Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:52 AM - Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal (John Oliveira)
2. 04:08 AM - Re: Cling Window Tint (Paul Besing)
3. 05:23 AM - Re: Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal (Alex Peterson)
4. 05:28 AM - Re: Cling Window Tint (Alex Peterson)
5. 05:53 AM - Stainless Wheel Pant Brackets (Stucklen, Frederic IFC)
6. 05:57 AM - Re: certification (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
7. 05:58 AM - Re: RTV Vs. ProSeal (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
8. 06:13 AM - Re: Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
9. 06:42 AM - OT Looking for a Paper (Doug Gray)
10. 07:51 AM - Re: Cling Window Tint (Paul Besing)
11. 08:01 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (Chris W)
12. 08:05 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (C. Rabaut)
13. 08:06 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
14. 08:08 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (Scott Bilinski)
15. 08:35 AM - Re: RTV Vs. ProSeal (Evan and Megan Johnson)
16. 08:42 AM - Re: DC ENR Headsets (Camille Patch)
17. 08:44 AM - Cessna Bashing (Denis Walsh)
18. 09:00 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (David Carter)
19. 09:47 AM - Re: Cling Window Tint (Kyle Boatright)
20. 10:04 AM - Re: Parking fee for an RV at San Jose International - (Bob)
21. 10:15 AM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper (Scott Bilinski)
22. 11:16 AM - Sensenich Prop for sale (MARC DRAKE)
23. 11:25 AM - Re: Cessna bashing (Rick Galati)
24. 12:17 PM - More stuff (Wheeler North)
25. 02:07 PM - Re: Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal (Charlie & Tupper England)
26. 02:17 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Terry Watson)
27. 02:40 PM - Re: Taildragger Wheel Landings (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
28. 03:36 PM - C/S Prop or not (Bryan or Lezlie Pender)
29. 03:38 PM - RV-4 Shopping (Bryan or Lezlie Pender)
30. 03:45 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Tedd McHenry)
31. 04:05 PM - Re: OT Looking for a Paper/ Plenums (Martin Hone)
32. 04:12 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Laird Owens)
33. 04:14 PM - Re: Stainless Wheel Pant Brackets (Paul Besing)
34. 04:45 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Laird Owens)
35. 04:47 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Doug Weiler)
36. 05:04 PM - Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) (Bill Dube)
37. 05:43 PM - Re: Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) (Dana Overall)
38. 05:46 PM - Re: Re: Cessna bashing (Jerry Springer)
39. 05:52 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Dave Bristol)
40. 05:56 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Jerry Springer)
41. 06:12 PM - Re: Cling Window Tint (Alex Peterson)
42. 07:15 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Kevin Horton)
43. 07:41 PM - Re: DC ENR Headsets (Rick Rathbun)
44. 07:53 PM - Re: Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) (DEREK REED)
45. 07:59 PM - Mil Spec Paint Info (czechsix@juno.com)
46. 08:01 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Neil McLeod)
47. 08:12 PM - Re: ohio builders (N223RV@aol.com)
48. 08:29 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
49. 08:30 PM - ANR Headsets (Michael Holcomb)
50. 08:44 PM - Re: Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) (DEREK REED)
51. 08:47 PM - Builder documentation on the Web-summary (David Carter)
52. 08:51 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Don Diehl)
53. 08:52 PM - Re: Cessna Bashing (Chris W)
54. 09:29 PM - Cessna Bashing (Eustace Bowhay)
55. 09:44 PM - Re: C/S Prop or not (Jerry Springer)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Oliveira" <oliveira@frontiernet.net>
I also, don't understand the pro seal trailing edges. I had no problem
getting strait trailing edges without any sealant. I did the empennage
surfaces about 18 months ago, and just finished the last one, the right
flap, just followed instructions and routed a flush spot in the table top
for my back riveting plate and made sure the table was straight.
the only place I used any sealant so far other than the tanks was on the
foam ribs for the trim tab, and I used a marine waterproof bedding compound
that I had around.
By the way, I might be a little warped, I did not think the pro seal was so
bad on the tanks. Just a little tedious.
John Oliveira
90054 Working on the fuselage N9009RV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
<RV-9A@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
>
> Someone a whole lot smarted than me (doesn't take much) suggested RTV
instead of ProSeal in the rudder trailing edge. Lot easier to clean up,
just as good, cheaper, etc. Any comments or suggestions?
> Glenn in Arizona -9A emp. do not archive
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cling Window Tint |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Not any trouble at all. I did the same thing. Covered the "flat" part of
the top of the canopy. Sprayed soapy water on it, applied the tint, and
squeegeed out the bubbles. Worked perfectly and did not bubble. Takes some
patience to get it right size, but it works very well.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Bond" <rvflyingisfun@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: Cling Window Tint
> --> RV-List message posted by: James Bond <rvflyingisfun@yahoo.com>
>
> Hello Group I was at the Wall Mart the other day and found some of that
Cling Flim in a Dark Limo Tint. It is a long cut to fit roll for 9.84.
Wanted to know if there is any troble with this film cling to the lexan. Can
this cause any kind of warping to the canopy? Does this stuff work to cut
down on the heat in a tip up cockpit? ThanksJames PS want to buy Turn and
Bank Coordinator
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> I also, don't understand the pro seal trailing edges. I had
> no problem
> getting strait trailing edges without any sealant. I did
> the empennage
> surfaces about 18 months ago, and just finished the last one,
> the right flap, just followed instructions and routed a flush
> spot in the table top for my back riveting plate and made
> sure the table was straight.
The reason for RTV/Proseal on the rudder/elevator trailing edges is to
prevent cracks at the ends of the stiffeners. The "floating" stiffener
design is not the best, as the propellor pulses induce vibrations in the
rudder/elev skins, and the floating stiffeners simply concentrate the
stress at the ends of the stiffeners. (By floating, I mean that they are
attached only to the skins, and not to the spars, for example.)
Somewhere after I built my tail ('93), Van went to .020" skins on them.
I suspect this helped, but it is doubtful it will eliminate the
cracking.
I used RTV on the trailing ends of the stiffeners, and have had no
cracks there.... However, I have some cracks around the forward most
rivets on these stiffeners on the rudder (300 hours). If I rebuild the
rudder, I will most certainly find a way to attach the stiffeners to the
rudder spar at their forward point. BTW, there was a conventional
wisdom that said that these cracks come from aerobatics - most certainly
that doesn't help - but my rudder is almost never used except in
takeoff/landing phase.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP hours
www.rvforum.org MAY 31st!!!
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: | Cling Window Tint |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> Not any trouble at all. I did the same thing. Covered the
> "flat" part of the top of the canopy. Sprayed soapy water on
> it, applied the tint, and squeegeed out the bubbles. Worked
> perfectly and did not bubble. Takes some patience to get it
> right size, but it works very well.
Beware that after enough time, that stuff may not come off, and it may
cloud up. I used the water applied stuff in several cars, and while it
easily comes off after only a few years, it took lacquer thinner to
remove the attachment scum after about 5 years. Don't know if the
current stuff is the same, just a warning.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 296 hours
www.rvforum.org MAY 31st!!!
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: | Stainless Wheel Pant Brackets |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
I seem to recall that I recently saw Stainless Steel wheel pant brackets
for Van's newest wheel pants. But for the life of me I don't know where it
was. I've searched the archives and all my catalogs to no avail.
Does anybody on the list recall seeing these? If so, where can I find
them?
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: certification |
22, 2002) at 05/07/2003 08:57:18 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
It is okay: I dont prefer cessna quality either. However when there is
nothing else to fly. At least it's airworthy. (but what a dog) lol
Glenn Williams
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
22, 2002) at 05/07/2003 08:58:28 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
Use rtv in the rudder. It is lighter and if memory serves I thought the
plans called for RTV. Am I mistaken?
Glenn Williams
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
22, 2002) at 05/07/2003 09:12:50 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
I am not sure if you guys know why Vans has decided to put RTV inside the
trailing edges, If you go look at a 4 or a 3 you will see on most of the
trailing edges where the ribs were riveted in the most aft position there
are cracks from the rivet hole to the trailing edge. The RTV acts as a
dampener to remove the vibration and keep the trailing edges from cracking.
I also if memory serves think he made a measurement change to move the back
end of the rib up a little to relieve the stress in that area. RTV is
recommended as it is lighter There is no doubt proseal will work but why
put all that weight out there when we are trying to keep our planes as
light as possible? Just my thoughts on this.
Glenn Williams
A&P
Fort Worth, Tx.
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: | OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
possible) of the following paper:
# Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
Doug Gray
RV-6 fuse
dreaming about engine installation.
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: Cling Window Tint |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
This is different stuff. This is static cling tint. It doesn't have any
glue to it at all. The water and soap installation just helps you make it
neat and adhere evenly. You can peel it right off at anytime. It's the
same material of the cling sticker that they put on your windshield when you
get your oil changed.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cling Window Tint
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
>
> > Not any trouble at all. I did the same thing. Covered the
> > "flat" part of the top of the canopy. Sprayed soapy water on
> > it, applied the tint, and squeegeed out the bubbles. Worked
> > perfectly and did not bubble. Takes some patience to get it
> > right size, but it works very well.
>
> Beware that after enough time, that stuff may not come off, and it may
> cloud up. I used the water applied stuff in several cars, and while it
> easily comes off after only a few years, it took lacquer thinner to
> remove the attachment scum after about 5 years. Don't know if the
> current stuff is the same, just a warning.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 296 hours
> www.rvforum.org MAY 31st!!!
>
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how this is Off Topic. It seems very on
topic to me. If it is off topic, which I don't think it is, why is there no
do not archive?
Chris W
do not archive
Doug Gray wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
>
> I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
> possible) of the following paper:
>
> # Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
> Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
> Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
>
> I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
> information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
>
> Doug Gray
> RV-6 fuse
> dreaming about engine installation.
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Doug,
REMEMBER to advise the rest of us what you find out. Thanks,
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
Subject: RV-List: OT Looking for a Paper
> --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
>
> I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
> possible) of the following paper:
>
> # Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
> Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
> Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
>
> I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
> information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
>
> Doug Gray
> RV-6 fuse
> dreaming about engine installation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: OT Looking for a Paper |
22, 2002) at 05/07/2003 11:06:38 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
have you looked on the NASA website? Or possibly call Lycoming.
I would think one of these companies could point you in the right
direction.
Glenn Williams
do not archive
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
check here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&o
rder=DESC&keywords=3405
Looks like there is no electronic file, might have to get it snail mail.
At 11:39 PM 5/7/03 +1000, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
>
>I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
>possible) of the following paper:
>
># Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
>Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
>Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
>
>I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
>information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
>
>Doug Gray
>RV-6 fuse
>dreaming about engine installation.
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Evan and Megan Johnson" <evmeg@snowcrest.net>
I have to agree here....it's good stuff. One other consideration is paint.
Just in the off chance you get the stuff on the outside where you intend to
paint, the proseal covers with paint well....RTV is a no go.
Evan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Randall Henderson" <randallh@attbi.com>
>
> > Someone a whole lot smarted than me (doesn't take much) suggested RTV
> instead of ProSeal in the rudder trailing edge. Lot easier to clean up,
> just as good, cheaper, etc. Any comments or suggestions?
>
> It probably doesn't make that much difference for the rudder TE. But I
have
> found that proseal sticks better and is way tougher than RTV, and I use it
> in all but the highest-heat applications.
>
> Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~450 hrs)
> Portland, OR
> www.vanshomewing.org
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DC ENR Headsets |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Camille Patch" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
I bought the DC headset with the noise canceling box. I had lightspeeds
before, which I loved (especially their customer support) but when my
batteries would run out I could hardly use them. The David Clarks work very
well even with dead batteries.
I guess the new ones have a smaller battery box which would really be nice.
I highly recommend them. I fly an average of 50 hrs a month and can't
imagine using any others, I even demoed the Bose headset once.
Cammie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
Subject: RV-List: DC ENR Headsets
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
>
> Fellow Listers:
>
> Does anyone out there have any experience with David Clarks ENC headsets.
I
> am considering upgrading from my H10-60s and would like an opinion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Doug Weiler
> Hudson, WI
>
>
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: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
Delete now if you dont want to read my emotional opinion
I get tired of seeing people bashing Cessnas on this list. I have never
owned one, and only rented a C-172 for seven hours in order to get a private
pilot license, and then fly my RV-6A.
Yes, I was just as guilty as everyone else in trash talking the Cessnas.
Everyone said they were real dogs, and of poor quality. As was usually the
case, I found that my own experience was just the opposite of what I
expected. It was quite pleasant! The skyhawk was a fine performing and
handling airplane, almost ideally suited to its mission, and it makes a
great trainer. It was very restricted in its aerobatic capabilities, which
is designed in as a positive feature. Further, it is durable and easily
maintained to very reliable standards.
There is a reason you see these things all over the world. They are
wonderful planes.
Now I have to admit, that in the intervening six years since I have been a
licensed private pilot, I have not felt the need to fly one again. Yes I do
prefer my RV-6A, primarily because it goes further and faster on similar
horsepower, gets off much quicker, lands shorter, is more responsive and is
fully aerobatic. It is also even easier to maintain. I think it makes a
great advanced trainer but is not as good a primary trainer as the Skyhawk.
So please quit bad mouthing the Cessnas.
There I said it and Im glad.
Do not archive.
Denis Walsh
7.4 hours in Skyhawk, N733BX
1,180 hours in RV-6A N133DW
3,500 hours in a B-52D (it is not much of a sport plane either, but OH WHEN
YOU NEED ONE, it is the best in the world)
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: OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Another source of NASA pubs:
help@sti.nasa.gov the NASA STI Help Desk. They are knowledgeable about
archived info and may be able to help you find what you want, either
directly or by giving you another contact that will have the info.
Ms. Hall at Goddard Space Flight Center (Wallops Flight Facility) is a
skilled and helpful NASA librarian and might also be able to help: (757)
824-1065, e-mail Diane.L.Hall.1@gsfc.nasa.gov , though the item you seek is
probably not in her domain. Again, she may be able to re-direct your
search to the right place.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: OT Looking for a Paper
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> check here:
>
>
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&o
> rder=DESC&keywords=3405
>
> Looks like there is no electronic file, might have to get it snail mail.
>
>
> At 11:39 PM 5/7/03 +1000, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
> >
> >I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
> >possible) of the following paper:
> >
> ># Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
> >Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
> >Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
> >
> >I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
> >information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
> >
> >Doug Gray
> >RV-6 fuse
> >dreaming about engine installation.
> >
> >
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cling Window Tint |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kyle Boatright" <kyle.boatright@adelphia.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Cling Window Tint
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
>
> > Not any trouble at all. I did the same thing. Covered the
> > "flat" part of the top of the canopy. Sprayed soapy water on
> > it, applied the tint, and squeegeed out the bubbles. Worked
> > perfectly and did not bubble. Takes some patience to get it
> > right size, but it works very well.
>
> Beware that after enough time, that stuff may not come off, and it may
> cloud up. I used the water applied stuff in several cars, and while it
> easily comes off after only a few years, it took lacquer thinner to
> remove the attachment scum after about 5 years. Don't know if the
> current stuff is the same, just a warning.
>
> Alex Peterson
Alex,
The film you used (and which was hard to remove later)... Was it the static
cling type or the type that attaches with water and adhesive?
KB
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: Parking fee for an RV at San Jose International - |
$50!
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared2@brier.net>
>The first is that it's worthwhile to call up the FBO before going and asking
>how flexible they are on the fee.
I have done almost the same thing with a little difference. After I get my
fuel and tie down bill, I look it over and in a humours way I ask in an
incredulous voice, "You are charging me a tie down after all that fuel I
bought?" Most of the time they will waive the tiedown.
You can always ask!
Bob
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: OT Looking for a Paper |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Whoop's, looks like you will hve to cut and paste the link below.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&o
rder=DESC&keywords=3405
At 10:59 AM 5/7/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>Another source of NASA pubs:
>
>help@sti.nasa.gov the NASA STI Help Desk. They are knowledgeable about
>archived info and may be able to help you find what you want, either
>directly or by giving you another contact that will have the info.
>
>Ms. Hall at Goddard Space Flight Center (Wallops Flight Facility) is a
>skilled and helpful NASA librarian and might also be able to help: (757)
>824-1065, e-mail Diane.L.Hall.1@gsfc.nasa.gov , though the item you seek is
>probably not in her domain. Again, she may be able to re-direct your
>search to the right place.
>
>David Carter
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Scott Bilinski" <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: OT Looking for a Paper
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>> check here:
>>
>>
>http://ntrs.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=search&limit=25&offset=0&mode=simple&o
>> rder=DESC&keywords=3405
>>
>> Looks like there is no electronic file, might have to get it snail mail.
>>
>>
>> At 11:39 PM 5/7/03 +1000, you wrote:
>> >--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
>> >
>> >I know this is off topic but can anyone point me to a copy (ecopy if
>> >possible) of the following paper:
>> >
>> ># Miley, S., An Experimental Investigation of the Aerodynamics and
>> >Cooling of a Horizontally-Opposed Air-Cooled Aircraft Engine
>> >Installation, NASA Contractor Report 3405, March 1981.
>> >
>> >I am wondering if this paper may have some scientifically derrived
>> >information to help me decide on building an engine plenum or not.
>> >
>> >Doug Gray
>> >RV-6 fuse
>> >dreaming about engine installation.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Scott Bilinski
>> Eng dept 305
>> Phone (858) 657-2536
>> Pager (858) 502-5190
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: | Sensenich Prop for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "MARC DRAKE" <drakerv@gte.net>
I have a Sensenich metal Prop for sale.I am installing a constant speed.Prop is
a 70CM7S16-0(79) with all hardware included.This also comes with a Sensenich
aluminum spinner assembly with the bulkhead attach plates. It also has the spacer
and bolts.This prop only has 25 hrs on it.1495.00 takes all.E-mail if interested
Thanks Marc
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: Cessna bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Denis, Amen brother. As I continue FWF work on my RV-6A, I have come to appreciate
my Cessna as never before. My experience has been those who trash this wonderful
flying machine fall into two catagories. Those who took their primary
training in one and never looked back OR renters aka airplane owner wannabees
that after talking (begging) their wives into reluctantly agreeing to go along
with a kit purchase and subsequently committing to the RV design sit back in
the smug knowledge that as a future airplane owner, (but technically for the
moment still a wannabee) they can look down from a loftier, more smug perch called
"high performance" in which to pass wannabee judgment. When I get tired of
pounding all those rivets, at least I can hop in my trusty old Cessna on a moments
notice and in short order remember why it is I spend my money this way.
Yesterday, while trying to get that darn lower cowl to fit better, I stopped
for a moment to watch a powered parachute whining loudly as it made way ever
so slowly over my house. And as I watched the pilot dangling his feet into the
"slipstream" from 300 or so feet above, I thought how lucky he was, and high
performance had nothing to do with it. It was all about the experience. Flight
is a gift. We should accept it graciously. Rick Galati I get tired
of seeing people bashing Cessnas on this list. I have never
owned one, and only rented a C-172 for seven hours in order to get a private
pilot license, and then fly my RV-6A.
Yes, I was just as guilty as everyone else in trash talking the Cessnas.
Everyone said they were real dogs, and of poor quality. As was usually the
case, I found that my own experience was just the opposite of what I
expected. It was quite pleasant! The skyhawk was a fine performing and
handling airplane, almost ideally suited to its mission, and it makes a
great trainer. It was very restricted in its aerobatic capabilities, which
is designed in as a positive feature. Further, it is durable and easily
maintained to very reliable standards.
There is a reason you see these things all over the world. They are
wonderful planes.
---------------------------------
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: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Those of us with older RVs were given the suggestion to use RTV in the rear
bend of all tail feathers to provide more support and prevent cracking.
But there are RTVs that can be corrosive so it was recommened to use
electrician's version. Not sure if this is still true, but it was in the
late 80s.
RE Turn Cordinators. The idea is to get the axis at an angle that the plane
can't do so that any roll or yaw causes it to read.
The 30degs is not possible for most planes to accomplish as this is relative
to the longitudinal axis not the horizon. So 30 - 8 gives you 22 deg. Again
hard to do, but might be possible in a humper dumper upside down whifferdil
;{)
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: | Re: RV9-List: RTV Vs. ProSeal |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Alex Peterson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
>
>
>
>>I also, don't understand the pro seal trailing edges. I had
>>no problem
>>getting strait trailing edges without any sealant. I did
>>the empennage
>>surfaces about 18 months ago, and just finished the last one,
>>the right flap, just followed instructions and routed a flush
>>spot in the table top for my back riveting plate and made
>>sure the table was straight.
>>
>>
>
>The reason for RTV/Proseal on the rudder/elevator trailing edges is to
>prevent cracks at the ends of the stiffeners. The "floating" stiffener
>design is not the best, as the propellor pulses induce vibrations in the
>rudder/elev skins, and the floating stiffeners simply concentrate the
>stress at the ends of the stiffeners. (By floating, I mean that they are
>attached only to the skins, and not to the spars, for example.)
>Somewhere after I built my tail ('93), Van went to .020" skins on them.
>I suspect this helped, but it is doubtful it will eliminate the
>cracking.
>
>I used RTV on the trailing ends of the stiffeners, and have had no
>cracks there.... However, I have some cracks around the forward most
>rivets on these stiffeners on the rudder (300 hours). If I rebuild the
>rudder, I will most certainly find a way to attach the stiffeners to the
>rudder spar at their forward point. BTW, there was a conventional
>wisdom that said that these cracks come from aerobatics - most certainly
>that doesn't help - but my rudder is almost never used except in
>takeoff/landing phase.
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP hours
>www.rvforum.org MAY 31st!!!
>
>www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
I suspect that we are confusing 2 different issues. RTV was used in the
4/6/(8?) to prevent flex cracks around the stiffener rivets. The 7/9
control surfaces use a 2 piece skin with a wedge shaped trailing edge
stiffener & rivets through all 3 pieces . The proseal suggestion (it was
not the engineer's design but an idea from Dave Anders & Tracy Saylor)
was to assist in holding the assembly straight while riveting. My take
on it was that it has the equivalance of brads or staples in a glued
wooden assembly. Therefore any 'temporary' adhesive that's thin enough
& reasonably strong should work.
You can read all about it in the 2001 third issue of the RVator, which I
received as my 'free sample' with my -7 tail kit.
Charlie
(spent the afternoon assembling the V stab, heard the pleasing sound of
a radial so I stopped, sat back on the deck & watched my neighbor doing
stalls, wingovers etc in his '29 TravelAir. Life is good.)
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Well said, Dennis. Maybe the smaller Cessna's are like the Ford model T's
and A's, along with Windows XP and Catalina 30's. They all were or are so
successful that they dominated their markets, which they did by appealing to
a broad interest group. Almost by definition, they lack the special purpose
design of RV's or Corvettes or racing sailboats or maybe Linux for all I
know. So we can all bash them and feel confident that most will agree with
us and we can justify our bashing by pointing out where something a little
more specialized is better in whatever it is specialized at. Someone comes
up with a lame name that is a put-down, like Spam Can or Star Wars or
Windoze and we can just put them down by code word - no effort or intellect
required.
Just think: our RV's are becoming so popular that they might be in danger
of the same thing by some self-aggrandizing elite sub-group of the homebuilt
aviation crowd.
We put down Cessna's because they are everywhere. They are everywhere
because they do their job very well.
Terry
Do not archive
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: Taildragger Wheel Landings |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> I am required to get some tailwheel flight training and have not done it
> already if this question may seem a little out of you-know-what:
>
> If the field is a soft field, would the recommendation still be to push the
> stick forward after touching down on the mains? Does the higher speed
> landing technique apply equally well to paved and grass strips and soft
> strips?
>
> Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up O-360 3XG reserved.
> Working on Canopy reinforcement kit of Finish Kit
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aronsond" <aronsond@pacbell.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Taildragger Wheel Landings
For soft fields, use a tail low, slow touchdown. use a small amount of power
blowing on the elevator if needed to keep it held down. If the field is real
soft use no brakes as it will slow you down plenty anyway.
Soft field flying is explained pretty clearly in C-150 Spam Can manual. Even
though it is a Trike, you can use the same technique at touch down. Slow as
possible at touchdown with full back stick. Maybe a little power to glue the
tail down. If it is too soft wait a day or so for it to dry some. Sport flying
should never be hurried. Your instructor will (should) know what is best...
Phil, at Litchfield, IL RV-6 #20762 someday. In the mean time I have to fly
a
stinkin' old Pitt's S1S (the best little plane in the world)
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan or Lezlie Pender" <pender@airmail.net>
At the risk of asking for plenty of opinions, is there anyone out there who has
operated O320 powered RV's with both fixed pitch and C/S props. Dismissing
the difference in cost, is there noticeable performance advantage for one or the
other? And I understand the weight cg difference.
Bryan
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan or Lezlie Pender" <pender@airmail.net>
I'm activly shopping for a flying RV-4. Bad paint or no paint, high time (first
run) O320, all ok. Need to see nice sheet metal work, everything else is
secondary.
Thanks
Bryan
(972) 775-1067
(214) 552-9561
Dallas TX area
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Terry:
> Just think: our RV's are becoming so popular that they might be in danger
> of the same thing by some self-aggrandizing elite sub-group of the homebuilt
> aviation crowd.
I've already experienced that quite a few times. Some builders of other types
like to bash RVs quite a bit, probably for many of the same reasons you brought
up wrt Cessnas.
Tedd
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: OT Looking for a Paper/ Plenums |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Martin Hone" <martin.hone@tradergroup.com.au>
Hi Doug,
I can't assist with your query on the NASA papers, but I can say that when Paul
McBride, Lycoming guru, was out here recently, he was very much in favour of
using a plenum on my RV 6.
My AUD$0.02
Cheers
Martin in Oz
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens <owens@aerovironment.com>
Around our airport, RV's are called "Ramp Flees" by the Fast Glass crowd.
Laird RV-6
>snip
>Just think: our RV's are becoming so popular that they might be in danger
>of the same thing by some self-aggrandizing elite sub-group of the homebuilt
>aviation crowd.
>snip
>Terry
>
> Do not archive
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: Stainless Wheel Pant Brackets |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Robbie Attaway is his name. www.attawayair.com
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
Subject: RV-List: Stainless Wheel Pant Brackets
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC"
<Fred.Stucklen@UTCFuelCells.com>
>
> I seem to recall that I recently saw Stainless Steel wheel pant brackets
> for Van's newest wheel pants. But for the life of me I don't know where it
> was. I've searched the archives and all my catalogs to no avail.
> Does anybody on the list recall seeing these? If so, where can I find
> them?
>
> Fred Stucklen
> RV-6A N926RV Reserved
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens <owens@aerovironment.com>
I swapped out my Sensenich FP for a Hartzell after 200 hours on an O-360.
Like a friend says, "eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and
collect aluminum cans on the side of the road if you must, but go
with the CS prop"
I'd have to agree with him.....
Laird RV-6 700 hrs
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan or Lezlie Pender" <pender@airmail.net>
>
>At the risk of asking for plenty of opinions, is there anyone out
>there who has operated O320 powered RV's with both fixed pitch and
>C/S props. Dismissing the difference in cost, is there noticeable
>performance advantage for one or the other? And I understand the
>weight cg difference.
>
>Bryan
>
>
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: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bryan or Lezlie Pender"
<pender@airmail.net>
>
> At the risk of asking for plenty of opinions, is there anyone out there
who has operated O320 powered RV's with both fixed pitch and C/S props.
Dismissing the difference in cost, is there noticeable performance advantage
for one or the other? And I understand the weight cg difference.
>
> Bryan
I have flown both FP and CS version of both the RV-6 and RV-4. Here is my
opinion on CS props:
Pros:
1. Moves CG forward which solves the aft loading situation on the RV-4.
Markedly improves the pitch stability of both airplanes.
2. A VERY marked increase in takeoff acceleration. I dare say it is nearly
twice as fast as a FP.
3. Greatly improved rate of climb. Again in the order of 75% improvement.
Great high altitude capability.
4. Lower cruise rpm for the same TAS. Thus less fuel consumption (about 1
gph) and less wear and tear on the engine.
Cons
1. Higher maintenance and overhaul costs (although I flew my Cessna 180 for
11 years with no prop maintenance costs until the overhaul)
2. No real difference in cruise speed if the FP has the proper pitch.
Granted the CS prop and governor is pricey but you will never regret it.
Doug Weiler
RV-4 N464EM - sold
RV-4 N722DW - should be flying in a month or so
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: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>
>
>RE Turn Cordinators. The idea is to get the axis at an angle that the plane
>can't do so that any roll or yaw causes it to read.
>
>The 30degs is not possible for most planes to accomplish as this is relative
>to the longitudinal axis not the horizon. So 30 - 8 gives you 22 deg. Again
>hard to do, but might be possible in a humper dumper upside down whifferdil
If you open up a turn coordinator and see how it works, it becomes
obvious that the panel angle, within reason, has little effect on it's
operation. The gyro axis points side-to-side (parallel to the panel face.)
The gimbal only allows the gyro to roll.
When you yaw the instrument at a constant rate, the gyro rolls,
pulling against the gimbal springs and deflecting the needle on the face in
proportion to the yaw rate. (Because of conservation of angular momentum
the gyro precesses at right angles to it's forced movement in yaw.) The
faster the yaw rate, the harder the gyro pulls against the gimbal springs.
When you pitch the instrument, nothing happens. When you roll the
instrument, the gyro stays stationary in space, and the needle deflects
because the instrument has rolled relative to the stationary gyro. The
springs will then restore the gimbal to center position, relatively
quickly, perhaps a count of two.
Because of the direction that the gyro is set to spin, a change in
roll angle or a yaw rate can give a similar needle deflection, initially. A
constant roll angle will not hold the needle deflected forever, however. It
will restore to center pretty fast. A constant yaw angle will not cause any
deflection at all in the needle. Only yaw rate moves the needle. Yaw angle
has no effect whatsoever on the needle position.
If you yaw the instrument, it will deflect to show the rate of yaw
during the move, but will instantly center once yaw movement stops. If you
roll the instrument, it will indicate a mixture of the rate of roll and the
roll angle. If the roll rate is slow and constant, the instrument will
settle into an indication of roll rate. (Not the same calibration as the
yaw rate.)
The 8 degree angle of the panel will very slightly decrease it's
sensitivity to roll angle and very slightly increase it's sensitivity to
yaw angle. The sensitivity to rates in both roll and yaw will not really
change.
The cosine of 8 degrees is 0.990268 so the sensitivity to yaw
angle will increase to something like 0.9% of the roll angle sensitivity.
Basically some of the roll angle sensitivity is now transferred into
unwanted yaw angle sensitivity. If you make a quick yaw movement and then
hold the yaw angle, the needle will not center quite as quickly as it would
on a perpendicular panel.
I don't think you would ever detect the difference in a holding
pattern.
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: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
> The 8 degree angle of the panel will very slightly decrease it's
>sensitivity to roll angle and very slightly increase it's sensitivity to
>yaw angle. The sensitivity to rates in both roll and yaw will not really
>change.
>
> The cosine of 8 degrees is 0.990268 so the sensitivity to yaw
>angle will increase to something like 0.9% of the roll angle sensitivity.
>Basically some of the roll angle sensitivity is now transferred into
>unwanted yaw angle sensitivity. If you make a quick yaw movement and then
>hold the yaw angle, the needle will not center quite as quickly as it would
>on a perpendicular panel.
>
> I don't think you would ever detect the difference in a holding
>pattern.
>
>
Bill, thanks......I have taken the do not ar.....................off so this
can be found by others looking for info related to this threads.
Thanks again,
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
RV-7 slider/fuselage
http://rvflying.tripod.com
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: Cessna bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
I believe I have earned the right to bash them if I want to. :) When
you have spent hours and hours instructing in everything from 140s to
180s you learn what to like and not like about them. The only one
that I would consider owning myself would be a 180 with a Robertson STOL
kit. But then I feel that way about all SPAM CANS they are only good for
getting to point B from point A everything in between gets pretty boring
after a while.
Jerry
do not archive
------------------
Rick Galati wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
>
> Denis, Amen brother. As I continue FWF work on my RV-6A, I have come to appreciate
my Cessna as never before. My experience has been those who trash this wonderful
flying machine fall into two catagories. Those who took their primary
training in one and never looked back OR renters aka airplane owner wannabees
that after talking (begging) their wives into reluctantly agreeing to go along
with a kit purchase and subsequently committing to the RV design sit back
in the smug knowledge that as a future airplane owner, (but technically for the
moment still a wannabee) they can look down from a loftier, more smug perch
called "high performance" in which to pass wannabee judgment. When I get tired
of pounding all those rivets, at least I can hop in my trusty old Cessna on a
moments notice and in short order remember why it is I spend my money this way.
Yesterday, while trying to get that darn lower cowl to fit better, I stopped
for a moment to watch a powered parachute whining
l!
> oudly as it made way ever so slowly over my house. And as I watched the pilot
dangling his feet into the "slipstream" from 300 or so feet above, I thought
how lucky he was, and high performance had nothing to do with it. It was all
about the experience. Flight is a gift. We should accept it graciously. Rick
Galati I get tired of seeing people bashing Cessnas on this list. I
have never
> owned one, and only rented a C-172 for seven hours in order to get a private
> pilot license, and then fly my RV-6A.
>
> Yes, I was just as guilty as everyone else in trash talking the Cessnas.
> Everyone said they were real dogs, and of poor quality. As was usually the
> case, I found that my own experience was just the opposite of what I
> expected. It was quite pleasant! The skyhawk was a fine performing and
> handling airplane, almost ideally suited to its mission, and it makes a
> great trainer. It was very restricted in its aerobatic capabilities, which
> is designed in as a positive feature. Further, it is durable and easily
> maintained to very reliable standards.
>
> There is a reason you see these things all over the world. They are
> wonderful planes.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Cessna Bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
WOW! A private license in only 7 hours!
Dave
do not archive
Denis Walsh wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
>
> Delete now if you dont want to read my emotional opinion
>
> I get tired of seeing people bashing Cessnas on this list. I have never
> owned one, and only rented a C-172 for seven hours in order to get a private
> pilot license, and then fly my RV-6A.
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: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Doug Weiler wrote:
>
> Pros:
>
> 1. Moves CG forward which solves the aft loading situation on the RV-4.
> Markedly improves the pitch stability of both airplanes.
> 2. A VERY marked increase in takeoff acceleration. I dare say it is nearly
> twice as fast as a FP.
> 3. Greatly improved rate of climb. Again in the order of 75% improvement.
> Great high altitude capability.
> 4. Lower cruise rpm for the same TAS. Thus less fuel consumption (about 1
> gph) and less wear and tear on the engine.
>
Whoa!! pretty impressive numbers there Doug. So you are telling him that
with a CS prop he is going to get off the ground twice as fast and then
have a VSI of 75% more? I would like to fly your airplane compared to my
old tired worn out RV-6. :-)
The lower cruise RPM for same TAS only becomes true as you start
cruising at higher altitudes.
Jerry
do not archive
> Cons
>
> 1. Higher maintenance and overhaul costs (although I flew my Cessna 180 for
> 11 years with no prop maintenance costs until the overhaul)
> 2. No real difference in cruise speed if the FP has the proper pitch.
>
> Granted the CS prop and governor is pricey but you will never regret it.
>
> Doug Weiler
> RV-4 N464EM - sold
> RV-4 N722DW - should be flying in a month or so
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Cling Window Tint |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> Alex,
>
> The film you used (and which was hard to remove later)... Was
> it the static cling type or the type that attaches with water
> and adhesive?
>
> KB
Kyle, it was the sort that attached using water with a little soap for
wetting. That is what the original post discussed, and I thought that
is what was being discussed.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 296 hours
www.rvforum.org MAY 31st!!!
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>
>Doug Weiler wrote:
>>
>> Pros:
>>
>> 1. Moves CG forward which solves the aft loading situation on the RV-4.
>> Markedly improves the pitch stability of both airplanes.
>> 2. A VERY marked increase in takeoff acceleration. I dare say it is nearly
>> twice as fast as a FP.
>> 3. Greatly improved rate of climb. Again in the order of 75% improvement.
>> Great high altitude capability.
>> 4. Lower cruise rpm for the same TAS. Thus less fuel consumption (about 1
>> gph) and less wear and tear on the engine.
>>
>
>Whoa!! pretty impressive numbers there Doug. So you are telling him that
>with a CS prop he is going to get off the ground twice as fast and then
>have a VSI of 75% more? I would like to fly your airplane compared to my
>old tired worn out RV-6. :-)
>The lower cruise RPM for same TAS only becomes true as you start
>cruising at higher altitudes.
>Jerry
>
The lower cruise rpm for the same TAS is true in any condition where
the FP guy would be at less than full throttle. The CS guy could get
the same power (and the same TAS) using full throttle and a lower rpm.
So, even at low altitude if you wanted to cruise at say 65% power,
the CS guy could do it at a lower rpm than the FP guy (assuming that
prop rpm prohibited bands don't come into play).
On take-off, the CS prop has two advantages: the engine can run at
rated rpm, so it makes more power. And the prop pitch is much finer,
so the blades aren't stalled like most FP prop blades are during the
first part of the take-off roll. If the FP prop guy gets a static
rpm of 2200, then the CS guy has about a 14% power advantage during
the early part of the take-off roll (based on a spreadsheet version
of the O-360 power chart). I don't have much RV time, and I frankly
don't recall exactly what rpm I've seen on FP RVs during the first
part of the take-off roll. The fact that the CS prop blades aren't
stalled means the performance advantage is more than the 14% power
increase would lead you to believe. I suspect the actual performance
difference is less than Doug opined though.
I'm betting you can find both FP and CS RVs near you, and the best
way to make a decision is to go for a couple of rides. But don't do
it unless you are willing to spend the money on the CS prop.
You don't need the CS prop, as the RV has a great power to weight
ratio, so it does just fine on a FP prop. Just like a 427 Cobra has
enough torque that it could do just fine with a single-gear
transmission. But for some reason people always want more than one
gear, so they can maximize the performance at any speed.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DC ENR Headsets |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Rathbun" <meanuncle@attbi.com>
Another possibility if you like your current headset is a conversion. I did
mine with a Headstets Inc. kit, was pleased with the results and it wasn't
that hard to do.
Rick Rathbun
RV8 forever build
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
Subject: RV-List: DC ENR Headsets
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Weiler" <dougweil@pressenter.com>
>
> Fellow Listers:
>
> Does anyone out there have any experience with David Clarks ENC headsets.
I
> am considering upgrading from my H10-60s and would like an opinion.
>
> Thanks
>
> Doug Weiler
> Hudson, WI
>
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEREK REED" <dreed@cdsnet.net>
Also the manual adjustment for ground reference runs nearly to the extreme
of it's travel when mounted on an 8 degree panel.
Derek Reed
Do not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff)
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@boulder.nist.gov>
>
> I don't think you would ever detect the difference in a holding
> pattern.
>
>
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: | Mil Spec Paint Info |
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Guys,
I sent this info to Doug Reeves last week when he was asking about paint
colors for the T-37 that he wants to duplicate on his RV-6. He posted it
on his website but I thought I'd send it to the List so that it will be
archived for future reference....I've spent countless hours trying to dig
up this information and maybe it will save someone else the trouble.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D finishing....
Hi Doug,
Since I decided a couple years ago to use the T-6A paint scheme on my
-8A, I've spent a lot of time searching for mil spec paint info. The mil
spec you want to match for you Tweet paint scheme is called Federal
Standard 595 and has color chips of all paints used on military aircraft.
I finally found out that you can request a free copy of this spec (your
tax dollars at work) by sending a fax to the DODSSP (Dept. of Defense
Single Stock Point) in Philadelphia, PA. The number is (215) 697-1462.
Just fax a sheet of paper with your name and mailing address on it, and
state that you want a copy of Federal Standard 595. It took a couple
weeks to receive it in the mail. The DODSSP also has a phone number
(215) 697-6257, but if you call them they'll just tell you to send a
fax....you can't order by phone apparently.
By the way, the T-6A Texan II is the new USAF trainer that is replacing
the
Tweet. It will also be used by the Navy but they don't have any yet.
The
USAF has them in service now at Randolph and Moody. I don't know if the
T-37 uses the same colors for red, white and blue that the T-6A uses but
my
bet is that it probably does. If you want to make absolutely sure,
you'll
have to find someone who works on or flies T-37's who can give you the
595
paint colors, then you can use Federal Standard 595 paint chips to either
match it closely with an existing paint of your choosing, or custom mix
it,
or in some cases, find a commercially available paint that already meets
the mil standard. Deft brand paints are used on the T-6A and meet the
mil specs if you're willing to pay for it. I hope to use an existing
color from my local paint
dealer (Dupont Imron or Sherwin Williams) that's as close as possible and
stick with a standard that I can easily get in the future instead of
getting a custom mix or more expensive paint that meets the mil standard.
I got the 595 paint colors used on the T-6A from Jerry Esquenazi, who is
an
instructor pilot in the USAF at Randolph AFB. He's also building an
RV-8.
He was very helpful and took a bunch of pictures of the T-6A for me. I
met
him and his wife at OSH last year and they are great folks, typical of
other complete strangers I've met in the RV community who are willing to
go out of their way to help a fellow builder.
The T-6A 595 paint colors are:
Red 11136
White 17925
Blue 15044
Yellow 13538
Black 37038
FYI, the first number indicates gloss level, with "1" meaning high gloss,
"2" meaning a semi-gloss, and "3" meaning flat...so the Black color
referenced here is a very flat black. I'll probably use a semi-gloss
that
doesn't scuff up as easily as the flat paint does. The yellow color is
only used for Rescue arrows and a few other small panels and placards.
If you want to do anything in vinyl graphics, I got vinyl color charts
from
half a dozen different graphics companies listed in the Yeller Pages and
found that AV/GRAFIX (1-800-352-2296 or website at: www.avgrafix.com) has
the vinyl colors that most closely match the 595 paint colors referenced
above (for the red, blue and yellow especially...the black and white are
pretty straightforward of course). They have an existing catalog of
military placards and may already
have exactly what you need....if not, they do custom stuff too. Just for
reference, the vinyl I intend to use for my placards is the Avery
Graphics A8 Series:
Dark Red A8350-0
White A8001-0
Dark Navy Blue A8597-0
Dark Yellow A8150-0
Black A8090-0
You'll probably get a color chart from AV/GRAFIX faster than you will get
Fed Std 595 from the government, so if you're pressed for time you could
use these vinyl colors to find a matching paint, and be close enough that
nobody will know the difference....
Hope this helps you and anyone else who wants to use a military paint
scheme on their personal fighter!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D hoping to paint yet this summer....
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
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: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" <neilmcleod@direcway.com>
A good comparison with actual flight test numbers is in "21 Years of
RVator".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorto1537@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: C/S Prop or not
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
> >
> >
> >Doug Weiler wrote:
> >>
> >> Pros:
> >>
> >> 1. Moves CG forward which solves the aft loading situation on the
RV-4.
> >> Markedly improves the pitch stability of both airplanes.
> >> 2. A VERY marked increase in takeoff acceleration. I dare say it is
nearly
> >> twice as fast as a FP.
> >> 3. Greatly improved rate of climb. Again in the order of 75%
improvement.
> >> Great high altitude capability.
> >> 4. Lower cruise rpm for the same TAS. Thus less fuel consumption
(about 1
> >> gph) and less wear and tear on the engine.
> >>
> >
> >Whoa!! pretty impressive numbers there Doug. So you are telling him that
> >with a CS prop he is going to get off the ground twice as fast and then
> >have a VSI of 75% more? I would like to fly your airplane compared to my
> >old tired worn out RV-6. :-)
> >The lower cruise RPM for same TAS only becomes true as you start
> >cruising at higher altitudes.
> >Jerry
> >
>
> The lower cruise rpm for the same TAS is true in any condition where
> the FP guy would be at less than full throttle. The CS guy could get
> the same power (and the same TAS) using full throttle and a lower rpm.
>
> So, even at low altitude if you wanted to cruise at say 65% power,
> the CS guy could do it at a lower rpm than the FP guy (assuming that
> prop rpm prohibited bands don't come into play).
>
> On take-off, the CS prop has two advantages: the engine can run at
> rated rpm, so it makes more power. And the prop pitch is much finer,
> so the blades aren't stalled like most FP prop blades are during the
> first part of the take-off roll. If the FP prop guy gets a static
> rpm of 2200, then the CS guy has about a 14% power advantage during
> the early part of the take-off roll (based on a spreadsheet version
> of the O-360 power chart). I don't have much RV time, and I frankly
> don't recall exactly what rpm I've seen on FP RVs during the first
> part of the take-off roll. The fact that the CS prop blades aren't
> stalled means the performance advantage is more than the 14% power
> increase would lead you to believe. I suspect the actual performance
> difference is less than Doug opined though.
>
> I'm betting you can find both FP and CS RVs near you, and the best
> way to make a decision is to go for a couple of rides. But don't do
> it unless you are willing to spend the money on the CS prop.
>
> You don't need the CS prop, as the RV has a great power to weight
> ratio, so it does just fine on a FP prop. Just like a 427 Cobra has
> enough torque that it could do just fine with a single-gear
> transmission. But for some reason people always want more than one
> gear, so they can maximize the performance at any speed.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ohio builders |
--> RV-List message posted by: N223RV@aol.com
I live in SE Michigan with a flying RV-4. Just finished the hours about 2
weeks before SNF. I don't know where you are in Ohio, but if you are near
Michigan, contact me offline and we can set up a time to come look. Heck, if
the weather is nice we can even fly! And if it is real nice, I'll come fly
down to Ohio and show you my plane at your nearest airport!
-Mike Kraus
N223RV RV-4
do not archive
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: | Re: Cessna Bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Laird Owens wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Laird Owens <owens@aerovironment.com>
>
> Around our airport, RV's are called "Ramp Flees" by the Fast Glass crowd.
>
> Laird RV-6
Cute..... That is a second cousin to a crotch cricket........
Phil
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael Holcomb" <mholcomb@houston.rr.com>
I recall seeing a review of ANR headsets either in print or on the web and
can't remember where I saw it. Does anyone remember seeing an article
comparing ANR headsets in the last two or three months? I believe the
conclusion was for a Lightspeed model.
Thanks,
Mike
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: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEREK REED" <dreed@cdsnet.net>
Sorry ,that was with reference to the horizontal Gyro.
Derek Reed
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Turn coordinators (was: More stuff)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEREK REED" <dreed@cdsnet.net>
>
> Also the manual adjustment for ground reference runs nearly to the extreme
> of it's travel when mounted on an 8 degree panel.
>
> Derek Reed
>
> Do not Archive
>
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 |
|
"RV-list" <rv-list@matronics.com>,
"aeroelectric-list" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Builder documentation on the Web-summary |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
I received 13 excellent, helpful replies to my request for "how to create drawings,
sketches, & tables viewable on a web site". Thank you all.
Here's a summary of what I learned:
1. Drawings made by CAD programs (Autocad, Intellicad-an Autocad "full features
clone" (I have Airplane PDQ which has full Intellicad embedded):
a. File, Export to File, in the Save As box navigate to the desired folder,
use or change the file name, then go to File Type & scroll down to & select .bmp;
that all disappears and you are back in Intellicad with the "Selection Menu"
box popped up - click "select all" then press "Enter" (a non-intuitive response
to a command line question) and in a short moment the conversion is completed.
b. Then use Paint (MSPAINT) to open the file & immediately Save As a .jpg
Everyone with Windows has Microsoft's "Paint" for this .bmp to .jpg conversion.
And everyone with Windows has Kodak's "Imaging" program that views
.jpgs, plus .jpg files/images are imbedded directly into aweb page and thus viewable
by a browser.
(interesting side note: My "Imaging" pgm won't let me save anything as .jpg
. . . weird.)
2. Non-cad drawings and sketches (fuel system, simple electrical schematics or
wire diagrams, etc)
a. Hand draw and color sketches and simply scan them as .jpg files to insert
into web page; or,
b. Use "Paint" (MSPAINT.EXE in Programs, Accessories) for Sketches -
c. Excel has a "drawing" mode with lots of features.
- Another lister several months ago shared how he used Excel to "draw"
a very neat electrical schematic.
- My impression is that one would be able to "draw" a neater, more detailed
drawing than using PAINT - maybe easier, too, since Exel has more drawing
features than the rudimentary lines, rectangle, and "free hand with a mouse"
of PAINT.
3. Lists/tables created in Excel:
"File", "Save as" and select .html as file type; or "File", "Save as Web Page"
and navigate through the pop-ups.
- This isn't a .jpg but it works - displayed nicely.
-- However, if I want to control how it displays, I think I'd have
to spend extra time to gain a lot more knowledge of HTML than I currently have
- When I viewed this file in my browser and clicked View, Source, it was a
long complex document, not like a single line entry for an anchor tag to reference
a single .jpg image.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Shertz suggested exporting files as .gif. I tried that on an Intellicad drawing
and it displayed as a black rectangle, without the colored lines of the
drawing. I can't say more about use of .gif. What programs will display it?
Other tips (summary listing):
1. Eric M. Jones: If you have an interest in CAD, please see http://www.tenlinks.com/CAD/products/free/cad.htm. This is a repository of all things in free cad, and add-ons too
2. Chris Good: Powerpoint has an "export to html" function that creates the pages
on the web site.
3. Ernest Christley: Try "The Gimp". There is a version for Windo[ws] <snip>
It's a Photoshop wannabe, that will cost you exactly $0. You'll be able to work
on the JPG files and do lots of other neat things if you'll just spend a few
hours with the included documentation. As a bonus, the JPG files it produces
tend to be about 1/4th the size of what my digital camera program produces.
4. Dale Smith: "jpeg optimizer" will trim your photos' file size literally to any size you like, all the while showing you in a window what the downsized picture file looks like! ... it's shareware located for download on CNet at: http://download.com.com/3000-2192-9623164.html
- File sizes a third of the original show with almost negligible differences.
If it does degrade, just kick it up a few percent. You don't need to re-size
most pics down to enjoy the benefits, but cropping out the unneeded always
helps keep the filesize in check.
5. Rob Housman: Use "FinePrint" to save the file in Adobe Acrobat's pdf format. Go to www.fineprint.com and download the free version of that program. [ This sounds like one to get familiar with. ]
6. Dan Checkoway: There are plenty of forums and self-teach web sites out there for web development. See http://www.w3schools.com, for example. [ I went to this and will use it as my primary learning tool for web stuff.]
7. Joshua Siler: Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator, with a tablet input device,
are the
best ways to do this [sketches]. However they are quite expensive.
- Try Paint Shop Pro 8.0 - you can find it at http://www.download.com . It will let you create an
image, and then you can save it as a file format that windows can read.
David Carter
RV-6 (into first wiring - to tail lights; started my "Electrical System Loads by
Phase of Flight" spreadsheet; needing to sketch 13B rotary engine cooling system
design variations for peer review) (learning to document my work and "systems"
somewhere besides my "Word Perfect" word processor for DOS)
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: Cessna Bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Don Diehl <diehldon@attbi.com>
Sorry guys, but I just can't resist this thread.
Like so many of you, my first flight, and solo and license check ride was in
a C-150.
I have forgotten many firsts, even that first, but not my first solo.
And the C-150 that consummated it with me.
Cessnas are a very important part of my life.
Since then my logs show 504 hours in a C-195, 1262 hours in a C-170A and a
smattering in C-120, 140, 175, 172 and even an hour of dual in a Citation.
Every takeoff, every minute in the air has been a very special privilege.
All these Cessnas have been a vital part of my blessing of being able to fly
for fun, just for the pure sensual pleasure of it.
My hours of pleasure in the sky are carefully counted and recorded but all
those hours of polishing, wrenching, parts cleaning and writing too many
really big checks to make it all possible are forgotten. Perhaps it's like
childbirth for a happy mother; those memories fade away.
Now for the Cessna criticisms. In restoring my C-170A I purchased too may
kilo-dollars of genuine Cessna parts. On average the quality was TERRIBLE
particularly for sheet metal pieces. Even the inventory control was bad,
wrong part for the part number. Let's hope this is not symptomatic of a
company in trouble.
Perhaps not a criticism of Cessna but a RV bonus is my observation that my
RV-4 is much more responsive, much easier to land than my C-170. Has anyone
else made this observation?
By the way, if you are aware of anyone shopping for a very special C-170A,
give them my e-mail address.
Do not archive.
Don Diehl
Bremerton WA
RV4, N28EW
200 most happy hours
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: Cessna Bashing |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
Laird Owens wrote:
> Around our airport, RV's are called "Ramp Flees" by the Fast Glass crowd.
Fast glass?? whatever. Find a glass plane that has a similar weight, same HP,
same landing speed
(I'd like to see that one) and I don't think you will notice a very big difference
in cruise speed.
Then there is the price.
do not archive
--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
chrisw@programmer.net
N35 20.492'
W97 34.342'
"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
It is now 65 years since I first started flying and enjoy it just as much now as
then.
For me I can honestly say there are no bad airplanes " some are just better than
others".
Eustace Bowhay
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: | Re: C/S Prop or not |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>>Doug Weiler wrote:
>>
>>> Pros:
>>>
>>> 1. Moves CG forward which solves the aft loading situation on the RV-4.
>>> Markedly improves the pitch stability of both airplanes.
>>> 2. A VERY marked increase in takeoff acceleration. I dare say it is nearly
>>> twice as fast as a FP.
>>> 3. Greatly improved rate of climb. Again in the order of 75% improvement.
>>> Great high altitude capability.
>>> 4. Lower cruise rpm for the same TAS. Thus less fuel consumption (about 1
>>> gph) and less wear and tear on the engine.
>>>
>>
>>Whoa!! pretty impressive numbers there Doug. So you are telling him that
>>with a CS prop he is going to get off the ground twice as fast and then
>>have a VSI of 75% more? I would like to fly your airplane compared to my
>>old tired worn out RV-6. :-)
>>The lower cruise RPM for same TAS only becomes true as you start
>>cruising at higher altitudes.
>>Jerry
>>
>
>
> The lower cruise rpm for the same TAS is true in any condition where
> the FP guy would be at less than full throttle. The CS guy could get
> the same power (and the same TAS) using full throttle and a lower rpm.
>
> So, even at low altitude if you wanted to cruise at say 65% power,
> the CS guy could do it at a lower rpm than the FP guy (assuming that
> prop rpm prohibited bands don't come into play).
>
> On take-off, the CS prop has two advantages: the engine can run at
> rated rpm, so it makes more power. And the prop pitch is much finer,
> so the blades aren't stalled like most FP prop blades are during the
> first part of the take-off roll. If the FP prop guy gets a static
> rpm of 2200, then the CS guy has about a 14% power advantage during
> the early part of the take-off roll (based on a spreadsheet version
> of the O-360 power chart). I don't have much RV time, and I frankly
> don't recall exactly what rpm I've seen on FP RVs during the first
> part of the take-off roll. The fact that the CS prop blades aren't
> stalled means the performance advantage is more than the 14% power
> increase would lead you to believe. I suspect the actual performance
> difference is less than Doug opined though.
>
> I'm betting you can find both FP and CS RVs near you, and the best
> way to make a decision is to go for a couple of rides. But don't do
> it unless you are willing to spend the money on the CS prop.
Kevin, I am betting I could also, living just six miles from Vans. :)
I have many hours flying both FP and CS RVs and find what I wrote above
to be pretty accurate. I am sure Doug was exaggerating somewhat with his
numbers.
> You don't need the CS prop, as the RV has a great power to weight
> ratio, so it does just fine on a FP prop. Just like a 427 Cobra has
> enough torque that it could do just fine with a single-gear
> transmission. But for some reason people always want more than one
> gear, so they can maximize the performance at any speed.
Or like my 410hp 1967 Camaro. :)
Jerry
do not archive
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! --
|