---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 12/02/02: 88 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:10:17 AM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: Paint and filling tips --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" 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" Subject: RV-List: Paint and filling tips > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:21:59 AM PST US From: GRGSCHMIDT@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:40 AM PST US From: Lenleg@aol.com Subject: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:57 AM PST US From: barry pote Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: barry pote 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:19:11 AM PST US From: "WALTER KERR" Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: "WALTER KERR" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:20:47 AM PST US From: Eric Greindl Subject: AW: RV-List: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl > 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" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:40 AM PST US From: Eric Greindl Subject: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:53 AM PST US From: "Stephen Johnson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" 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" Subject: RV-List: Oil Cooler/Heat Muff > --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Bean > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:17:46 AM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:16:27 AM PST US From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com helo=earthlink.net) From: Miller Robert Subject: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert > 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:55 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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 > >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:41 AM PST US 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 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:02 AM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: Traveling to SoCal this weekend --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:51:15 AM PST US From: Laird Owens Subject: Re: RV-List: Traveling to SoCal this weekend --> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:14 AM PST US From: "Steve J Hurlbut" Subject: RV-List: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:08 AM PST US From: "WALTER KERR" Subject: Re: RV-List: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring --> RV-List message posted by: "WALTER KERR" 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" >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com >To: "RV-7 YAHOO" , >Subject: RV-List: SL40 & Flightcom 403 wiring >Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:43:42 -0600 > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:04 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:30:35 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Re: Prop From: czechsix@juno.com --> 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 Subject: RV-List: Re: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: Reinback 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:31:09 AM PST US From: "Doug Weiler" Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:40:37 AM PST US From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" > --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:16 AM PST US From: "John" Subject: RV-List: RV-7 Tail Question --> RV-List message posted by: "John" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:46 AM PST US From: Miller Robert Subject: RV-List: Re: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert --> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert > 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:53:59 AM PST US From: "Dean Pichon" Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> RV-List message posted by: "Dean Pichon" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:56:43 AM PST US From: Rob Prior Subject: [Fwd: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop] --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior Eric Greindl wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Eric Greindl > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:18:11 AM PST US From: Lenleg@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:33 AM PST US From: "Glenn P. Wilkinson" Subject: RV-List: paint --> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn P. Wilkinson" -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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:21:44 PM PST US From: "Mark Fowler" Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:27:17 PM PST US From: "Gary" Subject: RV-List: smart plugs --> RV-List message posted by: "Gary" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:30:33 PM PST US From: "Gene" Subject: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:34 PM PST US From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: Fw: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" Oh God... not THIS thread again!!!!! ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Fowler Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:34 PM PST US From: Larry Hawkins Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Hawkins 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" 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.) 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 [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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:04:15 PM PST US From: "RV4" Subject: Re: RV-List: paint --> RV-List message posted by: "RV4" > -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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:35 PM PST US From: "Bert Forero" Subject: Re:RV-List: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 --> RV-List message posted by: "Bert Forero" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:09:44 PM PST US From: "Glenn Brasch" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" 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" Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:39 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:12:14 PM PST US From: "Neil McLeod" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" Have you read the archives? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Fowler" Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:17 PM PST US From: panamared2@brier.net Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:38:13 PM PST US 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 39 ____________________________________ Time: 01:41:21 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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" Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:42:59 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" Temperature change of air inside tank will affect the gauge. Maybe it is not leaking. Larry in Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Hawkins" Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank > --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Hawkins > > 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" > > 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.) > > > > > > > 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 [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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:16 PM PST US From: "Mark Fowler" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" > > Have you read the archives? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mark Fowler" > To: > Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:56:02 PM PST US From: dmedema@att.net Subject: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:16:27 PM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" 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" Subject: Fw: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" > > Oh God... not THIS thread again!!!!! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Mark Fowler > To: > Subject: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mark Fowler" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:33:38 PM PST US From: "Rick Galati" Subject: RV-List: Re: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Galati" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:56:44 PM PST US From: "Bartrim, Todd" Subject: RE: RV-List: smart plugs or not? --> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:29 PM PST US From: "Brian Denk" Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:28 PM PST US From: Rob Prior Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior 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" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:35 PM PST US From: "Donald Mei" Subject: RV-List: Buffing Wheel Info --> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" 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 Smaller 1/3 HP buffer is here: 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 Hope this helps. Don Mei RV-4 N92CT 3B9 - Chester, CT The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 03:24:05 PM PST US From: "Randy Lervold" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:32 PM PST US From: "Elsa & Henry" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:36:10 PM PST US From: "Garth Shearing" Subject: RV-List: RV6 Rear Spar Bolt --> RV-List message posted by: "Garth Shearing" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:40:02 PM PST US From: "Stephen Johnson" Subject: RV-List: Market value --> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" 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" Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" > > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:31 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:42:14 PM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" 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" Subject: RV-List: Re:Tailwheel vs. Trigear: value? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" > > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:10 PM PST US From: Doug Gray Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:45:00 PM PST US Subject: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? From: czechsix@juno.com --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:12 PM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:05:34 PM PST US From: LeastDrag93066@aol.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop] --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:06 PM PST US From: KAKlewin@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:32:54 PM PST US From: LeastDrag93066@aol.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: AW: RV-List: Re: Prop] --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:01:00 PM PST US From: "Joe Hine" Subject: RE: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? --> RV-List message posted by: "Joe Hine" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:22:09 PM PST US From: Rv8forduane@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:33:31 PM PST US From: Ross Schlotthauer Subject: RE: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer 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 wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > > > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:37:21 PM PST US From: "Larry Bowen" Subject: RE: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:43:39 PM PST US From: Wheeler North Subject: RV-List: more engines --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:45 PM PST US From: "John Starn" Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank ________________________________ Message 67 ____________________________________ Time: 06:10:42 PM PST US From: "Rob W M Shipley" Subject: RV-List: Major changes and the Feds --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" "Mike Robertson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:40 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RV-List: Gyro suction bypass valve --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:05 PM PST US From: Robert McCallum Subject: Re: RV-List: Drill Sizes --> RV-List message posted by: Robert McCallum 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:55:18 PM PST US From: barry pote Subject: Re: RV-List: more engines --> RV-List message posted by: barry pote 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:52 PM PST US From: "Paul Besing" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:20:20 PM PST US From: RGray67968@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:03:16 PM PST US From: Rob Prior Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior Paul Besing wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > > 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 >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:36 PM PST US From: MeangreenRV4@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:36:22 PM PST US From: "Paul Besing" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior > > Paul Besing wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > > > > 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 > >> > >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:49 PM PST US From: "Gene" Subject: Re: RV-List: Leaky Tank --> RV-List message posted by: "Gene" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:26 PM PST US From: "Larry Pardue" Subject: Re: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? --> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" > --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:44:56 PM PST US From: "Randall Henderson" Subject: Re: Re:RV-List: baggage area floors, strobes & ELT's - RV7 --> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:27 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: Tailwheel vs. Trigear --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:05:17 PM PST US From: Larry Pink Subject: RE: RV-List: Drill Sizes --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pink 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:10:28 PM PST US From: Jim Oke Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Pre-Heaters > --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" > > 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: > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:02 PM PST US From: Robert McCallum Subject: Re: RV-List: paint --> RV-List message posted by: Robert McCallum RV4 wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "RV4" > > > -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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:17:54 PM PST US From: Jim Oke Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions > --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:08 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: more engines --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:15 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: RE: RV-List: Rivnuts for upper intersection fairings? --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:39:47 PM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:16 PM PST US From: "Randall Henderson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Prop --> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:11 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: RV-List: Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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