles/EP/eng_auto_endurance.shtml
>
>> You are not seeing them tested connected to a propeller or PSRU.
>
>Nor are you when an FAA certification test is done.
>
>> Personally, if one of the worlds greatest auto companies determined that aircraft
>> engines are best (an education learned the hard way at great expense) I will
>> learn from their experience rather than repeating it.
>
>You're confusing a business choice with an engineering choice. At the same
>time that Honda was dominating Formula One auto racing they also failed to
>achieve any success whatsoever in Indy Car racing. Does that mean that it's
>tougher to design an Indy Car engine than an F1 engine? Hardly. Honda just
>didn't see the business value in committing the necessary resources. Ditto
>Toyota and their aircraft engine project.
>
>I believe the question being addressed is not "can you make a successful
>business converting auto engines for aircraft use?" The question being
>addressed is "can an auto engine be successfully converted for aircraft use?"
>Two very different questions. (Jan Eggenfellner would be the person to ask
>about the first question.)
>
>> Each of us can choose
>> his own path.
>
>Exactly. Which is what is so annoying about people with no useful knowledge on
>the subject trying to tell other people what they should or shouldn't do.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>-6 wings
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|