---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/20/02: 45 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:47 AM PST US From: JRWillJR@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:50 AM PST US From: Vanremog@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:13:06 AM PST US 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:15:24 AM PST US From: "George McNutt" Subject: RE: RV-List: chip detector --> RV-List message posted by: "George McNutt" --> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:06:04 AM PST US From: "Norman" Subject: Re: RV-List: Plexi Drill Bits --> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:16:37 AM PST US From: Doug Gray Subject: Re: RV-List: parallel valves--choices --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:38:25 AM PST US From: Doug Gray Subject: Re: RV-List: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray > > ... 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:11:03 AM PST US From: "Kyle Boatright" Subject: Re: RV-List: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" My mistake. Obviously a bad choice of examples. I still wouldn't spray a clear coat over vinyl striping... KB ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:47 AM PST US From: "Paul Besing" Subject: RV-List: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: Flight Simulator Control > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior > > Paul Besing wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:14 AM PST US From: Chris Subject: Re: RV-List: parallel valves--choices --> RV-List message posted by: Chris 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:11 AM PST US From: P M Condon Subject: RV-List: parallel valves--choices - Turbine --> RV-List message posted by: P M Condon 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" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:39 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:43 AM PST US From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: chip detector --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:36 AM PST US From: "Norman" Subject: Re: RV-List: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals --> RV-List message posted by: "Norman" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:28:45 AM PST US From: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Subject: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:32:35 AM PST US From: GRENIER@aol.com Subject: RV-List: Plexi repair. --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:08 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight From: Denis Walsh --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:54 AM PST US 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 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:02:17 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? From: czechsix@juno.com --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:44 AM PST US From: "Glenn Brasch" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight > --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:42 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Christmas in N. Carolina... From: czechsix@juno.com --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:21:16 AM PST US From: "Paul Besing" Subject: Re: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:26 AM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:41 AM PST US From: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" 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" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight > --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:28 AM PST US From: "Keith Vasey/Galvin Flying Svc" Subject: RE: RV-List: Fw: [VAF Mailing List] vinyl graphic decals --> RV-List message posted by: "Keith Vasey/Galvin Flying Svc" 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" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:43 AM PST US From: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Subject: Re: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:39:23 PM PST US From: Lenleg@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:42:14 PM PST US From: "Boyd C. Braem" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Boyd C. Braem" 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 > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:56:00 PM PST US From: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Subject: Re: RV-List: Vinyl graphics life expectancy? --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Check out www.edecals.com for some great stuff. Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:38:30 PM PST US From: JRWillJR@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:19:25 PM PST US From: kempthornes Subject: Re: RV-List: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc --> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:22:40 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:04:40 PM PST US From: davepetrv6@comcast.net Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:59:42 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RV-List: RV Flying - inspirational LONG --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:13:14 PM PST US From: "Curt Reimer" Subject: Re: RV-List: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim --> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" 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" Subject: RV-List: Off Topic: Best Flight Sim > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > > 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" > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Flight Simulator Control > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior > > > > Paul Besing wrote: > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:39 PM PST US From: "Curt Reimer" Subject: Re: RV-List: References please -- WAS:Alternative Engine Questions --> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:49:23 PM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: RV-List: F1 down in Houstin --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:15:34 PM PST US From: Subject: RV-List: It's here! --> RV-List message posted by: Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :) -David N207DT Reserved ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 09:18:13 PM PST US From: "John Starn" Subject: Re: RV-List: open slider in flight --> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" 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" see, low airspeed and nose > high--hmm, that reminds me of something--it'll come to me. ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 09:24:18 PM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: RV-List: It's here! --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" 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: Subject: RV-List: It's here! > --> RV-List message posted by: > > Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :) > > -David N207DT Reserved > > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:05 PM PST US From: kempthornes Subject: Re: RV-List: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc --> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:16:21 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: RV-List: It's here! --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" 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: Empennage kit arrived today so I guess I'm officially a builder now :) -David N207DT Reserved ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:39 PM PST US From: JRWillJR@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:55:10 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: RV-List: Full power & TBO WAS: References-Alternative Engine etc --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:14:05 PM PST US From: Roy Glass or Mary Poteet Subject: RV-List: LASAR ignition wiring --> RV-List message posted by: Roy Glass or Mary Poteet 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