Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:25 AM - Re: board standoffs (Dan Checkoway)
2. 02:51 AM - Re: Bucking Bars Again (Doug Gray)
3. 04:01 AM - stopped prop (Tom Martin)
4. 05:00 AM - Re: Repairmans certificate was registration (Cy Galley)
5. 06:34 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (Wayne Reese)
6. 06:37 AM - Re: Bucking Bars Again (Scott Bilinski)
7. 06:44 AM - Re: board standoffs (Scott Bilinski)
8. 06:46 AM - Re: Tires and brakes (Lenleg@aol.com)
9. 06:48 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a (Scott Bilinski)
10. 07:05 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling (Denis Walsh)
11. 07:08 AM - Nelson Airport Update (Good News) (terence.gannon@telus.net)
12. 07:13 AM - Re: Tires and brakes (mstewart@qa.butler.com)
13. 07:40 AM - ICOM Radio (Bruce Green)
14. 07:45 AM - Re: Tires and brakes (Ross S)
15. 07:46 AM - Re: stopped prop (Rob Prior)
16. 08:00 AM - Re: ICOM Radio (Dwpetrus@aol.com)
17. 08:07 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? ()
18. 08:26 AM - Re: ICOM Radio (SportAV8R@aol.com)
19. 08:30 AM - Re: ICOM Radio ()
20. 08:37 AM - Re: Tires and brakes (Chris Good)
21. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: rv-list: rv accident (SportAV8R@aol.com)
22. 08:47 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling (Rob Prior)
23. 08:53 AM - Brake pad replacement (KostaLewis)
24. 09:03 AM - Re: ICOM Radio (KostaLewis)
25. 09:09 AM - Re: Repairmans certificate was registration (Mike Robertson)
26. 10:45 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (Jim Oke)
27. 11:02 AM - Re: stopped prop (Tracy Crook)
28. 11:36 AM - Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? (Tracy Crook)
29. 12:00 PM - Re: stopped prop (Tedd McHenry)
30. 12:14 PM - Jensen Picnic (Stein Bruch)
31. 12:29 PM - Re: RV-List -> registration/repair cert (Finn Lassen)
32. 12:38 PM - my view of accidents/parachutes delete if not interested (rpmiller)
33. 12:44 PM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (van Bladeren, Ron)
34. 12:46 PM - Re: ICOM Radio (Denis Walsh)
35. 01:00 PM - low power mystery on RV7A?? (Dwpetrus@aol.com)
36. 02:16 PM - Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? (kempthornes)
37. 02:16 PM - Re: Re: RV-List -> registration/repair cert ()
38. 02:45 PM - Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? (Dwpetrus@aol.com)
39. 04:20 PM - Re: prop spacer thanks (chris m)
40. 04:23 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Curt Reimer)
41. 04:29 PM - For Sale: Van's Tach & MP gauges (Randy Lervold)
42. 04:41 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Keith Vasey)
43. 04:45 PM - Re : Icom Radio (Martin Hone)
44. 04:46 PM - Off list for a while... (Ralph E. Capen)
45. 05:31 PM - Seats (bert murillo)
46. 05:33 PM - Re: ICOM Radio (Dave Bristol)
47. 05:48 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Tedd McHenry)
48. 05:51 PM - Re: Seats (Jerry Springer)
49. 05:53 PM - Re: Seats ()
50. 05:59 PM - Re: Seats (Bob Hassel)
51. 06:03 PM - Re: Seats (David Taylor)
52. 06:05 PM - Re: Seats (Jim Daniels)
53. 06:18 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (michael michael)
54. 06:27 PM - Re: Seats (michael michael)
55. 06:37 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Jerry Springer)
56. 06:48 PM - Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? (Bob Newman)
57. 06:56 PM - Re: stopped prop (Nels Hanson)
58. 06:56 PM - Re: ICOM Radio (Chris W)
59. 07:05 PM - Re: Seats (John D. & Rose)
60. 07:07 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Chris W)
61. 07:49 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (Sam Buchanan)
62. 08:06 PM - Re: Seats (PASSPAT@aol.com)
63. 08:31 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (long rant) (Curt Reimer)
64. 08:32 PM - Re: Seats ()
65. 08:52 PM - Re: my view of accidents/parachutes (KostaLewis)
66. 08:54 PM - GPS 196 (DEREK REED)
67. 09:04 PM - Bucking bars. (Rob W M Shipley)
68. 09:58 PM - RV7A TIP UP ()
69. 10:16 PM - Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? (janenjoe@juno.com)
70. 10:53 PM - Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) (Meketa)
Message 1
| 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: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Thanks to all who responded. I ended up getting 'em from McMaster Carr. I
needed stainless steel since this is for the firewall (amp sensor for
ACS2002).
91075A440 - 18-8 SS Male-Female
Threaded Hex Standoff 1/4" Hex,
1/4" Length, 6-32 Screw Size
I probably overpaid, but I like how McMaster's web site part customization
wizard works. 8-)
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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>
> 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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bucking Bars Again |
--> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray <dgra1233@bigpond.net.au>
Axe blade - Avery, Cleveland or Browns will do, or perhaps the one that
in your garden shed.
Doug Gray
rpmiller wrote:
> --> 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 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@execulink.com>
I do not reply to this list often but I do monitor the threads and I have
some experience with stopped props! My RV4 had a Warnke wood prop and a 180
hp lycoming. If you did not get the speed slow enough on final you would
coast for a long way down the runway as the prop still pulled quite a bit at
idle power settings. This has to do with the coarse pitch of the fixed
pitch propellers we need for the higher speeds that RVs reach.
When the prop stops the difference in glide is huge. To explain what I
mean
by huge; when my engine was running rough while circling high over the
airport I was concerned that it might stop when I reduced power. The prop
stopped on base just as my speed decreased to 90 mph. I was high, so high
that I thought I would run off the end of a 5000 foot runway based on my
experience with that plane. I landed just past the numbers. That is a big
difference and it is not surprising that pilots that lose their engines come
up short of the runway. These planes, with their short wings, sink pretty
fast with no power, be prepared.
Tom Martin
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: Repairmans certificate was registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Primary doesn't mean 51%. A plane can have many people doing the building.
The big thing today is the picture record of the building.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas every day
Quarterly newsletters on time
Reasonable document reprints
1-518-731-6800
----- Original Message -----
From: "glenn williams" <willig10@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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: | Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
There is a difference between windmilling and running at idle.
WR
-----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 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: Bucking Bars Again |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
After a few head scratchers on how I will buck/squeeze numerous rivets I
realized I was spending WAY to much time trying to figure it out. I talked
to Van's and they have a flush head pop rivet that is the same size with
only a slightly larger body, (.109). I used these things everywhere a
bucking bar was an issue. After filing the head with JB weld sanding and
painting I cant tell where they are. On an 8 wait till its time to rivet on
the flap to fuse fairing now that one is fun. Is used all pop rivets on
this one, to help eliminate distortion that regular rivets would cause.
At 07:13 PM 7/1/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> 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>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>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?
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: board standoffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
McMaster-Carr
At 09:15 PM 7/1/03 -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
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tires and brakes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
Speaking of brake replacement .... what are the signs or indications that
brake pads need replacement? Is it just by making a visual inspection or do you
get some signs like a squeal that you would hear in a car?
Thanks !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
98 hours Race # 87
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a |
windmilling one??
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Someone mentioned earlier that a windmilling prop added 300 FPM to the
decent over an engine at idle.
At 02:12 AM 7/2/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> 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
>To: rv-list@matronics.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)
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling |
one??
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
Yes indeed a significant difference between idle windmilling and no power
windmilling. And if at idle, how much power?, and what area, diameter,
pitch and weight of prop. Not to mention what is your glide speed and
engine speed. If at windmill, what is the "drag" of the engine being
windmilled?
I have a constant speed. When I practice gliding, I use a 90 MPH glide
speed, and my idle speed is set rather low. I also leave the prop in fine
pitch (max rpm). I feel this gives me the worst case of max prop drag that
I can safely achieve under normal conditions. If and when I have a failure,
the odds are that I will have a better glide ratio than I have practiced at.
This should be easier to deal with than the reverse situation.
Just one man's approach. Lots of ways to do it, but I keep it simple.
I admire anyone, no matter what their approach, if they just get out there
and practice emergency landings.
On 7/2/03 7:34 AM, "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <waynereese@qwest.net>
>
> There is a difference between windmilling and running at idle.
> WR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Vanremog@aol.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.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 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: | Nelson Airport Update (Good News) |
--> RV-List message posted by: terence.gannon@telus.net
'Listers -- for those of you not interested in a Western Canadian/NW United
States regional issue, please delete now.
A few weeks back I posted a note regarding the pending closure of the Nelson
Airport, and I'm delighted to report that due in no small part to the number
of messages that were received at City Hall, that the pending closure of
Nelson airport has been deferred, if not outright, then at least for a year.
It's not total victory, it would seem, but progress in the right direction.
See the link below, for more info.
http://www.flynorth.com/nelson.html
The article in COPA Flight specifically mentioned that many calls, emails and
faxes were received from "around the world". I'm sure that at least a few of
those were RV-Listers -- thanks to all of you that took the time to write.
I'm going to reward the good judgement of the City Council by visiting there
this weekend (by car, not air, sadly) and drop some tourist dollars in a local
hotel and in the local restaurants. Why not put Nelson on your summer flying
season calendar??!!
It just goes to show that by being active, you really CAN make a difference.
Well done! Best regards...
Terry in Calgary
RV-6 S/N 24414
"Wings"
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tires and brakes |
tests=AWL,BAYES_01,NO_REAL_NAME,ORIGINAL_MESSAGE,
USER_IN_WHITELIST
autolearn=ham version=2.53
--> RV-List message posted by: mstewart@qa.butler.com
Len
You will hear the brass rivets grinding. That's your only indication beyond
visual.
Mike Stewart
900 hrs, 3rd set of brakes
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Lenleg@aol.com [mailto:Lenleg@aol.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tires and brakes
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
Speaking of brake replacement .... what are the signs or indications that
brake pads need replacement? Is it just by making a visual inspection or do
you
get some signs like a squeal that you would hear in a car?
Thanks !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
98 hours Race # 87
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: Bruce Green <mailindex@juno.com>
Has anyone had any experience good or bad with the ICOM A-200 panel mount
radio?
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
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: | Tires and brakes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ross S <rv7maker@yahoo.com>
Mike,
I am surprised you are on your third set, I don't remember you ever using the brakes
when I flew with you!
-Ross
mstewart@qa.butler.com wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: mstewart@qa.butler.com
Len
You will hear the brass rivets grinding. That's your only indication beyond
visual.
Mike Stewart
900 hrs, 3rd set of brakes
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Lenleg@aol.com [mailto:Lenleg@aol.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tires and brakes
--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
Speaking of brake replacement .... what are the signs or indications that
brake pads need replacement? Is it just by making a visual inspection or do
you
get some signs like a squeal that you would hear in a car?
Thanks !!
Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, NC N910LL
98 hours Race # 87
---------------------------------
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: stopped prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Tom Martin wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Martin" <fairlea@execulink.com>
> When the prop stops the difference in glide is huge. To explain what
I mean
> by huge; when my engine was running rough while circling high over the
> airport I was concerned that it might stop when I reduced power. The prop
> stopped on base just as my speed decreased to 90 mph. I was high, so high
> that I thought I would run off the end of a 5000 foot runway based on my
> experience with that plane. I landed just past the numbers. That is a big
> difference and it is not surprising that pilots that lose their engines come
> up short of the runway. These planes, with their short wings, sink pretty
> fast with no power, be prepared.
A number of people have tried to point out on this thread that an airplane
with a stopped prop will descend faster than an airplane with a windmilling
prop. In each case it's implied that a windmilling prop on an engine that
has *quit* will bring you down the slowest. That simply isn't true.
Note that in each case reported so far it's also been said that the engine
was "running rough" or "at idle". None of these approximate a windmilling
propellor, as the prop is still connected to an engine that is putting out
(some) power.
An airplane with a stopped prop *will* descend slower than an airplane with
a windmilling prop (when windmilling means the engine has quit, and is not
putting out any power). If you run through the math, you'll find that a
windmilling prop has the same drag (within a couple of percent) as would a
flat disc of plywood the same diameter as the propellor mounted where the
prop is.
--
---------
Rob Prior
rv7 "at" b4.ca
-----------------------------
Stop dreaming... Start flying
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
I battled ICOM for 6 months over my defective brand new radio. I was finally
able to get it replaced by them last month. I think that the equipment is
basically good, but there tech support is terrible. It was sent back twice to
them with an intermitant problem and they simple powered it up and declared it
fixed and sent it back to me.
Just me 2 c worth.
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: <racker@rmci.net>
In case any are interested in real world data, see archived message
#102711. RV-6 (O-360 f/p prop) idle/windmilling/non-windmilling glides
(thanks Larry).
Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
I've had 5 years of trouble-free service with mine, but the little rubber
sleeves on the tuning knobs (the "grips") have dry-rotted off from UV or ozone,
In presume, and I have yet to attempt replacement via customer service.
-Bill B
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: <racker@rmci.net>
Excellent radio, have had several "loud & clear" comments on radio checks.
Its my understanding Icom OEM's these for King in KY-97A form.
Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
do not archive
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bruce Green <mailindex@juno.com>
>
> Has anyone had any experience good or bad with the ICOM A-200 panel
> mount radio?
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tires and brakes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chris Good" <chrisjgood@lycos.com>
Len,
The spec on my Cleveland brakes said to replace when the pads are down to 0.1"
thickness. They were down to 0.11" when I replaced them at 489 hrs.
I haven't been so lucky with tires. My nose-wheel tire is still original, but
the mains...
Aerotrainers in the kit
109 hrs & 122 landings (didn't rotate in time)
Condor 500-5 10 ply
193 hrs & 228 landings, rotated after 115 hrs
Desser 6 ply retreads
185 hrs & 233 landings, rotated after 97 hrs
I now have Michelin Condors & Michelin AirStop tubes. Great tubes! The mains
used to drop 4-5 PSI in 3 weeks with standard tubes, but now less than 1 PSI in
a month! I inflate all three tires to 35 PSI.
Regards,
Chris Good
West Bend, WI
RV-6A
--
--------- Original Message ---------
DATE: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:45:57
From: Lenleg@aol.com
>--> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com
>
>Speaking of brake replacement .... what are the signs or indications that
>brake pads need replacement? Is it just by making a visual inspection or do you
>get some signs like a squeal that you would hear in a car?
>
>Thanks !!
>
>Len Leggette, RV-8A
>Greensboro, NC N910LL
>98 hours Race # 87
>
>
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
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: re: rv-list: rv accident |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 07/01/2003 5:15:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
azpilot@extremezone.com writes:
> 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.
Paul, the point I ws trying to make is that Vy, not Vx, gives you the most
altitude per unit time (Vx yields most altitude per unit of forward distance,
i.e. steepness, but is a much lower fpm of vertical speed than a Vy climb in an
RV). Please be sure you understand this, as it does make a difference. Only
Vy will get you what you claim you want, "the most altitude by one minute,"
thus we should make Vy climb our standard practice on departure whenever
possible.
-Bill
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: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling |
one??
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
racker@rmci.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: <racker@rmci.net>
>
> In case any are interested in real world data, see archived message
> #102711. RV-6 (O-360 f/p prop) idle/windmilling/non-windmilling glides
> (thanks Larry).
For someone searching the Archives, search for "Engine out glide" and "Larry
Pardue". I'm not sure what that number corresponds to, but I couldn't find
it in the archive...
> Rob Acker (RV-6 flying)
> do not archive
-RB4
--
---------
Rob Prior
rv7 "at" b4.ca
-----------------------------
Stop dreaming... Start flying
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
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: | Brake pad replacement |
--> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
Brake pad replacement: You should, of course, be inspecting them during
your conditional inspection. The upstream end of the pads (top) seem to
wear faster than the downstream side (bottom) so look at both ends. When
they start to look thin on the end, (between 1/8th and 1/16th inch or
so) pull the caliper and look at the brass rivet. If the pad has worn to
the rivet, with scrape marks on any of the three rivets, replace 'em.
Rapco brand seem to wear as well as Cleveland pads and are cheaper. I
order several sets at a time so I don't have to wait if the pads need to
be replaced. They come with the special brass rivets to install them.
The special brake lining rivet anvil is an inexpensive tool and you'll
use it a lot; well worth the initial output of cash. It pops the old
rivets out and lets you mash the new ones in. Tool venders have them.
Time to replacement: varies depending on your break use, of course.
Minimal use of brakes is always the preferred practice. Your first set
will wear the fastest as you get use to not using them.
New brake shoes then need to be "set": fast taxi and hard application of
brakes three or four times does it.
IMHO
Michael
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: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>Has anyone had any experience good or bad with the ICOM A-200 panel
mount
radio?
I love mine. No problems in over 5 years. Great features, not much
money. Can be wired to your sick grip to change and flop
channels/frequencies. Main problem is picking up transmissions literally
hundreds of miles out. The lineperson at our home field told me once he
always knew it was me because my radio was the loudest around.
My antenna is belly mounted.
Last year I was headed to OSH and was monitoring home frequency as it
was also the frequency of my destination. I heard someone announce they
were entering left downwind for 15 at home field. The GPS said 87 miles
to home. I keyed the mic just for fun and said: "15 is right traffic". I
was surprised to get and hear the reply "Right traffic for 15? OK;
thanks for that info".
Michael
"Roger that"
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Repairmans certificate was registration |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Jerry,
Everything you say is true. Now how do we get one office to make the same
determination as another. Not possible when it is up to the inspector to
determine if the buyilder has enough knowledge to be granted a repairman's
certificate. I, for one, want to see that the applicat has been involved
significantly in the project and that he has enough knowledge to be able to
do an inspection. A lot of that is how the aircraft condition is at the
time of the initial inspection. Reason?...Because he is about to sign off a
condition inspeciton in the logbook stating that it is safe to operate. If
in his judgement it is, and in mine it is not, then his knowledge and
ability come into question. That being said, I have only turned down one
person so far even though I am running about a 50% initial inspeciton
failure(who have all passed so far on the 2nd inspection).
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
>From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Repairmans certificate was registration
>Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 21:05:38 -0700
>
>--> 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 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
A technique that was used during my military instructing days on Beech
Musketeers was to pull the throttle to idle and then (for the instructor) to
apply half flap to add drag to compensate for the prop turning at idle under
power vice windmilling. This may or may not have been good training for the
student in assessing the "real situation" pitch attitude need to maintain
the desired glide speed but, according to professionally done flight
testing, was suppossed to be an accurate simulation of engine out (prop
windwilling) gliding performance. Stopping the prop could be done but was
proven (again by actual test) to be difficult and required stalls, etc. to
reduce the airspeed to the point compression in the engine could not be
overcome.
The usual high altitude forced landing pattern that was taught was a
descending 360 degree turn begun overhead the desired touchdown point at
1,500 ft AGL. Using about 20 deg of bank, this placed the aircraft (again we
are talking about a Beech Musketeer) at the 180 deg position at 900 ft AGL.
Continuing would place the aircraft at the 90 deg position with 500 ft AGL
which supposedly included some extra altitude which would be dealt with by
progressively adding flap as needed to make good the intended touchdown
point. (During training, half flap was already down; if the student pulled
full flap and mumbled something about using flap as required, he got a
thumbs up and we got on with an overshoot not below 200 ft AGL. Staff got to
do these to touchdown on the big runway back home but the simulation was a
bit hookey for the last few hundred feet.)
FWIW, by these numbers a 20 deg bank 180 deg turn took 600 feet and placed
you about 3/4 mile left or right from where you started and in no position
to land back on a runway you have just climb straight out from. I would
suggest that a Beech Muskeeter is a reasonably generic light aircraft and
others in its class would have similar numbers.
We always taught the "land straight ahead with minor turns to choose the
smaller trees" technique for engine failures after takeoff and simply
counseled "dont" for the 180 back.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
RV-6A C-GKGZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Jula" <jmjula@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: RV-List: 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 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: stopped prop |
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:03:11 -0400
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: stopped prop
A number of people have tried to point out on this thread that an airplane
with a stopped prop will descend faster than an airplane with a windmilling
prop. In each case it's implied that a windmilling prop on an engine that
has *quit* will bring you down the slowest. That simply isn't true.
>SNIP<
---------
Rob Prior
rv7 "at" b4.ca
You are correct that a stopped prop has less drag than a windmilling prop but
I think you misconstrued the meaning of some of the prior posts. The conclusion
I drew was that it is virtually impossible to determine the equivalent stopped
prop drag with drag at some low throttle setting. If you *think* you do,
try shutting off the engine and slowing down until it stops and then measure
minimum sink rate. I found it to be higher than expected.
One more point. Windmilling drag is less at full throttle than at low throttle
(engine dead condition) due to pumping losses in the engine.
Tracy Crook
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: Isn't a stopped prop less draggy than a windmilling one?? |
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:36:25 -0400
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Yes, absolutely. The point is that it is virtually impossible to determine the
throttle setting that is equivalent to a stopped prop. There probably is one
but finding it is not easy. Bottom line is that you don't know the stopped
prop descent rate until you try it. Would be nice to see typical values but
I'm the only one that I've noticed that has posted an actual number (900 fpm at
90 - 95 MPH.) Anyone else have their number?
Tracy Crook
--> 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 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: stopped prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
> One more point. Windmilling drag is less at full throttle than at low
> throttle (engine dead condition) due to pumping losses in the engine.
Good point.
So, would the optimum single-dead-engine set-up be full throttle and full
coarse pitch? I'm assuming the CS prop will still operate if the engine is
windmilling, though probably with slower response. How much would this affect
the glide ratio (compared to closed throttle and fine pitch)? Enough to make
it part of one's forced landing check, or are we splitting hairs?
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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 |
|
"Dick DeCramer" <diesel@rconnect.com>, "Mike Hilger" <rvsixer@juno.com>,
"Thomas Irlbeck" <pedalmil@pressenter.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Guys,
We at Jensen Field (Rosemount, MN) are having an impromptu picnic on
Saturday, July 5. There will be free burgers and brats served at 1:00pm,
and all taildraggers, antiques, and RV's are invited. OK those "other"
planes can come too!
If you're not doing anything on Saturday, drop by for a brat and soda if you
like. Just a reminder, Jensen field is appx. 1/2 mile south of Dakota
County Technical College off of CO42 and about 3 miles south of the Koch
Refinery off of Hwy52. Comm is 122.9, Rwy's are 09/27, right traffic for
09, left for 27. Field is grass, about 2500'. If you see the smokestacks
for the old Gopher munitions plant, we are right in the middle, and about
1/4 mile north of the tall lighted tower. If you come down Hwy 52 past
St.Paul, we are just south of the big refinery past 42. Call or email me
for better directions, as the airport is not published on the charts.
Should be a number of cubs, champs, taylorcraft, etc.. and maybe even a few
RV's. I don't have anyone elses email addresses handy, so if you could,
please forward this note to anyone who might like an excuse to fly on
Saturday. Everyone is invited.
Have a great week and a safe holiday.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List -> registration/repair cert |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finnlassen@netzero.net>
If you bought the kit from someone else I do not see how Vans Aircraft
can send you a Bill-of-Sale.
You need to have an unbroken chain of Bill-of-Sales from Van's all the
way to you. I'm faily sure each has to be notarized.
If you don't believe me, call the FAA registration office in Oklahoma
City. Maybe they've changed their tune, but I doubt it. My point is, get
it done now, not later when you're ready to register it and may not be
able to reach the seller(s). Don't ask me how I know.
Finn
> 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".
>
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: | my view of accidents/parachutes delete if not interested |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rpmiller" <rpmiller@1usa.net>
My 2 Cents:
Beware systems that increase complexity. I think airbags in airplanes is something
best left to a big engineering and manufacturing concern and even then I
think it is a bad idea. While Ballistic parachutes would seem to be items to
beware I think they have some merit. The problems are that the aircraft/parachute
combination has to be designed and tested, they are heavy and take up space,
and they are expensive. I think there is a fair amount of scepticism over
the idea of yanking a handle for something like an engine failure; your giving
up all control and at a minimum your airplane is going to be bent. I also think
that unless they can work below pattern altitude they wouldn't help with
most stall spin accidents. It seems like you would pull the handle if you had
lost control in the clouds, had a structural failure or were damaged in a collision.
My understanding is that the parachute on the Cirrus was the result of
an air to air collision in the history of one of the founders/designers. I
think that part of the objection to a parachute on an RV is that it is a bit
like putting a sidecar on a motorcycle. RVs seem to be the great product of a
number of compromises, adding a parachute seems to make them not RVs anymore.
I also think there is a bit of resistance to new ideas, remember that at the
beginning of WWII (in the Pacific anyway) fighter planes didn't have shoulder
straps. The British prohibited parachutes for their pilots until sometime in
the 20s.
Flying little airplanes is riskier than other activities, thats just a fact of
life, it seems like the odds of having a parachute save you are pretty low compared
to other risks. On the other hand ironically one of the prototype Cirrus'
crashed when one of its ailerons bound, it didn't have a parachute installed
yet and the pilot was killed. I think it is perfectly appropriate to install
a parachute if you feel that the tradeoff is worth it, but don't think that
it is a cure all or comes without a cost. Also don't expect Van's to engineer
an installation anytime soon as most people don't think that it is worth it.
Personally, the prospect of a mid air collision is what scares me. If a ballistic
parachute wasn't like adding a small child to the airframe, if it worked at
300' upside down, and if I was in another tax bracket I would get one. As it
stands the odds are that I will be killed in my airplane by a departure stall
spin, a landing stall spin, an engine out stall spin, so that is what I will
concentrate my resources on avoiding.
Robert Miller
RV4 Wings
Do not Archive
-->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 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "van Bladeren, Ron" <rwv@nwnatural.com>
Maybe? Probably? Appear to be? OK in price? Come on George. This is the
criteria you suggest we use to select our switches? You got to be kidding!
There IS a difference between an AC only switch and a AC/DC switch. Dig up
UL standard 20. If there was no difference between an AC/DC switch and an
AC only switch then why do the manufacturers go to the trouble of marking
them differently?
I would no sooner use a non-rated/non-listed switch in my A/C then I would
automotive fuel hose or hardware store nuts and bolts. Quality and
traceability is just as important in homebuilts as it is in certificated A/C
and when it comes to switches you can't tell a switch by it's appearance.
Common sense has nothing to do with it. Only listed and properly rated
components should go in our A/C's electrical systems. Anything less is a
compromise in safety.
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>
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 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: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
On 7/2/03 9:25 AM, "SportAV8R@aol.com" <SportAV8R@aol.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> I've had 5 years of trouble-free service with mine, but the little rubber
> sleeves on the tuning knobs (the "grips") have dry-rotted off from UV or
> ozone,
> In presume, and I have yet to attempt replacement via customer service.
>
> -Bill B
>
>
Interesting coincidence. I had an Icom handheld, bought about that time.
Within a year its rubber knobs turned to mush. I called the vendor and then
the company. "Never happened before." Finally I sent it in on faith
telling them to fix it, and if they decided I did something to it, then hell
charge me for it. They replaced the knobs, which are still just fine, and
charged me over a hundred dollars. We eventually decided between the three
of us that it should be zero.
It was not a pleasant experience however Gulf Coast Avionics saved me as I
recall.
This has made me a little leery of Icom; however the radio works great.
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: | low power mystery on RV7A?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
My friends RV7A is suffering from extreme low power. His airplane is 35mph
slower than my RV8A and it climbs like a loaded Skyhawk. At 2500 rpm and 25
inches man. pres. he is getting about 150mph at 5000 ft. He also has to lean
the mixture about half way out to keep it running smooth on the ground and at
low altitudes. He has a Superior EXP 360 with fuel injection (180hp) and lasar
ignition and a new 3 blade MT prop from Van's. We have checked the RPM at all
ranges with a hand held tach and have verified that his MP reads the same as
mine with the engines off on the ground. He has already swapped fuel injector
servos twice and talked with the people at American in Dallas where he bought
the engine numerous times. They promised to put him in touch with an engine
guru soon, but I would welcome any suggestions from the group. I don't
understand how he could be getting that type of power indications and not making
the
power?
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
A thinking as I go reply
At 03:59 PM 7/2/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
>
>My friends RV7A is suffering from extreme low power. His airplane is 35mph
>slower than my RV8A and it climbs like a loaded Skyhawk.
Climb ability is a better measure of power developed than max speed. Many
of us don't know how a loaded Skyhawk climbs but I guess....
>He also has to lean
>the mixture about half way out to keep it running smooth on the ground and at
>low altitude.
Surely the first flight was not made with this mixture malfunction? I'd
recommend no flights till this is figured out.
Is this problem new or has it been this way from installation? If new,
what changes preceded it?
Maybe this just means the control has a bunch of slack in it but what if it
gets to where the engine won't run at all at low altitude no matter how far
out the mixture is pulled? Stick to static testing till the mixture
problem is ironed out, maybe?
>He has a Superior EXP 360 with fuel injection (180hp) and lasar
>ignition and a new 3 blade MT prop from Van's.
Was this a kit built engine?
Which fuel injection?
Could the prop not be setting properly?
Engine compression: #1____________#2___________#3___________#4___________
Ignition timing :
Valve timing:
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK flying!
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List -> registration/repair cert |
--> RV-List message posted by: <rv7@cox.net>
I recently bought a started kit and faxed my bill of sale to Vans. They switched
the serial number over to my name.
-David Taylor
RV-6A (Empennage) N207DT Reserved
Warner Robins, GA
>
> From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen@netzero.net>
> Date: 2003/07/02 Wed PM 03:28:30 EDT
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-List -> registration/repair cert
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finnlassen@netzero.net>
>
> If you bought the kit from someone else I do not see how Vans Aircraft
> can send you a Bill-of-Sale.
> You need to have an unbroken chain of Bill-of-Sales from Van's all the
> way to you. I'm faily sure each has to be notarized.
>
> If you don't believe me, call the FAA registration office in Oklahoma
> City. Maybe they've changed their tune, but I doubt it. My point is, get
> it done now, not later when you're ready to register it and may not be
> able to reach the seller(s). Don't ask me how I know.
>
> Finn
>
> > 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".
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
He has had the problem since installation and has been going back and forth
with the manufacturer ever since. It is not a kit built engine. The mixture
control has been checked and re-checked by multiple mechanics and that is not
the problem. (no slack). It is is Bendix/Precision fuel injection system. If
the prop were not set properly would the RPM still be within the normal range
as verified by a handheld tach. I don't know the compression numbers and the
timing has been check by the factory guy that came over from Dallas (even
though I still think it is not just right).
I will recommend checking ignition, valve timing, and compression check.
Thanks for your interest and we welcome the thoughts.
Wayne Petrus
RV8A flying
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: prop spacer thanks |
--> RV-List message posted by: chris m <vhmum@bigpond.com>
Yes but only 2.2 hours on prop so figures might change a bit.
I also have a Bart engine 0320 .160
At 12500 ft I could still go past the 2600 so thats why I changed pitch.
I have a 1045 pound 6
Got the prop repitched to 81.
The rpm at 8500 is about 2620
Speeds have increased .
rpm man tas Knots Aprox
2500ft 2450 22.5 170
8500ft 2600 22 175
9500ft 2600 21 175
The increase down low was roughly 3-4 knots and roughly 7 knots up top.
Be aware my OAT guage craped itself so I used 2deg per thousand for
calculations.
I will get a good guage and redo figures. Please also note this is my first
time doing this sort of stuff and very much a learning experience. The
figures might change!
I am very glad I put a manifold presure guage in. Thanks Eustace.
Chris and Susie
VH-MUM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Oke" <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.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 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: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
My $.02: Nothing is ever as simple and obvious as it first appears. Weight
increases stall speed. If you carry around a BRS will that 60 lbs+ of added
airframe weight someday be the difference between a low altitude stall/spin
accident or not? How about accidental deployment in the middle of a long
over-water flight? Any proper statistical analysis must consider those
situations, however remote, in which the BRS might actually contribute to an
accident, in addition to those cases where it saves the day.
Curt
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: | For Sale: Van's Tach & MP gauges |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
FOR SALE:
Van's Tachometer
p/n IE VTACH3500 $38.50
p/n IE VTACHGEN 2 $48.00 (transducer for use w/o vacuum pump)
Van's Manifold Pressure Gauge
p/n MAN PRESS 35" W/SENDER $71.00
$157.50 for the pair new. Used for 285 hrs in my RV-8, perfect condition,
removed to install Electronics International units to match remainder of
panel. Sell for 50% of new price including UPS to your door: tach $43.25, MP
gauge $35.50, $78.75 for the pair. Can be seen when installed at
http://www.rv-8.com/Panel2.htm
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 320 hrs
www.rv-8.com
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: | my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Keith Vasey" <keith@galvinflying.com>
In my not-quite-humble opinion, the primary value of the BRS is to molify
the non-flying spouse (i.e., the buyer).
Keith Vasey
Seattle
Do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Martin Hone" <martin.hone@tradergroup.com.au>
G'Day Bruce,
I have been using an Icom A200 panel mount for over 9 years without any dramas
and excellent reception/transmission, using a simple stainless whip antenna.
I have bought another one for the RV I am now building and expect similar results.
It seems that your distributor in the 'States could do with a dose of good
ol' "Customer Service 101" The only alternative I would consider is the Microair
or Xcom (almost the same thing) depending on panel layout.
If it is any help, I think our Aussie prices are much better than those in the
States, and I have a contact at Icom if anyone is interested. I have already done
this for my friend Harry ( Lasar -Slick mags) Fenton.
Cheers
Martin in Oz
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 |
|
"Avionics-list" <avionics-list@matronics.com>,
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Off list for a while... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I'll be off list until the 14th
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Hi:
Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
Terrible service..
Any suggestions
Bert
Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at http://isp.BlueLight.com
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: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Wayne,
Don't put any company down just because they couldn't find an
intermittent problem. That's about the most difficult kind of trouble
there is to find. I've been in the electronics service business for over
40 years and I still shudder when I get an intermittent to repair.
Yeah, Icom could have just replaced it, but they're not in business to
give away the store - they HAVE to TRY to fix it.
Many customers think that just because it only acts up once every 3
months that it should be an easy fix but believe me that's not the case.
The tech's that are working on it are human just like you - give 'em a
chance.
Dave RV6 SoCal
EAA Technical Counselor
Dwpetrus@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
>
>I battled ICOM for 6 months over my defective brand new radio. I was finally
>able to get it replaced by them last month. I think that the equipment is
>basically good, but there tech support is terrible. It was sent back twice to
>them with an intermittent problem and they simple powered it up and declared it
>fixed and sent it back to me.
>
>Just me 2 c worth.
>
>Wayne Petrus
>RV8A
>
>
>
>
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: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
What the heck, my two cents, too...
Curt, I understand what you're saying about a proper analysis, but I think
you're really reaching with your examples. I don't see any basis for assuming
that raising the 1-G stall speed a bit increases the probability of a
stall-spin accident. And the accidental deployment over water scenario is
pretty far-fetched, too (possible, of course, but not very near the top of my
list of concerns).
I'm not pro-BRS, necessarily, but it would be a very great addition to safety
for someone flying single-engine IFR, especially over rough terrain. For VFR
use, in an RV, it doesn't seem worth it.
As for airbags, it's important to remember that they exist only because people
don't wear seat belts. They contribute very little to the safety of some who
is properly belted in a car. Airplane occupant protection is in the stone age
compared to passenger cars, though, so they might be of more value there. But
I agree with whoever suggested that it requires pretty significant engineering
to design a proper system. Having read a paper on MB's attempt to develop air
bags for production-based racing cars, it doesn't seem to me that it's
financially viable to offer an airbag system for the kit plane market that is
effective, or even safe. The development cost would be huge, even assuming you
could use mostly off-the-shelf technology.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 wings
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Curt Reimer wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
>
> My $.02: Nothing is ever as simple and obvious as it first appears. Weight
> increases stall speed. If you carry around a BRS will that 60 lbs+ of added
> airframe weight someday be the difference between a low altitude stall/spin
> accident or not? How about accidental deployment in the middle of a long
> over-water flight? Any proper statistical analysis must consider those
> situations, however remote, in which the BRS might actually contribute to an
> accident, in addition to those cases where it saves the day.
>
> Curt
>
>
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: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
First their name is not Ordorffs. secomd that is not an email, that is a web
site and it poped right up for me.
bert murillo wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
>
> Hi:
>
> Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
>
> I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
> early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
> at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
> e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
>
> Terrible service..
>
>
> Any suggestions
>
> Bert
>
> Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at http://isp.BlueLight.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Bert,
Why don't you call the Orndorff's first, before accusing them of any wrongdoing?
Perhaps there is a better explanation available from their side?
George & Becki Orndorff
Propwash Airport
15647 Cessna Road
Justin Texas 76247
Phone: 940-648-0841
Fax: 940-648-0842
email: GeoBeck, Inc.
----- Original Message -----
From: bert murillo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: RV-List: Seats
--> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Hi:
Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
Terrible service..
Any suggestions
Bert
Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at http://isp.BlueLight.com
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: "Bob Hassel" <bob@hassel-usa.com>
Try:
http://www.fly-gbi.com/
GeoBeck, Inc.
George & Becki Orndorff
Propwash Airport
15647 Cessna Road
Justin Texas 76247
Phone: 940-648-0841
Fax: 940-648-0842
email: sales@fly-gbi.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of bert murillo
Subject: RV-List: Seats
--> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Hi:
Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
Terrible service..
Any suggestions
Bert
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Taylor" <rv7@cox.net>
Bert,
If you tried to email them at www.fly-gbi.com it is a website not an email
address. You should be able to reach them at sales@fly-gbi.com. Their
website appears to be up so I assume they are not out of business.
-David Taylor
RV-6A (Empennage) N207DT
Reserved
Warner Robins, GA
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Subject: RV-List: Seats
> --> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
>
> Hi:
>
> Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
>
> I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
> early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
> at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
> e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
>
> Terrible service..
>
>
> Any suggestions
>
> Bert
>
> Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at
http://isp.BlueLight.com
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Daniels <jwdanie@comcast.net>
> I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
> early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
> at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
> e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
www.fly-gbi.com is a web address, not an email address. A quick look
at the web page shows sales@fly-gbi.com as an email address.
do not archive
Jim
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael" <top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
I`m not looking to change any minds.
In the spirit of EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. I will explore the safty aspects of
the envelope. I don`t mind being a geek. Or the one freak at the circus. If
having a propeller hat would inprove my chances you might just see me in
it...
I`m on my tail kit. Then Wing. When i`m on my fues. I`ll be on here looking
for ideas. But i`m going to have a BRS.
I wont comment further then this message.
Michael
Safety nut in canada.
>From: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: my view of accidents/parachutes Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003
>17:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>What the heck, my two cents, too...
>
>Curt, I understand what you're saying about a proper analysis, but I think
>you're really reaching with your examples. I don't see any basis for
>assuming
>that raising the 1-G stall speed a bit increases the probability of a
>stall-spin accident. And the accidental deployment over water scenario is
>pretty far-fetched, too (possible, of course, but not very near the top of
>my
>list of concerns).
>
>I'm not pro-BRS, necessarily, but it would be a very great addition to
>safety
>for someone flying single-engine IFR, especially over rough terrain. For
>VFR
>use, in an RV, it doesn't seem worth it.
>
>As for airbags, it's important to remember that they exist only because
>people
>don't wear seat belts. They contribute very little to the safety of some
>who
>is properly belted in a car. Airplane occupant protection is in the stone
>age
>compared to passenger cars, though, so they might be of more value there.
>But
>I agree with whoever suggested that it requires pretty significant
>engineering
>to design a proper system. Having read a paper on MB's attempt to develop
>air
>bags for production-based racing cars, it doesn't seem to me that it's
>financially viable to offer an airbag system for the kit plane market that
>is
>effective, or even safe. The development cost would be huge, even assuming
>you
>could use mostly off-the-shelf technology.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>-6 wings
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Curt Reimer wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
> >
> > My $.02: Nothing is ever as simple and obvious as it first appears.
>Weight
> > increases stall speed. If you carry around a BRS will that 60 lbs+ of
>added
> > airframe weight someday be the difference between a low altitude
>stall/spin
> > accident or not? How about accidental deployment in the middle of a long
> > over-water flight? Any proper statistical analysis must consider those
> > situations, however remote, in which the BRS might actually contribute
>to an
> > accident, in addition to those cases where it saves the day.
> >
> > Curt
> >
> >
>
>
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael" <top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
I called them yesterday & ordered the RV-7 videos. They were both there to
answer the phone.
Give them a call.
>From: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Seats
>Date: 3 Jul 2003 00:26:16 -0000
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
>
>Hi:
>
>Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
>
> I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
>early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
>at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
>e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
>
>Terrible service..
>
>
>Any suggestions
>
> Bert
>
>Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at
>http://isp.BlueLight.com
>
>
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: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
michael michael wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael" <top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
>
> I`m not looking to change any minds.
>
> In the spirit of EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. I will explore the safty aspects of
> the envelope. I don`t mind being a geek. Or the one freak at the circus. If
> having a propeller hat would inprove my chances you might just see me in
> it...
>
> I`m on my tail kit. Then Wing. When i`m on my fues. I`ll be on here looking
> for ideas. But i`m going to have a BRS.
>
> I wont comment further then this message.
>
>
> Michael
> Safety nut in canada.
>
>
That is to bad that you won't comment further. My only questions would be are
you qualified to re design the aircraft to take a BRS? Things such as structure
strength and shroud attach points. Weight and balance etc.? It well need an
hatch that well blow off when the chute is deployed, this could greatly reduce
strength if not engineered right. What scenario are you thinking about
where you might need a BRS. Well I guess I won't get any answers to these
questions as you are not going to comment further.
Jerry
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Newman" <newmanb@rocketmail.com>
The clue is in the comment "has to keep his mixture control half-way out " for
it to run smoothly on the ground". Perhaps an incorrect component was used
somewhere in the fuel injection system during build. Or maybe the cam is mis-
timed. Good luck finding it. If it was delivered with such a major defect,
totally unairworthy, it would be appropriate to insist they take it back and
provide you with an airworthy engine. Why make it your problem?
Best Regards,
Bob
Bob
newmanb@rocketmail.com
newmanb@rocketmail.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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: stopped prop |
--> RV-List message posted by: Nels Hanson <pa201950@yahoo.com>
Just to add my two cents worth. A few weeks ago,early
on a Sunday morning,I experimented with actually
shutting my engine down(with the prop stopped)on
downwind at normal pattern altitudes just to see what
would happen. I came in very high to a 3,500 ft.
runway,and left all flaps off until I "thought" I had
the runway made. I had planned on landing midfield
from my "perspective" on final,only to find myself
landing on the numbers(barely). I landed (dead
stick)and went up and did it all again. The next time
I came in especially high on final(after turning a
very tight base leg)and landed a safe distance down
the runway.
It would be my conclusion that most of us will come
up short if our engine quits. I wouldn't recommend
anyone doing what I did,but that is the way I chose to
find out what my plane would do with an engine out. I
have a fixed wood Sterba prop on a 160 HP RV-6.
As with any airplane,these planes are only as safe
as the pilot. I always have a high pucker factor on
takeoff,because I tell myself that the engine is going
to quit just as I lift off. I immediately start
looking for a place to land as I break ground,and will
deviate slightly after liftoff if it gives me a better
angle at some place to land. Thankfully,my passengers
do not know what I am thinking.
--- Tom Martin <fairlea@execulink.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Martin"
> <fairlea@execulink.com>
>
> I do not reply to this list often but I do monitor
> the threads and I have
> some experience with stopped props! My RV4 had a
> Warnke wood prop and a 180
> hp lycoming. If you did not get the speed slow
> enough on final you would
> coast for a long way down the runway as the prop
> still pulled quite a bit at
> idle power settings. This has to do with the coarse
> pitch of the fixed
> pitch propellers we need for the higher speeds that
> RVs reach.
> When the prop stops the difference in glide
> is huge. To explain what I mean
> by huge; when my engine was running rough while
> circling high over the
> airport I was concerned that it might stop when I
> reduced power. The prop
> stopped on base just as my speed decreased to 90
> mph. I was high, so high
> that I thought I would run off the end of a 5000
> foot runway based on my
> experience with that plane. I landed just past the
> numbers. That is a big
> difference and it is not surprising that pilots that
> lose their engines come
> up short of the runway. These planes, with their
> short wings, sink pretty
> fast with no power, be prepared.
>
> Tom Martin
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Message 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
Dave Bristol wrote:
> Wayne,
>
> Don't put any company down just because they couldn't find an
> intermittent problem. That's about the most difficult kind of trouble
> there is to find. I've been in the electronics service business for over
> 40 years and I still shudder when I get an intermittent to repair.
> Yeah, Icom could have just replaced it, but they're not in business to
> give away the store - they HAVE to TRY to fix it.
> Many customers think that just because it only acts up once every 3
> months that it should be an easy fix but believe me that's not the case.
> The tech's that are working on it are human just like you - give 'em a
> chance.
I completely agree about the difficulty in finding and fixing an intermittent
problem, however I disagree with what was done about it. If a customer says there
is an intermittent problem and you can't find it you should replace the unit.
Not
replacing the unit is just like telling your customer, "you are an idiot, the thing
works fine, you don't know what you're talking about". Expecting tech's to find
an
intermittent problem may be a lot to ask, but expecting the company do some thing
about it isn't. Especially when it comes to products that cost thousands of
dollars.
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 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John D. & Rose" <altoq@direcway.com>
Should be sales@fly-gbi.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Subject: RV-List: Seats
> --> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
>
> Hi:
>
> Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
>
> I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
> early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
> at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
> e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
>
> Terrible service..
>
>
> Any suggestions
>
> Bert
>
> Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at
http://isp.BlueLight.com
>
>
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: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <chrisw3@cox.net>
michael michael wrote:
> I`m on my tail kit. Then Wing. When i`m on my fues. I`ll be on here looking for
> ideas. But i`m going to have a BRS.
It will be interesting to see how and where you attach the thing to an RV. Keep
us informed.
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 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: my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
> michael michael wrote:
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "michael michael" <top_gun_toronto@hotmail.com>
> >
> > I`m not looking to change any minds.
> >
> > In the spirit of EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. I will explore the safty aspects of
> > the envelope. I don`t mind being a geek. Or the one freak at the circus. If
> > having a propeller hat would inprove my chances you might just see me in
> > it...
> >
> > I`m on my tail kit. Then Wing. When i`m on my fues. I`ll be on here looking
> > for ideas. But i`m going to have a BRS.
> >
> > I wont comment further then this message.
> >
> >
> > Michael
> > Safety nut in canada.
> >
> >
>
> That is to bad that you won't comment further. My only questions would be are
> you qualified to re design the aircraft to take a BRS? Things such as structure
> strength and shroud attach points. Weight and balance etc.? It well need an
> hatch that well blow off when the chute is deployed, this could greatly reduce
> strength if not engineered right. What scenario are you thinking about
> where you might need a BRS. Well I guess I won't get any answers to these
> questions as you are not going to comment further.
>
> Jerry
Jerry raises some valid points concerning a BRS installation on an RV. I
speak with some experience since I installed a BRS on a MiniMax I built.
The ballastic recovery chute is very clever engineering, but the
importance of a highly engineered installation cannot be over
emphasized!
Based on my research about the BRS installation on the Minimax and from
the actual installation, I haven't a clue as to how a BRS could be
properly installed on an RV. The BRS is designed for light, slow, high
drag airframes (hang gliders, ultralights, trikes, etc) and a safe,
effective installation on a slick, heavy, fast aircraft would require
engineering far beyond the capability of an individual builder. It was
only after years of R&D on a particular airframe that a BRS appeared on
a Cessna and Cirrus.
I also would be interested in seeing comments from a builder that
researches and installs a BRS on an RV. :-)
Sam Buchanan (RV-6)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: PASSPAT@aol.com
Here is were to look for them
http://www.fly-gbi.com/
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: my view of accidents/parachutes (long rant) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer@mb.sympatico.ca>
> Curt, I understand what you're saying about a proper analysis, but I think
> you're really reaching with your examples. I don't see any basis for
assuming
> that raising the 1-G stall speed a bit increases the probability of a
> stall-spin accident. And the accidental deployment over water scenario is
> pretty far-fetched, too
Sure these are far-fetched events, but here is my reasoning: My limited
study of low altitude stall-spin accidents says that they are usually caused
by pilot error. Maybe in rare cases by an unexpected wind shear on
base-to-final or something that isn't directly the pilot's fault. For
arguments's sake, lets say in most cases the pilot screws up by a large
enough degree that a knot or two lower stall speed wouldn't have made any
difference. But once in a while it will be a close call, where the airplane
is right on the edge of a stall. The "lucky" pilot with the lighter airplane
will walk away, perhaps thinking what a great pilot he is, while the
"unlucky" pilot with full tanks, lots of luggage, 60 lb BRS in the back etc.
won't. Far-fetched? If you mean unlikely, of course it is. But analyzing
accidents is all about analyzing unlikely events. It is the unlikely events
that usually cause accidents. Having a situation where the BRS actually
saves your life that couldn't have been saved any other way (like
deadsticking it in), is also going to be a rare event, regardless of how
logical and reassuring it all seems.
All I am saying is that what seems intuitive often isn't, especially in
engineering and statistics. Does the BRS save net lives? Perhaps. I don't
think we have enough data to prove it one way or another. A friend of mine,
a small, slight woman, refused to wear seat belts for years because her
scientist father had done years of research and found that seat belts, being
designed for average-sized men, tended to kill small, slight women more than
they saved them. These days most shoulder belts and even air bags are able
to adjust to a person's size. But for many years they didn't. It isn't
always obvious, this statistical cause-and-effect stuff.
And just to broaden the discussion, if parachutes in general are so great
why haven't personal chutes become standard, or for that matter mandatory
equipment in general aviation airplanes? We've had 100 years to get the bugs
out of those and they cost less than a BRS, yet only aviators invoved in
"high risk" aviation activities seem to bother with them. Why are we having
a discussion about whether we should bolt on a BRS to save the airplane when
we could have been wearing personal chutes all these years and at least
saving our lives?
> I'm not pro-BRS, necessarily, but it would be a very great addition to
safety
> for someone flying single-engine IFR, especially over rough terrain. For
VFR
> use, in an RV, it doesn't seem worth it.
I'm not anti-BRS necessarily, as there certainly are situations where it
could and will save you, no doubt about it. I just figure that the one time
my wing falls off, it will be as I overfly some active volcano, and I'll get
to descend slowly into the bubbling crater...
Curt
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Dear Bert,
Based on the outcome of your (future) phone call to GBI, please let all of us know
if you will actually still stand behind your previous statement of "Terrible
service..", or if you meant (or switched to) "TERRIFIC service" from the Orndorff's?
No offense man, but please let the List know the final outcome, to keep peace within.
Happy 7/4/03 to everyone!
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: bert murillo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 6:26 PM
Subject: RV-List: Seats
--> RV-List message posted by: " bert murillo" <bert6@mybluelight.com>
Hi:
Any one knows if the Ordorffs, are out of business?
I order seats for my rv6, back in March,, told me
early June,, never heard a word since. Tried to e-mail
at www.fly-gbi.com, but cannot send message, this
e mail does not exist...I am copying from the Brouchure..
Terrible service..
Any suggestions
Bert
Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at http://isp.BlueLight.com
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: | my view of accidents/parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "KostaLewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
An easier installation and one that has been tried before and works
quite well is the personal BRS. A parachute. I think the BRS systems may
be better for a 4 place aircraft that you wouldn't want four people
trying to egress with packs in place. I can't imagine a situation that a
BRS system would be better than a parachute in an RV, if you were
inclined to do something such as that to "enhance" personal safety. As
previously stated, situations that a BRS would be effective in would be
far and few between. Which means you would be carrying around 60 pounds
of dead weight that would be expensive to replace every 5 years (isn't
that the recommendation?). Which would leave about 10-20 pounds for
baggage. Now that would be a useful airplane.
Personal safety can be enhanced by staying current (flying a lot),
training, and staying out of situations that would necessitate blowing a
parachute out of your baggage compartment (don't mess with Mother
Nature). You can only go so far before there is a diminishing return on
what you do to protect yourself. A tail-heavy RV with a false sense of
security hanging out in the baggage compartment may not be the best
idea. Sounds good to the lay public/uninformed but may not be what it is
idealized to be. No offense to the Cirrus folks; they have a good
product going.
IMHO
Michael
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "DEREK REED" <dreed@cdsnet.net>
Anyone have any experience with coupling a Garmin GPS 196 to a Navaid Autopilot.
Currently using 11Morrow 618 Loran for this purpose and would not like to lose
this capability if I upgrade to GPS.
I have a Coupler 11 for this purpose providing the unit is compatible.
Thanks
Derek Reed
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob@robsglass.com>
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?
I very strongly recommend you visit Harbor Freight or tool store of your choice
and buy a cheap metal cutting bandsaw. It will cut your parts while you do other
things and then switch itself off. This will transform the task of cutting
all the angle you have in front of you and will also allow you pick up some
cheap steel from a scrap yard for making your own bucking bars in different
sizes weights and angles to suit your needs. I used a couple of feet of 2" X
1" bar at a cost of 30c a pound and have made all my bars except one, (a TP670).
Make heavier bars for the bigger rivets. Bevel the edges and then polish on
a fine sanding disk followed by a Scotchbrite wheel.
Inside the bottom of the rudder was awkward and I made a couple of small triangular
blocks which were welded onto short lengths of rod for this. If you have
access to a welder you can extend the reach of your bars with tube or rod which
can be ground off later if necessary.
Use your ingenuity, buy the difficult to make ones at fly ins and make as many
as you need and your riveting will become easier.
Remember that when working in confined spaces apart from the risk of slipping off
the rivet the other end of the bar can do damage. A small piece of soft cloth
taped around the free end will minimise the risk of damage.
Good luck and remember almost all of us have a dent or two somewhere.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV (res) Fuselage
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: <phil.jones@medpacs.com>
Has anyone had problems with the skin on the tipup frame hitting the forward skin.
It hits so much that it is impossable to tilt it up! If I put a piece of
aluminum against the tilt up skin and tilt it up letting the aluminum move forward
till it clears, when I close it their is a 1/8" gap between the two skins.
This only hit in the center where the is flat.
Phil jones
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: low power mystery on RV7A?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: janenjoe@juno.com
What is the question?
Joe
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 15:59:04 EDT Dwpetrus@aol.com writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
>
> My friends RV7A is suffering from extreme low power. His airplane
> is 35mph
> slower than my RV8A and it climbs like a loaded Skyhawk. At 2500
> rpm and 25
> inches man. pres. he is getting about 150mph at 5000 ft. He also
> has to lean
> the mixture about half way out to keep it running smooth on the
> ground and at
> low altitudes. He has a Superior EXP 360 with fuel injection
> (180hp) and lasar
> ignition and a new 3 blade MT prop from Van's. We have checked the
> RPM at all
> ranges with a hand held tach and have verified that his MP reads the
> same as
> mine with the engines off on the ground. He has already swapped
> fuel injector
> servos twice and talked with the people at American in Dallas where
> he bought
> the engine numerous times. They promised to put him in touch with
> an engine
> guru soon, but I would welcome any suggestions from the group. I
> don't
> understand how he could be getting that type of power indications
> and not making the
> power?
>
> Wayne Petrus
> RV8A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AC rated switches for DC (was:Electrical question) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Meketa" <acgm@gvtc.com>
Ron
OK OK, you can put the cheap looking 21 amp DC rated with UL
certified stamp from an auto electrical supply company switch in your
plane if it makes you feel better, it is "probably" a much better switch
for the application than all the other ones that the certified planes use
having only AC ratings which luckily have lasted for thousands of hours and
decades of use. Or maybe the "OK in price" for the UL DC rating sealed
switch which "Appears to be" a good quality switch because of the riveted
together case, silver oxide contacts, self extinguishing base material, hot
tin dipped #6-32 screw terminals, silicon rubber lever seal, and MIL spec.
For all these features I do feel that "maybe" "OK in price" is a true
statement considering the obvious quality of the part. I would gladly pay
the price if the application warranted it . For a single pole single throw
switch it is about $20.00 if less than ten are purchased.
I now feel completely comfortable with quality of switches in my plane.
I did have some concern with the Bob Knuckolls supplied "Carling" switches
in my plane after a failure, but after looking under the panel of the Piper
felt better seeing the same brand switch, with matching AC only ratings on
the case, which are used for much higher loads than I use the same switch
for, except they have screw terminals instead of blades. (I found a loose
one from a Piper and opened it while writing this post. Every part is
interchangeable with the one from Bob. Contacts are the same size and
"appear to be" the same. Sorry, I failed to do any metallurgy tests to
confirm this. The only visible difference is that the saddle that the paddle
contact sits in is square cut on the old one and half round on Bob's. Now I
am only speculating, but the newer design appears to give much more contact
area between the center terminal and the switch paddle.) I have not and
never will have concerns with the Microswitch brand sealed switches in the
applications used in my plane. High quality is obvious just looking at one.
Them being used in many demanding aviation applications is enough for me.
Seeing the exact same series switch directly running the landing gear motor
on the Piper helps verify the decision.
Now I do use a lot of "maybe", "likely" or "appear"s in my posts.
I always do my best to state fact and if I can not back it up with actual
data make sure I put something in there to say so. I also attempt
to use common sense in decision making, just because it has a
certified stamp or rating does not automatically make it better for the
application or even usable at all to me.
I have the habit of only posting when there have been no well rounded
answers given and am not good at the warm fuzzy back patting posts.
Every effort is made to back up my opinions with observations and data
to the point of covering every option to prevent discussions like this one.
Continuously arguing (also bag grammar and spelling) will not do my standing
with the RV list community any good. I will keep out of the fights for a
while.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
George
> Maybe? Probably? Appear to be? OK in price? Come on George. This is the
> criteria you suggest we use to select our switches? You got to be
kidding!
> There IS a difference between an AC only switch and a AC/DC switch. Dig
up
> UL standard 20. If there was no difference between an AC/DC switch and an
> AC only switch then why do the manufacturers go to the trouble of marking
> them differently?
>
> I would no sooner use a non-rated/non-listed switch in my A/C then I would
> automotive fuel hose or hardware store nuts and bolts. Quality and
> traceability is just as important in homebuilts as it is in certificated
A/C
> and when it comes to switches you can't tell a switch by it's appearance.
> Common sense has nothing to do with it. Only listed and properly rated
> components should go in our A/C's electrical systems. Anything less is a
> compromise in safety.
>
> Ron.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meketa [mailto:acgm@gvtc.com]
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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.
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|