Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:12 AM - Re: parallel valves--choices (JRWillJR@aol.com)
2. 12:12 AM - Re: Alternate engines - motorcycle? (Vanremog@aol.com)
3. 12:13 AM - Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals (Vanremog@aol.com)
4. 12:15 AM - Re: chip detector (George McNutt)
5. 01:06 AM - Re: Plexi Drill Bits (Norman)
6. 01:16 AM - Re: parallel valves--choices (Doug Gray)
7. 01:38 AM - Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals (Doug Gray)
8. 04:11 AM - Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals (Kyle Boatright)
9. 05:57 AM - Off Topic: Best Flight Sim (Paul Besing)
10. 08:08 AM - Re: parallel valves--choices (Chris)
11. 08:10 AM - parallel valves--choices - Turbine (P M Condon)
12. 08:44 AM - Re: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions (Tedd McHenry)
13. 09:14 AM - Re: chip detector (Doug Rozendaal)
14. 10:25 AM - Re: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals (Norman)
15. 10:28 AM - open slider in flight (Dr. Kevin P. Leathers)
16. 10:32 AM - Plexi repair. (GRENIER@aol.com)
17. 10:46 AM - Re: open slider in flight (Denis Walsh)
18. 10:48 AM - References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions (JRWillJR@aol.com)
19. 11:02 AM - Vinyl graphics life expectancy? (czechsix@juno.com)
20. 11:10 AM - Re: open slider in flight (Glenn Brasch)
21. 11:11 AM - Christmas in N. Carolina... (czechsix@juno.com)
22. 11:21 AM - Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? (Paul Besing)
23. 11:38 AM - Re: open slider in flight (Jim Sears)
24. 11:43 AM - Re: open slider in flight (Dr. Kevin P. Leathers)
25. 11:46 AM - Re: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals (Keith Vasey/Galvin Flying Svc)
26. 11:49 AM - Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? (Dr. Kevin P. Leathers)
27. 12:39 PM - Re: Christmas in N. Carolina... (Lenleg@aol.com)
28. 12:42 PM - Re: open slider in flight (Boyd C. Braem)
29. 12:56 PM - Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? (Dr. Kevin P. Leathers)
30. 01:38 PM - Re: open slider in flight (JRWillJR@aol.com)
31. 02:19 PM - Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative (kempthornes)
32. 03:22 PM - Re: open slider in flight (Stein Bruch)
33. 04:04 PM - Re: Alternate engine (davepetrv6@comcast.net)
34. 05:59 PM - RV Flying - inspirational LONG (Alex Peterson)
35. 06:13 PM - Re: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim (Curt Reimer)
36. 06:41 PM - Re: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions (Curt Reimer)
37. 06:49 PM - F1 down in Houstin (Jerry Springer)
38. 08:15 PM - It's here! ()
39. 09:18 PM - Re: open slider in flight (John Starn)
40. 09:24 PM - Re: It's here! (Jim Jewell)
41. 10:06 PM - Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative (kempthornes)
42. 10:16 PM - Re: It's here! (Stein Bruch)
43. 10:24 PM - Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc (JRWillJR@aol.com)
44. 10:55 PM - Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc (Stein Bruch)
45. 11:14 PM - LASAR ignition wiring (Roy Glass or Mary Poteet)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallel valves--choices |
--> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/2002 11:52:34 PM Central Standard Time,
nhunger@sprint.ca writes:
> Say what?
> Please say some more.
> Any pics?
There was an article about the Turbine Luscombe in the Sport Aviation a few
years ago. The engine made approx 150 horsepower and the wings were clipped
to 23 feet. My ex part-time employer built the airplane to gain attention for
the Luscombe Foundations efforts to build a museum. The Turbine Luscombe was
at Oshkosh in 96 I think and I saw it there two summers ago, I cannot
remember if it was there this year.
I (and a fellow coworker) built the tail feathers for the original version
which crashed on the way back from Sun & Fun. It has been repaired and is
still flying to the best of my knowledge. I have a lot more info on the
Turbine Luscombe adventure/story but it is not mine to give out.
This past Oshkosh of 2002 there was a turbine powered RV4 that had a similar
arrangement to the Turbine Luscombe. He was handing out literature. It looked
like an impressive unit, I saw it running. He told me he was working on
electronic engine controls and various refinements. I cannot remember the
price, I think including prop system it was over 50,000 dollars and made
about 200 horses. This particular Oshkosh trip was made rather fuzzy by
seeing my ex Kitfox (the infamous BluFox) with a 110 horse 980cc radial
engine hauling it along. I was more impressed by that than any converted boat
motors or turbine GPUs I have seen. It was air/oil cooled just like a
Lycoming. If Evinrude built an aircraft engine would it have been water
cooled? my bet is not. Do Not Archive. JR
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternate engines - motorcycle? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/2002 10:40:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pwiethe@ford.com writes:
> I think an interesting path might be an 'aircraft-ised', increased
> displacement version of Honda's 1800cc liquid cooled, injected, flat 6 that
> is in their Goldwing motorcycle. This engine is very light weight and
> compact, but only puts out 118hp, so it would need more displacement.
Interesting. My '85 water cooled fuel injected 1000cc BMW K bike puts out
around 90 hp (if memory serves) and it will do 140mph for as long as you have
the hair to hold the throttle open and not miss a beat. It does throw off a
good deal of heat though. With a similar ratio of hp/displacement, the wing
engine should be able to pull 162 hp.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 12/19/2002 5:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kyle.boatright@adelphia.net writes:
> Solvents can
> turn vinyl into goo. That's why we don't use RTV (Room Temperature Vinyl)
> near our fuel systems. Eventually the gasoline dissolves it.
Unfortunately RTV stands for "Room Temperature Vulcanizing", a form of
Silicone Rubber that has just about zero relationship to vinyl. The
admonition still stands, however. RTV should not be used around liquid
gasoline because large and/or small chucks of the RTV can be dislodged that
end up clogging small orifices. Disolution isn't really the issue here.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "George McNutt" <gmcnutt@intergate.ca>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: chip detector
Hi Tracey
Metal Chip Detectors are used on jet engines however it seems to me that
they should also be used on large (read expensive) diesel engine and
transmission applications.
Check with someone who handles large equipment, like mining trucks or large
marine applications.
George McNutt
6A - Langley, B.C.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Plexi Drill Bits |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
Great info, I didn't know they had plexi drill bits at Home Depot. Norman
> Why take a chance? The Plexi Bits at Home Depot are like three bucks. The
> canopy is substantially more
> Chuck Weyant (Puttin' in the Panel)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallel valves--choices |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
> > Turbines, I saw the turbine RV4, I worked some on the turbine Luscombe and
> > have seen it run. Both are impressive.
>
> Say what?
> Please say some more.
> Any pics?
A recent post on 'another' RV Email group:
"Has anyone thought of using an Allison 250-C18 or T63 in their RV?
These are quite common and are available for reasonable prices.
They're powerful (317hp) and VERY light."
On the other hand the RV4 reportedly had the ATP engine. Googling turned up
the following:
Subject: Re: Price Quote
Hello! Thank you for your request of information on the ATP 6.5 Turbine
Engine. The following is some generalized information on the 6.5.
Weight 185 lbs
Length 32'' overall to prop flange
Diameter 12 1/2" maximum located at the hot section
10" diameter of gearbox
Height 16" overall located at accessory pad on gearbox
Burns JetA, Kerosene, Diesel and Gasoline
The preferred fuels are JetA and Kerosene
Four point conical mount
20 to 1 double planetary gearbox
Gearbox designed for 500 hp continuous 600 hp peak
Example ( If turbine is turning 60,000 rpm prop turning 3000 rpm)
Single stage radial flow turbine centrifugal compressor
Electronic fuel injection
Electronic ignition
120hp 10.7 gals/hr 300 lbs thrust at 2650 rpm
180hp 13.3 gals/hr 450lbs thrust at 2750 rpm
240hp 16.6 gals/hr 600lbs thrust at 3000rpm
maximum rpm at propeller 3200 rpm
usable rpm range in fight 2500 to 3200 rpm
Designed to operate efficiently at variable rpm
The intro introductory price for the 6.5 Turbine engine is $23,000.00
(engine only). In order to hold this price you must first put down a
deposit of 25%. We will soon be recommending the most efficient propeller.
Production for the 6.5 starts Jan. 2002. We are also going to be debuting a
pusher at Oshkosh 2002!!Thanks for interest in ATP if you are in need of
further information please feel free to email or call. You can visit our
web page at www.atpcoinc.com
Take Care,
Heather L. Mitchell
Director of Internet Sales"
Their web site is not responding at the moment (for me anyway) but not very
long ago had two interesting videos of an engine start and run.
do not archive
Doug Gray
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
>
> ... RTV stands for "Room Temperature Vulcanizing", a form of
> Silicone Rubber...... RTV should not be used around liquid
> gasoline because large and/or small chucks of the RTV can be dislodged that
> end up clogging small orifices. Disolution isn't really the issue here.
Fuels attack RTV by penetration - the fuel molecules penetrate by diffusion
into the Silicone Rubber molecules, this causes the RTV to swell and become
brittle. In accelerated aging trials conducted at my workplace we saw RTV
swell to 2-3 times it's original size within days of immersion (at 60 degrees
C) in a product very similar (in fraction) to the fuels we use.
Doug Gray
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
My mistake. Obviously a bad choice of examples. I still wouldn't spray a
clear coat over vinyl striping...
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: <Vanremog@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals
> --> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/19/2002 5:58:14 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> kyle.boatright@adelphia.net writes:
>
> > Solvents can
> > turn vinyl into goo. That's why we don't use RTV (Room Temperature
Vinyl)
> > near our fuel systems. Eventually the gasoline dissolves it.
>
> Unfortunately RTV stands for "Room Temperature Vulcanizing", a form of
> Silicone Rubber that has just about zero relationship to vinyl. The
> admonition still stands, however. RTV should not be used around liquid
> gasoline because large and/or small chucks of the RTV can be dislodged
that
> end up clogging small orifices. Disolution isn't really the issue here.
>
> -GV (RV-6A N1GV 575hrs)
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Off Topic: Best Flight Sim |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
do not archive
True, MS Flight simulator is not the best program in the world. For the
true game nut, check out X Plane. http://x-plane.com/ It is by far the
best simulation I have ever seen. Looks like the real simulators. It's not
really a game. It is a true flight simulator. Doesn't get any more real.
Be prepared, though. It takes a lot of fumbling with to get it right, and
you have to have a very powerful computer with alot of memory (RAM and
Video) to make it work smoothly. You can even design and test your own
aircraft in this program.
I thank James Freeman for making me waste my time by getting hooked on this
program. It doesn't get any better than this.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Flight Simulator Control
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> Paul Besing wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
> >
> > The Microsoft Force Feedback Pro is really good too. Great for a
multitude
> > of games, including Flight Simulators. It has little motors inside that
> > simulate stick forces. You land, it shakes a little.
>
> Well, maybe when *you* land... 8-)
>
> I had one of these joysticks for a while, and really liked it as a
> joystick. I was less impressed with Microsoft's Flight Simulator,
> though. I had FS2000 at the time, and a computer more than powerful
> enough to run it, but still it never seemed realistic enough for my
> tastes. It was a little too jerky in motion, and the delay between
> control input and visual and tactile feedback was too long.
>
> In the end I sold the joystick to a co-worker who now likes it a lot
> with FS2002, so maybe it's better.
>
> -RB4
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: parallel valves--choices |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris <chrisw3@cox.net>
Norman wrote:
> > Turbines, I saw the turbine RV4, I worked some on the turbine Luscombe and
> > have seen it run. Both are impressive.
>
> Say what?
> Please say some more.
> Any pics?
>
http://www.atpcoinc.com/
do not archive
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206 (home)
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | parallel valves--choices - Turbine |
--> RV-List message posted by: P M Condon <pcondon@mitre.org>
The company that has the converted turbines in in eastern Pa. I flew up
to their grass strip and met with the guys at the shop. I have the
website at home I will relay to the group. I totalled up the cost at
30,000 or more and the fuel burn for a turbine is still really hi. I
passed on this. Nonetheless, a interesting engine. Kitplanes also ran a
article on it.
http://www.atpcoinc.com/Pages/New.html
Afforadable turbine power is the company and the Web address is listed
above
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
> Turbines, I saw the turbine RV4, I worked some on the turbine Luscombe and
> have seen it run. Both are impressive.
Say what?
Please say some more.
Any pics?
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> It is not my responsibility to do the research for you.
You're making the claim. If you want to be believed I suggest you do the
research. That's up to you.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: chip detector |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
The ADC chip detector is a slick unit, it has an O-ring seal so you can
easily clear it with a 1/4 turn and only a "drip" of oil running out.
I have never flown a flat motor with a chip detector, but lots of round
ones. I view a chip detector as a "yellow" light not a "red" one. Yellow
means caution and red means warning. In round engines they do go off with
some regularity, especially on new engines. A piece of metal that is almost
too small to see will find it's way to the magnet and close the circuit. If
you clear the light and it lights again right away, then digging into the
filter or the screen is required.
If I landed immediately everytime it lit up, I would find the device
annoying. If oil temp and pressure are normal I press on and clear it at
the next landing. It is a great tool and I appreciate flying airplanes that
have them. Mount the thing somewhere that is easily accessible. Uncowling
everytime it lights would become tedious.
HO HO HO
Doug Rozendaal
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" <nhunger@sprint.ca>
> My father is just now painting his RV-3. He is using vinyl for the trim
and
> N-numbers. He intends to apply at least one clear coat over the vinyl.
I would be interested to hear some discussion on the merrits or pitfalls of
clearcoating over vinyl graphics/stripes.
I would be inclined to think it is a bad idea as it would be a nightmare to
ever redo. You'd have to strip the entire paintjob to redo the vinyl. My
experiences with vinyl is that it will fade sooner than paint. The beauty of
it is that it can be easily replaced when ever the owner disliked to kools
or just wanted some thing different.
If you are going to clearcoat, make sure you tell the vinyl company and get
the best stuff they have. Vinyl come in many different qualities, in most
cases you get what you pay for. Dark colors are likely to fade more than
light colors. Clearcoat adhesion to the vinyl is also questionable. Make
sure dad does a test piece before he goes and makes a huge mess of his
airplane.
Is there anyone with any real examples of trying this?
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
Goodmorning List,
The new (again) Tiger advertises the fun of open canopy flying. Sounds good to
me! In the archives, I've found some references to the fact that RVs can not be
flown with the slider open. Does anyone know why? Is it possible to make modifications
so that RVs could be flown alfresco, maybe at slower speeds at least?
DOC
Do Not Archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: GRENIER@aol.com
I have a small crack in my canopy. I drilled a stop hole and ordered a can of
Weld-on from ACS. Now I need some instructions. Has anyone used this stuff
successfully? How do you apply it? I have a small hypo needle, but it is made
out of plastic, won't it melt? Any step-by-step help will be greatly
appreciated.
Ray Grenier
RV-4 being painted
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers"
> <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
>
> Goodmorning List,
>
> The new (again) Tiger advertises the fun of open canopy flying. Sounds good to
> me! In the archives, I've found some references to the fact that RVs can not
> be flown with the slider open. Does anyone know why? Is it possible to make
> modifications so that RVs could be flown alfresco, maybe at slower speeds at
> least?
>
> DOC
> Do Not Archive
>
>
I have pondered this for several years. I think the steel frame is sturdy
enough and the attachment scheme would hold ok. What is unknown to me is
whether the thin plexi would sustain the shake without cracking or worse, at
any reasonable speed.
There is also the doubt in my mind as to whether it would want to stay
open.. Those few but several times when I have inadvertantly taken off with
it unlatched, it seems to want to stay in a slightly open position.. Just
aft enough to keep the rear pins from going into the blocks!!
Lastly and probably most important, you would get a giant airscoop/speed
brake effect of unknown proportions. It would also blank out the rudder a
bit.
So I share your curiosity, but doubt if it would be a simple mod. I would
start with a thicker canopy. Think you also would want to eliminate the
curvature in the part which slides aft. These are going to be big penalties
in weight and drag.
I suspect one of our listers has flight tested the stock canopy open, and
can shed some better light on this.
My experience is solely with the 6A
Denis
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
In a message dated 12/20/2002 10:49:13 AM Central Standard Time,
tedd@vansairforce.org writes:
> You're making the claim. If you want to be believed I suggest you do the
> research. That's up to you.
Tedd, as I said I thought we were having a discussion, frankly I don't care
what you do or who you believe. I will stand with what I said. I am not going
to spend hours retracing TCs and ACs for what is industry knowledge. If you
do not believe the 0360 has a 2000 hour TBO that is fine by me---hey---why
don't you prove it does not and while your at it prove there is something
better without analogy to Aunt Mays car, boats, submarines or garden tillers
or such as that. Have a fine day. Do Not Archive. Geeeeeez. JR
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Vinyl graphics life expectancy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
On the subject of vinyl graphics....I'm interested in using some on my -8A paint
scheme and am wondering what the realistic life expectancy is for vinyl on an
airplane that is hangared. I've seen the numbers from 3M and other manufacturers
that their graphics can last up to 8-9 years outside on signs, with disclaimers
that greater UV exposure will shorten their lifespan (i.e. any application
on horizontal surface wil have shorter life than on a vertical surface due
to more sunlight, etc.).
So...UV obviously plays a part but do temperature extremes also affect the longevity,
or can I expect vinyl on a hangared airplane to last almost indefinitely?
Any experts out there?
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
I think it also may be an aerodynamic issue. I flew helicopters for years,
which were regularly flown with the doors off for special ops, however they
had a airspeed restriction regarding aerodynamics. I would bet the same
issue applies. Glenn in Arizona do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Walsh" <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight
> --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers"
> > <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
> >
> > Goodmorning List,
> >
> > The new (again) Tiger advertises the fun of open canopy flying. Sounds
good to
> > me! In the archives, I've found some references to the fact that RVs can
not
> > be flown with the slider open. Does anyone know why? Is it possible to
make
> > modifications so that RVs could be flown alfresco, maybe at slower
speeds at
> > least?
> >
> > DOC
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
>
> I have pondered this for several years. I think the steel frame is sturdy
> enough and the attachment scheme would hold ok. What is unknown to me is
> whether the thin plexi would sustain the shake without cracking or worse,
at
> any reasonable speed.
>
> There is also the doubt in my mind as to whether it would want to stay
> open.. Those few but several times when I have inadvertantly taken off
with
> it unlatched, it seems to want to stay in a slightly open position.. Just
> aft enough to keep the rear pins from going into the blocks!!
>
> Lastly and probably most important, you would get a giant airscoop/speed
> brake effect of unknown proportions. It would also blank out the rudder a
> bit.
>
> So I share your curiosity, but doubt if it would be a simple mod. I would
> start with a thicker canopy. Think you also would want to eliminate the
> curvature in the part which slides aft. These are going to be big
penalties
> in weight and drag.
>
> I suspect one of our listers has flight tested the stock canopy open, and
> can shed some better light on this.
>
> My experience is solely with the 6A
>
> Denis
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Christmas in N. Carolina... |
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Guys,
I'll be in the Charlotte area for Christmas with my family from Dec. 23-31. Specifically
at the JAARS base at Townsend Field (sorry, don't know the airport
ID but it's south of Charlotte near Waxhaw, close to SC border). Any RV'ers who
care to drop in for a visit would be more than welcome : ) Since I'm flying
out to NC by airline I won't have a car and won't be able to drive any distance
to see projects but thought if anybody wanted to fly in to hang out, show
off their airplane, give a ride, or whatever....let me know.
I will be monitoring this e-mail address or you can reach me by phone while I'm
in NC at (704) 843-8047.
Thanks, Happy Holidays, and most of all Do Not Archive!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D fiberglass, needing some inspiration....
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
It seems to me that the 8-9 years probably refers to graphics that are
always in the sun. How many hours will the airplane actually be exposed to
the sun? Say you fly 100 hours per year, and you have trips that leave the
airplane outside for a total of 2 or 3 weeks. You are talking about sun
exposure of 1 month total per year. I am sure if they quote 8-9 years, and
your airplane is actually out in the sun for 3 weeks total in a year, it
would last MUCH longer than 8-9 years.
Also, on the subject of clear coat, I wouldn't do it. So what if you have a
seam on the edge? Most paint jobs aren't clear coated over the edges
anyway. 2 feet away and you can't even tell.
I think graphics are a great way to enhance your airplane. With quality
graphics and a good design, it could be a very professional appearance.
I'm not a vinyl expert in any way, so take this as opinion only.
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: <czechsix@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy?
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
> On the subject of vinyl graphics....I'm interested in using some on my -8A
paint scheme and am wondering what the realistic life expectancy is for
vinyl on an airplane that is hangared. I've seen the numbers from 3M and
other manufacturers that their graphics can last up to 8-9 years outside on
signs, with disclaimers that greater UV exposure will shorten their lifespan
(i.e. any application on horizontal surface wil have shorter life than on a
vertical surface due to more sunlight, etc.).
>
> So...UV obviously plays a part but do temperature extremes also affect the
longevity, or can I expect vinyl on a hangared airplane to last almost
indefinitely? Any experts out there?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" <sears@searnet.com>
Although I'm not sure why Van doesn't approve the open cockpit in flight, I
can only guess why. First, the attach points on the canopy appear to be
much weaker than what the Cheetah I owned had. The track mechanism for the
Cheetah was fairly robust, when compared to that of Van's. Even with that,
there was a 113 knot speed limit and an opening limit of about 8-10 inches.
At that setting, the canopy was more apt to close in flight than to go full
aft. It was pretty noisy, at best. Denis may have hit the nail on the head
with the point about dampening the tail. I think the Grumman had the same
problem with the canopy full aft. However, I do know that some did fly
their Grummans with the canopy full aft, at times. I don't know if they
did it during takeoff and landing, however. Personally, I can only admit to
having had my RV-6A's canopy open in flight once. That was when I forgot to
lock it shut before takeoff. It did a lot better than I did. OTOH, it's a
tip up. :-)
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
Something to think about along this line is that the tipping slider
conversion, which is becoming more popular, might allow a guy to just remove
the main canopy, leaving the front sheild in place. This would eliminate
that air scoop and speed braking effect, wouldn't it?
DOC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Denis Walsh" <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight
> --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers"
> > <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
> >
> > Goodmorning List,
> >
> > The new (again) Tiger advertises the fun of open canopy flying. Sounds
good to
> > me! In the archives, I've found some references to the fact that RVs can
not
> > be flown with the slider open. Does anyone know why? Is it possible to
make
> > modifications so that RVs could be flown alfresco, maybe at slower
speeds at
> > least?
> >
> > DOC
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
>
> I have pondered this for several years. I think the steel frame is sturdy
> enough and the attachment scheme would hold ok. What is unknown to me is
> whether the thin plexi would sustain the shake without cracking or worse,
at
> any reasonable speed.
>
> There is also the doubt in my mind as to whether it would want to stay
> open.. Those few but several times when I have inadvertantly taken off
with
> it unlatched, it seems to want to stay in a slightly open position.. Just
> aft enough to keep the rear pins from going into the blocks!!
>
> Lastly and probably most important, you would get a giant airscoop/speed
> brake effect of unknown proportions. It would also blank out the rudder a
> bit.
>
> So I share your curiosity, but doubt if it would be a simple mod. I would
> start with a thicker canopy. Think you also would want to eliminate the
> curvature in the part which slides aft. These are going to be big
penalties
> in weight and drag.
>
> I suspect one of our listers has flight tested the stock canopy open, and
> can shed some better light on this.
>
> My experience is solely with the 6A
>
> Denis
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Keith Vasey/Galvin Flying Svc" <keith@galvinflying.com>
Thanks for the input. I'll tell my father. We are intending to work together
over Christmas to put the finishing touches on his RV-3. I don't know if he
has done any research regarding clearcoat over vinyl.
Keith.
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein Bruch
Subject: RE: RV-List: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Keith,
I'm not so sure I would recommend this. I'm all for Vinyl Graphics, as they
look great, are quick, easy, and relatively inexpensive. Putting the clear
coat over the vinyl could create a mess either now or in the futre for
several reasons;
1) You need to make sure the Vinyl doesn't react with the clear coat.
2) ALL vinyl degrades eventually. The new stuff lasts 5-8 years, but still
needs replaced sooner or later.
3) Clear coating will still not get rid of the edges. You can't "wet sand"
vinyl edges.
4) If you want smooth edges or are worried about peeling, use some "edge
sealer" made specifically for that purpose.
5) Trying to clean up the paint job now or in the future could be
problematic. I can't imagine trying to replace the vinyl with a coat of
paint over them.
I too have applied lots of Vinyl N-Numbers, decals, stripes etc.. on
everything from Aeronca's to 747's. It works great, and one of the benefits
is the easy removal and replacement. As a side note about edge sealer, I was
involved in putting on vinyl graphics for an Airline's 747-400 covered with
children's art. We used over 55 gallons of edge sealer!
Just my opinion, take it for what it's worth.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6, Minneapolis
--> RV-List message posted by: "Keith Vasey/Galvin Flying Svc"
<keith@galvinflying.com>
My father is just now painting his RV-3. He is using vinyl for the trim and
N-numbers. He intends to apply at least one clear coat over the vinyl.
Keith Vasey
RV-8 (finish)
Seattle
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
Call Brad at Prism Graphics (206)-282-1801. He can answer your questions
fully. I know it has a lot to do with the quality of the particular product
you use.
DOC
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy?
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
> On the subject of vinyl graphics....I'm interested in using some on my -8A
paint scheme and am wondering what the realistic life expectancy is for
vinyl on an airplane that is hangared. I've seen the numbers from 3M and
other manufacturers that their graphics can last up to 8-9 years outside on
signs, with disclaimers that greater UV exposure will shorten their lifespan
(i.e. any application on horizontal surface wil have shorter life than on a
vertical surface due to more sunlight, etc.).
>
> So...UV obviously plays a part but do temperature extremes also affect the
longevity, or can I expect vinyl on a hangared airplane to last almost
indefinitely? Any experts out there?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Christmas in N. Carolina... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
Mark:
If you want to fly in a non painted, no wheel pants, no gear leg fairings
....BRAND SPANKING NEW AIRPLANE .... I am always looking for somewhere to
fly.
I am off next week and could plan a flight.
Len Leggette RV-8A
N901LL
Greensboro, N.C.
24 hours !!
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
When flight testing the Super 6 I flew with the stock slider canopy open. The
nose
really wants to come up, even at take-off speed. Let's see, low airspeed and nose
high--hmm, that reminds me of something--it'll come to me. Because of the way
the
airplane handled and concerns about the canopy attachment hardware, I didn't do
any
sustained flight above 85 mph. Rudder control seemed appropriate for the
airspeed. The wind coming in that wide cockpit on the -6 was impressive and there
was a very strong suction draft between the canopy skirts and the aft fuselage.
Phil Condon has some experience flying the Grumman with the canopy open.
Boyd.
Denis Walsh wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers"
> > <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
> >
> > Goodmorning List,
> >
> > The new (again) Tiger advertises the fun of open canopy flying. Sounds good
to
> > me! In the archives, I've found some references to the fact that RVs can not
> > be flown with the slider open. Does anyone know why? Is it possible to make
> > modifications so that RVs could be flown alfresco, maybe at slower speeds at
> > least?
> >
> > DOC
> > Do Not Archive
> >
> >
>
> I have pondered this for several years. I think the steel frame is sturdy
> enough and the attachment scheme would hold ok. What is unknown to me is
> whether the thin plexi would sustain the shake without cracking or worse, at
> any reasonable speed.
>
> There is also the doubt in my mind as to whether it would want to stay
> open.. Those few but several times when I have inadvertantly taken off with
> it unlatched, it seems to want to stay in a slightly open position.. Just
> aft enough to keep the rear pins from going into the blocks!!
>
> Lastly and probably most important, you would get a giant airscoop/speed
> brake effect of unknown proportions. It would also blank out the rudder a
> bit.
>
> So I share your curiosity, but doubt if it would be a simple mod. I would
> start with a thicker canopy. Think you also would want to eliminate the
> curvature in the part which slides aft. These are going to be big penalties
> in weight and drag.
>
> I suspect one of our listers has flight tested the stock canopy open, and
> can shed some better light on this.
>
> My experience is solely with the 6A
>
> Denis
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
Check out www.edecals.com for some great stuff.
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy?
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
> On the subject of vinyl graphics....I'm interested in using some on my -8A
paint scheme and am wondering what the realistic life expectancy is for
vinyl on an airplane that is hangared. I've seen the numbers from 3M and
other manufacturers that their graphics can last up to 8-9 years outside on
signs, with disclaimers that greater UV exposure will shorten their lifespan
(i.e. any application on horizontal surface wil have shorter life than on a
vertical surface due to more sunlight, etc.).
>
> So...UV obviously plays a part but do temperature extremes also affect the
longevity, or can I expect vinyl on a hangared airplane to last almost
indefinitely? Any experts out there?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D fiberglass...
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
In a message dated 12/20/2002 1:46:35 PM Central Standard Time,
DrLeathers@822heal.com writes:
> Something to think about along this line is that the tipping slider
> conversion, which is becoming more popular, might allow a guy to just
> remove
> the main canopy, leaving the front sheild in place. This would eliminate
> that air scoop and speed braking effect, wouldn't it?
>
When the Thorp T18 was first on the market it was envisioned as an open
cockpit. I think that idea was gone with the wind the first time it was
tried.
The Grumman/Yankee AA1 series could be flown with the canopy open aprox 20
percent. There was a mark on the rail if I remember placarding that point.
The canopy was somewhat difficult to open in flight and would tend to creep
forward. I suppose the main advantage of this would be to clear smoke. I took
off a night once in very humid condition and my canopy/windscreen fogged
over, I was on instruments till I slid the canopy back, the fresh air melted
the condensation away. No, I don't have the TC in hand, I don't have any
pictures proving it. I do have about 1900 hours of AA1/AA1C time. Another
time whilst on a floor sack bombing run I told my wife to toss the bag out
NOW---she threw it out and it came back in bursting in the baggage
compartment. This led to a few exciting moments while I wiped caked floor
from my sweating face and eyes and glasses. I suspect the RV canopy could be
slid back in a similar fashion if there was a locking detent to stop it at 15
to 20 percent. Yeah, the tip up slider would be interesting--it slides back
and then tips back and then ejects--that could get real interesting--maybe
someone might want to try it out? The AA1C canopy did not seem anymore
rigid/strong than the RV6/7/9 canopy but I cannot say. I think the glass was
thicker, I hit a turkey buzzard in New Mexico and it actually slightly bent
my prop causing a strange buzzing which resulted in an unplanned landing. The
prop was not visibly bent upon visual inspection. The bird bounced off the
windscreen with a loud k-thunk. The glass did not break like in the photos I
have seen of the RV bird strike. (yes, I know it is not glass--it is plexi) .
I had my spinner come off my Kitfox after a low level buzz of a friends
living room, his eyes were bigger than his big screen TV. It hit the prop,
bounced forward and went back into the prop a second time tearing off a blade
tip and then careening off the windscreen. That also led to an unplanned
landing. I saw the initial impact mark of the spinner at about 12 inches from
the center, the second impact was what removed a blade tip. The Lexan 1/8
inch windscreen held up fine. There was a slight milky spot that went away. I
don't have any proof of that either but I do have the prop blade as a
souvenir. I will not go into my other prop incident with the "black wonder
prop" as that always results in much hard feelings, but it was exciting. Do
Not Archive. JR
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative |
Engine etc
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
I scolded JR about the term 'maximum continuous power' but TCDS (type
certificate) # E-286 lists it as 180 hp.
My apologies JR.
I searched the FAA for the acronym 'TBO' and could not find it. I believe
this is a non-government term. I wish could cite a reference for the
statement I saw once that went something like, "manufacturers determine TBO
for their engines based on their customer's experiences" but I cannot. I
wonder if manufacturers can't have their own definition of 'maximum
continuous power' too.
Richard Finch in his book, "Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft", 4th
edition, has some information about certification testing but it does not
appear to be entirely accurate. Anyone getting into this discussion ought
to look at this book though.
I looked for the requirements for a manufacturer to get an
engine certified. I find this FAR:
Sec. 33.49
Endurance test.
(a) General. Each engine must be subjected to an endurance test that
includes a total of 150 hours of operation (except as provided in paragraph
(e)(1)(iii) of this section) and, depending upon the type and contemplated
use of the engine, consists of one of the series of runs specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, as applicable. The runs must be
made in the order found appropriate by the Administrator for the particular
engine being tested. During the endurance test the engine power and the
crankshaft rotational speed must be kept within 1a5e9078.jpg3 percent of
the rated values. During the runs at rated takeoff power and for at least
35 hours at rated maximum continuous power, one cylinder must be operated
at not less than the limiting temperature, the other cylinders must be
operated at a temperature not lower than 50 degrees F below the limiting
temperature, and the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within
1a5e908c.jpg10 degrees F of the limiting temperature. An engine that is
equipped with a propeller shaft must be fitted for the endurance test with
a propeller that thrust-loads the engine to the maximum thrust which the
engine is designed to resist at each applicable operating condition
specified in this section. Each accessory drive and mounting attachment
must be loaded. During operation at rated takeoff power and rated maximum
continuous power, the load imposed by each accessory used only for an
aircraft service must be the limit load specified by the applicant for the
engine drive or attachment point.
(b) Unsupercharged engines and engines incorporating a gear-driven
single-speed supercharger. For engines not incorporating a supercharger and
for engines incorporating a gear-driven single-speed supercharger the
applicant must conduct the following runs:
(1) A 30-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 5 minutes at rated
takeoff power with takeoff speed, and 5 minutes at maximum best economy
cruising power or maximum recommended cruising power.
(2) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 75
percent rated maximum continuous power and 91 percent maximum continuous speed.
(3) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 70
percent rated maximum continuous power and 89 percent maximum continuous speed.
(4) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 65
percent rated maximum continuous power and 87 percent maximum continuous speed.
(5) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 60
percent rated maximum continuous power and 84.5 percent maximum continuous
speed.
(6) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 50
percent rated maximum continuous power and 79.5 percent maximum continuous
speed.
(7) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 2 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 2 1/2 hours at
maximum best economy cruising power or at maximum recommended cruising power.
While this testing seems fairly severe it hardly suggests that the engine
can be run at full rated power for a full 2000 hours. Apparently, it is
not necessary to make all test runs without intervening shutdowns. Many
owners of a pickup truck and big fifth wheel travel trailer can attest to
having made longer full power runs.
As to high costs of testing, what are the items that cost? Surely the
engine was salvageable. ;-) Fuel at what 25 cents a gallon and labor at $5
a day??? These engines are expensive because of no competition.
Anyway, it all proves little. One engine will grind along happily for more
than 2000 hours while another will have a defective crankshaft snap in
under a hundred.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
If you keep it up you'll end up getting a "reputation"! Remind me to bring
my gas mask, parachute, flak jacket, helmet, goggles, etc... when I go for a
ride with you:)
All in fun,
Stein.
Do Not Archive.
--> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
>>I took off a night once in very humid condition and my canopy/windscreen
fogged
over, I was on instruments till I slid the canopy back, the fresh air melted
the condensation away. No,
>>Another time whilst on a floor sack bombing run I told my wife to toss the
bag out
NOW---she threw it out and it came back in bursting in the baggage
compartment. This led to a few exciting moments while I wiped caked floor
from my sweating face and eyes and glasses.
>>I think the glass was thicker, I hit a turkey buzzard in New Mexico and it
actually slightly bent my prop causing a strange buzzing which resulted in
an unplanned landing. The
prop was not visibly bent upon visual inspection. The bird bounced off the
windscreen with a loud k-thunk.
>>I had my spinner come off my Kitfox after a low level buzz of a friends
living room, his eyes were bigger than his big screen TV. It hit the prop,
bounced forward and went back into the prop a second time tearing off a
blade
tip and then careening off the windscreen. That also led to an unplanned
landing. I saw the initial impact mark of the spinner at about 12 inches
from
the center, the second impact was what removed a blade tip. The Lexan 1/8
inch windscreen held up fine. There was a slight milky spot that went away.
I
don't have any proof of that either but I do have the prop blade as a
souvenir.
>>I will not go into my other prop incident with the "black wonder
prop" as that always results in much hard feelings, but it was exciting. Do
Not Archive. JR
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternate engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: davepetrv6@comcast.net
Tracy - there are some chip detectors out there , here's one .
http://www.globalav.com.au/oil_fil-new.html. There have to be others in the automotive
world
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV Flying - inspirational LONG |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
DELETE now if you don't want to read airplane babble....
About 14 months have passed since my RV6A first took flight, and the
amount of pure joy one can experience in 237 hours of flight is truly
astonishing! While smiles several hours before and after flights in the
RV are the norm, some things bring out slightly wider smiles.
For example, there are the frequent situations like this: =93Anoka tower,
Cessna 1234J, 5 miles east, landing=94, =93Cessna 1234J, Anoka tower, enter
left base for 27, #2 behind the Piper=94. Then I call: =93Anoka tower,
experimental 66AP, 7 miles southeast, landing=94, =93Experimental 66 alpha
pop, enter left base 27, #2 behind the Piper, Cessna 1234J, you=92ll now
be #3 behind the experimental for 27=94. Then comes various exchanges
between the Cessna and the tower to explain that, even though the
=93little experimental=94 is two miles behind, he will beat you there, don=92t
worry, it will work out. I really think the guys in the tower get a big
charge out of this.
Then there was the time last winter, when I was doing full stop landings
after dark to polish the edge, when a Comanche came into the pattern
stating to the tower that they had only two green lights on the gear.
They made several passes near the tower in the hopes the great guys
staffing the tower that night could see something. They could not. I
stopped on a taxiway, and they flew a hundred feet or so nearly above
me, but still nothing but blackness and nav lights. I offered to fly up
and have a look from behind, hoping my landing lights would illuminate
things enough to be able to see. The various rules about this
formation flight were discussed and agreed upon, and I taxied into
position on the runway. When the stricken aircraft was about =BC mile
behind me and 1000=92 feet above, I shoved in the throttle. Everything
was working out just perfectly, and the Comanche asked if 120 knots was
ok, and I said =93just maintain 120 kias=94. I don=92t think they could quite
believe that I could ever climb AND catch them, but in a few seconds I
was where I wanted to be, about 300 feet behind and level. We switched
to another frequency the tower gave us to use while we orbited, and I
slowly moved to about 100 feet behind, and slightly inside. Again they
asked if 120 knots was ok, and I didn=92t have the heart to tell them that
the plane might overheat at this low airspeed. I tweaked the elevator
and rudder to scan the lights onto their plane, and could definitely
ascertain that both mains were at least down. I called the tower, and
said I=92d done what I could and would like to land. They said to go
ahead and enter right base for 09. I told the tower I=92d love to, just
as soon as I could figure out where I was. Since I had watched only
their plane for a couple orbits, it took a few seconds to get
orientated. The Comanche continued to orbit, both to burn fuel and to
give the crash trucks time to get positioned. The pilots of the
Comanche were incredibly professional and calm sounding during the whole
ordeal. After I put my plane away, I watched the Comanche coming in on
a shallow final, hopeful for a good outcome. When they were over the
threshold, the pilot shut the engine down and the plane whistled by, and
made the mother of all greasers, rolling to a silent stop on the runway.
All ended well, probably only a bad switch. They later told me thanks
again, and that knowing that the gear appeared down had really given
them a better feeling than not knowing anything.
One gorgeous Sunday morning this past summer, I was flying a northwest
heading enroute to retrieve my youngest son from a weekend stay with my
parents, about 120 nautical miles, or 45 minutes, from my home base.
The winds aloft were strong out of the northwest, so on the way up I
flew at about 500=92. No populated areas along the route, just a few
antennae and crows to worry about. Looks like 150 knots ground speed,
so only about 10 knot headwind here. Oh, there=92s my sister=92s house,
which just happens to be exactly on the path, about a third of the way
there. Oops, I see a church steeple ahead, better go around them since
they are probably worshipping. I wonder what those cows down there
think about us, they seem to be looking up at us. I=92m always noticing
fields and country roads, not much time from here if the engine packs it
in. Getting close now, better climb to a respectable pattern altitude,
let=92s try 800=92. Wheels rumble on the grass, keep the nosewheel off as
long as possible, wow, what fun this is. I hop out and greet and thank
the folks, and the youngest son and I climb back in, while my parents
head to church. We=92re off in a couple hundred feet, and climb up to
7500=92 for the return trip. Air is smooth, and with a 195 knot ground
speed, who says there are no free lunches?
Keep pounding those rivets and sanding fiberglass, it is really worth
it!
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 237 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
I agree, X-Plane is far superior as a stick and rudder flight simulator.
If anyone is looking for an RV-6 for X-Plane (v6.40), I have one that I
designed. It's a replica of C-GACR, soon to be flying. Just send me an
email.
Curt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Subject: RV-List: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
>
> do not archive
>
> True, MS Flight simulator is not the best program in the world. For the
> true game nut, check out X Plane. http://x-plane.com/ It is by far the
> best simulation I have ever seen. Looks like the real simulators. It's
not
> really a game. It is a true flight simulator. Doesn't get any more real.
> Be prepared, though. It takes a lot of fumbling with to get it right, and
> you have to have a very powerful computer with alot of memory (RAM and
> Video) to make it work smoothly. You can even design and test your own
> aircraft in this program.
>
> I thank James Freeman for making me waste my time by getting hooked on
this
> program. It doesn't get any better than this.
>
> Paul Besing
> RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
> http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
> Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
> http://www.kitlog.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Flight Simulator Control
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
> >
> > Paul Besing wrote:
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
> > >
> > > The Microsoft Force Feedback Pro is really good too. Great for a
> multitude
> > > of games, including Flight Simulators. It has little motors inside
that
> > > simulate stick forces. You land, it shakes a little.
> >
> > Well, maybe when *you* land... 8-)
> >
> > I had one of these joysticks for a while, and really liked it as a
> > joystick. I was less impressed with Microsoft's Flight Simulator,
> > though. I had FS2000 at the time, and a computer more than powerful
> > enough to run it, but still it never seemed realistic enough for my
> > tastes. It was a little too jerky in motion, and the delay between
> > control input and visual and tactile feedback was too long.
> >
> > In the end I sold the joystick to a co-worker who now likes it a lot
> > with FS2002, so maybe it's better.
> >
> > -RB4
> >
> >
>
>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
I did the research.
Here is the O-320 type certificate. Max continuous power 160 hp @2700
http://www.rvproject.com/tcds/lycoming-o-320.pdf
Here is the O-360 type certificate. Max continuous power 180 hp @2700
http://www.rvproject.com/tcds/lycoming-o-320.pdf
That is sea level, full throttle, full power on 100LL gas.
End of story.
Merry Christmas to all.
Curt
----- Original Message -----
From: <JRWillJR@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions
> --> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/20/2002 10:49:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> tedd@vansairforce.org writes:
>
>
> > You're making the claim. If you want to be believed I suggest you do
the
> > research. That's up to you.
>
> Tedd, as I said I thought we were having a discussion, frankly I don't
care
> what you do or who you believe. I will stand with what I said. I am not
going
> to spend hours retracing TCs and ACs for what is industry knowledge. If
you
> do not believe the 0360 has a 2000 hour TBO that is fine by me---hey---why
> don't you prove it does not and while your at it prove there is something
> better without analogy to Aunt Mays car, boats, submarines or garden
tillers
> or such as that. Have a fine day. Do Not Archive. Geeeeeez. JR
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | F1 down in Houstin |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
This is being reported in the rec.aviation.homebuilt NG.
No details but understand it was a fatal.
Sympathy and thoughts for the family.
Jerry
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <rv7@cox.net>
Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :)
-David N207DT Reserved
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: open slider in flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Do not archive
Come on already......quit stalling around, what is it ?,
Enquiring minds want to know. 8
)
KABONG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Boyd C. Braem" <bcbraem@comcast.net>
see, low airspeed and nose
> high--hmm, that reminds me of something--it'll come to me.
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
David,
What!... You couldn't wait till Christmas Day to open your present. You are
a bad boy!! shame on you!!!. For that you must order your wing kit right
now!
Jim in Kelowna
P.S... Welcome aboard and the best of the season.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <rv7@cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: It's here!
> --> RV-List message posted by: <rv7@cox.net>
>
> Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :)
>
> -David N207DT Reserved
>
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative |
Engine etc
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
I scolded JR about the term 'maximum continuous power' but TCDS (type
certificate) # E-286 lists it as 180 hp. My apologies JR.
I searched the FAA for the acronym 'TBO' and could not find it. I believe
this is a non-government term. I wish could cite a reference for the
statement that went something like, "manufacturers determine TBO for their
engines based on their customer's experiences" but I cannot. I wonder if
manufacturers can't have their own definition of 'maximum continuous power'
too.
Richard Finch in his book, "Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft", 4th
edition, has some information about certification testing but it is not
entirely accurate from what I can find. Anyone getting into this
discussion ought to glance at this book.
I looked for the requirements for a manufacturer to get an
engine certified. I find this:
Sec. 33.49
Endurance test.
(a) General. Each engine must be subjected to an endurance test that
includes a total of 150 hours of operation (except as provided in paragraph
(e)(1)(iii) of this section) and, depending upon the type and contemplated
use of the engine, consists of one of the series of runs specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, as applicable. The runs must be
made in the order found appropriate by the Administrator for the particular
engine being tested. During the endurance test the engine power and the
crankshaft rotational speed must be kept within 3 percent of the rated
values. During the runs at rated takeoff power and for at least 35 hours at
rated maximum continuous power, one cylinder must be operated at not less
than the limiting temperature, the other cylinders must be operated at a
temperature not lower than 50 degrees F below the limiting temperature, and
the oil inlet temperature must be maintained within 10 degrees F of the
limiting temperature. An engine that is equipped with a propeller shaft
must be fitted for the endurance test with a propeller that thrust-loads
the engine to the maximum thrust which the engine is designed to resist at
each applicable operating condition specified in this section. Each
accessory drive and mounting attachment must be loaded. During operation at
rated takeoff power and rated maximum continuous power, the load imposed by
each accessory used only for an aircraft service must be the limit load
specified by the applicant for the engine drive or attachment point.
(b) Unsupercharged engines and engines incorporating a gear-driven
single-speed supercharger. For engines not incorporating a supercharger and
for engines incorporating a gear-driven single-speed supercharger the
applicant must conduct the following runs:
(1) A 30-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 5 minutes at rated
takeoff power with takeoff speed, and 5 minutes at maximum best economy
cruising power or maximum recommended cruising power.
(2) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 75
percent rated maximum continuous power and 91 percent maximum continuous speed.
(3) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 70
percent rated maximum continuous power and 89 percent maximum continuous speed.
(4) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 65
percent rated maximum continuous power and 87 percent maximum continuous speed.
(5) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 60
percent rated maximum continuous power and 84.5 percent maximum continuous
speed.
(6) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 1 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 1/2 hour at 50
percent rated maximum continuous power and 79.5 percent maximum continuous
speed.
(7) A 20-hour run consisting of alternate periods of 2 1/2 hours at rated
maximum continuous power with maximum continuous speed, and 2 1/2 hours at
maximum best economy cruising power or at maximum recommended cruising power.
While this testing seems fairly severe it hardly suggests that the engine
can be run at full rated power for a full 2000 hours. It does not appear
to be necessary to make all test runs without intervening shutdowns. Many
owners of a pickup truck and big fifth wheel travel trailer can attest to
having made longer full power runs. In fact, most aren't even
memorable. I once drove a rented Geo Metro full tilt for more than two
hours at altitudes under 1000 feet with the 'balls to the wall'. Didn't
seem to faze it.
It all proves little. One engine will grind along happily for more than
2000 hours while another will have a defective crankshaft snap in under a
hundred.
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
David,
You must have been a good boy this year for Santa to come this early!
Congratulations on selecting a great airplane! The only down side is that
now you'll officially belong to "RV Builders Anonomys", and yes...there is a
12 step program. It just takes several years, tens of thousands of dollars,
lots of heated arguments about what to put in your plane, and all of a
sudden you're cured....A finished airplane! OK, I'm lying. I finished my
airplane 2 months ago and suffered such severe withdrawl symptoms that I was
forced into ordering/building another kit. Imagine my surprise when I
found out Van's actually does give a discount to repeat offenders!
You'll quickly learn the best "RV Doctors" (i.e. doctors Sam, Alex, Jerry,
Mike, Eric, Bill et.al) will prescribe the best medicine to get you through
the occasional "spells" of brain lapses and head scratching during building
that happens to all of us!
Good luck and Happy Holidays,
Stein
Do Not Archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of rv7@cox.net
Subject: RV-List: It's here!
--> RV-List message posted by: <rv7@cox.net>
Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :)
-David N207DT Reserved
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc |
--> RV-List message posted by: JRWillJR@aol.com
In a message dated 12/20/2002 4:21:05 PM Central Standard Time,
kempthornes@earthlink.net writes:
> I scolded JR about the term 'maximum continuous power' but TCDS (type
> certificate) # E-286 lists it as 180 hp.
> My apologies JR.
Thanks, but no one here owes me an apology, I realize I am an aggravating
sort and get what I deserve most times. You will need to look into the ACs to
see the "as the administrator request" etc type details. The FARs are rather
general regarding certification but if you read into all the legal mumbo
jumbo you can see that the administrator can require whatever he/she wants
almost. The way I understand it though a manufacturer applies for a TC and
then set up a plan which the FAA approves often with some imput. They then
hold your feet to the fire to make you do what you said you would do. Since I
have never been through this process I admit ignorance of all the details.
I don't think certification is the way to go for a marketable alternative
engine but some type of traceability and standardization is needed once the
design is matured, in my opinion. Do Not Archive. JR
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Guys,
I don't want to add any "fuel", but since I do have a fair amount of
experience in this area I thought I'd share my 2cents. I work daily with
aircraft operators (mostly commerical/government) worldwide who operate
aircraft from small piston's to 747's/C-130's/helicopters/russian/etc.. with
every type of engine you can imagine. Many of our customers (including P&W,
Rolls) are purely engine overhaul shops, but some do everything. Granted I
deal more with turbine power, but from a regulatory standpoint they are all
treated almost identically.
When you get down to brass tacks, VERY FEW people in the industry actually
use "hard time TBO's". Rather each operator usually has an agreement with
their regulating authority and engine manufacturer based on historical
performance and reliability of their component. This is why you'll see
different overhaul limits for literally every user of a given engine. An
operators history is based on mean time averages (MTBUR-Mean time between
unscheduled removals, MTBOH-mean time between overhaul, MTBF-mean time
before failure, MTTR-mean time to repair, etc.. Operators are then allowed
(or not) to "escalate" or extend their individual time limits based on that
history. In fact the FAR's already include a 10% STE(short term escalation)
provision for any rotable "life limited" component which an operator
utilizes with "no questions asked". This is before any application for
permanent extension beyone the OEM's recommendations which can be quite
extensive in terms of %'s and hours/cycles/days.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that based on individual usage,
maintenance upkeep, service, and care of an engine will determine how much
time your engine will last. Likewise, the term TBO doesn't automatically
mean that your aircraft becomes immediately unserviceable when your engine
reaches TBO. Many people have flown engine LONG beyond TBO while others
have failurs in several hundred hours. I know we're not large commercial
operators, but the same principles apply.
Why this discussion even started or what question people are hoping to have
answered, I've yet to figure out. Basically if you take care of your engine
it should take care of you - just like everything else on your plane.
I'll shut up now before I make things worse.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
Do Not Archive (not really usefull information above).
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
I scolded JR about the term 'maximum continuous power' but TCDS (type
certificate) # E-286 lists it as 180 hp. My apologies JR.
I searched the FAA for the acronym 'TBO' and could not find it. I believe
this is a non-government term. I wish could cite a reference for the
statement that went something like, "manufacturers determine TBO for their
engines based on their customer's experiences" but I cannot. I wonder if
manufacturers can't have their own definition of 'maximum continuous power'
too.
Richard Finch in his book, "Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft", 4th
edition, has some information about certification testing but it is not
entirely accurate from what I can find. Anyone getting into this
discussion ought to glance at this book.
I looked for the requirements for a manufacturer to get an
engine certified. I find this:
HSec. 33.49
It all proves little. One engine will grind along happily for more than
2000 hours while another will have a defective crankshaft snap in under a
hundred.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | LASAR ignition wiring |
--> RV-List message posted by: Roy Glass or Mary Poteet <rlglass@alaska.net>
How does one wire the p-leads for a LASAR ignition? I want to use toggle
switches for each magneto and a push-button starter. The blue and green
wires from the LASAR low voltage control harness do not appear to be
shielded and do not go directly to a magneto, instead they go to the
controller box. I realize that each magneto needs to be grounded to be
"off," but how does one do this with a LASAR? Should I use a shielded
p-lead wire with the primary wire attached to terminal 3 of a
single-pole switch and the wire's shielding connected to both terminal 2
AND to panel ground? The other end of each shielded wire would not be
grounded to a magneto or engine ground (single-point ground, but with a
short length of shielded wire). The other end of the primary wire would
be spliced to the blue or green harness wire. Is there a better way? Is
a shielded p-lead even needed with the LASAR? Should I shorten the
non-shielded harness wires to reduce the chance of noise or leave them
be (about 6 feet long) and just use a short length of shielded wire to
get past the firewall? Lots of questions, and I haven't even gotten to
the CHT part yet. Can someone direct me to a wiring diagram for the
LASAR using toggle switches instead of a key switch?
Roy Glass, RV-6, fwf, Anchorage, Alaska
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|