Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:14 AM - Re: 0360 sump (Scott Bilinski)
2. 06:46 AM - FW: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system (Frazier, Vincent A)
3. 07:00 AM - Re: back riveting with the long avery set, good, bad, indifferent? (Frazier, Vincent A)
4. 07:31 AM - Re: Firewall forward kit. (DAVID REEL)
5. 08:06 AM - Fly-In, Polson, MT, August 23 (Tony Marshall)
6. 08:25 AM - Re: Van's FAB filter bypass kit (Jeff Point)
7. 08:47 AM - Good Battery Prices--PC-680 $62.55, RG25XC $95.98 (Crosley, Rich)
8. 09:04 AM - Re: FW: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system (John Starn)
9. 10:07 AM - Re: Good Battery Prices--PC-680 $62.55, RG25XC $95.98 (Dan Checkoway)
10. 12:37 PM - RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question (Clinchy, Dave)
11. 12:49 PM - Re: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question (Neil McLeod)
12. 12:52 PM - Re: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question (Jeff Point)
13. 02:04 PM - Re: RV-4 Canopy skirt chafing (Kosta Lewis)
14. 02:35 PM - Re: Microair 760 Transceiver (Terry Watson)
15. 03:22 PM - FAA Approved PC680 (Ed Anderson)
16. 03:50 PM - Re: Van's FAB filter bypass kit (Paul Besing)
17. 04:23 PM - Re: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question (Dan Checkoway)
18. 05:05 PM - Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? (Eric Parlow)
19. 05:19 PM - STD-1211 (Rick Galati)
20. 05:56 PM - Re: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? (Denis Walsh)
21. 06:19 PM - Re: STD-1211 (Cy Galley)
22. 06:20 PM - Re: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? (Charlie & Tupper England)
23. 06:27 PM - Re: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? (RV6 Flyer)
24. 07:15 PM - Re: back riveting with the long avery set, good, bad, indifferent? (BPattonsoa@aol.com)
25. 08:08 PM - Re: STD-1211 (Ed Bundy)
26. 08:46 PM - Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (Rich Crosley)
27. 09:21 PM - Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (Ed Bundy)
28. 09:31 PM - Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (Randy Lervold)
29. 10:05 PM - Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (Jim Cimino)
30. 10:11 PM - Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (Jerry Springer)
31. 10:40 PM - Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch (RV3)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I recommend the Superior air parts sump. Its good for 5hp over the standard
Lycoming sump.
At 08:17 PM 7/23/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: RVer273sb@aol.com
>
>List members,
> I am still looking for a 0360 sump, bottom carb
>mount. Not serviceable or used.
>Stewart RV-4
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: | FW: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Guys,
Here's a copy of the note I sent to our senators and congressman. You might want
to do the same. It might help keep the Feds from dipping further into your
wallet.
You don't have to be a writer. It is enough to say:
"Please don't allow FAA air traffic control to charge user fees."
Then sign your name and address. They'll ignore your letter if it doesn't have
your name and address!!!!
Here's the email addresses:
senator@bayh.senate.gov
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov
Outside of Indiana can look up your senators and congressman's addresses here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1411/
Email won't cost you a dime, so what are you waiting for?
Vince
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frazier, Vincent A
> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 8:34 AM
> To: Richard Lugar (E-mail)
> Subject: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system
>
> Dear Senator Lugar:
>
> Please work to keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system. As
it is now, ATC is paid for through FAA funding, not user fees. User fees would
discourage aviation activities.
>
> Please have a look at the Canadian fee based ATC system described in the new
article below. The Canadian system certainly discourages US pilots from visiting
Canada. I know. I've been there.
>
> I have been a pilot for 20 years. We don't need user fees impeding progress
here. Aviation is a vital part of our economy. Please don't fetter it.
>
> As the article below implies, having private contractors running a control tower
or other facility is fine. As long as they don't charge user fees for their
services.
>
> Vince Frazier
> 3965 Caborn Road
> Mount Vernon, IN 47620
>
>
> From AVWeb:
>
> The Cost Of Privatization
> NAV CANADA Hikes Service Charges...
> Canadian pilots will find themselves shelling out a few more bucks every time they fly, thanks to a hike in air-navigation service charges. On Monday, NAV CANADA announced the decision to proceed with a planned 6.9-percent increase <http://www.navcanada.ca/contentEN/news/newsreleases/2003/nr0721b.asp > following a mandatory 60-day consultation period. The company says the charges will be on average only 4 percent higher than when they were first introduced in March 1999. Furthermore, NAV CANADA claims this increase was required to "deal with a revenue shortfall due to the continuing downturn in air traffic." The new charges will come into effect August 1, 2003, with annual and quarterly charges to be implemented on March 1, 2004. [more] So, how much can flyers expect to cough up? On a per-passenger basis, the increase amounts to 65 cents more per one-way ticket for a flight from Toronto to Ottawa. GA operators should visit NAV CANADA's homepage <http://www.navcanada.ca/navcanada.asp> for specific information on the increases. NAV CANADA officials claim the company has undertaken an aggressive cost-cutting plan over the last two years, saving about $75 million. This amount is in addition to the $100 million in annual cost savings and staff reductions already achieved through previous restructuring.
>
> ...While U.S. ATC Privatization Battles Looms
> While Canadians prepare to dish out extra money for their airborne needs, those living in the U.S. continue to fight against the proposition of privatizing ATC. As AVweb reported last month <http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_25b/briefs/185189-1.html>, the White House and Congress are at odds over the upcoming FAA Reauthorization Bill <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2115:>. The administration has threatened to veto the bill if the final version contains language that would outlaw the privatization of air traffic controllers and possibly flight services and technical personnel in the system. In addition, the legislative process itself is stirring controversy and heating up the debate. Stan Soloway, president of the > Professional Services Council <http://www.pscouncil.org/>, a trade group in Arlington, Va., told Washington Technology <http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/18_7/federal/21130-1.html>, "most senators voting for the FAA authorization amendment thought they were voting to restrict privatization of air-traffic control, when they were actually voting to restrict competition for the infrastructure that supports air-traffic control." [more] "It was never debated in committee, there was a brief discussion, and boom -- it passes. That's not a good way to make public policy," he told the paper. Legislators' efforts through A-76 -- the revised U.S. Office of Management and Budget circular on public-private competition of government jobs, federal unions and lawmakers -- to halt job competitions are "devastating to the agencies," said Soloway, whose group is working to educate members of Congress about the revised A-76 process.
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: back riveting with the long avery set, good, bad, indifferent? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
The absolute worst dent I've ever made while riveting anything was while using
a similar back riveting set while putting the top skins on my Rocket wings. And
the results of the back riveting were NO BETTER than using the good ol' swivel
head flush set.
No more back riveting with a long set for me.
BTW, the key to getting those nice flat rivet lines is to bump the rivet back out
after driving. Use a hammer and that long set.... it works well for this task.
Vince
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: Firewall forward kit. |
--> RV-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I added up the separate costs of the items in the RV7 constant speed firewall forward
kit using an inventory provided by Vans. There's maybe a tiny cost savings
versus buying the items separately. There is a HUGE time savings by having
the design already thought out and not having to wait for the inevitable bits
and pieces you forgot to arrive. If you must modify the design as I did because
I was building an RV8A and no kit was available at that time, at least get
the drawings and manual to get a place to start. You can save some money buying
the items individually if you don't want some pieces such as the gascolator.
Use the kit inventory to purchase the parts you do want.
Dave Reel - RV8A
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: | Fly-In, Polson, MT, August 23 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tony Marshall" <tonymarshall@montana.com>
C'mon in for our annual fly-in....free breakfast for pilots bringing planes. Activities
throughout the day. Polson (8S1) is on the south end of the beautiful
Flathead Lake in NW Montana. We have a great 60 x 4000+ paved runway and plenty
of fuel. Plenty of motels and restaurants or camp on the grass tie-down
area. Again....Polson, MT, Saturday Aug 23.
Writer of this note is looking to purchase a flying RV-6 or 6a....so if this note
appears self serving....well, the trip to Polson will be worth it.
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: Van's FAB filter bypass kit |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I considered this, but I would rather build up the bottom of the box to
fit the steel door, using a thick mix of mill-fiber and epoxy, and some
mold release on the door to keep it from sticking. I did the same thing
to get the carb air door to fit more snuggly. I am waiting until after
Oshkosh to decide, so that I can talk to Ken @ Van's and get his opinion.
Jeff
Scott Bilinski wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>The door can be made to seal with some silicone or fuel tank sealant. Im
>sure you know the drill, mask off one part apply the sealant close the door
>and let cure. Remove tape and you have a perfect custom fit. This will also
>prevent the door from rattling due to vibration.
>
>
>
>
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: | Good Battery Prices--PC-680 $62.55, RG25XC $95.98 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
Found the PC680 and Concord RG25XC battery at
https://www.batteries4everything.com/index.html
Rich Crosley
RV-8 Palmdale, CA
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: FW: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based system |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Starn" <jhstarn@earthlink.net>
Thanks Phaz, will do but I'm from California and my US Senators have been
ignoring the will of the people for years. Maybe when we get rid of Joe
"gray" Davis they might listen or at least read the hand writting on the
wall. Babs Boxer - - read....... Naw.. Do Not Archive (GBA) KABONG 8*)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
Subject: RV-List: FW: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based
system
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier@usi.edu>
>
> Guys,
>
> Here's a copy of the note I sent to our senators and congressman. You
might want to do the same. It might help keep the Feds from dipping further
into your wallet.
>
> You don't have to be a writer. It is enough to say:
>
> "Please don't allow FAA air traffic control to charge user fees."
>
> Then sign your name and address. They'll ignore your letter if it doesn't
have your name and address!!!!
>
> Here's the email addresses:
>
> senator@bayh.senate.gov
> senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
> John.Hostettler@mail.house.gov
> Outside of Indiana can look up your senators and congressman's addresses
here: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1411/
>
> Email won't cost you a dime, so what are you waiting for?
>
> Vince
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Frazier, Vincent A
> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 8:34 AM
> > To: Richard Lugar (E-mail)
> > Subject: keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based
system
> >
> > Dear Senator Lugar:
> >
> > Please work to keep FAA air traffic control away from a fee based
system. As it is now, ATC is paid for through FAA funding, not user fees.
User fees would discourage aviation activities.
> >
> > Please have a look at the Canadian fee based ATC system described in the
new article below. The Canadian system certainly discourages US pilots from
visiting Canada. I know. I've been there.
> >
> > I have been a pilot for 20 years. We don't need user fees impeding
progress here. Aviation is a vital part of our economy. Please don't
fetter it.
> >
> > As the article below implies, having private contractors running a
control tower or other facility is fine. As long as they don't charge user
fees for their services.
> >
> > Vince Frazier
> > 3965 Caborn Road
> > Mount Vernon, IN 47620
> >
> >
> > From AVWeb:
> >
> > The Cost Of Privatization
> > NAV CANADA Hikes Service Charges...
> > Canadian pilots will find themselves shelling out a few more bucks every
time they fly, thanks to a hike in air-navigation service charges. On
Monday, NAV CANADA announced the decision to proceed with a planned
6.9-percent increase
<http://www.navcanada.ca/contentEN/news/newsreleases/2003/nr0721b.asp >
following a mandatory 60-day consultation period. The company says the
charges will be on average only 4 percent higher than when they were first
introduced in March 1999. Furthermore, NAV CANADA claims this increase was
required to "deal with a revenue shortfall due to the continuing downturn in
air traffic." The new charges will come into effect August 1, 2003, with
annual and quarterly charges to be implemented on March 1, 2004. [more] So,
how much can flyers expect to cough up? On a per-passenger basis, the
increase amounts to 65 cents more per one-way ticket for a flight from
Toronto to Ottawa. GA operators should visit NAV CANADA's homepage
<http://www.navcanada.ca/nav!
> canada.asp> for specific information on the increases. NAV CANADA
officials claim the company has undertaken an aggressive cost-cutting plan
over the last two years, saving about $75 million. This amount is in
addition to the $100 million in annual cost savings and staff reductions
already achieved through previous restructuring.
> >
> > ...While U.S. ATC Privatization Battles Looms
> > While Canadians prepare to dish out extra money for their airborne
needs, those living in the U.S. continue to fight against the proposition of
privatizing ATC. As AVweb reported last month
<http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_25b/briefs/185189-1.html>, the White House
and Congress are at odds over the upcoming FAA Reauthorization Bill
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.2115:>. The administration
has threatened to veto the bill if the final version contains language that
would outlaw the privatization of air traffic controllers and possibly
flight services and technical personnel in the system. In addition, the
legislative process itself is stirring controversy and heating up the
debate. Stan Soloway, president of the > Professional Services Council
<http://www.pscouncil.org/>, a trade group in Arlington, Va., told
Washington Technology
<http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/18_7/federal/21130-1.html>, "most
senators voting for the FAA authorization amendment t!
> hought they were voting to restrict privatization of air-traffic control,
when they were actually voting to restrict competition for the
infrastructure that supports air-traffic control." [more] "It was never
debated in committee, there was a brief discussion, and boom -- it passes.
That's not a good way to make public policy," he told the paper.
Legislators' efforts through A-76 -- the revised U.S. Office of Management
and Budget circular on public-private competition of government jobs,
federal unions and lawmakers -- to halt job competitions are "devastating to
the agencies," said Soloway, whose group is working to educate members of
Congress about the revised A-76 process.
> >
>
>
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: | Re: Good Battery Prices--PC-680 $62.55, RG25XC $95.98 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Just a word to the wise...especially since you live in CA...
Batteries4Everything charges sales tax and ships via UPS.
You can order the PC680 from SunnBattery -- http://www.sunnbattery.com --
for $74.59. Yes, it's $12 more, but you won't pay sales tax, and the
shipping is a flat $5.50 for Priority Mail! When you get done with all the
tax and shipping from Batteries4Everything, it's a lot cheaper from
SunnBattery.
http://www.sunnbattery.com/item.jhtml?UCIDs=553828%7C1209500&PRID=1292858
Just wanted to pass this on...
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Crosley, Rich" <RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
Subject: RV-List: Good Battery Prices--PC-680 $62.55, RG25XC $95.98
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Crosley, Rich"
<RCROSLEY@HRTEXTRON.TEXTRON.COM>
>
> Found the PC680 and Concord RG25XC battery at
> https://www.batteries4everything.com/index.html
>
> Rich Crosley
> RV-8 Palmdale, CA
>
>
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: | RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd@losrios.edu>
Listers,
I just finished assembling the WD-409 tail spring mount between the
bulkheads and bottom skin. There is a bolt that goes through the tail
spring mount and the end of the tail spring, to hold the tail spring in
place. There is not enough room between the bottom skin and the mount to
put the nut on this bolt... The plans are silent on how to put this nut
on. It looks like I'll need to drill a hole in the bottom skin so I can
slip this nut on the bolt.
What have you guys done in this situation?
Dave Clinchy
RV7 fuse
Sacramento
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: | RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Neil McLeod" <bedrock@theriver.com>
Drilled a hole in the skin to allow a nut and wrench to install it.
Neil McLeod
7 QB Finish and FWF
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clinchy, Dave
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question
--> RV-List message posted by: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd@losrios.edu>
Listers,
I just finished assembling the WD-409 tail spring mount between the
bulkheads and bottom skin. There is a bolt that goes through the tail
spring mount and the end of the tail spring, to hold the tail spring in
place. There is not enough room between the bottom skin and the mount to
put the nut on this bolt... The plans are silent on how to put this nut
on. It looks like I'll need to drill a hole in the bottom skin so I can
slip this nut on the bolt.
What have you guys done in this situation?
Dave Clinchy
RV7 fuse
Sacramento
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Yes, a hole about 1 inch or so, big enough to get a socket onto. I
believe the manual mentions this, at least it did for the -6.
Jeff Point
RV-6 panel, wiring
Milwaukee WI
Clinchy, Dave wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd@losrios.edu>
>
>Listers,
>
>I just finished assembling the WD-409 tail spring mount between the
>bulkheads and bottom skin. There is a bolt that goes through the tail
>spring mount and the end of the tail spring, to hold the tail spring in
>place. There is not enough room between the bottom skin and the mount to
>put the nut on this bolt... The plans are silent on how to put this nut
>on. It looks like I'll need to drill a hole in the bottom skin so I can
>slip this nut on the bolt.
>
>What have you guys done in this situation?
>
>Dave Clinchy
>RV7 fuse
>Sacramento
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV-4 Canopy skirt chafing |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>>I used a rubber "U" channel, with one side of
>>the "U" being a tad longer than the other, the longer side being
inside.
>Where did you get that "special" U channel, and do you have the part
>number?
Aircraft Spruce: Listed under Rubber Channel. Part # RCHB. I tapered it
at the forward ends and weather strip glued it into place. I had to put
a little nick in the inner aspect of it at the very back of the canopy
skirt to get it to lay flat. Outer part is continuous. Hasn't moved in
700 hours. Seals the canopy too. And it looks like it belongs there.
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
OSH bound tomorrow.........
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: | Microair 760 Transceiver |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Here is the response I got yesterday when I asked if Xcom was shipping yet:
Terry
Almost..... We have finished the FCC testing program and now just await
the paperwork then production starts, my guess is it will still be
around 6 weeks before shipping. If your at Oshkosh please drop by to
site 405.
Thanks Michael
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: | FAA Approved PC680 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Here is an FAA approved PC680 (called an SBS-J16) for a few more bucks. Not
clear what FAA approval buys you. Perhaps this makes it legal to stuff it
into your Cessna.
http://www.batterymart.com/battery.mv?p=SBS-J16
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Van's FAB filter bypass kit |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Any way someone could test to see it work? Maybe close off the intake and
start while on the ground to see if the door opens?
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold (Waiting on the RV-10)
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Van's FAB filter bypass kit
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
>
> I have the one for the AFP fuel injection vertical mount FAB. I'ts a
rubber
> hinge a couple of pieces of galvanized steel and a REALLY strong magnet.
It
> looks like it will be really simple and there are no bolts, pins or other
> type stuff that could get loose and go into the engine.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Canopy
> http://www.myrv7.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: Van's FAB filter bypass kit
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "John" <n1cxo320@salidaco.com>
> >
> > Does anyone have info on the air filter bypass kit that Van mentions on
> his
> > web site? Without bothering them by phone I didn't see anything on his
web
> > site that gave details. Anybody have info?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>
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: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
At least on my tailcone skin, there was a pilot hole in that general
location. Just enlarged it using a Unibit. Forget the size I ended up
with...I think 11/16".
See a photo about halfway down this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20021006.html
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd@losrios.edu>
Subject: RV-List: RV-7 Tail Spring Attachment Question
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Clinchy, Dave" <clinchd@losrios.edu>
>
> Listers,
>
> I just finished assembling the WD-409 tail spring mount between the
> bulkheads and bottom skin. There is a bolt that goes through the tail
> spring mount and the end of the tail spring, to hold the tail spring in
> place. There is not enough room between the bottom skin and the mount to
> put the nut on this bolt... The plans are silent on how to put this nut
> on. It looks like I'll need to drill a hole in the bottom skin so I can
> slip this nut on the bolt.
>
> What have you guys done in this situation?
>
> Dave Clinchy
> RV7 fuse
> Sacramento
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Is anyone aware of a Lyc O-320 powerd RV-8(A)
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: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Any "gotcha's" I should anticipate before I remove the expansion plug from the
front of my factory new 0-320 to configure it for fixed pitch operation? What
is the best way to remove and replace the plug with a STD-1211?
Rick Galati RV-6A FWF
---------------------------------
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: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
On 7/24/03 6:05 PM, "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
>
> Is anyone aware of a Lyc O-320 powerd RV-8(A)
>
>
The Von Dane machine
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The FRONT plug stays for fixed pitch. You remove it for a constant speed
and place another plug at the rear of the front main bearing cavity.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Galati" <rick6a@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: STD-1211
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rick Galati <rick6a@yahoo.com>
>
> Any "gotcha's" I should anticipate before I remove the expansion plug from
the front of my factory new 0-320 to configure it for fixed pitch
operation? What is the best way to remove and replace the plug with a
STD-1211?
>
> Rick Galati RV-6A FWF
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Denis Walsh wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
>
>On 7/24/03 6:05 PM, "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
>>
>>Is anyone aware of a Lyc O-320 powerd RV-8(A)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>The Von Dane machine
>
Andy McCain, next door to me. 150 hp. Seems to fly fine except that his
prop maker overestimated the O-320's grunt. We are considering a prop
swap to see if it would help us both. I've got a 160 hp -4 that's way
under propped for low altitude flying here in Mississippi.
Charlie
(anybody got a used 160 hp cruise prop for sale?)
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Eric:
There was an RV-8 with 150 HP Constant Speed at Camron Park, CA. A
gentleman named Brian Halkett brian_halkett@yahoo.com built it then solded
it. He now flys an Apache to build multi engine time.
My friend Randy Thorne staart@volcano.net (built, flew, and sold an RV-4,
IO-320, Constant Speed) reports that Brian's RV-8 with 150 was very fast.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,305 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Lycoming O-320 in RV-8?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow@hotmail.com>
Is anyone aware of a Lyc O-320 powerd RV-8(A)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: back riveting with the long avery set, good, bad, indifferent? |
--> RV-List message posted by: BPattonsoa@aol.com
One thing I have not seen in this thread. I did my RV-6A wing tops with the
offset Avery. It took two hands on the rivet gun side. One hand holds the
rivet gun, the other holds the set near the bend (or somewhere near) to keep it
from wandering. Also used a very heavy bucking bar.
Did one wing in about two hours, the other with a complete novice on the bar
side in about 2.5.
Bruce Patton
-6a 596S
Flying (to KOSH Sunday)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@velocitus.net>
Yes, but on new engines at least, the engine comes with the rear plug
installed. So you have to pull the front plug, punch a hole in (or remove)
the rear plug, the reinstall the front one.
Punch (don't drill) a small hole in the front plug, and remove it with a
screwdriver. Then use a really long screwdriver to punch the hole in the
back plug, and reinstall the front plug. I was able to borrow a big brass
drift to drive in the center of the plug (it's concave, so driving in the
center presses the outer edge against the inside of the crankshaft).
Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
RV6A 600 hours
> The FRONT plug stays for fixed pitch. You remove it for a constant speed
> and place another plug at the rear of the front main bearing cavity.
>
> Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
> > Any "gotcha's" I should anticipate before I remove the
> expansion plug from
> the front of my factory new 0-320 to configure it for fixed pitch
> operation? What is the best way to remove and replace the plug with a
> STD-1211?
>
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: | Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rich Crosley" <dirtrider@qnet.com>
I am building an RV-8 with a O-360, Lasar. Is the Constant speed worth
the $5000.00. What am I giving up? How do you guys with the fixed pitch
Sensenich Metal Props like them?
Rich Crosley
Palmdale,CA
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: | Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@velocitus.net>
Not to be flippant, but check the archives. This subject has been discussed
at length. It's in the same category as: Tailwheel or Nosewheel? Slider
or Tip-up? Prime on Not? Tastes great or Less filling?
Basically constant speed offer better climb. If 2000fpm at sea level is
good enough, go with fixed pitch. If you want a few hundred fpm more than
that, or like "chop it and drop it" descents, and don't mind paying for it,
go with C/S.
Ed Bundy - Eagle, Idaho
RV6A 600 hours
> I am building an RV-8 with a O-360, Lasar. Is the Constant speed worth
> the $5000.00. What am I giving up? How do you guys with the fixed pitch
> Sensenich Metal Props like them?
>
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: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
> I am building an RV-8 with a O-360, Lasar. Is the Constant speed worth
> the $5000.00.
YES, and there's much in the archives on this issue.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, 330 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
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: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Cimino" <jcimino@echoes.net>
I have flown both and have about 100hrs on my -8 with the C/S, wouldn't
consider giving it up.
James Cimino
RV-8 SN 80039
100+ Hours
570-842-4057
http://www.geocities.com/jcimino.geo/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Crosley" <dirtrider@qnet.com>
Subject: RV-List: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rich Crosley" <dirtrider@qnet.com>
>
> I am building an RV-8 with a O-360, Lasar. Is the Constant speed worth
> the $5000.00. What am I giving up? How do you guys with the fixed pitch
> Sensenich Metal Props like them?
>
> Rich Crosley
> Palmdale,CA
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Randy Lervold wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" <randy@rv-8.com>
>
>>I am building an RV-8 with a O-360, Lasar. Is the Constant speed worth
>>the $5000.00.
>
>
> YES, and there's much in the archives on this issue.
>
> Randy Lervold
> RV-8, 330 hrs.
> www.rv-8.com
>
Of course people that have spent big bucks on their CS well say yes.
I have an O-360 with a Sensenich metal FP and and am very happy with it.
When I fly with someone that has a CS I seem to get there the same time they do.
When I take off in formation with someone with a CS prop they or I adjust to the
circumstance. In my opinion unless you have money to burn a CS is a luxury that
is not necessary unless you just have to have one. They do get you off the
ground quicker (which is relative in an RV) they do have good breaking
properties if you want to slow down in a hurry. In low level cruise where most
of us fly in RVs they have absolutely no advantage. They have a slight advantage
and are a little bit more fuel efficient at higher altitude.
Jerry
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: Constant Speed vs. Fixed Pitch |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV3 <rv3@comcast.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
> They have a slight advantage
>and are a little bit more fuel efficient at higher altitude.
>
>Jerry
>
==========================================
Not what I've been told compared to an OPTIMIZED fixed pitch prop.
Do not archive.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|