Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:23 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Alex Peterson)
2. 05:34 AM - RV-6 wanted (flamini2)
3. 05:43 AM - Lightening Holes in QB Kits? (Evenson)
4. 06:10 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Don Mack)
5. 06:25 AM - Re: Was exp eng, now dataplate (John Helms)
6. 06:28 AM - Re: FAA-PMA (John Helms)
7. 06:44 AM - Size (DANIEL W WATTERS)
8. 07:06 AM - Re: Size (HillStw@aol.com)
9. 07:08 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (mstewart@qa.butler.com)
10. 07:21 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Dave Bristol)
11. 07:34 AM - Re: What are Pilots coming to ? (Dane Sheahen)
12. 07:40 AM - gas strut prop rod (Frazier, Vincent A)
13. 07:47 AM - Re: Lightening Holes in QB Kits? (Scott Brumbelow)
14. 07:48 AM - Re: Size (Tracy Crook)
15. 07:50 AM - Re: Size (Al Karpinski)
16. 07:51 AM - Simmons oil sump (Wiethe, Philip (P.J.))
17. 07:58 AM - Re: Size (Rick Jory)
18. 08:18 AM - Re: Grass Strip Construction (Ross Schlotthauer)
19. 08:33 AM - Re: Size (Van Artsdalen, Scott)
20. 09:40 AM - Re: What are Pilots coming to ? (MeangreenRV4@aol.com)
21. 09:53 AM - Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (John Helms)
22. 10:36 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Alex Peterson)
23. 10:41 AM - Re: gas strut prop rod (Mark Phillips)
24. 11:00 AM - Re: Size (RV_8 Pilot)
25. 11:07 AM - Anybody interested in sharing a hangar at Auburn, CA? (mitchf@netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz))
26. 11:09 AM - Re: Engine transducer question (probably dumb) (HCRV6@aol.com)
27. 11:18 AM - [Fw: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance] (Rob Prior)
28. 11:18 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Don Mack)
29. 11:54 AM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Norman, Jim)
30. 11:54 AM - Fw: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (John Helms)
31. 12:24 PM - Re: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (Michael Sices)
32. 12:33 PM - Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (Rob Prior)
33. 01:17 PM - Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (John Helms)
34. 01:21 PM - Looking for AN929-4D cap (Camille Hawthorne)
35. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (John Helms)
36. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Stab Re: lightening holes (Dana Overall)
37. 01:43 PM - Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap (Dana Overall)
38. 02:13 PM - Fw: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (C. Rabaut)
39. 02:14 PM - >Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap (Bob n' Lu Olds)
40. 02:24 PM - Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap (LarryRobertHelming)
41. 02:25 PM - WAS ... gas strut prop rod (NOW ... another thing to consider) (James E. Clark)
42. 02:28 PM - Re: Size (Keith and Jean Williams)
43. 02:45 PM - Importing Paint - New York builders? (sjhdcl@kingston.net)
44. 03:21 PM - Carpet attachment? (Andy Karmy)
45. 03:38 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Kyle Boatright)
46. 03:39 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Kyle Boatright)
47. 03:47 PM - Fw: hi (C. Rabaut)
48. 03:48 PM - Insurance or not (Jim Nolan)
49. 03:59 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Alex Peterson)
50. 04:01 PM - Re: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (Ross Schlotthauer)
51. 04:03 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Rick Jory)
52. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Off-List reply Re: Insurance (John Helms)
53. 04:27 PM - Re: Insurance or not (John Helms)
54. 04:40 PM - Re: Firewall forward kit? (Chuck Weyant)
55. 04:45 PM - Fw: Insurance or not (C. Rabaut)
56. 04:54 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (Miller Robert)
57. 04:55 PM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (David Schaefer)
58. 05:10 PM - Re: Insurance or not (RV6 Flyer)
59. 05:26 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (James E. Clark)
60. 05:30 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (Terry Watson)
61. 05:37 PM - Re: Insurance or not (Stephen Johnson)
62. 05:52 PM - UPDATE #3 ... Random (engine??) "POP" (James E. Clark)
63. 06:04 PM - Re: Size (Louis Willig)
64. 06:19 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Vanremog@aol.com)
65. 06:54 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (Jim Oke)
66. 06:54 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (Larry Bowen)
67. 06:58 PM - Air drills (Will & Lynda Allen)
68. 07:01 PM - Re: Insurance or not (Brian Denk)
69. 07:04 PM - Pitot tube routing in fuselage of RV-9A (Joe & Jan Connell)
70. 07:14 PM - Re: Air drills (Kyle Boatright)
71. 07:14 PM - Re: Air drills (JDaniel343@aol.com)
72. 07:19 PM - Re: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question (Alex Peterson)
73. 07:24 PM - Re: Sad News (Gary Zilik)
74. 07:34 PM - Re: Re: Vertical Stab Re: lightening holes (Wier, Daniel C.)
75. 08:18 PM - Re: Importing Paint - New York builders? (Craig Warner)
76. 08:21 PM - Re: Size (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
77. 08:34 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (Ross Schlotthauer)
78. 09:38 PM - Re: Air drills (James E. Clark)
79. 09:43 PM - Re: Air Drills (Dick DeCramer)
80. 09:53 PM - Re: This insurance stuff. (kempthornes)
81. 09:56 PM - Re: Carpet attachment? (kempthornes)
82. 10:05 PM - Electroluminescent Lighting (Mark Phillips)
83. 10:41 PM - Aileron hinge (Dave von Linsowe)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> I am cabling my Airflow Performance fuel injection bypass
> valve on my o-360-a1a. The way the throw arm on the valve is
> setup it will be in normal, full rich operation when the knob
> on the panel is pulled out. This runs contrary to "normal"
> where a device is full rich, full power when pushed in. The
> throw arm can't be changed.
>
> I am contemplating making a bellcrank to reverse the
> direction so when the knob is in it is full rich. If anyone
> has any input and/or pictures on how they hooked theirs up I
> would appreciate it.
Don, if you were standing in the cockpit, at what two clock positions is
the bypass valve arm at its limits? Mine is about 12 and 2, with 12
being the ICO position and 2 being the normal running position. My
cable comes in from the left side, so when I push the valve forward (on
the instrument panel), it is in normal running position.
Be sure to use a cable of throttle/mixture/prop caliber and not a simple
bowden type cable. We had a plane here lose an engine when the bowden
cable broke on takeoff, fortunately, he was able to land on the
remaining runway. The cable should also have a push-button lock so that
it can't drift. Aircraft Spruce sells a nice one for this application,
it has a black knob which is smaller than a typical throttle with a
aluminum push-to-move button.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "flamini2" <flamini2@attbi.com>
WANTED
Clean RV. Prefer RV6A, but will consider RV6. Location in the mid-west a plus.
Must be clean and well built. Prefer hanging rudder peddles but must
have the capability of moving peddles well forward (no interference from firewall
oil filter bulge) for maximum leg room (I'm 6'4" tall). Contact Steve
at 847-634-6634 or email to Mighty150@aol.com
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: | Lightening Holes in QB Kits? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Evenson <revenson@comcast.net>
Does Van's cut out the optional lightening holes in the QuickBuild kits?
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
Thanks for the information Alex. My arm and valve are on the right side. The
arm swings from about 2-5 o'clock position 2, being ICO. I was thinking I
could bring the cable in from the left and around the front. Not the best
choice but it would work.
I work for a company that makes aircraft cables so all of them are custom.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
Subject: RE: RV-List: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> I am cabling my Airflow Performance fuel injection bypass
> valve on my o-360-a1a. The way the throw arm on the valve is
> setup it will be in normal, full rich operation when the knob
> on the panel is pulled out. This runs contrary to "normal"
> where a device is full rich, full power when pushed in. The
> throw arm can't be changed.
>
> I am contemplating making a bellcrank to reverse the
> direction so when the knob is in it is full rich. If anyone
> has any input and/or pictures on how they hooked theirs up I
> would appreciate it.
Don, if you were standing in the cockpit, at what two clock positions is
the bypass valve arm at its limits? Mine is about 12 and 2, with 12
being the ICO position and 2 being the normal running position. My
cable comes in from the left side, so when I push the valve forward (on
the instrument panel), it is in normal running position.
Be sure to use a cable of throttle/mixture/prop caliber and not a simple
bowden type cable. We had a plane here lose an engine when the bowden
cable broke on takeoff, fortunately, he was able to land on the
remaining runway. The cable should also have a push-button lock so that
it can't drift. Aircraft Spruce sells a nice one for this application,
it has a black knob which is smaller than a typical throttle with a
aluminum push-to-move button.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: Was exp eng, now dataplate |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
Charlie,
You actually do have some recourse. If an insurance company decides not to
pay a claim, they have to have a reason. You can always have your state
insurance commissioner investigate the denial of coverage. And the courts
can get involved as well. This plays into the reason why most of the
companies don't deny coverage very often.
In 2001, courts overturned 3 denials of coverage (all three were by AVEMCO's
sister company) and the courts made them pay $20 Million in punitive damages
between the three reversals for "bad faith".
So, if you are doing something blatently wrong (i.e. flying drunk) and you
crash, miraculously survive, and stumble out of the plane reeking, they
still are likely to deny coverage (you would have provided the "bad faith"
in that case, as your supposed to follow FAR's).
JT
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie & Tupper England" <cengland@netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Was exp eng, now dataplate
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
<cengland@netdoor.com>
My neighbor has gone through it on a couple of planes. I assume that the
logic is that engines are certified on each T/C'd airframe. Since there
is no T/C for a homebuilt, the engine can't be certified on that
airframe. (stress, cooling, vibration, etc. issues)
I'm not saying it's right or conforms to national FAA policy, but it is
the way it is.
The net result of the ins co.'s position, as described by John, is that
you are covered at their whim, not by your contract with them. I'm not
saying that they *won't* pay, just that you have little recourse if they
decide not to pay.
FWIW, the EAA has repeatedly stated that any engine that has been
installed on a homebuilt must be inspected & recertified as conforming
to the t/c & is airworthy before it can be reinstalled on a t/c airframe.
Charlie
mstewart@qa.butler.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: mstewart@qa.butler.com
>
>Charlie
>Why is FSDO having you remove the dataplate before inspection?
>
>Mike Stewart
>Do not archive
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Charlie & Tupper England [mailto:cengland@netdoor.com]
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Experimental Engines VS Certificated Engines &
>Insurance Rates
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
><cengland@netdoor.com>
>
>Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>
>>John, I appreciate your input on this subject. I suspect the
>>experimental community has moved much faster and farther toward
>>custom-built "Lycoming" engines than you and the insurance industry
>>realize. If the industry is now qualifying just what is and what isn't
>>an insurable Lycoming engine.........we need to see a WRITTEN set of
>>standards!
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Sam Buchanan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Sam,
>
>One question you didn't ask was how the claim will be handled on
>homebuilt planes inspected by FSDO's like the one next door to you here
>in Mississippi. Even brand spanking new Lycs must have their data plates
>removed before the FSDO will issue your 'flying papers'.
>
>Charlie
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
It isn't that the insurance companies are saying any specific powerplant is
"unairworthy".... their just saying ... "we don't want to insure that type
of risk".... there is nothing any court or association can do to force them
to offer something they don't want to.
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: FAA-PMA
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Guys,
There are several issuse being confused here.
1. If the King says the part is FAA-PMA approved for direct replacement then
the King's court can not come back and say that the aircraft is not
airworthy because of the part's correct installation in the aircraft which
is the whole point of the FAA Parts Manufaturer Approval process for direct
replacement parts.
If this is not so then every type certified aircraft more than about two
years old, including all airliners, needs to be grounded immediately.
Lycoming will tell you that the way to overhaul one of their engines is to
buy all the parts for that engine, by correct part number for that engine.
They do not, and cannot tell you where to buy the parts from. In fact I
would go so far as to say that they share common manufacturer's for many of
their parts with the after-marketers. (Champion, Precision, Slick, etc)
Given the recent developments in manufacturing, the data plate arguement is
valid.
But it must be "overhauled" or "supervised" by a person who is a
Certificated Powerplant Mechanic or a Certified Repair Station using the
correct and most current data for the airworthiness of that engine to be
valid in its Type Certified utilization.
2. Unfortunately there is nothing in law that governs airworthiness in
un-Type Certified utilization of Type Certified components other than the
Special Airworthiness Certificate. The Insurer clearly does not have the
authority to state that an aircraft is unairworthy and therefore uninsurable
if the King has stated it is by due process. (This all assumes it has not
been altered from its original SAC state.) And this has nothing to do with
who built the engine using whatever parts.
It would be my suggestion that EAA and AOPA be made very aware of this
aspect of the insurance issue, if they aren't already, as the insurance
companies could, and apparently are deciding this on their own.
A lengthy class action lawsuit would probably force them to insure us no
matter what, because Experimentals are allowed by the King sans any Type
Certification, or the need for any PMA or TSO'd parts. To do otherwise is
discrimination. But the Insurers will never be limited by the King on what
they can charge for the service.
I would also agree with JT, that telling the whole story now is the only way
to have any legitimate claim later.
If there's a major move afoot to outlaw us then we'll throw the Poberezneys
and Boyers at them. That's why you pay your dues isn't it?
Now on to more important stuff, has anybody ever thought about using one of
these new electronic distance measuring devices as a short range ground
proximty sensor. My vision has a horrible time telling the difference
between 6 inches off the ground and 2 inches when the tail is below the
mains and its a downhill runway, particularly at night or landing into the
setting sun. ;{)
W
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
I am trying to make a decision on what model of RV to build. I prefer the
-9A but since I am 6'6" tall I am also considering the -8A. I am still a
student pilot so I believe the -9A is better suited to the skill level I
might be at by the time the building process is done. Is anyone else out
their my height or taller building a -9A? Any comments from the -8(A)
builders? Just came back from the Sport Air RV Assembly class in Corona and
I am ready to order.
Thanks in advance,
Dan Watters
Tucson, AZ.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: HillStw@aol.com
The 8A flies very well; don't think your student status would be a problem.
Do you like tandem, or side-by-side, that is the question.
hillstw@aol.com
8A 260 hours
do not archive
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: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: mstewart@qa.butler.com
Don,
I have good pics on my web site.
I remember flipping something around, and no bell crank.
http://www.mstewart.net/michael/rv/index.htm
Under system, external photo's.
Also probably better ones in the elec ign install in the flying section.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mack [mailto:don@dmack.net]
Subject: RV-List: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
I am cabling my Airflow Performance fuel injection bypass valve on my
o-360-a1a. The way the throw arm on the valve is setup it will be in normal,
full rich operation when the knob on the panel is pulled out. This runs
contrary to "normal" where a device is full rich, full power when pushed in.
The throw arm can't be changed.
I am contemplating making a bellcrank to reverse the direction so when the
knob is in it is full rich. If anyone has any input and/or pictures on how
they hooked theirs up I would appreciate it.
Thanks
Don Mack RV-6A
don@dmack.net
www.dmack.net
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: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Don,
The handle on my purge valve is adjustable. If I remember correctly, it has to
point aft (mounted on the right side of the flow divider) with the cable coming
in from the left side of the engine. Take another look at it. I believe that
there's a nut on the top that must be loosened and the bottom of the handle is
serrated and can be rotated to the required direction.
Dave, RV6, O360 AFP, EAA Tech Counselor
Don Mack wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
>
> I am cabling my Airflow Performance fuel injection bypass valve on my
> o-360-a1a. The way the throw arm on the valve is setup it will be in normal,
> full rich operation when the knob on the panel is pulled out. This runs
> contrary to "normal" where a device is full rich, full power when pushed in.
> The throw arm can't be changed.
>
> I am contemplating making a bellcrank to reverse the direction so when the
> knob is in it is full rich. If anyone has any input and/or pictures on how
> they hooked theirs up I would appreciate it.
>
> Thanks
>
> Don Mack RV-6A
> don@dmack.net
> www.dmack.net
>
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: | What are Pilots coming to ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dane Sheahen" <dane@mutualace.com>
Hey Bob
Why don't you be a "Real Aviator" and fly your RV up to Chicago today
(temp. is -4) and see how you feel about your last comment.
Do not archive
Dane
RV8A, N838RV Flying A Nosedragger And Proud of It
People talk about hetated & cooled seats,training wheels under the
nose,etc.,etc.,etc.
Does you mom let you out of the house to go fly ??
no not archive - obviously
Bob Olds A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
"Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers" If they are stuck in the past !
see I even put my name on , now to the FIRE extinguisher !!
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: | gas strut prop rod |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Guys,
Quit fooling around and just get one of these things. $8 stinking bucks. Advance
autoparts has them too. So do other places. THEY ARE THE ITEM YOU NEED!
Even if your gas struts work fine these will keep your canopy from slamming shut.
I can't believe that Van's doesn't sell these!
http://www.jcwhitney.com/productnoitem.jhtml?CATID=65926&BQ=jcw2
Vince in Indiana
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: Lightening Holes in QB Kits? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Brumbelow <csbrumbelow@fedex.com>
Yes.
Evenson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Evenson <revenson@comcast.net>
>
> Does Van's cut out the optional lightening holes in the QuickBuild kits?
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
>
> I am trying to make a decision on what model of RV to build. I prefer the
> -9A but since I am 6'6" tall I am also considering the -8A. I am still a
> student pilot so I believe the -9A is better suited to the skill level I
> might be at by the time the building process is done. Is anyone else out
> their my height or taller building a -9A? Any comments from the -8(A)
> builders? Just came back from the Sport Air RV Assembly class in Corona
and
> I am ready to order.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan Watters
> Tucson, AZ.
I will always be grateful to Bill at Van's for ever so gently nudging me
toward the -4 instead of the -6 I was considering. The joys of sitting on
the centerline of the airplane can't be explained but real none the less.
Even my wife was happy with her private office the first time she needed to
use the 'in-flight facilities' during our first long cross country.
The -8 is a big guy airplane. I'm still building my -8 but I feel like I'm
rattling around in a box car when I sit in the pit (compared to my -4).
This is not advice, all pilots are different, but I transitioned from a Kolb
Twinstar (top speed 75 MPH, 30 MPH stall) directly to my RV-4 with only a 15
minute demo flight (with Bill back in 93) as 'transition training. The RV
was the most natural feeling airplane I've ever flown. Everything about its
handling was intuitive.
Your milage may vary :-)
Tracy Crook
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Al Karpinski" <karpinski@baldcom.net>
By Buy the 8 !!
I'm 6'6"... Student pilot too...
Plus 90% of the time you will be alone...
Al Karpinski
_________________
List: Size
--> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
I am trying to make a decision on what model of RV to build. I prefer the
-9A but since I am 6'6" tall I am also considering the -8A. I am still a
student pilot so I believe the -9A is better suited to the skill level I
might be at by the time the building process is done. Is anyone else out
their my height or taller building a -9A? Any comments from the -8(A)
builders? Just came back from the Sport Air RV Assembly class in Corona and
I am ready to order.
Thanks in advance,
Dan Watters
Tucson, AZ.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Simmons oil sump |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wiethe, Philip (P.J.)" <pwiethe@ford.com>
Anyone heard of a "Simmons" aftermarket oil sump and intake for IO-360's ?
Phil
8A wings
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Jory" <rickjory@msn.com>
Dan, I hesitate to recommend any specific aircraft for anyone, in that
kit/aircraft selection is such a personal decision and only the
builder/owner can balance all of the variables. I hesitate even more to
imply an airplane is "easy" to fly . . . again, whether or not a plane is
"easy" depends upon who's in control of it. Having said this, though, I am
a very low time pilot (110 hours). . . earning my ticket in the sixties back
in college. For several decades I never flew. I built an 8A. Prior to
flying it, I flew a number of hours in a Cessna 182 followed by a visit to
Mike Seager for transition training, followed by more hours in a 182. I
found flying the 8A to be phenomenally easy (boy, I hate saying this! I
don't want to mislead anyone). Landing, for me at least, has been much
easier than a 182 . . . and Cessnas are suppose to be easy to land! In that
most of my flying will be solo, I totally enjoy flying a tandem aircraft.
The 8A is just plain "fun" and "fantastic". Good luck in your decision. A
reminder that building your project, when it is all said and done, is part
of the enjoyment of the process.
Rick Jory
----- Original Message -----
From: DANIEL W WATTERS <danielwatters1@msn.com>
Subject: RV-List: Size
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
>
> I am trying to make a decision on what model of RV to build. I prefer the
> -9A but since I am 6'6" tall I am also considering the -8A. I am still a
> student pilot so I believe the -9A is better suited to the skill level I
> might be at by the time the building process is done. Is anyone else out
> their my height or taller building a -9A? Any comments from the -8(A)
> builders? Just came back from the Sport Air RV Assembly class in Corona
and
> I am ready to order.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Dan Watters
> Tucson, AZ.
>
>
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: | Re: Grass Strip Construction |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
Charlie,
If your married you better get a second or third job
and get that airplane back! If your single you better
find yourself a rich woman who likes airplanes! If
she has a sister let me know.
Ross
--- Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper
> England <cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> Ross Schlotthauer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer
> <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Mike,
> >
> >I can't even imagine how many hours you would fly
> in a
> >year if you lived on a grass strip in GA. Thanks
> >again for the ride last summer, I still tell people
> >about it weekly.
> >
> >
> >Ross Schlotthauer
> >Do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> heh, heh, heh...
>
> 150 hrs a year.
> bought a lot & hangar on a private strip
> 50 hrs a year
> moved to the private strip (mobile home)
> 20hrs a year
> rebuilt a house on the strip
> 10 hrs a year
> really nice house
> now I don't even own a plane....
>
> Charlie England
> Slobovia Outernational (MS71)
> (Will supply hangar space & spare bedroom for flight
> time)
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Van Artsdalen, Scott" <svanarts@unionsafe.com>
All I can tell you is that the -6 I flew was built for someone WAY taller
than me! (5'3") A 6+ footer would have been pretty comfortable in it. I
believe you'll find the 9A similar.
-----Original Message-----
From: DANIEL W WATTERS [mailto:danielwatters1@msn.com]
Subject: RV-List: Size
--> RV-List message posted by: "DANIEL W WATTERS" <danielwatters1@msn.com>
I am trying to make a decision on what model of RV to build. I prefer the
-9A but since I am 6'6" tall I am also considering the -8A. I am still a
student pilot so I believe the -9A is better suited to the skill level I
might be at by the time the building process is done. Is anyone else out
their my height or taller building a -9A? Any comments from the -8(A)
builders? Just came back from the Sport Air RV Assembly class in Corona and
I am ready to order.
Thanks in advance,
Dan Watters
Tucson, AZ.
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: What are Pilots coming to ? |
--> RV-List message posted by: MeangreenRV4@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/2003 3:46:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Oldsfolks@aol.com writes:
> People talk about hetated & cooled seats,training wheels under the
> nose,etc.,etc.,etc.
> Does you mom let you out of the house to go fly ??
>
> no not archive - obviously
>
> Bob Olds A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
> RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
> Charleston, Arkansas
> "Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers"
>
> see I even put my name on , now to the FIRE extinguisher !!
>
>
>
Hey Bob I will fly your left wing on this one!
Tim Barnes
Meangreen RV-4
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: | Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
The problem with anything more certain is that there are innumerable things
that one could do to void the coverage.
You are correct that there is no way for them to go out and look at each and
every person's plane and deem it airworthy. They rely on the FAA to deem it
airworthy, and they put in place criteria which they will and will not
insure (most companies won't insure an RV-4 with an IO-540 even if it is
deemed airworthy by the FAA).
His question was not answerable as a yes or no. He could do any number of
things to void the coverage himself for example (crawl out of the wrecked
plane drunk for example.) They write the policy as best they can, and the
evaluation of whether or not the "occurrence" that you have is covered must
come after.
But I think I have beat to death the fact that the company that underwrites
the VanGuard Program (not available in Canada by the way... sorry) regularly
pays out on claims that I think they could have denied for one reason or
another (chevy engine powered, or in another case actually NOT airworthy
according to pilots that flew it in the days prior to the accident.).
Some have said the policies are written vaguely... I disagree (you might not
understand them, but that doesnt mean they are vague), but if you want to
say they are, fine. Vagueness in an insurance contract works to the
insureds favor not the insurance company (because the court knows the
insurance policy (which is a contract between you and them) is written by
lawyers who should know how to not be vague, and you (the insured) aren't
necessarily a lawyer or might not have one to review the policy. So, if a
court reviews the claim (i.e. if it is denied and you sue the insurance
company) and the court deems something in the policy as vague, then you win,
automatically.
These policies have come to be written as they are because they started
(actually as marine insurance policies) hundreds of years ago as simple
agreements. Every time that an insured has tried (usually successfully as
stated above) to try to get something insured that was not initially
intended as part of the agreement, the policy got a new section that either
defined the limits, or excluded intirely that new "coverage."
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <a4a97877@telus.net>
Subject: Off-List reply re: Insurance
I've decided to take this off-list, feel free to put it back there if
you feel your reply would benefit the group.
How can an insurance company possibly evaluate all of the risk, when
someone is insuring a homebuilt aircraft? At some point they have to
take a leap of faith and say "yes, this airplane is probably airworthy".
That must include the engine, right?
After all, there's nothing to stop someone from building a brand new
Superior SL-360 (the kit version of the XP-360), and putting it on their
brand new airplane that they also just built. At the same time, there's
nothing to stop someone from putting a Factory-built Lycoming O-360 with
2000 hours since major overhaul (ie. runout, likely to fail in the near
future) on the same aircraft. What i'm hearing is that an insurance
company will be less likely to want to certify the former, but will be
more than happy to certify the latter. Where's the logic in that?
I was also quite apalled to see your reply to your customer on the list,
who asked you a very specific question about his own coverage. He
wanted to know if he was covered, and you said "probably". I think i'd
want a bit more certainty in my insurance provider than that.
Hopefully this isn't the same rat's nest of problems in Canada, where
i'm building...
-RB4
John Helms wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
>
> It isn't that the insurance companies are saying any specific powerplant
is
> "unairworthy".... their just saying ... "we don't want to insure that type
> of risk".... there is nothing any court or association can do to force
them
> to offer something they don't want to.
>
> JT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: FAA-PMA
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
>
> Guys,
>
> There are several issuse being confused here.
>
> 1. If the King says the part is FAA-PMA approved for direct replacement
then
> the King's court can not come back and say that the aircraft is not
> airworthy because of the part's correct installation in the aircraft which
> is the whole point of the FAA Parts Manufaturer Approval process for
direct
> replacement parts.
>
> If this is not so then every type certified aircraft more than about two
> years old, including all airliners, needs to be grounded immediately.
>
> Lycoming will tell you that the way to overhaul one of their engines is to
> buy all the parts for that engine, by correct part number for that engine.
> They do not, and cannot tell you where to buy the parts from. In fact I
> would go so far as to say that they share common manufacturer's for many
of
> their parts with the after-marketers. (Champion, Precision, Slick, etc)
>
> Given the recent developments in manufacturing, the data plate arguement
is
> valid.
>
> But it must be "overhauled" or "supervised" by a person who is a
> Certificated Powerplant Mechanic or a Certified Repair Station using the
> correct and most current data for the airworthiness of that engine to be
> valid in its Type Certified utilization.
>
> 2. Unfortunately there is nothing in law that governs airworthiness in
> un-Type Certified utilization of Type Certified components other than the
> Special Airworthiness Certificate. The Insurer clearly does not have the
> authority to state that an aircraft is unairworthy and therefore
uninsurable
> if the King has stated it is by due process. (This all assumes it has not
> been altered from its original SAC state.) And this has nothing to do with
> who built the engine using whatever parts.
>
> It would be my suggestion that EAA and AOPA be made very aware of this
> aspect of the insurance issue, if they aren't already, as the insurance
> companies could, and apparently are deciding this on their own.
>
> A lengthy class action lawsuit would probably force them to insure us no
> matter what, because Experimentals are allowed by the King sans any Type
> Certification, or the need for any PMA or TSO'd parts. To do otherwise is
> discrimination. But the Insurers will never be limited by the King on what
> they can charge for the service.
>
> I would also agree with JT, that telling the whole story now is the only
way
> to have any legitimate claim later.
>
> If there's a major move afoot to outlaw us then we'll throw the
Poberezneys
> and Boyers at them. That's why you pay your dues isn't it?
>
> Now on to more important stuff, has anybody ever thought about using one
of
> these new electronic distance measuring devices as a short range ground
> proximty sensor. My vision has a horrible time telling the difference
> between 6 inches off the ground and 2 inches when the tail is below the
> mains and its a downhill runway, particularly at night or landing into the
> setting sun. ;{)
>
> W
> do not archive
>
>
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: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
The arm can be repositioned, within limits, right?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> Thanks for the information Alex. My arm and valve are on the
> right side. The arm swings from about 2-5 o'clock position 2,
> being ICO. I was thinking I could bring the cable in from the
> left and around the front. Not the best choice but it would work.
>
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: gas strut prop rod |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
Vince- Not sure if these will work: "Will not fit Nissan/Datsun cars or
Vans" (ooops, sorry about that!<G>)
But seriously, folks, after hearing some horror stories about canopies
blowing shut & busting (always when it's raining or -0 deg, 200 miles
from home, etc.) you are right- this should be standard equipment- very
cool!
Mark do not archive
Frazier, Vincent A wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> Guys,
>
> Quit fooling around and just get one of these things. $8 stinking bucks. Advance
autoparts has them too. So do other places. THEY ARE THE ITEM YOU NEED!
Even if your gas struts work fine these will keep your canopy from slamming
shut. I can't believe that Van's doesn't sell these!
>
> http://www.jcwhitney.com/productnoitem.jhtml?CATID=65926&BQ=jcw2
>
> Vince in Indiana
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
How heavy are you, Dan? You less than 240 at 6-6 and you'll fit in an -8
OK. Recommend you try one on first though.
As for the -8A versus the -8, that's easy. The -8 looks way nicer. Go with
it and you won't be sorry! :D
Bryan Jones -8
Pearland, Texas
do not archive
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: | Anybody interested in sharing a hangar at Auburn, CA? |
--> RV-List message posted by: mitchf@netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz)
I'm looking at getting a large hangar at AUN, and I'm wondering how many
people might be interested in renting some hangar space from me? That
includes people that would like to build their RV's in a hangar, since
I'll have all my tools and shop equipment out there! My first priority
is catering to experimental aircraft owners and builders, but I'll take
certified aircraft if I need to fill space. ;)
Mitch Faatz RV-6A Auburn, CA Finish Kit
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: Engine transducer question (probably dumb) |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/03 2:58:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
JDaniel343@aol.com writes:
<< Yes you can have this pointed in any direction, but I would think about
securing the transducer. These things weigh a few ounces and due to
vibration
may crack at the oil inlet. I don't know your installation but think about
vibration when attaching engine accessories.
John Danielson
>>
Thanks John. Good advice. I'm planning on mounting my oil pressure sender
and pressure switch on the firewall using one of the manifolds that Van has
in the option catalog. In my case the hose run from the engine is better if
I mount the transducers in the top and bottom holes using 45 degree brass
fittings and run the hose to the center port in the manifold.
Do not archive
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, starting firewall forward
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: [Fwd: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance] |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Whoops, forgot to 'cc the list on the reply.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
John Helms wrote:
> The problem with anything more certain is that there are innumerable things
> that one could do to void the coverage.
No arguement there.
> You are correct that there is no way for them to go out and look at each and
> every person's plane and deem it airworthy. They rely on the FAA to deem it
> airworthy, and they put in place criteria which they will and will not
> insure (most companies won't insure an RV-4 with an IO-540 even if it is
> deemed airworthy by the FAA).
A fact that still surprises me every time I hear it. No, that
combination of engine/airframe isn't "proven", but no homebuilt is,
until it's got a few hours on it. Why should a modified design be any
different than a stock design? Someone incompetent can build a stock
design just as easily as a craftsman could build a modified one, and
both could be passed by the FAA.
> His question was not answerable as a yes or no. He could do any number of
> things to void the coverage himself for example (crawl out of the wrecked
> plane drunk for example.) They write the policy as best they can, and the
> evaluation of whether or not the "occurrence" that you have is covered must
> come after.
I think it was painfully clear that he wasn't asking if the aircraft was
covered if *he* did something boneheaded. Of course, if he walks out of
the the wreckage drunk, he shouldn't be covered. He wanted to know
whether (with the basic assumption that the coverage *in general* is
valid) anything in his engine configuration would make his coverage
invalid, and I don't think that's a question you answered with any sense
of confidence.
And in a message not more than a few minutes later, you told someone
that a stock Lycoming with an aftermarket electronic ignition system
"should be no problem", despite the fact that Lycoming doesn't endorse
the use of electronic ignition systems on their engines. So in essence,
some mods are okay but others aren't, and only you can tell us what we
can insure. So how can a homebuilder know, with any degree of
certainty, whether a component is safe to install (from an obtaining
insurance perspective) in their aircraft while they're building it?
The more I think about this, the more I start to wonder if you need to
discuss any potential component that isn't specifically listed on Vans'
parts list with your insurance provider.
-RB4
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: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
It can be moved from about the 1 to 7 o'clock positions. The mounting
bracket is on the left the blocks it from swinging to the other side.
I have a picture on my site. It is a view from
http://www.dmack.net/imagepages/fueldivider5.html
Don
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> The arm can be repositioned, within limits, right?
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>> Thanks for the information Alex. My arm and valve are on the
>> right side. The arm swings from about 2-5 o'clock position 2,
>> being ICO. I was thinking I could bring the cable in from the
>> left and around the front. Not the best choice but it would work.
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: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Norman, Jim" <jnorman@intermapsystems.com>
Please note... there are several versions of this valve out there. Mine is
on the right side of the engine, and the valve sits 90 degrees to what I'm
seeing in photos. The reason that there is a different version is so that us
guys with very tight fitting plenums can fit it under the plenum. Thus mine
sits with the arm swinging in a plane perpindicular to the floor rather than
parallel to it like in the two photos I've seen attached to this string.
This posed a VERY major problem. To make a long story short... sufice it to
say that people with a plenum have to really think about this purge valve
and how to get it hooked up.
jim
Tampa
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mack [mailto:don@dmack.net]
Subject: RE: RV-List: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Don Mack" <don@dmack.net>
It can be moved from about the 1 to 7 o'clock positions. The mounting
bracket is on the left the blocks it from swinging to the other side.
I have a picture on my site. It is a view from
http://www.dmack.net/imagepages/fueldivider5.html
Don
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> The arm can be repositioned, within limits, right?
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>> Thanks for the information Alex. My arm and valve are on the
>> right side. The arm swings from about 2-5 o'clock position 2,
>> being ICO. I was thinking I could bring the cable in from the
>> left and around the front. Not the best choice but it would work.
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
By jove I think you've got it. This is the only way to do it.
My god, I was wondering if any of you would ever get it (even though I've
specifically said it several times).
My point throughout this entire discussion has been exactly that, allow the
insurance company to make the decision. Tell them upfront "i'm using this
engine, and have added the following mods to it, is that o.k.?"
This is the precise reason that homebuilts have always been more expensive
to insure than most production aircraft. Most people don't modify their
production aircraft, and if they do, they use standard identifiable mods.
Thanks for getting it.
JT
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <a4a97877@telus.net>
Subject: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
John Helms wrote:
> The problem with anything more certain is that there are innumerable
things
> that one could do to void the coverage.
No arguement there.
> You are correct that there is no way for them to go out and look at each
and
> every person's plane and deem it airworthy. They rely on the FAA to deem
it
> airworthy, and they put in place criteria which they will and will not
> insure (most companies won't insure an RV-4 with an IO-540 even if it is
> deemed airworthy by the FAA).
A fact that still surprises me every time I hear it. No, that
combination of engine/airframe isn't "proven", but no homebuilt is,
until it's got a few hours on it. Why should a modified design be any
different than a stock design? Someone incompetent can build a stock
design just as easily as a craftsman could build a modified one, and
both could be passed by the FAA.
> His question was not answerable as a yes or no. He could do any number of
> things to void the coverage himself for example (crawl out of the wrecked
> plane drunk for example.) They write the policy as best they can, and the
> evaluation of whether or not the "occurrence" that you have is covered
must
> come after.
I think it was painfully clear that he wasn't asking if the aircraft was
covered if *he* did something boneheaded. Of course, if he walks out of
the the wreckage drunk, he shouldn't be covered. He wanted to know
whether (with the basic assumption that the coverage *in general* is
valid) anything in his engine configuration would make his coverage
invalid, and I don't think that's a question you answered with any sense
of confidence.
And in a message not more than a few minutes later, you told someone
that a stock Lycoming with an aftermarket electronic ignition system
"should be no problem", despite the fact that Lycoming doesn't endorse
the use of electronic ignition systems on their engines. So in essence,
some mods are okay but others aren't, and only you can tell us what we
can insure. So how can a homebuilder know, with any degree of
certainty, whether a component is safe to install (from an obtaining
insurance perspective) in their aircraft while they're building it?
The more I think about this, the more I start to wonder if you need to
discuss any potential component that isn't specifically listed on Vans'
parts list with your insurance provider.
-RB4
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: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael Sices" <msices@core.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
-->Some have said the policies are written vaguely... I disagree (you might
not
-->understand them, but that doesnt mean they are vague), but if you want to
-->say they are, fine.
Contract language is usually vague. But when I said the policies were
vague, I was referring specifically to what you were saying about the
application process .. in particular, the question on the policy application
which you mention..."Does the airplane have any modifications not provided
by the manufacturer?"
Van's plans and components are, for the most part, airframe design only.
Almost all of the -systems- in the airplane (what makes it go) are chosen by
the builder and provided by companies with whom Van's has no legal
connection. Lighting, avionics, battery, throttle quadrants, alternator,
gascolator, propeller, prop governor, oil cooler, stick grips, vacuum pump,
electrical gadgets, or lack thereof ... All of these systems (which are to
some degree on every homebuilt airplane) are not "provided by the
manufacturer." Neither are they an integral part of the design, but are
instead a "modification" of the basic airframe chosen by the amateur
builder.
How is one to know the definition of a "modification," under the policy if
Van's never specified which particular system to use. Maybe in a few
instances, Van's provided a list of options (recommended systems), but then
simply writes in the manuals that "nothing is written in stone" and that
those choices are up to the builder/pilot. In the instance at hand - engine
choice - Van's has never, to my knowledge, stated that Lycoming is
the -only- engine they endorse for their airplanes. And the plans cover
that either.
Vague or not, I, for one, will be the first one standing in line for a
Vanguard policy when the time comes, and I will be thrilled if I am able to
secure a policy at the reasonable rate for this type of specialty insurance.
I've long ago given up fighting it, and just want to play the game.
Mike Sices
RV8
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: | Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
But that's the whole point of experimental aircraft! If we wanted to
use a certified engine on a certified airframe and have it just like
everyone else's, we'd go buy a [Cessna|Grumman|Bonanza|whatever]!
I *do* understand that your job is exceedingly difficult when it comes
to insuring homebuilts, and I appreciate the time you take to try and
straighten us out... But every time this discussion comes up it just
gets more confusing.
What you're saying is that builders should show every mod they've
planned on to their insurance provider, and ask if it's okay. Do you
really think that's a realistic expectation? I can see two ways this
could play out:
One: The builder considers a mod during construction, and asks you to
check whether he can insure his airplane with that mod installed. You
check for him. If the answer is "no", the builder can decide not to use
the mod. If the answer is "yes", are you going to be willing to put in
writing, or obtain anything in writing, that says that yes, this mod is
acceptable? If you've done that, now the builder is kinda "locked-in"
to buying his insurance from you, isn't he? When he's finished, he'll
have this agreement that you'll insure him, but he won't have that from
anyone else, will he?
Two: The builder brings you a completed aircraft and asks you to insure
it. He shows you a list of mods. You check, and find out that some
aren't acceptable. The builder is basically screwed at this point,
right? He can shop around for a better rate from another provider, but
oh, wait, there is really only one provider anyway, and everyone buys
coverage from there, so once you've got one quote you can't get a quote
from anyone else. Am I right? So at that point the only choice is to
pay through the nose for the insurance.
A much more likely scenario is this: The builder installs whatever mods
he wants. He gets the plane inspected, and the FAA says it's okay. He
insures it as a stock Vans RV-(whatever) with a Lycoming engine, despite
the fact that it may have a Jantzi tailwheel steering link and a
Superior XP-360 with fuel injection, inverted oil, and electronic
ignition. Then he sits around and sweats every time he flies because
he's worried his insurance provider is going to deny him on a
technicality if anything goes wrong.
-RB4
John Helms wrote:
> By jove I think you've got it. This is the only way to do it.
>
> My god, I was wondering if any of you would ever get it (even though I've
> specifically said it several times).
>
> My point throughout this entire discussion has been exactly that, allow the
> insurance company to make the decision. Tell them upfront "i'm using this
> engine, and have added the following mods to it, is that o.k.?"
>
> This is the precise reason that homebuilts have always been more expensive
> to insure than most production aircraft. Most people don't modify their
> production aircraft, and if they do, they use standard identifiable mods.
>
> Thanks for getting it.
>
> JT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Prior" <a4a97877@telus.net>
> To: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
>
>
> John Helms wrote:
>
>>The problem with anything more certain is that there are innumerable
>
> things
>
>>that one could do to void the coverage.
>
>
> No arguement there.
>
>
>>You are correct that there is no way for them to go out and look at each
>
> and
>
>>every person's plane and deem it airworthy. They rely on the FAA to deem
>
> it
>
>>airworthy, and they put in place criteria which they will and will not
>>insure (most companies won't insure an RV-4 with an IO-540 even if it is
>>deemed airworthy by the FAA).
>
>
> A fact that still surprises me every time I hear it. No, that
> combination of engine/airframe isn't "proven", but no homebuilt is,
> until it's got a few hours on it. Why should a modified design be any
> different than a stock design? Someone incompetent can build a stock
> design just as easily as a craftsman could build a modified one, and
> both could be passed by the FAA.
>
>
>>His question was not answerable as a yes or no. He could do any number of
>>things to void the coverage himself for example (crawl out of the wrecked
>>plane drunk for example.) They write the policy as best they can, and the
>>evaluation of whether or not the "occurrence" that you have is covered
>
> must
>
>>come after.
>
>
> I think it was painfully clear that he wasn't asking if the aircraft was
> covered if *he* did something boneheaded. Of course, if he walks out of
> the the wreckage drunk, he shouldn't be covered. He wanted to know
> whether (with the basic assumption that the coverage *in general* is
> valid) anything in his engine configuration would make his coverage
> invalid, and I don't think that's a question you answered with any sense
> of confidence.
>
> And in a message not more than a few minutes later, you told someone
> that a stock Lycoming with an aftermarket electronic ignition system
> "should be no problem", despite the fact that Lycoming doesn't endorse
> the use of electronic ignition systems on their engines. So in essence,
> some mods are okay but others aren't, and only you can tell us what we
> can insure. So how can a homebuilder know, with any degree of
> certainty, whether a component is safe to install (from an obtaining
> insurance perspective) in their aircraft while they're building it?
>
> The more I think about this, the more I start to wonder if you need to
> discuss any potential component that isn't specifically listed on Vans'
> parts list with your insurance provider.
>
> -RB4
>
>
>
>
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: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
You, like many builders, seem to be confusing what is allowable/legal with
the government and what some underwriter at an insurance company is willing
to agree to insure. Two very different things.
If you are willing to build it, and do so legally, you can fly it,
successfully or otherwise, just don't expect some underwriter to be willing
to risk the value of the plane + much higher amounts for the liability.
You are never "locked in" to anything in this industry. The insured always
can assign any agent to represent him. However, nothing at all would change
about the quote from that company (it would merely be assigned to a new
agent). Yes, he would merely have the "approval" from that one company.
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
But that's the whole point of experimental aircraft! If we wanted to
use a certified engine on a certified airframe and have it just like
everyone else's, we'd go buy a [Cessna|Grumman|Bonanza|whatever]!
I *do* understand that your job is exceedingly difficult when it comes
to insuring homebuilts, and I appreciate the time you take to try and
straighten us out... But every time this discussion comes up it just
gets more confusing.
What you're saying is that builders should show every mod they've
planned on to their insurance provider, and ask if it's okay. Do you
really think that's a realistic expectation? I can see two ways this
could play out:
One: The builder considers a mod during construction, and asks you to
check whether he can insure his airplane with that mod installed. You
check for him. If the answer is "no", the builder can decide not to use
the mod. If the answer is "yes", are you going to be willing to put in
writing, or obtain anything in writing, that says that yes, this mod is
acceptable? If you've done that, now the builder is kinda "locked-in"
to buying his insurance from you, isn't he? When he's finished, he'll
have this agreement that you'll insure him, but he won't have that from
anyone else, will he?
Two: The builder brings you a completed aircraft and asks you to insure
it. He shows you a list of mods. You check, and find out that some
aren't acceptable. The builder is basically screwed at this point,
right? He can shop around for a better rate from another provider, but
oh, wait, there is really only one provider anyway, and everyone buys
coverage from there, so once you've got one quote you can't get a quote
from anyone else. Am I right? So at that point the only choice is to
pay through the nose for the insurance.
A much more likely scenario is this: The builder installs whatever mods
he wants. He gets the plane inspected, and the FAA says it's okay. He
insures it as a stock Vans RV-(whatever) with a Lycoming engine, despite
the fact that it may have a Jantzi tailwheel steering link and a
Superior XP-360 with fuel injection, inverted oil, and electronic
ignition. Then he sits around and sweats every time he flies because
he's worried his insurance provider is going to deny him on a
technicality if anything goes wrong.
-RB4
John Helms wrote:
> By jove I think you've got it. This is the only way to do it.
>
> My god, I was wondering if any of you would ever get it (even though I've
> specifically said it several times).
>
> My point throughout this entire discussion has been exactly that, allow
the
> insurance company to make the decision. Tell them upfront "i'm using this
> engine, and have added the following mods to it, is that o.k.?"
>
> This is the precise reason that homebuilts have always been more expensive
> to insure than most production aircraft. Most people don't modify their
> production aircraft, and if they do, they use standard identifiable mods.
>
> Thanks for getting it.
>
> JT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Prior" <a4a97877@telus.net>
> To: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
>
>
> John Helms wrote:
>
>>The problem with anything more certain is that there are innumerable
>
> things
>
>>that one could do to void the coverage.
>
>
> No arguement there.
>
>
>>You are correct that there is no way for them to go out and look at each
>
> and
>
>>every person's plane and deem it airworthy. They rely on the FAA to deem
>
> it
>
>>airworthy, and they put in place criteria which they will and will not
>>insure (most companies won't insure an RV-4 with an IO-540 even if it is
>>deemed airworthy by the FAA).
>
>
> A fact that still surprises me every time I hear it. No, that
> combination of engine/airframe isn't "proven", but no homebuilt is,
> until it's got a few hours on it. Why should a modified design be any
> different than a stock design? Someone incompetent can build a stock
> design just as easily as a craftsman could build a modified one, and
> both could be passed by the FAA.
>
>
>>His question was not answerable as a yes or no. He could do any number of
>>things to void the coverage himself for example (crawl out of the wrecked
>>plane drunk for example.) They write the policy as best they can, and the
>>evaluation of whether or not the "occurrence" that you have is covered
>
> must
>
>>come after.
>
>
> I think it was painfully clear that he wasn't asking if the aircraft was
> covered if *he* did something boneheaded. Of course, if he walks out of
> the the wreckage drunk, he shouldn't be covered. He wanted to know
> whether (with the basic assumption that the coverage *in general* is
> valid) anything in his engine configuration would make his coverage
> invalid, and I don't think that's a question you answered with any sense
> of confidence.
>
> And in a message not more than a few minutes later, you told someone
> that a stock Lycoming with an aftermarket electronic ignition system
> "should be no problem", despite the fact that Lycoming doesn't endorse
> the use of electronic ignition systems on their engines. So in essence,
> some mods are okay but others aren't, and only you can tell us what we
> can insure. So how can a homebuilder know, with any degree of
> certainty, whether a component is safe to install (from an obtaining
> insurance perspective) in their aircraft while they're building it?
>
> The more I think about this, the more I start to wonder if you need to
> discuss any potential component that isn't specifically listed on Vans'
> parts list with your insurance provider.
>
> -RB4
>
>
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: | Looking for AN929-4D cap |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Camille Hawthorne" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
I'm looking for a AN929-4D cap to use to close off my fuel vent while
pressure testing my fuel tank. Anyone out there willing to part with one? I
know that ACS has them, but the shipping charge is way more than the value
thanks
Cammie
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-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
You have touched upon a very important issue.... All I have to say is that I
am amazed that the companies are willing to write homebuilts at all because
of what you just posted. And I think you all should be glad they do. It
would be very easy for them to say "chuck it"
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Sices" <msices@core.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael Sices" <msices@core.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
-->Some have said the policies are written vaguely... I disagree (you might
not
-->understand them, but that doesnt mean they are vague), but if you want to
-->say they are, fine.
Contract language is usually vague. But when I said the policies were
vague, I was referring specifically to what you were saying about the
application process .. in particular, the question on the policy application
which you mention..."Does the airplane have any modifications not provided
by the manufacturer?"
Van's plans and components are, for the most part, airframe design only.
Almost all of the -systems- in the airplane (what makes it go) are chosen by
the builder and provided by companies with whom Van's has no legal
connection. Lighting, avionics, battery, throttle quadrants, alternator,
gascolator, propeller, prop governor, oil cooler, stick grips, vacuum pump,
electrical gadgets, or lack thereof ... All of these systems (which are to
some degree on every homebuilt airplane) are not "provided by the
manufacturer." Neither are they an integral part of the design, but are
instead a "modification" of the basic airframe chosen by the amateur
builder.
How is one to know the definition of a "modification," under the policy if
Van's never specified which particular system to use. Maybe in a few
instances, Van's provided a list of options (recommended systems), but then
simply writes in the manuals that "nothing is written in stone" and that
those choices are up to the builder/pilot. In the instance at hand - engine
choice - Van's has never, to my knowledge, stated that Lycoming is
the -only- engine they endorse for their airplanes. And the plans cover
that either.
Vague or not, I, for one, will be the first one standing in line for a
Vanguard policy when the time comes, and I will be thrilled if I am able to
secure a policy at the reasonable rate for this type of specialty insurance.
I've long ago given up fighting it, and just want to play the game.
Mike Sices
RV8
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: Vertical Stab Re: lightening holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Rick & Dan,
I just glanced over my 7 plans and I can only find one mention of optional
lightening holes, that is on the VS doubler plate. As you can see from the
pic below, the 7 aileron spar, flap spar and flap brace are already pre
punched, these are just what I have left on the right wing. I haven't
started on my fuse. yet but that VS doubler plate is all I found........or
did I conveniently overlook optional holes for the sake of expediancy??
http://rvflying.tripod.com/p1230003.jpg
Remember, on the newer 7s we gain a great aft weight savings on the
redesign, and orientation, of the elevator counterweights.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
Aside from the
>several dozens of lightening holes already provided to the builder, you do
>have
>the option of making many more during the course of construction.
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Camille,
The cap is the obvious choice to seal the vent line. If you dont' come up
with one, there are several other methods. Here's what I did: Cut and
flared a 2-3" piece of vent line alum pipe and screwed it down onto the vent
tank elbow. Place a piece of plastic line over the stub end of the alum
pipe. Dab a 1/2" long dowel rod in proseal and stick it into the open end
of the plastic line. Instant seal, it won't leak under the small amount of
pressure you use to check your tank.
Keeping my fingers crossed yours doesn't leak........worked for me, mine
didn't.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
>From: "Camille Hawthorne" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Looking for AN929-4D cap Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:21:18
>-0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Camille Hawthorne" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
>
>I'm looking for a AN929-4D cap to use to close off my fuel vent while
>pressure testing my fuel tank. Anyone out there willing to part with one? I
>know that ACS has them, but the shipping charge is way more than the value
>thanks
>Cammie
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: John Helms <jhelms@i1.net>
.
>
> You are never "locked in" to anything in this industry. The insured
always
> can assign any agent to represent him. However, nothing at all would
change
> about the quote from that company (it would merely be assigned to a new
> agent).
Oh I can vouch for that.... The insurance industry "will let you" get
screwed by the agent of your choice.
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: >Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob n' Lu Olds" <oldsfolks@aol.com>
I have one of the caps I could mail to you , but you could just cut a circle of
gasket material to put under a 'B' nut .
I have even used a proper size steel ball and 'B'Nut to plug off temporarily,as
you're doing.
You shouldn't have more than 2-3 lbs. pressure.
Try that or email me off-list.
Bob Olds
oldsfolks@aol.com
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for AN929-4D cap |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
You could use a short piece of tubing that is left over with fitting, sleeve
and flared. Tighten it on and clamp off the other end to make it air tight.
Indiana Larry with 3XG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Camille Hawthorne" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
Subject: RV-List: Looking for AN929-4D cap
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Camille Hawthorne" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
>
> I'm looking for a AN929-4D cap to use to close off my fuel vent while
> pressure testing my fuel tank.
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: | WAS ... gas strut prop rod (NOW ... another thing to consider) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
Another reason to consider something to hold up the struts was recently
demonstrated to me by our "tip-up" RV6.
It was a COLD day and I raised the canopy, placed my right hand on the
"roll-bar" area to get onto the wing. All of a sudden ...
BAM!!!
The canopy comes down onto my hand. I may have fractured something (not the
canopy!!!! :-) ) on my hand. There is STILL a big knot on the top (back?)
of my hand.
I theorize that on really cold days the struts don't hold as well and are
more prone to let the canopy come down, especially if it is not absolutely
all the way up.
James
... paying a lot more attention to the strength of the strut these days.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark Phillips
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 1:37 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: gas strut prop rod
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
>
> Vince- Not sure if these will work: "Will not fit Nissan/Datsun cars or
> Vans" (ooops, sorry about that!<G>)
>
> But seriously, folks, after hearing some horror stories about canopies
> blowing shut & busting (always when it's raining or -0 deg, 200 miles
> from home, etc.) you are right- this should be standard equipment- very
> cool!
>
> Mark do not archive
>
> Frazier, Vincent A wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > Quit fooling around and just get one of these things. $8
> stinking bucks. Advance autoparts has them too. So do other
> places. THEY ARE THE ITEM YOU NEED! Even if your gas struts
> work fine these will keep your canopy from slamming shut. I
> can't believe that Van's doesn't sell these!
> >
> > http://www.jcwhitney.com/productnoitem.jhtml?CATID=65926&BQ=jcw2
> >
> > Vince in Indiana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: "Keith and Jean Williams" <kandjwilliams@earthlink.net>
Daniel,
I am 6'4+ with long legs. I have had problems fitting in a number of
aircraft because I had trouble getting my legs under the panel (Maule,
Grumman Yankee, Aeronca Chief, T-18 and older Bonanzas all come to mind). I
finished my RV6 a little over three years ago. It has plenty of room for
me - headroom and legroom. I think my RV6 is a little smaller than the RV9A
and as you have read, the RV8A has more room.
I agree with the other comments either 9A or 8 will be easy to transition
to. I had owned and flown a Cherokee 140 for 12 years and then dropped out
of flying for six years for an overseas work assignment and then to finish
the RV6. Picking it up again with the RV was easy - updated my BFR and then
spent 1.5 hours with Mike Seager. I was amazed at how easy the RV6 was to
fly.
I too think its mainly a question of tandem versus side-by-side and whether
you want the extra power and aerobatic ability of the RV8a. I built the
side by side arrangement for the usual reasons and am happy with that
decision. If I were to build another RV, it would be an RV9. But most of
the recent builders in our chapter are doing RV8 and 8as. Two are what Van
calls "repeat offenders" and working on their second and third RV8s. That
says something.
Keith Williams
Moline, IL
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: | Importing Paint - New York builders? |
--> RV-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
I'm trying to order some Harzell grey spray paint from ACS but they say they
can not ship them across the border.
Any one in Watertown or closer to Kingston, Ontario that would be willing to
recieve the shipment for me and 'pass' them on my way. Or I could come get them
if its close enough.
Thankx
Steve
RV7A
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: | Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front floor area
and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if that is needed
or not.
- Andy Karmy
RV9A Seattle WA
http://www.karmy.com/rv9a
do not archive
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: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Why not use sheet metal screws through the carpet with tinnerman washers to
spred the load? That, or you could use regular #8 screws and washers
through existing platenuts.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
Subject: RV-List: Carpet attachment?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
>
> What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front floor
area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if
that is needed or not.
>
> - Andy Karmy
> RV9A Seattle WA
> http://www.karmy.com/rv9a
> do not archive
>
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
As a follow-up to my post a minute ago, I didn't secure the carpet in my
front floorboards. It is cut to a fairly precise fit and doesn't move
around. I would use some double sided carpet tape on it if it started
sliding around.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
Subject: RV-List: Carpet attachment?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
>
> What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front floor
area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if
that is needed or not.
>
> - Andy Karmy
> RV9A Seattle WA
> http://www.karmy.com/rv9a
> do not archive
>
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
JT,
I did not mention you directly, nor in-directly, don't blame/flame me if you
have a guilty conscience. Yes, to answer your question, I have been screwed
by the insurance industry... and yet I am still forced to participate in their
game and pay exorbitant rates hoping against hope that if there is a next time,
they won't screw me again.
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: John Helms
Subject: hi
Were you harmed by an insurance agent in a former life?
What is your problem?
An insurance agent can't screw you. Your agent can advise you, assist you in obtaining
quotes, answer questions you might have, but I don't see how they can
"screw" you. If you don't like your agents service or advice, you can switch.
In aviation insurance, their are so few companies, that most agencies work
with every company that is available.
If you choose not to participate in the insurance "pool" then don't. Why do you
speak so negatively about insurance. Were you insured thru AVEMCO and got burned
on a claim or something? Don't associate me with them!
The insurance companies rate you based on current market rates, and how they assess
your airplane's risk, and your (and other pilots) risk in that airplane.
They do not HAVE to insure you. They do so to make money, but I am sure that
you do (or did, since it seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands
to disparage other peoples professions online) something to make money at some
point in your life. How's about you let us know what that was, and we'll
disparage your industry for a while.
Again, if you don't wish to purchase insurance, that is fine. But, I am out here
providing a service to those who want it. Ask on the list for a "show of hands"
as to whom I have helped and if they were/are happy with my service, and
the service provided by the company (that my agency convinced to do this program
by the way when they didn't do homebuilts in the past) that underwrites the
program.
Then, when you see that some people do want my service and are happy with it will
you quit disparaging me at least? (perhaps, you could say "all insurance agents
suck except JT)....
JT
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
In my last e-mail I mentioned a case in California where a Long EZ pilot
crashed causing 500,000 in damages.( this is to the best of my recollection)
Avemco didn't have to honor the policy because the man had at one time changed
the gas line routing of the aircraft but finding out it didn't work any better
changed it back to the original configuration. Even though the gas line routing
was the same as when issued an airworthiness certificate, the fact that he
changed it without notifying the FAA and receiving a new test period and recertification
deemed the aircraft UNCERTIFIED at the time of the accident. The
really pitiful thing about the whole mess was that the pilot volunteered that
information to the investigators. If he had not said anything, no one would have
known.
This is why I sent a list of every nut, bolt and piece of equipment that was
attached to my airplane or drug behind it to the FAA. I received a new test period
and recertification for my RV4. I didn't want the same thing happening to
me. Best I remember I changed to NationAir the following year.
BUT, if I ever have an accident JT, you can speak to my attorney, I'm PROBABLY
not going to volunteer anything.
Jim Nolan
N444JN
Still happy with NationAir
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
I used 3M spray adhesive 77 (I think that is the number!). Spray it
lightly on only the metal side, and the carpet will peel up easily.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the
> front floor area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it
> removable, but not sure if that is needed or not.
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
Right up until they all said "chuck it" and one brave
company said "Hey, think of the outragious premiums I
could charge since I am the only source" and then a
month later a second company comes in and undercuts
the first and so on and so forth. No insurance
company is doing any insuree any more of a favor than
any other company is doing their client. Everyone is
in it to make money and we all temper our decisions
accordingly.
It is not lucky that we can get insurance, its just
money.
Ross
As long as there are suckers like us that will
--- John Helms <jhelms@i1.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms"
> <jhelms@i1.net>
>
> You have touched upon a very important issue.... All
> I have to say is that I
> am amazed that the companies are willing to write
> homebuilts at all because
> of what you just posted. And I think you all should
> be glad they do. It
> would be very easy for them to say "chuck it"
>
> JT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Sices" <msices@core.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Off-List reply re:
> Insurance
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Michael Sices"
> <msices@core.com>
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms"
> <jhelms@i1.net>
> -->Some have said the policies are written
> vaguely... I disagree (you might
> not
> -->understand them, but that doesnt mean they are
> vague), but if you want to
> -->say they are, fine.
>
> Contract language is usually vague. But when I said
> the policies were
> vague, I was referring specifically to what you were
> saying about the
> application process .. in particular, the question
> on the policy application
> which you mention..."Does the airplane have any
> modifications not provided
> by the manufacturer?"
>
> Van's plans and components are, for the most part,
> airframe design only.
> Almost all of the -systems- in the airplane (what
> makes it go) are chosen by
> the builder and provided by companies with whom
> Van's has no legal
> connection. Lighting, avionics, battery, throttle
> quadrants, alternator,
> gascolator, propeller, prop governor, oil cooler,
> stick grips, vacuum pump,
> electrical gadgets, or lack thereof ... All of these
> systems (which are to
> some degree on every homebuilt airplane) are not
> "provided by the
> manufacturer." Neither are they an integral part of
> the design, but are
> instead a "modification" of the basic airframe
> chosen by the amateur
> builder.
>
> How is one to know the definition of a
> "modification," under the policy if
> Van's never specified which particular system to
> use. Maybe in a few
> instances, Van's provided a list of options
> (recommended systems), but then
> simply writes in the manuals that "nothing is
> written in stone" and that
> those choices are up to the builder/pilot. In the
> instance at hand - engine
> choice - Van's has never, to my knowledge, stated
> that Lycoming is
> the -only- engine they endorse for their airplanes.
> And the plans cover
> that either.
>
> Vague or not, I, for one, will be the first one
> standing in line for a
> Vanguard policy when the time comes, and I will be
> thrilled if I am able to
> secure a policy at the reasonable rate for this type
> of specialty insurance.
> I've long ago given up fighting it, and just want to
> play the game.
>
> Mike Sices
> RV8
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Jory" <rickjory@msn.com>
Don't know about the carpet, but my side panels (foamboard with beautiful
fabric glued to it) are secured with standard ordinary velcro. The plastic
sleeve holding my required aircraft documents is secured against my
side-wall with velcro. I have a simple check list that is laminated. When
not in use it hangs on a side wall secured by . . . need I say. When I'm
using it I quickly position it on my instrument panel off to the side (i.e.
leaving my flight instruments and NAV/COM visible) secured by . . . yep,
velcro. I love the stuff. I'm wondering if I sat on velcro maybe a seat
heater wouldn't be needed? Of course, use of velcro is not spelled out in
the plans and might be considered a modification . . . bringing up insurance
questions . . .
Do not archive
Rick Jory
----- Original Message -----
From: Kyle Boatright <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Carpet attachment?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright"
<kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
>
> As a follow-up to my post a minute ago, I didn't secure the carpet in my
> front floorboards. It is cut to a fairly precise fit and doesn't move
> around. I would use some double sided carpet tape on it if it started
> sliding around.
>
> KB
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Carpet attachment?
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
> >
> > What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front
floor
> area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if
> that is needed or not.
> >
> > - Andy Karmy
> > RV9A Seattle WA
> > http://www.karmy.com/rv9a
> > do not archive
> >
> >
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
yes, and then we'd be right back to where we are today.
What I am saying is that, homebuilders cannot expect the companies to insure
anything and everything that you all dream up to build (or the engines you
dream up to pull/push it with).
It just won't happen.
You're right, it's about money. When the claims numbers support lower
premiums, the competition will drive the rates down. The rates are not high
right now.
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Schlotthauer" <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Off-List reply re: Insurance
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
Right up until they all said "chuck it" and one brave
company said "Hey, think of the outragious premiums I
could charge since I am the only source" and then a
month later a second company comes in and undercuts
the first and so on and so forth. No insurance
company is doing any insuree any more of a favor than
any other company is doing their client. Everyone is
in it to make money and we all temper our decisions
accordingly.
It is not lucky that we can get insurance, its just
money.
Ross
As long as there are suckers like us that will
--- John Helms <jhelms@i1.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms"
> <jhelms@i1.net>
>
> You have touched upon a very important issue.... All
> I have to say is that I
> am amazed that the companies are willing to write
> homebuilts at all because
> of what you just posted. And I think you all should
> be glad they do. It
> would be very easy for them to say "chuck it"
>
> JT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Sices" <msices@core.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Off-List reply re:
> Insurance
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Michael Sices"
> <msices@core.com>
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms"
> <jhelms@i1.net>
> -->Some have said the policies are written
> vaguely... I disagree (you might
> not
> -->understand them, but that doesnt mean they are
> vague), but if you want to
> -->say they are, fine.
>
> Contract language is usually vague. But when I said
> the policies were
> vague, I was referring specifically to what you were
> saying about the
> application process .. in particular, the question
> on the policy application
> which you mention..."Does the airplane have any
> modifications not provided
> by the manufacturer?"
>
> Van's plans and components are, for the most part,
> airframe design only.
> Almost all of the -systems- in the airplane (what
> makes it go) are chosen by
> the builder and provided by companies with whom
> Van's has no legal
> connection. Lighting, avionics, battery, throttle
> quadrants, alternator,
> gascolator, propeller, prop governor, oil cooler,
> stick grips, vacuum pump,
> electrical gadgets, or lack thereof ... All of these
> systems (which are to
> some degree on every homebuilt airplane) are not
> "provided by the
> manufacturer." Neither are they an integral part of
> the design, but are
> instead a "modification" of the basic airframe
> chosen by the amateur
> builder.
>
> How is one to know the definition of a
> "modification," under the policy if
> Van's never specified which particular system to
> use. Maybe in a few
> instances, Van's provided a list of options
> (recommended systems), but then
> simply writes in the manuals that "nothing is
> written in stone" and that
> those choices are up to the builder/pilot. In the
> instance at hand - engine
> choice - Van's has never, to my knowledge, stated
> that Lycoming is
> the -only- engine they endorse for their airplanes.
> And the plans cover
> that either.
>
> Vague or not, I, for one, will be the first one
> standing in line for a
> Vanguard policy when the time comes, and I will be
> thrilled if I am able to
> secure a policy at the reasonable rate for this type
> of specialty insurance.
> I've long ago given up fighting it, and just want to
> play the game.
>
> Mike Sices
> RV8
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
Again, Phoenix paid a claim this year on an airplane that was not airworthy
by anyones definition. It would have been a simple matter to interview 2 or
3 pilots that had flown the plane in the weeks (one was 1 day) before the
crash, to verify that the plane wasn't in working order.
They never pursued it. They paid the claim. They (posthumously) gave that
guy the benefit of the doubt that he certainly wouldn't have continued to
fly in an airplane that wasn't airworthy.
They would have had to argue that the wording in their policy that requires
that an airworthiness certificate be in "full force and effect" was not
satisfied. They would have had to argue that the airworthiness certificate
was not in effect because the pilot in command knew (because of previous
flights, and the fact that he nor anyone else was working on correcting the
problem) that the plane had an airworthiness problem.
I understand why they did that though. They would have had to justify that
to the state insurance commissioner and likely fight it in court. This
would have likely taken more resources (money) than it would have been
worth.
They also care very much about their reputation. They do not want to become
known as a company that doesn't want to pay claims. Why would you want to
pay money to a company that had such a rep?
Chuck? Rabaut's views aside, the companies left today (that are available
thru agents) pay claims extremely well.
JT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
Subject: RV-List: Insurance or not
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
In my last e-mail I mentioned a case in California where a Long EZ
pilot crashed causing 500,000 in damages.( this is to the best of my
recollection) Avemco didn't have to honor the policy because the man had at
one time changed the gas line routing of the aircraft but finding out it
didn't work any better changed it back to the original configuration. Even
though the gas line routing was the same as when issued an airworthiness
certificate, the fact that he changed it without notifying the FAA and
receiving a new test period and recertification deemed the aircraft
UNCERTIFIED at the time of the accident. The really pitiful thing about the
whole mess was that the pilot volunteered that information to the
investigators. If he had not said anything, no one would have known.
This is why I sent a list of every nut, bolt and piece of equipment that
was attached to my airplane or drug behind it to the FAA. I received a new
test period and recertification for my RV4. I didn't want the same thing
happening to me. Best I remember I changed to NationAir the following year.
BUT, if I ever have an accident JT, you can speak to my attorney, I'm
PROBABLY not going to volunteer anything.
Jim Nolan
N444JN
Still happy with NationAir
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Firewall forward kit? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Weyant" <chuck@chuckdirect.com>
I received the 60amp withthe RV9A FF Kit.
Chuck Weyant
----- Original Message -----
> Hello quick question when you order the fire wall forward kit on line how
do
> you know what alternator your getting 35 amp or 60 amp. There is an
example
> kit for the RV 7/7A kit with a O-320 it shows a 60 amp alternator. I need
the
> 35 amp. IM ordering the RV-7 O-360 fixed pitch firewall forward kit with
the
> additions for the RV-6. Thanks
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Lord, what did he hit that caused $500,00.oo worth of damage (and obviously
didn't kill him)?
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Nolan <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
Subject: RV-List: Insurance or not
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
>
> In my last e-mail I mentioned a case in California where a Long EZ
pilot crashed causing 500,000 in damages.( this is to the best of my
recollection) Avemco didn't have to honor the policy because the man had at
one time changed the gas line routing of the aircraft but finding out it
didn't work any better changed it back to the original configuration. Even
though the gas line routing was the same as when issued an airworthiness
certificate, the fact that he changed it without notifying the FAA and
receiving a new test period and recertification deemed the aircraft
UNCERTIFIED at the time of the accident. The really pitiful thing about the
whole mess was that the pilot volunteered that information to the
investigators. If he had not said anything, no one would have known.
> This is why I sent a list of every nut, bolt and piece of equipment
that was attached to my airplane or drug behind it to the FAA. I received a
new test period and recertification for my RV4. I didn't want the same thing
happening to me. Best I remember I changed to NationAir the following year.
> BUT, if I ever have an accident JT, you can speak to my attorney, I'm
PROBABLY not going to volunteer anything.
> Jim Nolan
> N444JN
> Still happy with NationAir
>
>
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
Fellow builders:
I have not participated in this insurance thread thus far.... quick on the delete
key ;)
But enough must be enough.
It now seems necessary because this fellow has really gone a bit far by now, in
my opinion, on the general list...
not to educate us all, but rather to promote himself and the insurance he would
like to sell you.
I believe a more reasonable approach would be for him to start another list (a
Yahoo group, or whatever) to discuss the services he would like to offer. There
are many such aviation/homebuilders groups... dedicated to specific products.
He may then inform the general RV list of the existence of such a group for
those who wish to participate, or discuss his services with him.
Take it to a new group called aviation insurance, or whatever you wish... and lets
get back to building airplanes.
Oh... and as an aside,
> An insurance agent can't screw you.
>
This is patently untrue... of that I can assure you.
The above is one man's opinion only.
Robert E. Miller, M.D.
"C. Rabaut" wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>
> JT,
>
> I did not mention you directly, nor in-directly, don't blame/flame me if
you have a guilty conscience. Yes, to answer your question, I have been screwed
by the insurance industry... and yet I am still forced to participate in their
game and pay exorbitant rates hoping against hope that if there is a next
time, they won't screw me again.
>
> Chuck
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Helms
> To: crabaut@coalinga.com
> Subject: hi
>
> Were you harmed by an insurance agent in a former life?
>
> What is your problem?
>
> An insurance agent can't screw you. Your agent can advise you, assist you in
obtaining quotes, answer questions you might have, but I don't see how they can
"screw" you. If you don't like your agents service or advice, you can switch.
In aviation insurance, their are so few companies, that most agencies work
with every company that is available.
>
> If you choose not to participate in the insurance "pool" then don't. Why do
you speak so negatively about insurance. Were you insured thru AVEMCO and got
burned on a claim or something? Don't associate me with them!
>
> The insurance companies rate you based on current market rates, and how they
assess your airplane's risk, and your (and other pilots) risk in that airplane.
They do not HAVE to insure you. They do so to make money, but I am sure that
you do (or did, since it seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands
to disparage other peoples professions online) something to make money at
some point in your life. How's about you let us know what that was, and we'll
disparage your industry for a while.
>
> Again, if you don't wish to purchase insurance, that is fine. But, I am out
here providing a service to those who want it. Ask on the list for a "show of
hands" as to whom I have helped and if they were/are happy with my service, and
the service provided by the company (that my agency convinced to do this program
by the way when they didn't do homebuilts in the past) that underwrites
the program.
>
> Then, when you see that some people do want my service and are happy with it
will you quit disparaging me at least? (perhaps, you could say "all insurance
agents suck except JT)....
>
> JT
>
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
Do you have a picture of how you got the cable to the arm with proper
movement? Did you build some sort of bracket? This valve is the
primary reason I'm skeptical of the Airflow unit. I don't believe
regular Lych. Fuel injection has a 'bypass valve'.
Thanks..
David Schaefer
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson
Subject: RE: RV-List: Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
The arm can be repositioned, within limits, right?
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> Thanks for the information Alex. My arm and valve are on the
> right side. The arm swings from about 2-5 o'clock position 2,
> being ICO. I was thinking I could bring the cable in from the
> left and around the front. Not the best choice but it would work.
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
This may be the story that the DAR told me about over 5 years ago when my RV
got licensed.
The DAR licensed a Long Ez. The guy changed the fuel boost pump after it
had flown for a while. Then changed it back and had an accident. The DAR
was taken to court over the fuel pump yet he had nothing to do with the fuel
pump being changed. When he looked over my airplane, he required that I
turn the boost pump on so that he could see that it worked. He did that
becasue of the lawsuit.
Most insurance companies in the aviation business will pay 70% of what your
airplane hull is insured for. If you have more damage than that, it is
their airplane then you will get paid in full less your deductable.
I have 1,000,000 libality and NO hull coverage through Nationair. Changed
to Nationair for a 22% savings over Avemco. Smith & Wesson insures the
hull. ;-)
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,244 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
Subject: RV-List: Insurance or not
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
In my last e-mail I mentioned a case in California where a Long EZ
pilot crashed causing 500,000 in damages.( this is to the best of my
recollection) Avemco didn't have to honor the policy because the man had at
one time changed the gas line routing of the aircraft but finding out it
didn't work any better changed it back to the original configuration. Even
though the gas line routing was the same as when issued an airworthiness
certificate, the fact that he changed it without notifying the FAA and
receiving a new test period and recertification deemed the aircraft
UNCERTIFIED at the time of the accident. The really pitiful thing about the
whole mess was that the pilot volunteered that information to the
investigators. If he had not said anything, no one would have known.
This is why I sent a list of every nut, bolt and piece of equipment that
was attached to my airplane or drug behind it to the FAA. I received a new
test period and recertification for my RV4. I didn't want the same thing
happening to me. Best I remember I changed to NationAir the following year.
BUT, if I ever have an accident JT, you can speak to my attorney, I'm
PROBABLY not going to volunteer anything.
Jim Nolan
N444JN
Still happy with NationAir
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
Robert (actually more a comment to the list),
I agree that there has been way to much "noise" relative to the signal on
this matter lately. But ...
1. I seem to recall that JT put out some "info" as a "heads up". This info
was challenged and he went to get more data. He later reported back with
additional info.
2. Seemed like the thread was about to cool off but ...
3. Some listers expressed their displeasure with insurance companies in
general and may have been perceived as implying some things about JT as
well.
4. Things went downhill in terms of new info after that.
So ...
This can be "chilled" just by everyone stopping the replies on the subject
for a day and if they have something SPECIFIC for JT or some SPECIFIC info
for the list then send it to the appropriate place.
I for one WANT to hear NEW INFO about what *might* be an issue so I can make
up my mind about where and how to go about dealing with it. So in that sense
I would like to hear from JT and any other "agent" when they can provide
some info.
JT's stuff is relevant to this forum in the context that he speaks with
regard to insuring RVs. I also think that a lot of us realize he also sells
to us. That helps *some* of his info be very relevant.
James
A customer of JT (NationaAir), AVEMCO and another company (all picked by
their relevance to the mission and not shortchanged by either)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Miller Robert
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:54 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: This insurance stuff.
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
> Fellow builders:
> I have not participated in this insurance thread thus far....
> quick on the delete key ;)
> But enough must be enough.
> It now seems necessary because this fellow has really gone a bit
> far by now, in my opinion, on the general list...
> not to educate us all, but rather to promote himself and the
> insurance he would like to sell you.
> I believe a more reasonable approach would be for him to start
> another list (a Yahoo group, or whatever) to discuss the services
> he would like to offer. There are many such
> aviation/homebuilders groups... dedicated to specific products.
> He may then inform the general RV list of the existence of such
> a group for those who wish to participate, or discuss his
> services with him.
> Take it to a new group called aviation insurance, or whatever you
> wish... and lets get back to building airplanes.
>
> Oh... and as an aside,
>
> > An insurance agent can't screw you.
> >
>
> This is patently untrue... of that I can assure you.
>
> The above is one man's opinion only.
> Robert E. Miller, M.D.
>
>
> "C. Rabaut" wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
> >
> > JT,
> >
> > I did not mention you directly, nor in-directly, don't
> blame/flame me if you have a guilty conscience. Yes, to answer
> your question, I have been screwed by the insurance industry...
> and yet I am still forced to participate in their game and pay
> exorbitant rates hoping against hope that if there is a next
> time, they won't screw me again.
> >
> > Chuck
> > do not archive
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Helms
> > To: crabaut@coalinga.com
> > Subject: hi
> >
> > Were you harmed by an insurance agent in a former life?
> >
> > What is your problem?
> >
> > An insurance agent can't screw you. Your agent can advise you,
> assist you in obtaining quotes, answer questions you might have,
> but I don't see how they can "screw" you. If you don't like your
> agents service or advice, you can switch. In aviation insurance,
> their are so few companies, that most agencies work with every
> company that is available.
> >
> > If you choose not to participate in the insurance "pool" then
> don't. Why do you speak so negatively about insurance. Were you
> insured thru AVEMCO and got burned on a claim or something?
> Don't associate me with them!
> >
> > The insurance companies rate you based on current market rates,
> and how they assess your airplane's risk, and your (and other
> pilots) risk in that airplane. They do not HAVE to insure you.
> They do so to make money, but I am sure that you do (or did,
> since it seems like you have an awful lot of time on your hands
> to disparage other peoples professions online) something to make
> money at some point in your life. How's about you let us know
> what that was, and we'll disparage your industry for a while.
> >
> > Again, if you don't wish to purchase insurance, that is fine.
> But, I am out here providing a service to those who want it. Ask
> on the list for a "show of hands" as to whom I have helped and if
> they were/are happy with my service, and the service provided by
> the company (that my agency convinced to do this program by the
> way when they didn't do homebuilts in the past) that underwrites
> the program.
> >
> > Then, when you see that some people do want my service and are
> happy with it will you quit disparaging me at least? (perhaps,
> you could say "all insurance agents suck except JT)....
> >
> > JT
> >
>
>
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Excellent idea! This subject seems to take over the list from time to time,
and the tone of it seems unnecessarily adversarial.
Terry
Do not archive
--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
But enough must be enough.
It now seems necessary because this fellow has really gone a bit far by now,
in my opinion, on the general list...
not to educate us all, but rather to promote himself and the insurance he
would like to sell you.
I believe a more reasonable approach would be for him to start another list
(a Yahoo group, or whatever) to discuss the services he would like to offer.
There are many such aviation/homebuilders groups... dedicated to specific
products. He may then inform the general RV list of the existence of such
a group for those who wish to participate, or discuss his services with him.
Take it to a new group called aviation insurance, or whatever you wish...
and lets get back to building airplanes.
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stephen Johnson" <spjohnsn@ix.netcom.com>
Have you thought about "not in motion" hull coverage? I don't think it's
too expensive and covers you if you're parked and a thundershower with high
winds and hail hits.
Steve Johnson
RV-8 fuselage construction
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Insurance or not
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> This may be the story that the DAR told me about over 5 years ago when my
RV
> got licensed.
>
> The DAR licensed a Long Ez. The guy changed the fuel boost pump after it
> had flown for a while. Then changed it back and had an accident. The DAR
> was taken to court over the fuel pump yet he had nothing to do with the
fuel
> pump being changed. When he looked over my airplane, he required that I
> turn the boost pump on so that he could see that it worked. He did that
> becasue of the lawsuit.
>
> Most insurance companies in the aviation business will pay 70% of what
your
> airplane hull is insured for. If you have more damage than that, it is
> their airplane then you will get paid in full less your deductable.
>
> I have 1,000,000 libality and NO hull coverage through Nationair. Changed
> to Nationair for a 22% savings over Avemco. Smith & Wesson insures the
> hull. ;-)
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,244 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
> To: "RV List" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Insurance or not
> Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 18:46:17 -0600
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" <jimnolan@insightbb.com>
>
> In my last e-mail I mentioned a case in California where a Long
EZ
> pilot crashed causing 500,000 in damages.( this is to the best of my
> recollection) Avemco didn't have to honor the policy because the man had
at
> one time changed the gas line routing of the aircraft but finding out it
> didn't work any better changed it back to the original configuration. Even
> though the gas line routing was the same as when issued an airworthiness
> certificate, the fact that he changed it without notifying the FAA and
> receiving a new test period and recertification deemed the aircraft
> UNCERTIFIED at the time of the accident. The really pitiful thing about
the
> whole mess was that the pilot volunteered that information to the
> investigators. If he had not said anything, no one would have known.
> This is why I sent a list of every nut, bolt and piece of equipment
that
> was attached to my airplane or drug behind it to the FAA. I received a new
> test period and recertification for my RV4. I didn't want the same thing
> happening to me. Best I remember I changed to NationAir the following
year.
> BUT, if I ever have an accident JT, you can speak to my attorney,
I'm
> PROBABLY not going to volunteer anything.
> Jim Nolan
> N444JN
> Still happy with NationAir
>
>
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| "> LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| "> SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | UPDATE #3 ... Random (engine??) "POP" <Good News> |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
[The following applies to current and potential users of the "Jeff
Rose"/ElectroAir electronic ignition systems]
Well,
I am closer to believing the "POP" was exactly as Jeff Rose said. More info
...
1. After the "fix" (see below), there was no POP for a while.
2. Some hours later I thought I heard it when Patty was flying.
3. Some more hours later I **KNOW** I heard it again when I was flying.
Hmmmmm
4. A trip later, engine doesn't seem exactly as smooth as before, though it
seems "OK"
5. Another trip, engine seems just a little bit more rough (or am I
paranoid??)
6. Next trip (away from home airport), on runup, coughing, spitting and
backfiring on mag check (elec. ign) but seemingly full power on "both" ...
yup something is wrong. Time to pull the cowl and call Jeff when back at
home.
Patty pulls the cowl (she too did a runup and brought it right back to the
hangar) and I call Jeff (I was at home).
I describe the problem to Jeff and he says (in a cool, calm manner that only
those that have talked with him can really appreciate) ... "... yep, you are
tightening the plug cap too tight. Take a look and you will find that you
had it so tight it caused the plug wire to come loose." 'Lo and behold he
was EXACTLY right. Called Patty at airport and she had discovered it just as
he said.
CONFESSION: When we (Patty) put the "new and improved" "grommet" on the
suspect wire the last time, **I** reached over and turned the plug cap a
couple of times by hand and said "this is way too loose!". I then proceeded
to tighten it just shy of where I *thought* would be too much. Well I
thought wrong!
SUMMARY: If you have the Jeff Rose system *and* you use aviation plugs on it
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to the directions that say in effect tighten by hand and
then about 1/2 turn by wrench. Everything we do sez "torque" the nuts tight.
In this case, the solution goes "against the grain" of our "normal"
procedure.
The plane seems to run just fine now. (I think :-) )
And I continue to be impressed by Jeff's knowledge of his system but MORE SO
by his professional and courteous handling of random calls from me at less
than opportune times. He had many opportunities to make me feel like an
idiot and failed to do so each time. :-)
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of James E. Clark
> Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 12:20 AM
> To: Rv-List@Matronics.Com
> Subject: RV-List: UPDATE #2 ... Random (engine??) "POP"
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
>
> First, I must mention that Jeff Rose was such a delight to chat
> with on the
> phone about this matter. He is sending to me some of the "improved" rubber
> grommets for the plug wires. (ElectroAir users will know what this is).
>
> Second, I got a chance to go around the pattern once after the "update". I
> climbed agressively (~80kts at most) and did NOT get a "pop".
>
> More flying is required before we feel that the problem is "solved". Once
> around the pattern is NOT conclusive in proving "solution" but is
> potentially conclusive in proving "NOT solution".
>
> We have a trip planned this weekend that should be enough to
> discover if the
> problem persists.
>
>
> Again THANKS(!!!) to all who sent in suggestions. I still may need to
> followup on each.
>
> James
>
>
> >
>
> <<<< SNIP, SNIP, SNIP >>>>
>
> > Other than that, we have **NOT** tested this yet and the problem
> > did NOT manifest itself on the ground (per Jeff, the engine does
> > not have enough load to drive the pressure high enough to cause
> > the arcing in that situation.)
> >
> > It was late when we got most of it done and I *hope* the weather
> > is good enough to do a flight test tommorrow.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net>
>
>
>I will always be grateful to Bill at Van's for ever so gently nudging me
>toward the -4 instead of the -6 I was considering. The joys of sitting on
>the centerline of the airplane can't be explained but real none the less.
>Even my wife was happy with her private office the first time she needed to
>use the 'in-flight facilities' during our first long cross country.
>
>The -8 is a big guy airplane. I'm still building my -8 but I feel like I'm
>rattling around in a box car when I sit in the pit (compared to my -4).
>
>This is not advice, all pilots are different, but I transitioned from a Kolb
>Twinstar (top speed 75 MPH, 30 MPH stall) directly to my RV-4 with only a 15
>minute demo flight (with Bill back in 93) as 'transition training. The RV
>was the most natural feeling airplane I've ever flown. Everything about its
>handling was intuitive.
>
>Your milage may vary :-)
>
>Tracy Crook
Tracy,
I can't even scratch my balls when I sit in the back of my -4. Your wife
must be really, really, petite and flexible.
Also, the bit about "your mileage may vary" is untrue. Nobobody doesn't
like the perfection of the RV-4. It's just that they make keyboard
mistakes when they order from Van and punch in numbers like -6, -7, -8, and
-9. Then when they try to correct the errors, they punch in the letter "A".
Geeze, if people had better keyboarding skills, Van's website would show
"As of 01/23/2003, more than 3,141 RV -4's been completed and flown.
Dan,
There is no way you will be comfortable in an RV-4. But so many people
swear by the RV-8, it must be an excellent alternative. You really have a
tough decision to make because the new RV-7 is a gem of a side-by-side. Do
you fit into it?
I really have to ask why you want to go with the "A" rather than a
taildragger. If you are a student, and have already soloed, you have only a
little more to learn about handling a taildragger. The archives are rife
with pros and cons for the tail vs. nose wheel. But don't let anyone scare
you away from a Van's taildragger. You simply have to work a little harder
and think a little more to fly one. After 20 years in a Cessna 150, the
transition to a taildragger was relatively easy. There are some really
good reasons for going with a nose wheel. I just never heard of any. Don't
let anyone fool you into believing that the taildragger is sexier looking.
Or that the ability to do the 180 semi-donut in front of your hanger is the
coolest thing going. Or that saving money on tires, and replacement
nosewheel pants is helpful. Or that a taildragger is sexier looking. Nah,
the only real advantage of a tailragger is that you can inspect the belly
without bumping into the nosewheel when you are lying on your creeper. And
that's a fact.
On a more serious note, don't go for the -4 or -8 if you are prone to be
claustrophobic. I am a bit claustrophobic, and have had to learn to get
past it when in the -4. In the backseat, I am a mess and cannot go for more
than 1/2 hr. A side by side aircraft doesn't seem to matter at all. I
wonder why? I use to fly 12 hours a day in my little C-150, and never felt
confined.
-
Louis I Willig
1640 Oakwood Dr.
Penn Valley, PA 19072
610 668-4964
RV-4, N180PF
190HP IO-360, C/S prop
295 exciting Hrs.
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/2003 3:22:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, andy@karmy.com
writes:
> What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front floor
> area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if
> that is needed or not.
Double stick carpet tape works fine.
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 586hrs)
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Andy;
My floor carpet method:
1. Used the usual two thickness of sleeping pad foam on the floor to get
some noise insulation and raise the floor level up to the stiffener angles
(I have a -6A, a -9 may be different).
2. Cut a piece of 1/8 hardboard (Home Depot aviation dept. stuff) to a
"loose fit" in the cockpit floor area. This actually ended up as two pieces
meeting roughly on the center line behind the battery box. Too close a fit
is not good for ease of removal, etc.
3. Cut an oversize piece of carpet sized so that it would go up the sides of
the cockpit a short way and then trimmed it to fit to fit under the
longerons, into the corners, around the fuselage formers and fuel and vent
lines, etc.
4. Glued the carpet to the hardboard (there is a velcro held splice joining
the two hardboard pieces) and used some velcro to stick the edges of the
carpet in place on the fuselage sides.
Seems like a pretty solid floor and is removable with care for maintenance
and cleaning. Will add some more carpet and velcro to the sides for
appearance and comfort. I'm not flying yet so can't say what the noise
factor in the cockpit is like.
Jim Oke
RV-6A C-GKGZ (at the airport - finishing touches)
CYWG
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
Subject: RV-List: Carpet attachment?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Andy Karmy" <andy@karmy.com>
>
> What ideas are out there for attachment of carpet in both the front floor
area and baggage area? I'm thinking I want it removable, but not sure if
that is needed or not.
>
> - Andy Karmy
> RV9A Seattle WA
> http://www.karmy.com/rv9a
> do not archive
>
>
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I disagree. I appreciate JT's point-of-view and input.
Do not archive.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003: The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miller Robert
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:54 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: This insurance stuff.
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
> Fellow builders:
> I have not participated in this insurance thread thus far....
> quick on the delete key ;) But enough must be enough. It now
> seems necessary because this fellow has really gone a bit far
> by now, in my opinion, on the general list... not to educate
> us all, but rather to promote himself and the insurance he
> would like to sell you. I believe a more reasonable approach
> would be for him to start another list (a Yahoo group, or
> whatever) to discuss the services he would like to offer.
> There are many such aviation/homebuilders groups... dedicated
> to specific products. He may then inform the general RV list
> of the existence of such a group for those who wish to
> participate, or discuss his services with him. Take it to a
> new group called aviation insurance, or whatever you wish...
> and lets get back to building airplanes.
>
> Oh... and as an aside,
>
> > An insurance agent can't screw you.
> >
>
> This is patently untrue... of that I can assure you.
>
> The above is one man's opinion only.
> Robert E. Miller, M.D.
>
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool@attbi.com>
Well so much for the air drill I picked up at Boeing Surplus, it didn't even
make it through the HS! I'm going to buy new this time but maybe I can
still get away with something not too expensive. Is anyone using the "under
$100" air drills available at Browns or Cleveland and finding them to do the
job just fine or do I really have to fork out a couple hundred for an air
drill? Also, so that I don't have to stop working while waiting for a new
drill, has anyone used their Makita for any work?
-Will Allen
North Bend, Wa
RV8 emp
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Insurance or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" <akroguy@hotmail.com>
>Have you thought about "not in motion" hull coverage? I don't think it's
>too expensive and covers you if you're parked and a thundershower with high
>winds and hail hits.
>
>Steve Johnson
>RV-8 fuselage construction
FWIW, that's what I did for my renewal with Nationair. I had to come to a
balance of protection level vs. cost due to various financial reasons.
Freakin' stock market....
But I digress. I have hull not-in-motion coverage for my -8 with the usual
$1M liability. I found the premium to be quite reasonable and about half
the cost of full in-flight coverage. I figure the greatest likelihood of
damage to my airplane is on the ground....just sitting...because that's
where it spends most of it's life. Springtime gale force winds, distracted
lineboys with golf carts, hail storms, etc, all scare me way more than a
middair or structural failure in flight. In such instances, I'm a goner
anyway. I won't be needing another airplane.
Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances. Such is life. Caveat emptor,
yada yada yada.
Brian Denk
RV8 N94BD
do not archive
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pitot tube routing in fuselage of RV-9A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell" <jconnell@rconnect.com>
Hi Listers,
I'm getting close to fitting the wings to a QB fuselage
for the first time on an RV-9A. The pitot tubing in
the wing is routed aft of the main spar and in front of
the first hole in the rib where the aileron push-rod goes,
equidistant from the top and bottom skin of the wing.
How are you RV-9A builders routing the tube from there
to the instrument panel? Is anyone continuing the run
to the center of the plane behind the main bulkhead then
through the bulkhead and into the center tunnel that houses
the brake and fuel lines?
I don't see and easy solution trying to route it along the left
side of the fuselage because it is behind the spar. I would
appreciate your insights...
Thanks from
Joe Connell, N95JJ
Stewartville, MN
(along with Jan, the Riveter)
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
The $29.95 air drill I bought from Home Depot did just fine. You don't need
to buy an expensive drill. Certainly you may get a "better" drill for more
money, but you don't NEED a better drill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool@attbi.com>
Subject: RV-List: Air drills
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool@attbi.com>
>
> Well so much for the air drill I picked up at Boeing Surplus, it didn't
even
> make it through the HS! I'm going to buy new this time but maybe I can
> still get away with something not too expensive. Is anyone using the
"under
> $100" air drills available at Browns or Cleveland and finding them to do
the
> job just fine or do I really have to fork out a couple hundred for an air
> drill? Also, so that I don't have to stop working while waiting for a new
> drill, has anyone used their Makita for any work?
>
> -Will Allen
> North Bend, Wa
> RV8 emp
>
>
Message 71
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: JDaniel343@aol.com
Will, do yourself a favor an purchase a 1/4" Sioux air drill, 3600 rpm model.
Cleavland sells them as do others. There are over 18,000 holes you will have
to drill and this light drill with great trigger control is a must in my
opinion. This will probably be the best tool for the money. You can use
cheaper tools, but your probably going to be building for a long time. Do
yourself a favor.
John Danielson
RV-6 110 hrs.
Message 72
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Airflow Performance bypass valve cabling question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> Do you have a picture of how you got the cable to the arm
> with proper movement? Did you build some sort of bracket?
> This valve is the primary reason I'm skeptical of the Airflow
> unit. I don't believe regular Lych. Fuel injection has a
> 'bypass valve'.
>
David, see http://www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson/misc.htm It is the
best picture I have available right now. In the picture, you can see
both injector lines, and the larger purge valve cable roughly in the
middle. No detail can be seen in the photo of the bracket. However, I
made a bracket which fastens to two bolts holding the crankcase
together. The cable goes through the firewall somewhere on the left
side, and goes into the baffling behind #4, then curves toward directly
right as it passes over the center of the engine.
You do not need to install the purge valve on the AP FI either, but
having the valve prevents fuel from percolating into the intake manifold
after a hot shutdown. It also lets you run cool fuel through the system
prior to a hot start. I have run the "purge" as long as one minute on a
hot start, and the fuel returning from the system is still amazingly
hot!
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 251 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 73
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@direcpc.com>
This is definitely sad news. Carroll did the complete Van's thing,
building his 4 and even painted it himself. Looked good too!. He sold me
the HVLP spray gun he used to paint his 4. Carroll will be missed
Gary Zilik
Larry Pardue wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@carlsbad.net>
>
>Listers:
>
>Old timers, who were on the RV list around the time I did, will remember
>Carroll Bird from Buffalo Gap, Texas. I am sorry to report that Carroll
>just passed away, having suffered a heart attack last year, while in his
>RV-4 on the ground.
>
>I'm terrible for remembering people, just from having seen their posts on
>the list or having met them at fly-ins a time or two. I had no trouble
>remembering Carroll. The first time I attended an event at Abilene, he made
>a point of introducing himself as a fellow lister. Well I did remember him
>from his posts, and after meeting him, there was no chance I would ever
>forget him.
>
>Carroll was a short, kind of pixy of a guy who was so good natured it was
>kind of hard for even a surly guy like me to not just smile all the time
>when I was within Carroll range.
>
>One of my big memories of Carroll is of him giving ride after ride after
>ride at Young Eagle events. A couple of years ago I wrote up a story about
>Carroll giving a first airplane ride to about a 70 year old lady, in the
>back of his RV-4. She loved it.
>
>Carroll was one of the real good ones. Happy trails Carroll!
>
>Larry Pardue
>Carlsbad, NM
>
>
>
>
Message 74
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Vertical Stab Re: lightening holes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wier, Daniel C." <daniel@thegreatwhite.net>
Thanks for all your help. I actually decided to go ahead and cut the
holes. It was not a whole lot of time and if it might save me a little
weight, than I will go ahead with it. It is only a few more minutes to
go ahead and do it. The bit in my fly cutter was backwards and so it
took me 40 minutes to cut one whole, but then when I finally turned the
bit around, it actually worked right... Oh well, I guess us newbies
will make a lot of mistakes. Thanks again for your help and advice.
Thanks,
Daniel Wier
RV-7 Status: Working on VS
www.buildtherv7.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Overall [mailto:bo124rs@hotmail.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Vertical Stab Re: lightening holes
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Rick & Dan,
I just glanced over my 7 plans and I can only find one mention of
optional
lightening holes, that is on the VS doubler plate. As you can see from
the
pic below, the 7 aileron spar, flap spar and flap brace are already pre
punched, these are just what I have left on the right wing. I haven't
started on my fuse. yet but that VS doubler plate is all I
found........or
did I conveniently overlook optional holes for the sake of expediancy??
http://rvflying.tripod.com/p1230003.jpg
Remember, on the newer 7s we gain a great aft weight savings on the
redesign, and orientation, of the elevator counterweights.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
Aside from the
>several dozens of lightening holes already provided to the builder, you
do
>have
>the option of making many more during the course of construction.
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
Message 75
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Importing Paint - New York builders? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Craig Warner" <cwarner@twcny.rr.com>
Steve, I live just north of Syracuse, NY about 1 hour south oe Watertown. If
I can help you let me know.
Craig Warner RV6A still buildin
cwarner@twcny.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
Subject: RV-List: Importing Paint - New York builders?
> --> RV-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
>
>
> I'm trying to order some Harzell grey spray paint from ACS but they say
they
> can not ship them across the border.
>
> Any one in Watertown or closer to Kingston, Ontario that would be willing
to
> recieve the shipment for me and 'pass' them on my way. Or I could come get
them
> if its close enough.
>
> Thankx
> Steve
> RV7A
>
>
Message 76
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@mcleodusa.net>
thanks alot
Message 77
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross Schlotthauer <rdschlotthauer@yahoo.com>
...snip.....
Oh... and as an aside,
An insurance agent can't screw you.
...snip.....
Boy JT, I hope there weren't any big busted blonds
reading this.
Ross
Please DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 78
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
Buy yourself a Sioux. There are multiple sizes/speeds.
They cost more and you don't REALLY HAVE TO have one, but, in the long run
you will not regret it.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Will & Lynda
> Allen
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:06 PM
> To: RV LIST; RV8 List
> Subject: RV-List: Air drills
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool@attbi.com>
>
> Well so much for the air drill I picked up at Boeing Surplus, it
> didn't even
> make it through the HS! I'm going to buy new this time but maybe I can
> still get away with something not too expensive. Is anyone using
> the "under
> $100" air drills available at Browns or Cleveland and finding
> them to do the
> job just fine or do I really have to fork out a couple hundred for an air
> drill? Also, so that I don't have to stop working while waiting for a new
> drill, has anyone used their Makita for any work?
>
> -Will Allen
> North Bend, Wa
> RV8 emp
>
>
Message 79
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dick DeCramer" <diesel@rconnect.com>
Will...
I used all types of drills. The wings & tail were done with Milwaukee electric
corded drill as that is all I had. Then I purchased a 12v. Makita cordless and
used it for most of the project even though I bought an Chicago Phnuematic
air drill half way through. Not having cords or airhose made the cordless very
handy but the air drill produces cleaner holes so if I have alot of holes to
drill at one time I use that. I stopped using the corded electric except for
heavy jobs.
Dick DeCramer
RV6 0-320
Northfield, MN
Doing FAB airbox
Message 80
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: This insurance stuff. |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 07:53 PM 1/23/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
You are wrong! I, for one, have benefited from this discussion.
Use your delete key.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 81
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Carpet attachment? |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
At 08:00 PM 1/23/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
And the weight?
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 82
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
RV-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Electroluminescent Lighting |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
About 2 or 3 months ago there was a brief discussion on EL lighting with
some links- I can not find the one I need in the archives, (I found the
"Being Seen" site). This was for the non-aviation sheet and strip
lighting. Would appreciate any links- Thanks!
Mark Phillips - do not archive -
Message 83
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<rv-list@matronics.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave von Linsowe" <davevon@tir.com>
Help! I recently noticed that both inboard aileron hinges have a little
slop that has me concerned.
The source of the movement is the fit between the pivot bushing/bearing and
the hinge bracket on the wing. Looks to be .015"-.020" radially and .030"
axially. I have the means to manufacture an oversized bushing to eliminate
the play, but my question is. Can the bushing be removed without removing
hinge bracket from the wing? Or is there some other method of tightening up
the bushing?
Thanks,
Dave
RV-6
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! --
|