Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:30 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (Kevin Horton)
2. 05:21 AM - Fuel Tank Dimple Dies- Cleveland Tools (Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com)
3. 05:29 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Dimple Dies- Cleveland Tools (Jerry Springer)
4. 05:37 AM - Re: Fuel Tank Dimple Dies (Doug Gray)
5. 05:42 AM - Re: bucking bars (Doug Gray)
6. 06:15 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (LarryRobertHelming)
7. 06:21 AM - Re: FW: RV accident REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE autolearn=ham version=2.55 (Wayne Reese)
8. 06:38 AM - Re: FW: RV accident (Scott Bilinski)
9. 06:57 AM - Re: RV-List (glenn williams)
10. 07:27 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (Gil Alexander)
11. 07:46 AM - CO Accident this weekend (John Helms)
12. 07:53 AM - Re: RV-List (Cy Galley)
13. 08:01 AM - Re: RV accident (Bill Dube)
14. 08:19 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (Bill Dube)
15. 08:49 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (van Bladeren, Ron)
16. 08:51 AM - Best BBQ on the planet... (Mark Phillips)
17. 09:30 AM - Spinner (Eustace Bowhay)
18. 09:30 AM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (kempthornes)
19. 09:35 AM - Re: RV-List (RV3)
20. 09:48 AM - Re: RV-List (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
21. 10:25 AM - Re: CO Accident this weekend (Dwpetrus@aol.com)
22. 10:26 AM - Re: my view of accidents (MeangreenRV4)
23. 11:14 AM - Re: rv-list: rv accident (Crosley, Rich)
24. 11:29 AM - Registration (smoothweasel@juno.com)
25. 11:43 AM - new Builder's Log Book (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
26. 11:53 AM - Re: FW: RV accident (Kevin Horton)
27. 11:59 AM - Re: CO Accident this weekend (Bill VonDane)
28. 12:16 PM - Re: Re: rv-list: rv accident (SportAV8R@aol.com)
29. 12:40 PM - Re: FW: RV accident (Canyon)
30. 12:47 PM - Re: Registration (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
31. 12:52 PM - Re: FW: RV accident (Tracy Crook)
32. 01:07 PM - Re: Re: rv-list: rv accident (Pete Elia)
33. 01:45 PM - Re: RV-List (Dave Bristol)
34. 02:03 PM - Re: FW: RV accident (Kevin Horton)
35. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: rv-list: rv accident (Paul Besing)
36. 02:33 PM - Re: Was RV accident -- Now engine out techniques (Canyon)
37. 03:01 PM - Boone fly-in (Jack Textor)
38. 03:30 PM - Re: RV Flying, NOT an accident (delete if not interested) (lucky macy)
39. 03:41 PM - Re: Registration (Mike Robertson)
40. 04:36 PM - Re: Registration (Cy Galley)
41. 04:38 PM - Bucking Bars Again (rpmiller)
42. 04:50 PM - Re: Registration (Art Glaser)
43. 05:35 PM - Re: Bucking Bars Again (Dan Checkoway)
44. 05:50 PM - my view of accidents (Jerry Springer)
45. 06:14 PM - Re: prop spacer thanks (Jim Oke)
46. 06:18 PM - Re: RV accident (Camille Patch)
47. 06:20 PM - Re: RV Flying, NOT an accident (delete if not interested) (Terry Williams)
48. 06:35 PM - Re: RV accident (Canyon)
49. 07:13 PM - Re: Bucking Bars Again (Jim Jewell)
50. 07:38 PM - Re: RV accident (Jerry Springer)
51. 07:56 PM - cowling hinge pins (Steve J Hurlbut)
52. 08:29 PM - Re: Repairmans certificate was registration (glenn williams)
53. 08:34 PM - Re: RV accident (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
54. 08:39 PM - Re: cowling hinge pins (Neil McLeod)
55. 09:06 PM - Re: Repairmans certificate was registration (Jerry Springer)
56. 09:17 PM - board standoffs (Dan Checkoway)
57. 09:44 PM - Re: board standoffs (Larry Bowen)
58. 10:25 PM - Re: my view of accidents (Ross S)
59. 10:40 PM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (Vanremog@aol.com)
60. 11:00 PM - Re: board standoffs (Gil Alexander)
61. 11:07 PM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a (Gil Alexander)
62. 11:13 PM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (Bruce Gray)
63. 11:33 PM - Re: board standoffs (Jim Jewell)
64. 11:41 PM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (Meketa)
65. 11:45 PM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (James Jula)
66. 11:49 PM - Tires and brakes (Meketa)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
>
>I would never use the "Carling" switches sold by Bob again. I only used them
>on the low draw systems, but regret it. Next time only Microswitch type
>sealed units with screw terminals will be used for all circuits.
>
Now you've got my interest, as I've got a whole bunch of Bob's
Carling switches in my aircraft. What problems have you had with the
switches? Or, if you haven't had any problems, what is about the
switches that concerns you?
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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: | Fuel Tank Dimple Dies- Cleveland Tools |
07/01/2003 08:18:13 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com
My experience with the fuel tank dies (Purchased from Cleveland) was mixed.
I thought that they did a great job giving a little extra room for the
sealant to fill the gaps, but my dies were faulty and only lasted about 30
or so hits before the male end began to deform. When this first began to
occur, I thought that maybe I had missed one of my holes while drilling out
the skins, but after close examination under a lit magnifying glass, I
could see that the die had formed a ridge around the male thingamajig which
made it difficult to push it through the skin holes. (As an editorial
note- the magnifying glass is a great tool for checking the quality of
deburring and edge dressing just to make sure that you are doing a good
job.)
I pulled the die from my "C" frame and polished the thingamajig on the male
die. It didn't last long before it was hanging up again. I sent Cleveland
an e-mail, and they put a replacement set in the mail right away at no
charge and asked that I return the defective unit for their examination.
(Great service!) The new set finished out the first tank, then began to
"ridge" about halfway through the second tank. I managed to nurse it
through the second tank and still have the dies. When riveting with the
sealant, you get a nice even rim of sealant around every rivet. Just pass
a MEK -soaked rag over the rivets at the end of the session and you are
good to go. I'm sure that if I were to ask Cleveland for a refund, they
would grant it, but I figure that one plane is probably all that my dies
will see. I'm thinking about making a set of ear rings out of them for my
bride : -)
Summary:
Tool concept- Excellent
Tool execution- Not impressed
Customer Service from Cleveland- Outstanding
Don Alexander
RV-8 wings almost done, canoe on order
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: Fuel Tank Dimple Dies- Cleveland Tools |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com
>
>
> My experience with the fuel tank dies (Purchased from Cleveland) was mixed.
> I thought that they did a great job giving a little extra room for the
> sealant to fill the gaps, but my dies were faulty and only lasted about 30
> or so hits before the male end began to deform.
That is strange, you sure you have the right size holes in the skin before dimpling?
Jerry
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: | Re: Fuel Tank Dimple Dies |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
I did not like them, I found the rivet tipped slightly sideways and sat
below the skin surface. The rivet finish was irregular.
Using the regular dies the fuel tank rivet heads looked no different to
those without proseal except for the ring of sealer around the edge.
I guess it is probably a matter of technique, perhaps mine is diferent
from those who find they do work. Others may be riveting with semi
cured proseal under the head.
Doug Gray
RV-6 fuse
Don Harker wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Don Harker" <dpharker@worldnet.att.net>
>
>
> Have read mixed reviews on using "special" full tank dimple dies from
> Cleveland.
> Can anyone share their experience good or bad?
>
> Thanks
> DonH
>
> RV-7A Wings
> Gurnee IL
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: bucking bars |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
Depleated Uranium would be just fine, probably find some lying around
these days. :/
Chris W wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
>
> Scott Bilinski wrote:
>
>
>>As far as bucking bars go, there was local guy who had a custom one made.
>>Probably expensive, but, worth it I would think. He made it out of a VERY
>>heavy material. It was half the size of a large bucking bar but the same
>>weight. Sorry I dont remember what the material was.
>
>
> According to a handy reference I found on the web somewhere the only materials
> that are twice as dense as steel are Tungsten Carbide, Tantalum, Gold, Uranium,
> Alpha phase Plutonium, Platinum and Iridium. I suspect a bucking bar made of
any
> of those would be pretty expensive.
>
> 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 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: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> Does anyone have the
flap switch supplied by Van handy that will post the specs. on the case
along with manufacturers information. Is there a D/C rating??
My Vans switch for mom-on for electric flap is 10A 250VAC with screw type
terminals in bag 926-1. Manufacturer is APEM 647H 1-B0 with the following
other markings: EM61058-1 T85/55 10(4)400
Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360
Working on Finish Kit
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But ..... is terribly
unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
..Author unknown
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: | RV accident REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE |
autolearn=ham version=2.55
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
Friends I know who have landed with the engine stopped tell me that the
glide ration is much less than an engine at idle.
Just something to think about as we train.
A couple of years ago there was a program on one of the outdoor channels
where someone was arguing that a steep 60 degree turn use less altitude
than a 30 degree turn in such an emergency. I have not believed it
believed it but have never tried it either.
WR
Do Not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Huffaker
Subject: Re: FW: RV-List: RV accident REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE
autolearn=ham version=2.55
--> RV-List message posted by: Brian Huffaker <bifft@xmission.com>
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I agree with everything you have stated here, but there has got to be
a
> safe altitude where this can be done 1500 AGL? 2000AGL?. First thing I
> would do is push the nose over and look at the alt at the same time
and if
> the alt is XXXX AGL or less its basically straight ahead. BUT if its
above
> the magic number (found during testing at gross weight) the a 180 will
be
> safe. I think we would all agree that at 3000 AGL yea you can make a
180
> and return to the airport. I think we should all know this number with
a
> healthy safety margin of course.
>
> OR, am I just out of line in my thinking?
There must be some altitude. You should find it for your plane. My
method is:
Fly over a long straight road. Pretend this is the runway. Set the
aircraft in a climb, just like when climbing out on takeoff. When
passing
thru some predecided altitude (I used 3000' AGL), pull back the
throttle.
Turn around, and note the altitude you are at when you get back over the
road facing the other way. Subtract.
I found that the altitude lost was about 700' (this was in a 152, I
need
to try it in the Starduster). Given the marginal climb performance I
get
around here (Utah, field elevation 4600) I've always turned crosswind
before 700', and in the summer time (density altitudes often reach
8000),
turn downwind before reaching 700'. So the answer for me was, if I
haven't turned crosswind yet, don't turn back.
Brian Huffaker, DSWL (bifft@xmission.com)
RV-8A 80091 Installing rear baggage shelf.
1/4 Starduster II N23UT flying
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: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Wow, after reading all the replies there are so many variables that the
time it would take to go through them all could take to long. Looks like
just practicing the standard engine out procedures tweaked for your plane
is the best bet. Also know your planes slow speed flying characteristics.
Thanks for all the imput.
At 08:14 PM 6/30/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster@flion.com>
>
>My $.02: Take some glider training. Many years ago I got some hours at
>SkySailing in Fremont, CA. Before flight, we had to call out a set of
>altitude ranges and what to do in case of a rope-break at each range.
>It's been a long time but it was something like 0-100 ft land ahead,
>over the fence if necessary; 100-250 feet make a 110 degree right turn
>and land on the adjacent dragstrip (avoiding powerlines ahead); 250-500
>feet land over the lines in the fields ahead; 500-1000 feet make a
>downwind landing; 1000+ fly normal pattern. Learning to fly power at
>Oakland we had similar concerns. The 150s could just about land ahead
>up to pattern altitude, but single-engine landings in a Duchess could
>mean a downwind on the jet runway or at Alameda, if we were lucky. The
>basic idea was, BEFORE YOU TAKE OFF, have a similar plan suitable for
>the conditions during takeoff. That way you don't have to think about
>it when you are already busy. Once you are at cruise, you will have
>more time to scan-as-you-go for emergency landing sites (and engine-out
>procedures were a big part of my training).
>
>Planning is only part of the equation though. You need to practice
>those procedures, too. Slow flight, simulated engine loss, etc. I
>remember how freaked I was when my IP first pulled the mixture on me;
>later he was doing it at least twice a flight and it was merely boring.
>Then there was my multi checkride and after the examiner had already
>shut down one of my engines on TO, we were rolling again when my @@#
>&!!
>door came open and I handled it without even blinking. Suddenly I
>realized the value of all that practice.
>
>Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - Assembling primed fuselage structure
>
>-----Original Message-----
> At 12:47 PM 6/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>>Actually this topic is so important that, I, would like to discuss it
>here
>>again even though it is in the archives.
>>
>>My question is with the engine out at what altitude can you complete a
>180?
>>I asked Mike Seager during my training and he basically said "dont" and
>>keep the heading change to no more than 45 degrees. BUT, I would still
>like
>>to know how much altitude you lose doing a 180 turn with the engine
>out.
>>This is something I will find out when I fly next month.......Of course
>at
>>altitude.
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn williams <willig10@yahoo.com>
No sir: The repairmans certificate should go the
primary builder,(person who contributed more than 51%
of the building) An aircraft cannot repair itself.. As
I said there are ways around getting the repairmans
certificate as the interpretation of the rules is
always read differently by people. As far as
registering the plane goes it is simply a matter of
submitting an application to the FAA in Oklahoma and
receiving a tail #.(there may be a small fee for this)
At this point it is not a matter of the aircraft being
built individually or professionaly. You as the new
owner can call/write Vansaircraft to recieve the "bill
of sale". After you recieve the registration the DAR
will need to come and inspect the aircraft and look at
your work along with any documentation that you may
have, as you are not the primary builder but the
finisher. You may not have access to pictures or the
builders log. In any event the DAR will inspect the
aircraft to ensure it is "airworthy" and issue an
airworthiness certificate and give you a restriction
period to fly off. Since you are not the primary
builder unless you lie and sign a sworn affidavit
claiming to be the 51% builder you are not authorized
the repairmans certificate. And going forward you
would have to have either an A&P or an I.A. perform
the conditional inspection.
Regards
Glenn Williams
A&P
Fort Worth, Texas
do not archive
> Hi All,
>
> 10 people can build 51% of the homebuilt.
> I believe the FAA normally only issues one Aircraft
> Repairman Certificate to
> that aircraft.
> If that is correct, the FAA doesn't determine the
> builder. They determine
> who is qualified, and most likely to be able, to
> exercise the rights of the
> aircraft repairman certificate.
>
> From my experience with the local FAA office, as the
> sole builder with the 40
> hours of test time flown off, the aircraft repairmen
> certificate was NOT just
> given to me. They wanted to satisfy themselves that
> I had the knowledge of
> my aircraft and the FAR's to allow them to issue the
> certificate.
>
> Jim Ayers
> RV-3 N47RV sn 50 First flight 1988
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Glenn Williams
8A
A&P
N81GW
__________________________________
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: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gil Alexander <gilalex@earthlink.net>
Interesting.... it seems this make of switches would be good in their
normal ON/OFF combination....
From the data sheet
Contact ratings (resistive loads):
Functions ON-OFF and ON-ON: 15A 250VAC or 10A 24VDC
Functions ON OFF ON: 15A 250VAC
Other functions: 12A 250VAC, 15A 125VAC or 5A 25VDC
They do have a 10 Amp DC rating, but not in the 3 position Flap switch
combination of the part number below.
The data sheet is here....
http://www.apem.com/pdf/APEM_A.pdf
...gil in Tucson
At 07:28 AM 7/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> > Does anyone have the
>flap switch supplied by Van handy that will post the specs. on the case
>along with manufacturers information. Is there a D/C rating??
>
>My Vans switch for mom-on for electric flap is 10A 250VAC with screw type
>terminals in bag 926-1. Manufacturer is APEM 647H 1-B0 with the following
>other markings: EM61058-1 T85/55 10(4)400
>
>Larry in Indiana, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360
>Working on Finish Kit
>
>Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But ..... is terribly
>unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
>..Author unknown
>
RV-6A, #20701 .. fitting out firewall...
77 Tiger N28478 at 57AZ
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: | CO Accident this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Helms" <jhelms@i1.net>
I probably shouldn't even be posting this for privacy reasons, but I feel that
it is important. I was talking to an RV customer and he asked me about training.
I referred him to Doug Reeves' World Wide Wing transition training page.
Then I got to thinking that Jim Stugart's name and number are on there. I emailed
Doug to remove it, but I see that he's on vacation.
I just want to get the word out there to at least all of you on the list. Please
don't call or try to contact him as he was killed in the crash this past weekend.
Do not archive
John "JT" Helms
Branch Manager
NationAir Insurance Agency
Pleasure and Business Branch
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Nothing in the regs say anything about 51% for the repairman's certificate.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "glenn williams" <willig10@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-List
> --> RV-List message posted by: glenn williams <willig10@yahoo.com>
>
> No sir: The repairmans certificate should go the
> primary builder,(person who contributed more than 51%
> of the building) An aircraft cannot repair itself.. As
> I said there are ways around getting the repairmans
> certificate as the interpretation of the rules is
> always read differently by people. As far as
> registering the plane goes it is simply a matter of
> submitting an application to the FAA in Oklahoma and
> receiving a tail #.(there may be a small fee for this)
> At this point it is not a matter of the aircraft being
> built individually or professionaly. You as the new
> owner can call/write Vansaircraft to recieve the "bill
> of sale". After you recieve the registration the DAR
> will need to come and inspect the aircraft and look at
> your work along with any documentation that you may
> have, as you are not the primary builder but the
> finisher. You may not have access to pictures or the
> builders log. In any event the DAR will inspect the
> aircraft to ensure it is "airworthy" and issue an
> airworthiness certificate and give you a restriction
> period to fly off. Since you are not the primary
> builder unless you lie and sign a sworn affidavit
> claiming to be the 51% builder you are not authorized
> the repairmans certificate. And going forward you
> would have to have either an A&P or an I.A. perform
> the conditional inspection.
>
> Regards
> Glenn Williams
> A&P
> Fort Worth, Texas
>
> do not archive
>
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > 10 people can build 51% of the homebuilt.
> > I believe the FAA normally only issues one Aircraft
> > Repairman Certificate to
> > that aircraft.
> > If that is correct, the FAA doesn't determine the
> > builder. They determine
> > who is qualified, and most likely to be able, to
> > exercise the rights of the
> > aircraft repairman certificate.
> >
> > From my experience with the local FAA office, as the
> > sole builder with the 40
> > hours of test time flown off, the aircraft repairmen
> > certificate was NOT just
> > given to me. They wanted to satisfy themselves that
> > I had the knowledge of
> > my aircraft and the FAR's to allow them to issue the
> > certificate.
> >
> > Jim Ayers
> > RV-3 N47RV sn 50 First flight 1988
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Glenn Williams
> 8A
> A&P
> N81GW
>
> __________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
I've noticed that a lot of pilots from Texas have accidents here in
Colorado. With this particular accident, a sea-level pilot flying at high
altitude may have been a factor. Sea-level pilots sometimes run full rich
for take-off rather than leaning for max power. This could possibly have
caused, or contributed to, the engine failure.
Airplanes don't glide as far at high altitude. This could have caused the
pilot to mistakenly think he could make the field. (He probably could have
made the field at sea-level. He was not far off.) Also, sea-level pilots
are more likely to glide too slowly when using the ground speed for a
reference.
This is all conjecture of course.
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: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 12:45 AM 7/1/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
>
>Bill
>
>Realistically a high quality fast acting A/C rated switch will work many
>thousands of cycles when used in a D/C circuit. You mention using only
>D/C rated switches. Looking thru the Newark catalog most D/C switches are
>rated at 5 amps or much less.
Cutler-Hammer makes a line of inexpensive high-current toggle
switches that are rated at 28 VDC.
<http://www.cutler-hammer.eaton.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=C-H/Common/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid=987117647015&Sec=home>
You just have to look around a bit instead of just picking
something at random from the hardware store or the auto parts store.
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: | AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "van Bladeren, Ron" <rwv@nwnatural.com>
The 21 amp switches I referred to are UL and CSA listed (logo cast into the
side of the switch). If they can't handle the load they won't receive the
listing. The important characteristic we're looking for in a DC switch is
the size of the internal contacts and the material they're made of. I put
my faith in the fact that UL has evaluated those parameters for me and
confirmed the rating. I would certainly hope that as we select components
to go into our a/c that we use more than price and looks to determine
quality and suitability.
Ron.
-----Original Message-----
From: Meketa [mailto:acgm@gvtc.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
Bill
Realistically a high quality fast acting A/C rated switch will work many
thousands of cycles when used in a D/C circuit. You mention using only
D/C rated switches. Looking thru the Newark catalog most D/C switches are
rated at 5 amps or much less.
The one mentioned in another post with a 21 amp rating for $2.00 looks like
any other cheap switch. I doubt if there is any difference in quality,
contact size, snap action, etc.to any other cheap switch. Just because it
is rated does not make it better.
The original post mentioned the wire terminals being burned up. All
the attention is being put on the switch. The most common failure point
is the terminal. Not enough attention is paid here. The very best switch
is no match for a high resistance terminal connection.
What style switch on the original faiure post would be good information
to have. Is the case held by bent tabs or rivets, are there ring or spade
terminals, was it sealed or not, etc.
I would never use the "Carling" switches sold by Bob again. I only used them
on the low draw systems, but regret it. Next time only Microswitch type
sealed units with screw terminals will be used for all circuits.
When at OSH this year I will look thru some of the used stuff at see
if there are D/C ratings on the sealed switches. Does anyone have the
flap switch supplied by Van handy that will post the specs. on the case
along with manufacturers information. Is there a D/C rating??
DO NOT ARCHIVE
George Meketa
RV8, N444TX, 338.7 hours
> >For 14v DC applications, Bob says it is safe to use the same amperage
> >as the 125v AC rating.
>
> This is one of the rare times that I would disagree with Bob.
> Using AC rated switches (with no DC rating) is asking for trouble and not
> worth the risk on an airplane.
>
> DC rated switches have the ability to "blow out" or "quench" the
> DC arc when you turn off the switch. AC rated switches are often very
> limited in this respect. Think of the length of arc you can maintain with
a
> 30 volt DC welder once you have struck the arc. This will give you the
idea
> of what is going on inside the switch, especially at higher amperages. The
> arc strikes when you open the contacts and stretches as the contacts move
> apart. If the contacts move slowly, don't move very far apart, or are not
> of sufficient area and mass, they will not last long at all under DC use.
>
> DC rated switches are not terribly expensive or difficult to
find.
>
> I find it astounding that the same guy that wouldn't consider
> putting anything but an AN fastener on his plane does not give a second
> thought about putting an AC rated switch in the same plane on a critical
> system.
>
>
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: | Best BBQ on the planet... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
Howdy listers-
Had lunch yesterday at a little joint in Memphis, sitting across a table
from Steve Davis & friend, and lemme tell ya, it wasn't to be beat-
Memphis, TN is the fur-sure home of the best sammiches to be had. He
also spent the entire day ('cept for lunch!) bent over his computer and
laminate cutter turning out some absolutely perfect panels for my -6A.
If you want to know the name of the place, you'll have to call him, warn
him you're coming, bring your drawings and your appetite!!
(This totally unabashed, unsolicited & unpaid-for advertisement was
brought to you by another happy customer- the man is a craftsman and a
gentleman)
Thanks, Steve!
From the PossumWorks
Mark Phillips
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: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
A friend is looking for a complete 13 inch spinner assembly for Collin Walker prop
installed on a O320. Anyone know of a source for this.
Thanks
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
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: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
Hi all,
Now when you say this switch marked 6A 125VAC does that mean it for sure is
rated for 6 amps at 125 volts AC? Does that mean that an inrush burst of
7A 125VAC will smoke it? Would 7A 125VAC flowing for several hours smoke
it? Does this rating mean that at 5A 125VAC this switch will last
forever? Even if flipped on and off every two seconds? Finally, would a
one milliamp current at 12VDC destroy the switch in one flip? How about
100,000? Please don't guess.
When I was an engineer in the plywood manufacturing industry, we made
mostly APA Certified plywood. The American Plywood Assn came around every
so often, cut 'coupons' from our product and boiled them for a few
days. They had to stay laminated. We also made what was called 'Mill
Certified'. What that meant was that it was glued together when you bought
it. It was just fine for many uses and cheaper. Of course, many buyers
bought only the very best.
An old engineer said, "Any fool can build a bridge, it takes an engineer to
build a cheap bridge".
Hal Kempthorne says, "Don't get suckered by the marketing men".
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: RV3 <rv3@comcast.net>
Cy Galley wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Nothing in the regs say anything about 51% for the repairman's certificate.
>
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
Quite true, Cy.
However --
My FSDO misquotes and misinterprets the 51% rule as has been
misstated here..... leaving a builder to hunt for a DER that is more
enlightened or forego the repairman's certificate.
Pretty sad state of affairs.
I used the following example on my FSDO.....
ME:
If a high school industrial arts class of 50 students builds
and RV-6 kit with each of the students building 2%...
can a Repairman Certificate be issued to one of them.
FSDO:
Yes.
ME:
What's the difference if I finish a kit somebody else started?
FSDO:
You aren't a school.
ME:
ARRRRGHHHHHHHHH.
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 |
|
07/01/2003 11:17:48 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
Okay. Please clarify the requirements for us then.
Thx
Glenn Williams
do not archive
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: CO Accident this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
Thanks for letting us know about Jim Stugart. I took transition training
from him last year and got to know him pretty well. What a great guy who loved
flying and RV's. He will be missed.
May he rest in peace!
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: my view of accidents |
--> RV-List message posted by: "MeangreenRV4" <meangreenrv4@bak.rr.com>
Michael a RV7 will land faster than 50mph, thats guaranteed, so why don't
you get a good flight simulator program and call it a day. Then the worst
thing that can happen is you might fall out of your chair. But if you lay
foam rubber on the floor.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael michael" <top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: my view of accidents
> --> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael"
<top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
>
> I`m new the list.
> I`m taking my pilot lic right now.
> I want to fly the RV-7 & have bought the kit tail kit. In a few years I
> might be in the air.
>
> Do any RV owners have BRS parachute systems installed. It seems to me when
> your landing speed is over 50 mph, even a good off airport landing will be
> very risky. Plus even if you do survive chances are your traped upside
down.
> If its good enouf for a Cessna it should be good enouf for my RV
>
> Please feel free to tell me i dont know what i`m talking about....cause
i`m
> new & i don`t. So educate me. Is the non use of parachutes a macho thing?
>
> I read the accident report on the RV line from RV World Wing & Ntsb. Over
50
> people killed out of 4500 planes flying....Thats 1 in 90 chance of not
> walking away. I`m new...will make mistakes...want to live to a ripe old
age
> & have a blast at 200mph. I wont be flying my plane without a BRS balistic
> parachute system installed. & i dont work for the company....;)
>
>
> Please tell me, am i the only person thinkng this ?
>
> I`m into safety. I`ve even gone on ebay to look up used airbag
prices...not
> bad, can get a whole deploymnet system+bags, from a salvaged car for
$400.00
> I know it sounds crazy. But planes dont have crumple zones. Your body has
to
> absorb all the energy.
>
> Michael
> Toronto Canada.
> Safety crazy in Canada
>
>
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: rv-list: rv accident |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
I have a little experience in the "return to airport" question. After take
off in a Cessna 120 I lost partial power at about 500 feet. The transition
from climb under full power to glide under partial or no power is huge. You
have to force the nose over to maintain airspeed, the windshield fills with
ground and then you start a glide. It became immediately apparent that I
could not get back to the airport. I turned about 30 degrees and landed in
a plowed field. The point is that airspeed is the most important gage on the
panel and dictates how far you can go. I also take exception with breaking
ground and climbing at the steepest angle possible to get altitude. Next
time you watch a Rocket, RV or any high performance aircraft take off
consider the altitude lost in the transition from full power climb to no
power glide. If you lose that engine right after you pitch up to that
"ain't I cool" deck angle........you can't recover before you hit the
ground. Give it a thought...............
Rich Crosley
RV-8 fuselage
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com
<mailto:azpilot@extremezone.com>> This is exactly why when I flew my RV-6A I
would always go for Vx. I would climb out like a bat out of hell so I was
sure I had enough altitude to take off. Kind of looks like I was showing off
most of the time, but it did serve a purpose. Use the power while you have
it, I say. In heavily populated areas, an off airport landing is usually
*not* the ideal thing to do.
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: smoothweasel@juno.com
Thanx for the comments......I know that I am not eligible
for the
Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
The owner/applicant should submit the required
documentation, in accordance with
section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
AC Form 8050-2
AC Form 8050-1
The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes in the middle of the
page and is labeled "must check one".
The first,"More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was
built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
The second,"More than 50% of the above-descibed aircraft was
built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
the owner. The bill of sale from the kit manufacturer is attached.
since nether of these are true how would one send this form
in....or is it not required? the plane has never been reg.
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
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: | new Builder's Log Book |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
Here's a new item developed by Builder's Bookstore and just received from
the printer over the weekend.
AIRCRAFT BUILDER'S LOG
This 6.5 x 11"; spiral bound Builder's logbook documents the construction of
your RV including, work performed, time spent, cost and sources of parts and
materials. Space is provided on each page for progress photos. Here is a
convenient, organized, and "official" place to maintain your building
records. Each book provides space for logging up to 950 work days and up to
300 expense items. The price is $19.95
This log:
Documents a builder's work record per FAA requirements
Provides a personal record of a builder's accomplishment
Provides an expense record from start to finish
Provides documentation of a builder's source of materials and components
For details click to http://buildersbooks.com It's on the front page
under new items. Click on the small picture and it will take you to a
detail page which includes samples of the work and cost log pages. Or call
800 780-4115
Thanks
Andy
...and thanks for putting up with my once or twice a year spam
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: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
>
>Friends I know who have landed with the engine stopped tell me that the
>glide ration is much less than an engine at idle.
>Just something to think about as we train.
>
>A couple of years ago there was a program on one of the outdoor channels
>where someone was arguing that a steep 60 degree turn use less altitude
>than a 30 degree turn in such an emergency. I have not believed it
>believed it but have never tried it either.
>
>WR
This was one of the math exercises I had to do once many years ago,
back before my brain calcified. I've probably got the notes with the
proof in a box, somewhere.
The minimum altitude lost is in a 45 deg bank turn, assuming that you
fly at the angle of attack for minimum rate of descent, which is very
close to stall (too close to the stall for comfort at low altitude).
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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: CO Accident this weekend |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill VonDane" <bill@vondane.com>
I also did my transition training with Jim... He was a 4000+ hour
instructor, and I wont even speculate on what happened or why he reacted the
way he did...
He will be missed!
-Bill VonDane
RV-8A
www.vondane.com
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dwpetrus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: CO Accident this weekend
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
Thanks for letting us know about Jim Stugart. I took transition training
from him last year and got to know him pretty well. What a great guy who
loved
flying and RV's. He will be missed.
May he rest in peace!
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re: rv-list: rv accident |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 07/01/2003 2:21:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM writes:
> This is exactly why when I flew my RV-6A I
> would always go for Vx. I would climb out like a bat out of hell so I was
> sure I had enough altitude to take off
Persoanlly, I think Vy is the better choice. It igves most altitude per
unit time, and the way I look at it, the engine is going to quit at a certain
time into the flight (versus position over ground downrange) after T/O power is
applied, for whatever reason it might decide to quit. Vx might give most
runway remaining in front of me, but Vy will give most altitude below me when the
stopwatch says Bingo. There's no doubt in my mind that climbing at Vy and the
45 degree angling turn away from the runway centerline (and preferably away
from any quartering crosswind) will allow a return to runway with the least
amount of maneuvering and altitude loss.
YMMV
-Bill
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: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>The minimum altitude lost is in a 45 deg bank turn, assuming that you
>fly at the angle of attack for minimum rate of descent, which is very
>close to stall (too close to the stall for comfort at low altitude).
---
I can buy that. But, are the best glide specs not published by Van's?
As I recall from my own precalcification days, the Piper Cherokee 140,
for instance, had a best glide IAS significantly higher than stall. I
once was tested by a psychotic passenger when I was out about 9 miles
over the Gulf of Mexico -- we had long stems of Johnson grass in the
landing gear before the engine regained consciousness. :-)
Steve
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Registration |
07/01/2003 02:17:19 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
You should check box 2 (kit) and submit the bill of sale. You should call
Vans with the aircraft serial # and request a bill of sale and then submit
this to the FAA for registration purposes.
What the FAA is doing in essence is seeing if there is a lien on the
aircraft. You might check the previous owner to see if he has a bill of
sale from Vans.
If you need further assistance please call me at 214-616-7836.
Glenn Williams
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
I recently re-set the cone-of-saftey glide ratio on my GPS after doing a
'real' engine out. I had previously tested with what I thought was an
engine speed that produced as much or more drag than a stopped prop and had
a 650 - 700 fpm descent rate (RV-4 at 5000 MSL). With the engine truely
stopped the descent rate went to 900 fpm - yikes! Glad the engine restarted
Tracy Crook
Rotary powered RV-4
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
Subject: RE: FW: RV-List: RV accident REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE
autolearn=ham version=2.55
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
>
> Friends I know who have landed with the engine stopped tell me that the
> glide ration is much less than an engine at idle.
> Just something to think about as we train.
>
> A couple of years ago there was a program on one of the outdoor channels
> where someone was arguing that a steep 60 degree turn use less altitude
> than a 30 degree turn in such an emergency. I have not believed it
> believed it but have never tried it either.
>
> WR
> Do Not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian Huffaker
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: FW: RV-List: RV accident REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_PINE
> autolearn=ham version=2.55
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Brian Huffaker <bifft@xmission.com>
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Scott Bilinski wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > I agree with everything you have stated here, but there has got to be
> a
> > safe altitude where this can be done 1500 AGL? 2000AGL?. First thing I
> > would do is push the nose over and look at the alt at the same time
> and if
> > the alt is XXXX AGL or less its basically straight ahead. BUT if its
> above
> > the magic number (found during testing at gross weight) the a 180 will
> be
> > safe. I think we would all agree that at 3000 AGL yea you can make a
> 180
> > and return to the airport. I think we should all know this number with
> a
> > healthy safety margin of course.
> >
> > OR, am I just out of line in my thinking?
>
> There must be some altitude. You should find it for your plane. My
> method is:
>
> Fly over a long straight road. Pretend this is the runway. Set the
> aircraft in a climb, just like when climbing out on takeoff. When
> passing
> thru some predecided altitude (I used 3000' AGL), pull back the
> throttle.
> Turn around, and note the altitude you are at when you get back over the
> road facing the other way. Subtract.
>
> I found that the altitude lost was about 700' (this was in a 152, I
> need
> to try it in the Starduster). Given the marginal climb performance I
> get
> around here (Utah, field elevation 4600) I've always turned crosswind
> before 700', and in the summer time (density altitudes often reach
> 8000),
> turn downwind before reaching 700'. So the answer for me was, if I
> haven't turned crosswind yet, don't turn back.
>
>
> Brian Huffaker, DSWL (bifft@xmission.com)
> RV-8A 80091 Installing rear baggage shelf.
> 1/4 Starduster II N23UT flying
>
>
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: re: rv-list: rv accident |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pete Elia" <peteandsharon@earthlink.net>
Also,
What is a Vx climb done over and over as standard procedure doing to your
engine? Wouldn't CHTs get pretty high as Vx does not allow for very
efficient cooling and your in a high power operation (take off)? Regularly
allowing high (over 380) CHTs will at best decrease the TBO or worse...?
-pete
----- Original Message -----
From: <SportAV8R@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: re: rv-list: rv accident
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 07/01/2003 2:21:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM writes:
>
>
> > This is exactly why when I flew my RV-6A I
> > would always go for Vx. I would climb out like a bat out of hell so I
was
> > sure I had enough altitude to take off
>
> Persoanlly, I think Vy is the better choice. It igves most altitude per
> unit time, and the way I look at it, the engine is going to quit at a
certain
> time into the flight (versus position over ground downrange) after T/O
power is
> applied, for whatever reason it might decide to quit. Vx might give most
> runway remaining in front of me, but Vy will give most altitude below me
when the
> stopwatch says Bingo. There's no doubt in my mind that climbing at Vy and
the
> 45 degree angling turn away from the runway centerline (and preferably
away
> from any quartering crosswind) will allow a return to runway with the
least
> amount of maneuvering and altitude loss.
> YMMV
> -Bill
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
glenn williams wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: glenn williams <willig10@yahoo.com>
>
>No sir: The repairmans certificate should go the
>primary builder,(person who contributed more than 51%
>of the building)
>
From EAA's website:
Repairman Certificate
How to get your Repairman Certificate
Frequently Asked Questions
When should I apply for my Repairman Certificate?
Make application for a Repairman Certificate (experimental aircraft
builder) at the time of original certification of the aircraft.
What are the requirements?
You must:
Be a U.S. citizen or an individual of a foreign country who has been
admitted for permanent residence in the United States.
Be 18 years of age or older.
Be the "primary builder" of the aircraft.
Be able to demonstrate to the FAA inspector your ability to perform
condition inspections and to determine whether the subject aircraft is
in a condition for safe operation.
What does "primary builder" mean?
FAA does not define this term. EAA considers the primary builder to the
person who's signature is on Form 8130-6, block III attesting to the
airworthiness of the amateur built aircraft.
I am building my aircraft with a partner and we each have put in the
same amount of time building, can we both receive a Repairman Certificate?
No, only one person is eligible for a Repairman Certificate for a
specific homebuilt. Therefore you will have to decide who gets the
Repairman Certificate. That person's name should be listed on FAA Form
8130-6, block III attesting to the airworthiness of the amateur built
aircraft.
I am thinking about buying a 95% complete project from another builder,
will I be able to get a Repairman Certificate?
If you, as the final builder, can convince the FAA or DAR inspector that
you have the requisite skill necessary for determining whether the
aircraft is in condition for safe operation, the inspector should give
you the Repairman Certificate.
Our EAA Chapter is building a Kitfox as a group project, who will be
able to get the Repairman Certificate?
When a Chapter (or school, club, or partnership) builds an aircraft,
only one individual will be considered for a Repairman Certificate for
each aircraft built. Typically, the designated project leader will be
the one who applies for the Repairman Certificate. The project leader
should also be the on who signs for the airworthiness of the aircraft on
FAA Form 8130-6 block III.
I have an A&P, should I bother applying for the Repairman Certificate on
the plane I'm building?
Yes! That way if you allow you're A&P license to lapse, you will still
be able to inspect and sign off the condition inspection of your homebuilt.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorto1537@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
>
>Kevin Horton wrote:
>>The minimum altitude lost is in a 45 deg bank turn, assuming that you
>>fly at the angle of attack for minimum rate of descent, which is very
>>close to stall (too close to the stall for comfort at low altitude).
>---
>I can buy that. But, are the best glide specs not published by Van's?
>
>As I recall from my own precalcification days, the Piper Cherokee 140,
>for instance, had a best glide IAS significantly higher than stall. I
>once was tested by a psychotic passenger when I was out about 9 miles
>over the Gulf of Mexico -- we had long stems of Johnson grass in the
>landing gear before the engine regained consciousness. :-)
>
>Steve
Steve,
I think that in theory we would want the speed for minimum rate of
descent, so that we lost the least amount of altitude by the time we
got pointed back at the runway. The lower speed also helps increase
the rate of turn for a given bank angle. But the speed for minimum
rate of descent is too close to the stall to be safe. You are
correct in that the speed for best glide is well above the stall
speed.
Van might publish a speed for best glide, I'm not sure. But you need
to realize that there are significant differences in airspeed errors
from one RV to the next, so the actual IAS you need to fly to get the
best glide speed may be quite different from the number that Van
publishes. This is something to look at during your flight test
program. And the speed for best glide increases in a turn, because
you actually want the angle of attack for best glide, and the
relationship between speed and angle of attack depends on the load
factor.
Anyway, this whole thing is an exercise in mental masturbation.
There are too many variables to come up a single answer that is
workable in everyone's real world. You just need to practice your
engine out flying and procedures, spend lots of time doing mental
engine failure scenarios, take a close look at your airfield and the
land around it, be aware of the wind direction and speed and the
effect it has on your options, think about engine failures just
before take-off, and live every day like it could be your last.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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: re: rv-list: rv accident |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Yes, an engine failure at that pitch attitude would not be good (not that it
is good at any other time). What my point is you get to a safe altitude
quickly, thus reducing your time "window" for the engine to fail. Example,
if it fails one minute into the flight, I'd want to have the most altitude
by one minute that I could. If you climbed slower and the engine failed at
one minute, you would not have the same options.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
Subject: RV-List: re: rv-list: rv accident
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Crosley, Rich"
<RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
>
> I have a little experience in the "return to airport" question. After
take
> off in a Cessna 120 I lost partial power at about 500 feet. The
transition
> from climb under full power to glide under partial or no power is huge.
You
> have to force the nose over to maintain airspeed, the windshield fills
with
> ground and then you start a glide. It became immediately apparent that I
> could not get back to the airport. I turned about 30 degrees and landed
in
> a plowed field. The point is that airspeed is the most important gage on
the
> panel and dictates how far you can go. I also take exception with
breaking
> ground and climbing at the steepest angle possible to get altitude. Next
> time you watch a Rocket, RV or any high performance aircraft take off
> consider the altitude lost in the transition from full power climb to no
> power glide. If you lose that engine right after you pitch up to that
> "ain't I cool" deck angle........you can't recover before you hit the
> ground. Give it a thought...............
>
> Rich Crosley
> RV-8 fuselage
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com
> <mailto:azpilot@extremezone.com>> This is exactly why when I flew my RV-6A
I
> would always go for Vx. I would climb out like a bat out of hell so I was
> sure I had enough altitude to take off. Kind of looks like I was showing
off
> most of the time, but it did serve a purpose. Use the power while you have
> it, I say. In heavily populated areas, an off airport landing is usually
> *not* the ideal thing to do.
>
>
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: | Was RV accident -- Now engine out techniques |
--> RV-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>I think that in theory we would want the speed for minimum rate of
>descent, so that we lost the least amount of altitude by the time we
>got pointed back at the runway. The lower speed also helps increase
>the rate of turn for a given bank angle. But the speed for minimum
>rate of descent is too close to the stall to be safe. You are
>correct in that the speed for best glide is well above the stall
>speed.
---
Thanks Kevin -- but I think I disagree. As in my own case with an
engine out, minimum rate of descent would have probably dropped me into
the Gulf. Best glide speed made it possible to reach a safe landing
spot. I never touched down, the CFII of course wasn't really psychotic
-- he produced a second key after he satisfied himself I could cope
with throwing the first one out the side vent. :-)
But that was nearly 40 years ago -- maybe I have something new to
learn. BTW, that safe landing spot was not anywhere near an airport and
after restart, I cleared a barbed wire fence on the way back up by at
least 3 feet. But the landing would have been a good one -- I think he
was really surprised.
I guess the question I have is, what am I missing here?
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jack Textor" <jack@personnelincorporated.com>
Jeez, I just looked at my calendar, to see I missed the Boone fly-in,
anybody have any pictures or report?
Jack Textor
DSM
RV8
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: | RV Flying, NOT an accident (delete if not interested) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
man, I'm STUCK here on the colorado ground on vacation. You should have
given me a "ring" and I'd have celebrated with you :-)
lucky macy
somewhere in the colorado springs suburban explosion wishing I could see the
Rockies from the air!
do not archive
>From: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Flying, NOT an accident (delete if not interested)
>Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:49:32 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>
>MAN, with all this talk about accidents, I had to go FLYING.
>
>Tonight was one of those hot summer evenings after a pretty, hot
>Colorado summer day. And the air was still as it could be; wind sock
>hanging like an old dish rag. I needed to go stir up the air and get
>some ALTITUDE.
>
>Take off. Suzie Q still has great performance even in this heat. Head
>north. Air smooth as a baby's butt. Bugs. Man, where did all these bugs
>come from? Can't they see me coming? Sun is a big orange ball in the
>northwest. Clouds are blocking the direct light, scattering gold-orange
>rays in a thousand directions. Everything on the ground is GREEN this
>year. Stretches out for miles. I can see Kansas from here, it's so
>clear. Radio frequencies are strangely quiet. Why aren't they up here?
>
>Bend north west, towards the mountains. I'm mumbling my emergency
>procedure check list quietly to myself, looking at where my hands would
>go. Now I'm heading right at the sun, still behind the clouds. Gentle
>climb to match the upcoming foothills, which Suzie Q does without even
>thinking. It's one of those nights you don't even have to touch the
>controls. But my hand is gently on the Infinity grip anyway. That's
>where I like it.
>
>And I look around, closely. I LOVE this panel. Wouldn't change a thing
>on it. My peripheral vision takes over and I see from wingtip to
>wingtip, the whole panorama. Wow. I look back at the tail. The elevator
>is exactly in line with the horizontal tail. How did I figure that out,
>so long ago? Blind luck. Ailerons. Huh. Who thought of that? Look how
>little they move to make a turn. And flaps out there too. Flaps are
>cool.
>
>Now I bend around and I'm heading back south, along the dark blue of the
>foothills. Lights are coming on on the ground. The sun peaks through and
>I can't help looking over there. Now I have a dozen copper half pennies
>from the sun stuck on my retina to look at. The sun slips behind the
>mountains. I pull gently on the stick and it comes up again, just
>barely, and sets again. I head for home. More ground lights. A friend
>once said If night flying and been invented before sex, we never would
>have made it as a species. He was right. Over there is a quad of
>softball fields, brightest lights around. There is Highway 287, snaking
>south, full of cars. If they only knew.
>
>Home field: I can't see it yet. The white light on the beacon burned out
>weeks ago and they haven't replaced it. I'm following the stretched out
>string of the GPS, the end of the string is back home. I click the mic
>button 5 times and see nothing for my efforts. Wait; those red lights.
>Is that the VASI? Way out there? Yes. OK, now I see the beacon. And the
>threshold strobes. Sudden lightening on the horizon freaks me out until
>I realize it's 100 miles away. I turn on my landing light, way out on
>the wing tip. Man, is it bright at night. The VASI turns from red to
>white as I approach; they are for 15 and I am using 33.
>
>Downwind. Another flash of lightening, closer but still far away. Turn
>base. Final. Touch now, three point squeaker. Mmmmmm.
>Strobe lights flash on the runway edge. Clear at Alpha 5. Taxi up to the
>hanger. Nav lights glow red and white left, green and white right. Shut
>down. Quiet.
>
>Thanks, Suzie Q. That was a gift.
>
>Yeah. That's what it's all about.
>
>Michael
>RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
>
>In memory of those we lost this weekend.
>
>
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: Registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
OK The form 8050-88, Affidavit of ownership is required. But look at the
statement in the two boxes again. It asks if more than 50% was built from a
kit or misc. parts, not how many people it took to built it, or if you were
the first or last person to work on it. So....Do you own it?.... and was
more than 50% of the plane built by someone other than a
manufacturer/professional builder? If it is then check the appropriate
block and carry on.
I have run into this a couple of times and we have always been able to get
it sorted out. If you have any problems with your local FSDO, email me
directly off-line and I will see about working it out. No promises, but I
will try.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: smoothweasel@juno.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Registration
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:23:43 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: smoothweasel@juno.com
>
> Thanx for the comments......I know that I am not eligible
>for the
>Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
>
> AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
>
> The owner/applicant should submit the required
>documentation, in accordance with
>section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
> AC Form 8050-2
> AC Form 8050-1
>
>
> The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes in the middle of the
>page and is labeled "must check one".
>
> The first,"More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was
>built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
>
> The second,"More than 50% of the above-descibed aircraft was
>built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
>the owner. The bill of sale from the kit manufacturer is attached.
>
> since nether of these are true how would one send this form
>in....or is it not required? the plane has never been reg.
>
>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
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: Registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The more than 50% part of each statement is how the airplane was built
either from parts or a kit. At the time you check the box, you are the
owner. There is NO requirement for you to be the owner when either the kit
or parts were bought. Further, if you can demonstrate to the FAA that you
have enough knowledge and skill to build the plane, you can get a
repairman's certificate.
With that said, the only thing that the "repairman's certificate" gives you
is the right do the annual conditional inspection. Otherwise you have to
get an A&P to sign this off. ALL maintenance can still be done by a person
without a repairman's certificate.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <smoothweasel@juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Registration
> --> RV-List message posted by: smoothweasel@juno.com
>
> Thanx for the comments......I know that I am not eligible
> for the
> Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
>
> AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
>
> The owner/applicant should submit the required
> documentation, in accordance with
> section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
> AC Form 8050-2
> AC Form 8050-1
>
>
> The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes in the middle of the
> page and is labeled "must check one".
>
> The first,"More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was
> built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
>
> The second,"More than 50% of the above-descibed aircraft was
> built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
> the owner. The bill of sale from the kit manufacturer is attached.
>
> since nether of these are true how would one send this form
> in....or is it not required? the plane has never been reg.
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
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: | Bucking Bars Again |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
O.K. how about a specific application. What bar do you use when there is an obstruction
on a plane parallel to the rivet axis (like on the horizontal stab,
where the hinge brackets interfere with skin to spar rivets.) I'm having disapointing
results with my syle 620 bar. I think I might have to flatten it more.
Has anyone used an avery 650 for this kind of thing? For back riveting the
skins I'm planning to try a sledge hammer head anyone else used something similar?
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: Registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: Art Glaser <airplane@megsinet.net>
That is also my understanding.
Cy Galley wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> The more than 50% part of each statement is how the airplane was built
> either from parts or a kit. At the time you check the box, you are the
> owner. There is NO requirement for you to be the owner when either the kit
> or parts were bought. Further, if you can demonstrate to the FAA that you
> have enough knowledge and skill to build the plane, you can get a
> repairman's certificate.
>
> With that said, the only thing that the "repairman's certificate" gives you
> is the right do the annual conditional inspection. Otherwise you have to
> get an A&P to sign this off. ALL maintenance can still be done by a person
> without a repairman's certificate.
>
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <smoothweasel@juno.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Registration
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: smoothweasel@juno.com
> >
> > Thanx for the comments......I know that I am not eligible
> > for the
> > Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
> >
> > AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
> >
> > The owner/applicant should submit the required
> > documentation, in accordance with
> > section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
> > AC Form 8050-2
> > AC Form 8050-1
> >
> >
> > The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes in the middle of the
> > page and is labeled "must check one".
> >
> > The first,"More than 50% of the above-described aircraft was
> > built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
> >
> > The second,"More than 50% of the above-descibed aircraft was
> > built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
> > the owner. The bill of sale from the kit manufacturer is attached.
> >
> > since nether of these are true how would one send this form
> > in....or is it not required? the plane has never been reg.
> >
> > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> >
> >
>
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: Bucking Bars Again |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
For the case you mentioned, rivets holding the HS skin to the spar near the
hinge brackets, why not just squeeze all those edge rivets?
My policy is: if it can be squeezed, squeeze it. If it can't, buck it.
That's why I bought the pneumatic squeezer after all...save all the hassle
of either shooting/bucking and manually squeezing as much as possible.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
Subject: RV-List: Bucking Bars Again
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
>
> O.K. how about a specific application. What bar do you use when there is
an obstruction on a plane parallel to the rivet axis (like on the horizontal
stab, where the hinge brackets interfere with skin to spar rivets.) I'm
having disapointing results with my syle 620 bar. I think I might have to
flatten it more. Has anyone used an avery 650 for this kind of thing? For
back riveting the skins I'm planning to try a sledge hammer head anyone else
used something similar?
>
>
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: | my view of accidents |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>>Please feel free to tell me i dont know what i`m talking about....cause
>
> i`m
>
>>new & i don`t. So educate me. Is the non use of parachutes a macho thing?
>>
>>I read the accident report on the RV line from RV World Wing & Ntsb. Over
>
> 50
>
>>people killed out of 4500 planes flying....Thats 1 in 90 chance of not
>>walking away. I`m new...will make mistakes...want to live to a ripe old
>
> age
>
>>& have a blast at 200mph. I wont be flying my plane without a BRS balistic
>>parachute system installed. & i dont work for the company....;)
>>
>>
>
Here is the problem with using the numbers as you throw them out. You cannot
just say here are these many people dead out of this many aircraft flying. You
would need to analyze each and every accident to determine the cause. what you
well find in majority of the accienets is that a ballistic chute would not have
done a thing for you to save you. Many are low level accidents where a chute
would do no good at all.
The RV-4 accident that was mentioned here yesterday was a friend of mine and
many of us here in the Home Wing Area. The prilimanary reports I am getting is
that he ran out of fuel at or close to final to his home airstrip and could not
quite make it to the runway. A chute would not have been a bit of help. Most
accidents can be avoided with careful planning or safe flying habits.
fly Safe
Jerry
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: prop spacer thanks |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Chris;
Have you had a chance to fly your re-pitched prop as yet ?
I have a very similar combo about ready to fly; Aerosport 320 / Sensenich at
79" / -6A at 1050 lbs empty.
Not flying yet but any day now...
Any noticeable effect with your prop adjustment ?? Curious minds (one
anyway) would like to know!
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, Canada (right in teh middle0
RV-6A C-GKGZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris m" <vhmum@bigpond.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: prop spacer thanks
> --> RV-List message posted by: "chris m" <vhmum@bigpond.com>
>
> I had a79 and changed to 81...Going flying today to check it out.
> Our RV6 is very light and straight with a bart 0320 160 horse. At 12500ft
it
> would just be over the 2600 limit.
> Shall see today if I should have gone with 80??
> All fun
>
> Chris and Susie
> VH-MUM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <HCRV6@aol.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: prop spacer thanks
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
> >
> > Chris: What pitch did you have and what did you change to?
> >
> > Harry Crosby
> > Pleasanton, California
> > RV-6, firewall forward
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Camille Patch" <cammie@sunvalley.net>
Great rant. I'm a CFI who is tired of pilots who aren't thinking ahead. I
would love to kill the mixture on every flight just to get my point across
but I won't risk my life for it.
I teach at a class C airport (Boise) and I regularly ask to simulate engine
failure on takeoff and turn back and land. I've never had a problem getting
the clearance to do it, and in fact the folks in the tower seem to enjoy
watching it. I also like to bring my students in at about 2000' or 3000' agl
over the threshold and practice steep (50 degree banked turns) spirals down
the to runway. Lots of fun. I'd much rather practice these maneuvers at a
controlled airport. Boise has the best controllers in the business in my
opinion.
I've always been able to make the runway from 500'agl engine failures on
takeoff. 45 degree banks and best glide every time. The one thing that
really makes a difference is what direction I turn: into the wind is by far
an easier way to go.
cammie
----- Original Message -----
From: <ktlkrn@cox.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV accident
> --> RV-List message posted by: <ktlkrn@cox.net>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've been reading the accident information and the feedback from the list.
One person asked about the safe "turn back" altitude. I think this is a
viable question however I believe the key to safe flight is Situational
Awareness. For anyone that has been to a CRM course will know the term. If
you don't find a course and go.
>
> As a former law enforcement helio pilot with most of my time in
mountainous high DA high stress rescue environment we practiced for
everything in every condition. As the unit commander I also made sure that
every pilot had 100% knowledge 100% of the time of all emergency procedures
for the aircraft we were operating for the day. YOU DON'T HAVE TIME THINK OF
THE PROCEDURE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW IT ALL, ALL OF THE TIME!!!!
>
> I think many get their pride and joy done, fly off the time and then start
going places. I would suggest getting an experienced RV driver on board and
then setting up some training scenarios and trying them out. It is then
under controlled circumstances that you will learn, "that won't work." Then
you can find what does. Here is an example.
>
> How many actually know what the real glide performance of their plane is?
Not many I'd suggest. Try this. Find a remote airport and go to a set
altitude. Then fly past to a given mileage and cut the throttle to a safe
idle. Establish best glide and see what happens. Try to land w/o touching
the throttle. Do this at various altitudes and various temperature
conditions. Within a couple of hours your confidence level will rise and
most importantly you will have some established facts under your belt, FOR
YOUR AIRPLANE.
>
> Sorry for the rant folks. It just seems to me a lot of people die that
don't need to. A few hundred in gas and training will reduce a lot of
accidents I believe.
>
> Home with Pneumonia and too much time on my hands!!!! Thanks for
listening.
>
> Darwin N. Barrie
> Chandler AZ
>
>
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: RV Flying, NOT an accident (delete if not interested) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Terry Williams <7ecapilot@comcast.net>
You write beautifully, but pictures man, we need pictures. Next time
take your camera. You can be the first to oogle at your ailerons and
let us be the second. ;)
tw
Do not archive
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 08:49 PM, KostaLewis wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>
> MAN, with all this talk about accidents, I had to go FLYING.
>
> Tonight was one of those hot summer evenings after a pretty, hot
> Colorado summer day. And the air was still as it could be; wind sock
> hanging like an old dish rag. I needed to go stir up the air and get
> some ALTITUDE.
>
> Take off. Suzie Q still has great performance even in this heat. Head
> north. Air smooth as a baby's butt. Bugs. Man, where did all these bugs
> come from? Can't they see me coming? Sun is a big orange ball in the
> northwest. Clouds are blocking the direct light, scattering gold-orange
> rays in a thousand directions. Everything on the ground is GREEN this
> year. Stretches out for miles. I can see Kansas from here, it's so
> clear. Radio frequencies are strangely quiet. Why aren't they up here?
>
> Bend north west, towards the mountains. I'm mumbling my emergency
> procedure check list quietly to myself, looking at where my hands would
> go. Now I'm heading right at the sun, still behind the clouds. Gentle
> climb to match the upcoming foothills, which Suzie Q does without even
> thinking. It's one of those nights you don't even have to touch the
> controls. But my hand is gently on the Infinity grip anyway. That's
> where I like it.
>
> And I look around, closely. I LOVE this panel. Wouldn't change a thing
> on it. My peripheral vision takes over and I see from wingtip to
> wingtip, the whole panorama. Wow. I look back at the tail. The elevator
> is exactly in line with the horizontal tail. How did I figure that out,
> so long ago? Blind luck. Ailerons. Huh. Who thought of that? Look how
> little they move to make a turn. And flaps out there too. Flaps are
> cool.
>
> Now I bend around and I'm heading back south, along the dark blue of
> the
> foothills. Lights are coming on on the ground. The sun peaks through
> and
> I can't help looking over there. Now I have a dozen copper half pennies
> from the sun stuck on my retina to look at. The sun slips behind the
> mountains. I pull gently on the stick and it comes up again, just
> barely, and sets again. I head for home. More ground lights. A friend
> once said If night flying and been invented before sex, we never would
> have made it as a species. He was right. Over there is a quad of
> softball fields, brightest lights around. There is Highway 287, snaking
> south, full of cars. If they only knew.
>
> Home field: I can't see it yet. The white light on the beacon burned
> out
> weeks ago and they haven't replaced it. I'm following the stretched out
> string of the GPS, the end of the string is back home. I click the mic
> button 5 times and see nothing for my efforts. Wait; those red lights.
> Is that the VASI? Way out there? Yes. OK, now I see the beacon. And the
> threshold strobes. Sudden lightening on the horizon freaks me out until
> I realize it's 100 miles away. I turn on my landing light, way out on
> the wing tip. Man, is it bright at night. The VASI turns from red to
> white as I approach; they are for 15 and I am using 33.
>
> Downwind. Another flash of lightening, closer but still far away. Turn
> base. Final. Touch now, three point squeaker. Mmmmmm.
> Strobe lights flash on the runway edge. Clear at Alpha 5. Taxi up to
> the
> hanger. Nav lights glow red and white left, green and white right. Shut
> down. Quiet.
>
> Thanks, Suzie Q. That was a gift.
>
> Yeah. That's what it's all about.
>
> Michael
> RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
>
> In memory of those we lost this weekend.
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Camille Patch wrote:
>I've always been able to make the runway from 500'agl engine failures on
>takeoff. 45 degree banks and best glide every time. The one thing that
>really makes a difference is what direction I turn: into the wind is
>by far
>an easier way to go.
---
Thanks for that post, Cammie. I was beginning to think I was taught
all wrong. I did a lot of similar stuff at a controlled field when the
traffic allowed. Great practice. A lot of the email here seems to
indicate there is not the same degree of slow flight and emergency
training as there used to be for new pilots.
Steve
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: | Re: Bucking Bars Again |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Go to the nearest metal shop beg, borrow, steel (pun) scraps of steel that
look like they might do the job. trim, drill and cut or grind to shape as
needed.
Belt sand the surfaces that will be used when bucking.
For riveting inside wings etc.and against structural ribs, a liberal
application of "the handyman's secret weapon" Duct Tape will help with the
hand grip and lessen the scuffing of nearby structure. With just a little
practice you can rivet with quite small bars.
Use the side, the top, or the end of your removable squeezer jaw if it will
fit in the space. Almost any chunk of steel that will fit the job can be
re-conditioned into service.
If you are working on tail parts you have only just begun to get creative.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
Subject: RV-List: Bucking Bars Again
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
>
> O.K. how about a specific application. What bar do you use when there is
an obstruction on a plane parallel to the rivet axis (like on the horizontal
stab, where the hinge brackets interfere with skin to spar rivets.) I'm
having disapointing results with my syle 620 bar. I think I might have to
flatten it more. Has anyone used an avery 650 for this kind of thing? For
back riveting the skins I'm planning to try a sledge hammer head anyone else
used something similar?
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Canyon wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
>
> Camille Patch wrote:
>
>>I've always been able to make the runway from 500'agl engine failures on
>>takeoff. 45 degree banks and best glide every time. The one thing that
>>really makes a difference is what direction I turn: into the wind is
>>by far
>>an easier way to go.
>
> ---
> Thanks for that post, Cammie. I was beginning to think I was taught
> all wrong. I did a lot of similar stuff at a controlled field when the
> traffic allowed. Great practice. A lot of the email here seems to
> indicate there is not the same degree of slow flight and emergency
> training as there used to be for new pilots.
>
> Steve
>
I see a lot of good advice here on practice, practice, practice
BUT I have not seen anyone describe the fact that when the fire goes out for
real it is going to be a few seconds before your brain reacts and you can put
all the practice to work. Knowing that you are going to give yourself a engine
failure is different than the real thing. I have had two engine failures in the
40 years I have been flying. A good way to put your practice into a more
realistic scenaerio on takeoff and climb out is to pull power and count ONE
thousand TWO thousand THREE thousand before starting any emergency landing
procedure. I am sure that anyone here that has had an engine failure for real
can tell you that it takes a bit of time to get over the "Oh Shit" factor
before reacting, even with practice.
Jerry
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: | cowling hinge pins |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
I'm looking for info and pics of how to safely attach the end of the cowling
hinge pins
(RV7A, IO-360 cowling).
Steve Hurlbut
RV7A
Almost done
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: Repairmans certificate was registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn williams <willig10@yahoo.com>
Cy:
As per FAR 65.104 it specifically states in
paragraph 2.
2. Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the
priveleges of the certificate are applicable.
Paragraph 3 comes into play "after" paragraph 2.
3. Show to the satisfaction of the administrator that
the individual has the requisite skill to determine
whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe
operations.
Unless I am reading this wrong. If you are not the
primary builder you are not entitled to a repairmans
certificate for an aircraft that was bought near
completion.
Regards
Glenn Williams
A&P
Fort Worth, Texas
do not archive
--- Cy Galley <cgalley@qcbc.org> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley"
> <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> The more than 50% part of each statement is how the
> airplane was built
> either from parts or a kit. At the time you check
> the box, you are the
> owner. There is NO requirement for you to be the
> owner when either the kit
> or parts were bought. Further, if you can
> demonstrate to the FAA that you
> have enough knowledge and skill to build the plane,
> you can get a
> repairman's certificate.
>
> With that said, the only thing that the "repairman's
> certificate" gives you
> is the right do the annual conditional inspection.
> Otherwise you have to
> get an A&P to sign this off. ALL maintenance can
> still be done by a person
> without a repairman's certificate.
>
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <smoothweasel@juno.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Registration
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by:
> smoothweasel@juno.com
> >
> > Thanx for the comments......I know
> that I am not eligible
> > for the
> > Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
> >
> > AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
> >
> > The owner/applicant should submit
> the required
> > documentation, in accordance with
> > section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
> > AC Form
> 8050-2
> > AC Form
> 8050-1
> >
> >
> > The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes
> in the middle of the
> > page and is labeled "must check one".
> >
> > The first,"More than 50% of the
> above-described aircraft was
> > built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
> >
> > The second,"More than 50% of the
> above-descibed aircraft was
> > built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
> > the owner. The bill of sale from the kit
> manufacturer is attached.
> >
> > since nether of these are true how would
> one send this form
> > in....or is it not required? the plane has never
> been reg.
> >
> > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno
> SpeedBand!
> > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Glenn Williams
8A
A&P
N81GW
__________________________________
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
>
> I see a lot of good advice here on practice, practice, practice
> BUT I have not seen anyone describe the fact that when the fire goes out for
> real it is going to be a few seconds before your brain reacts and you can put
> all the practice to work. Knowing that you are going to give yourself a engine
> failure is different than the real thing. I have had two engine failures in the
> 40 years I have been flying. A good way to put your practice into a more
> realistic scenaerio on takeoff and climb out is to pull power and count ONE
> thousand TWO thousand THREE thousand before starting any emergency landing
> procedure. I am sure that anyone here that has had an engine failure for real
> can tell you that it takes a bit of time to get over the "Oh Shit" factor
> before reacting, even with practice.
>
> Jerry
> Very well put.
And after this 3 seconds has passed, if the plane was initially in climb attitude,
one will realize he has no more feel in his hands than a wet noodle.
Phil
do not archive
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: cowling hinge pins |
--> RV-List message posted by: Neil McLeod <neilmcleod@direcway.com>
There are some pretty good ideas in "21 years of RVator"
Neil McLeod
7 qb finish and fwf
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
Subject: RV-List: cowling hinge pins
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve J Hurlbut" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
>
> I'm looking for info and pics of how to safely attach the end of the
cowling
> hinge pins
> (RV7A, IO-360 cowling).
>
> Steve Hurlbut
> RV7A
> Almost done
>
>
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: Repairmans certificate was registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Glen, if 5 of you are building the airplane as partners and only one of
you can get a repairman certificate which one of you is going to be the primary
builder? It well normally be the person that submits the paperwork. You are
entitled if you can show the inspector that you have worked
on building the airplane and have a good amount of knowledge of how to maintain
it. This seems to be a area that well very by different FAA offices.
Mike "DAS FED" care to comment? :-)
Jerry
glenn williams wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: glenn williams <willig10@yahoo.com>
>
> Cy:
> As per FAR 65.104 it specifically states in
> paragraph 2.
>
> 2. Be the primary builder of the aircraft to which the
> priveleges of the certificate are applicable.
>
> Paragraph 3 comes into play "after" paragraph 2.
>
> 3. Show to the satisfaction of the administrator that
> the individual has the requisite skill to determine
> whether the aircraft is in a condition for safe
> operations.
>
> Unless I am reading this wrong. If you are not the
> primary builder you are not entitled to a repairmans
> certificate for an aircraft that was bought near
> completion.
>
> Regards
> Glenn Williams
> A&P
> Fort Worth, Texas
>
>
> do not archive
> --- Cy Galley <cgalley@qcbc.org> wrote:
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley"
>><cgalley@qcbc.org>
>>
>>The more than 50% part of each statement is how the
>>airplane was built
>>either from parts or a kit. At the time you check
>>the box, you are the
>>owner. There is NO requirement for you to be the
>>owner when either the kit
>>or parts were bought. Further, if you can
>>demonstrate to the FAA that you
>>have enough knowledge and skill to build the plane,
>>you can get a
>>repairman's certificate.
>>
>>With that said, the only thing that the "repairman's
>>certificate" gives you
>>is the right do the annual conditional inspection.
>>Otherwise you have to
>>get an A&P to sign this off. ALL maintenance can
>>still be done by a person
>>without a repairman's certificate.
>>
>>Cy Galley
>>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <smoothweasel@juno.com>
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: RV-List: Registration
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by:
>>
>>smoothweasel@juno.com
>>
>>> Thanx for the comments......I know
>>
>>that I am not eligible
>>
>>>for the
>>>Repairman cert. but that isn't what I am asking!
>>>
>>> AC no 20-27E on page 7 says this.
>>>
>>> The owner/applicant should submit
>>
>>the required
>>
>>>documentation, in accordance with
>>>section47.33 AC Form 8050-88
>>> AC Form
>>
>>8050-2
>>
>>> AC Form
>>
>>8050-1
>>
>>>
>>> The AC Form 8050-88 has two boxes
>>
>>in the middle of the
>>
>>>page and is labeled "must check one".
>>>
>>> The first,"More than 50% of the
>>
>>above-described aircraft was
>>
>>>built from miscellaneous parts and I am the owner.
>>>
>>> The second,"More than 50% of the
>>
>>above-descibed aircraft was
>>
>>>built from a kit (prefabricated parts) and I am
>>>the owner. The bill of sale from the kit
>>
>>manufacturer is attached.
>>
>>> since nether of these are true how would
>>
>>one send this form
>>
>>>in....or is it not required? the plane has never
>>
>>been reg.
>>
>>>The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno
>>
>>SpeedBand!
>>
>>>Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> =====
> Glenn Williams
> 8A
> A&P
> N81GW
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Van's solid state dimmer comes with four board standoffs that are 6-32
threaded, male-female. Does anybody know where to get standoffs like that
separately?
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@bowenaero.com>
I think I've seen them in the DigiKey (and similar) catalogs.
-
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 Dan Checkoway
> Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 12:16 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: board standoffs
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Van's solid state dimmer comes with four board standoffs that
> are 6-32 threaded, male-female. Does anybody know where to
> get standoffs like that separately?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
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: my view of accidents |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross S <rv7maker@yahoo.com>
Michael,
1.) Take a look at how much good the BRS system has done Cirrus' accident rating
before you shell out the big bucks.
2.) Take a good look at a completed RV. The whole plane is one big crumple zone.
3.) If you want to hit the ground softly, get a powered parachute.
4.) If you want to fly 200 MPH, buy and sevice a good engine.
Ross Schlotthauer
RV-7 Finishing
MeangreenRV4 <meangreenrv4@bak.rr.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "MeangreenRV4"
Michael a RV7 will land faster than 50mph, thats guaranteed, so why don't
you get a good flight simulator program and call it a day. Then the worst
thing that can happen is you might fall out of your chair. But if you lay
foam rubber on the floor.......
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael michael"
Subject: RV-List: my view of accidents
> --> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael"
>
> I`m new the list.
> I`m taking my pilot lic right now.
> I want to fly the RV-7 & have bought the kit tail kit. In a few years I
> might be in the air.
>
> Do any RV owners have BRS parachute systems installed. It seems to me when
> your landing speed is over 50 mph, even a good off airport landing will be
> very risky. Plus even if you do survive chances are your traped upside
down.
> If its good enouf for a Cessna it should be good enouf for my RV
>
> Please feel free to tell me i dont know what i`m talking about....cause
i`m
> new & i don`t. So educate me. Is the non use of parachutes a macho thing?
>
> I read the accident report on the RV line from RV World Wing & Ntsb. Over
50
> people killed out of 4500 planes flying....Thats 1 in 90 chance of not
> walking away. I`m new...will make mistakes...want to live to a ripe old
age
> & have a blast at 200mph. I wont be flying my plane without a BRS balistic
> parachute system installed. & i dont work for the company....;)
>
>
> Please tell me, am i the only person thinkng this ?
>
> I`m into safety. I`ve even gone on ebay to look up used airbag
prices...not
> bad, can get a whole deploymnet system+bags, from a salvaged car for
$400.00
> I know it sounds crazy. But planes dont have crumple zones. Your body has
to
> absorb all the energy.
>
> Michael
> Toronto Canada.
> Safety crazy in Canada
>
>
---------------------------------
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: | Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 7/1/2003 12:53:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lors01@msn.com
writes:
> I recently reset the cone-of-safety glide ratio on my GPS after doing a
> 'real' engine out. I had previously tested with what I thought was an
> engine speed that produced as much or more drag than a stopped prop and had
> a 650 - 700 fpm descent rate (RV-4 at 5000 MSL). With the engine truly
> stopped the descent rate went to 900 fpm - yikes!
Tracy-
Maybe Cy Galley or another expert can demystify this issue for us once and
for all. I have been assured by all the experts with whom I have spoken, that
a
stopped prop absolutely has LESS drag than a windmilling prop. Therefore,
what you have written should be untrue.
You should not get a higher rate of sink at the same best glide speed with
the prop stopped than you had with the prop windmilling. Isn't this physically
impossible??
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 612hrs)
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: | Re: board standoffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gil Alexander <gilalex@earthlink.net>
Dan ... try Mouser Electronics if you want mail order
Catalog page
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/614/834.pdf
Or you could try the Electronics store on Washington Blvd (opposite B&B
Hardware) just West of Centinela - If it's still there - I've forgotton
it's name after 3 years....
LA has slowly become devoid of Electronics stores that actually sold parts....
Also a chance that Fry's Electronics in Manhattan Beach on PCH would have
some...
You are in in the People's Republic of Santa Monica aren't you??
gil in Tucson - but used to be in Mar Vista...
At 09:15 PM 7/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Van's solid state dimmer comes with four board standoffs that are 6-32
>threaded, male-female. Does anybody know where to get standoffs like that
>separately?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
RV-6A, #20701 .. fitting out firewall...
77 Tiger N28478 at 57AZ
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: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a |
windmilling one??
--> RV-List message posted by: Gil Alexander <gilalex@earthlink.net>
Yes... but wind milling is with the magnetos and fuel supply off (i.e., a
non-operating engine)
If you throttled back to do the tests, I bet the engine is still generating
HP, and helping your glide ratio...
just my 2 c gil in Tucson
At 01:39 AM 7/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 7/1/2003 12:53:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lors01@msn.com
>writes:
>
> > I recently reset the cone-of-safety glide ratio on my GPS after doing a
> > 'real' engine out. I had previously tested with what I thought was an
> > engine speed that produced as much or more drag than a stopped prop and had
> > a 650 - 700 fpm descent rate (RV-4 at 5000 MSL). With the engine truly
> > stopped the descent rate went to 900 fpm - yikes!
>
>Tracy-
>
>Maybe Cy Galley or another expert can demystify this issue for us once and
>for all. I have been assured by all the experts with whom I have spoken,
>that a
>stopped prop absolutely has LESS drag than a windmilling prop. Therefore,
>what you have written should be untrue.
>
>You should not get a higher rate of sink at the same best glide speed with
>the prop stopped than you had with the prop windmilling. Isn't this
>physically
>impossible??
>
>-GV (RV-6A N1GV 612hrs)
>
>
RV-6A, #20701 .. fitting out firewall...
77 Tiger N28478 at 57AZ
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: | Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
No. It's been shown that an engine at idle will still produce useable
thrust. So you've really been practicing all those forced landings with
partial power.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Vanremog@aol.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a
windmilling one??
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 7/1/2003 12:53:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
lors01@msn.com
writes:
> I recently reset the cone-of-safety glide ratio on my GPS after doing
a
> 'real' engine out. I had previously tested with what I thought was an
> engine speed that produced as much or more drag than a stopped prop
and had
> a 650 - 700 fpm descent rate (RV-4 at 5000 MSL). With the engine
truly
> stopped the descent rate went to 900 fpm - yikes!
Tracy-
Maybe Cy Galley or another expert can demystify this issue for us once
and
for all. I have been assured by all the experts with whom I have
spoken, that a
stopped prop absolutely has LESS drag than a windmilling prop.
Therefore,
what you have written should be untrue.
You should not get a higher rate of sink at the same best glide speed
with
the prop stopped than you had with the prop windmilling. Isn't this
physically
impossible??
-GV (RV-6A N1GV 612hrs)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: board standoffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Dan,
If you are near an electronics store you should find them there or at least
they should be able to order them. Computer tech shops should be able to
find something for you.
If you tell us the stand off dimensions, height etc., someone might have
some at hand?
Some nylon tubing for spacers and 6-32 or 4-40 machine screws, nuts and
lock-tite might work
Small nylon machine screws can be had at some of the larger hardware outlets
or from hobby stores.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: RV-List: board standoffs
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> Van's solid state dimmer comes with four board standoffs that are 6-32
> threaded, male-female. Does anybody know where to get standoffs like that
> separately?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
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: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
HelloYall
When I first posted I knew I would be getting myself in trouble
with this one. There are so many variables and not really good
information to work with. I will stand by my statements and
attempt to back them up.
Yes, there are a few switches rated in DC. Just because they are DC
rated does not make them any different than an AC rated only switch.
The one Bill mentioned has a 20amp 28volt DC rating which would
be an equivalent 10amp 14 volt rating. ALL the other switches, and
there a many hundreds, are rated at MUCH less or have a much
larger case size. Is this one switch any different or better? Maybe, but
probably not. I will agree that it appears to be a good quality switch.
Not inexpensive, but OK in price for a sealed switch. $14-30 depending
on configuration. If it makes you feel better to have the rating this
would be a good way to go.
I was expecting some replies and tonight looked under the panels
of a couple of Comanches to see what was under there. I was surprised
to see the exact same Carling switches but with screw terminals as Bob
supplies. This was on the landing lights and pitot heat. Both high
draw circuits. The panel, strobe and nav lights were much smaller
switches with screw terminals and no rating. It was too difficult to
read the brand, but if necessary I will get it. After more than 30 years
there was no sign of discoloration. How could these get in a certified
plane at the factory with no DC rating? In the Newark catalog they are
listed as general purpose with no rating at all given?
I also found a loose landing gear switch from a Piper. It is a single throw
4 pole Microswitch (Honeywell) sealed switch with no rating on the case.
This switch in Newark has only AC ratings listed. This is the same switch,
but in different configurations, that I have on all vital circuits in my
plane. If good enough for a certified landing gear system it is good enough
for me. These are obvious high quality sealed switches which are used in
many aircraft. These are the ones that often have locks that require the
switch lever to be lifted before moving it.
Now for the 21 amp unit sold by the auto electrical supplier Del City. I
would never run continuous 21 amps thru a switch with push on spade
terminals. If so, it had better have really good terminal connections. This
is a real place for problems. For 2 bucks I seriously doubt if any exotic
materials or larger contacts were used here. Just because it is certified
does not make it any better. I would never put any faith in this one in a
landing lamp or pitot heat circuit regardless of what the specs say. Just my
opinion.
Seeing the Carling switches in the Comanche has made me feel much
better about using them in the applications that I have in my plane. I
assume that the failure I experienced was an isolated incident do to the
loose spade terminal rivit. I have no doubts to the quality of the
Microswitch brand and their ability to do the job better than an
inexpensive blade terminal switch in the same application.
None of the electrical items in my plane was picked randomly.
Only high quality terminals, tefzel wire, quality parts and good
techniques were used. We must use some common sense in
decision making.
George Meketa
RV8, N444TX, 338.7 hours
> >Bill
> >
> >Realistically a high quality fast acting A/C rated switch will work many
> >thousands of cycles when used in a D/C circuit. You mention using only
> >D/C rated switches. Looking thru the Newark catalog most D/C switches
are
> >rated at 5 amps or much less.
>
> Cutler-Hammer makes a line of inexpensive high-current toggle
> switches that are rated at 28 VDC.
>
>
<http://www.cutler-hammer.eaton.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=C-H/Com
mon/AssetTemplateLink&c=Apubarticles&cid=987117647015&Sec=home>
>
> You just have to look around a bit instead of just picking
> something at random from the hardware store or the auto parts store.
>
>
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: | Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James Jula" <jmjula@comcast.net>
A stopped prop would have significantly less drag during an engine out.
Anyone that has been through multi-engine training should be able to
appreciate just how much drag a wind milling prop creates. It takes a lot of
energy to keep the prop turning against the compression of the engine. That
energy results in extra drag. The profile drag of a stopped prop is minor by
comparison.
Now, during simulated engine outs in single engine aircraft, an idle setting
of the engine results in less drag than a true engine failure. An engine at
idle does produce some power. The extra drag during a true engine failure
will result in a higher decent rate. If the prop happens to stop (not
likely), the performance will be near or better than the simulated case.
James
CFI - ASE & AME
RV-7A Wings
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
>Tracy-
>Maybe Cy Galley or another expert can demystify this issue for us once and
>for all. I have been assured by all the experts with whom I have spoken,
that a
>stopped prop absolutely has LESS drag than a windmilling prop. Therefore,
>what you have written should be untrue.
>You should not get a higher rate of sink at the same best glide speed with
>the prop stopped than you had with the prop windmilling. Isn't this
physically
>impossible??
>-GV (RV-6A N1GV 612hrs)
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: | Tires and brakes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
Hello Yall
Just for information.
I just replaced the first set of tires on the 8. Have used Goodyear
Flight Custom II's since first flight.
First brakes and tire rotation 134.8 hours.
Second brakes and tire replacement at 338.7 hours with 582 landings
George Meketa
RV8, N444TX, 338.7 hrs
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! --
|