---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 10/29/03: 38 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:27 AM - Re: Tailwheel clips (Doug Gray) 2. 04:12 AM - Re: Tools (Dana Overall) 3. 06:06 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Dwight Frye) 4. 07:23 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (kempthornes) 5. 07:56 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Condrey, Bob (US SSA)) 6. 08:10 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Tedd McHenry) 7. 08:12 AM - Fw: Rocket-List: horsepower envy (C. Rabaut) 8. 08:14 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points (Greg Young) 9. 08:34 AM - Landings (Wheeler North) 10. 09:01 AM - IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (Mike Robertson) 11. 09:40 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Humor) (Jim Jewell) 12. 09:40 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points (Terry Watson) 13. 09:53 AM - 7 slider install (Dana Overall) 14. 10:11 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Tedd McHenry) 15. 10:15 AM - Fw: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (C. Rabaut) 16. 11:05 AM - Humor - Builders Delete now. (j1j2h3@juno.com) 17. 11:29 AM - Re: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points (Dwight Frye) 18. 11:39 AM - Re: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (Pat Hatch) 19. 12:18 PM - Re: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (Sam Buchanan) 20. 12:18 PM - Re: RV Builder IM Network (Rob Prior) 21. 12:46 PM - Re: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (Dwight Frye) 22. 01:07 PM - Re: Dynon Install Kit (Bob) 23. 01:19 PM - Re: Landings (Brian Denk) 24. 01:43 PM - Hartzell Spinner (Scott Brown) 25. 02:05 PM - Re: Landings (tomrv8@gvtc.com) 26. 02:12 PM - Re: 7 slider install (Stein Bruch) 27. 03:29 PM - Re: 7 slider install (Dana Overall) 28. 04:21 PM - Re: Electric flap motor failures (Fred Stucklen) 29. 04:47 PM - Re: HUMOR - are bigger engine's Chick Magnets (Tracy Crook) 30. 04:53 PM - Re: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points (Elsa & Henry) 31. 05:19 PM - Dynon EMI update (Michael Stewart) 32. 05:51 PM - fastening sliderwindshield (Dave Ford) 33. 06:06 PM - Re: 7 slider install (Ed Holyoke) 34. 06:29 PM - Re: EGT/CHT probes (Alan McKeen) 35. 07:24 PM - Re: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's (Kevin Horton) 36. 08:49 PM - Re: Hartzell Spinner (JusCash@aol.com) 37. 09:42 PM - -4 Canopy (RV4Joe) 38. 11:47 PM - SoCAL RV RendezVous - Nov. 8 (WMPALM@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:27:10 AM PST US From: Doug Gray Subject: Re: RV-List: Tailwheel clips --> RV-List message posted by: Doug Gray I have seen one RV in this country without any interconnect from the rudder to tail wheel. For that matter the DHC Chipmunk I did my aerobatic training in had no linkage by design. The only times I missed it was when I had a brake failure while taxying downhill around a bend. Taxying in a very stiff crosswind was a non event, dragging a brake and adding power easily compensated for the lack of rudder authority. I'll certainly give it a try without, when the day finally comes. Doug Gray RV-6 fuse in Oz > > I notice an RV-8 this past weekend that had no springs or chains back > there. Nothin. Just like Dick Martin. Should these be considered > optional equipment? Personally, I'll be using the Jantzi steerling > link... > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:12:09 AM PST US From: "Dana Overall" Subject: Re: RV-List: Tools --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" Stephanie, With the advent of the totally prepunched kit, you can acquire most of the tools you will need to complete your emp at a very reasonable price. At a minimum you would have to buy from a tool supplier a 2x or 3x rivet gun, a 470 offset rivet set, a flush (I use a rubber protected mushroom), a small bucking bar, #30, #40 and I think a #6 screw dimple dies, hand squeezer (although I know one guy who squeezed all his rivets with a modified vice grip), rivet dies for flush and 470s, and some type of cheap deburring tool. Your most expensive will be you C-frame but heck some RV builder out there might let you use there's. Even go to Ebay to look for your rivet gun, you can find them cheap there. If you want to do the rest on a budget, a drill is used now more for just reaming the holes, thus no expensive drill, use a hand hack saw, buy a cheap pair of metal snips (you don't do much trimming now at all), buy a couple files and polishing pads at your local paint supply instead of name brand scotchbrite pads, buy an off name pop rivet with a swivel head, and about 3-4 #30 and #40 drill bits along with a #10, #12 and a #19 (remember elcheapo bits as you are only reaming) and you're pretty much on the road. Can anyone else something you would absolutely need in that first paragraph.........now remember, this is coming form someone that would fight you for my pnematic squeezer, pnematic cleco thingamagig but still don't have that laser guided dimplematic!! Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider/fuselage, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit ordered!! Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive >From: "MARSHALL,STEPHANIE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com >To: rv-list@matronics.com, "'oregon-rvlist@yahoogroups.com'" > >Subject: RV-List: Tools >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:13:08 -0800 > >--> RV-List message posted by: "MARSHALL,STEPHANIE (HP-Corvallis,ex1)" > > >Hello all, > >My husband and I were going to start an RV-8 in January, the Avery Tool kit >was going to be our Christmas present to each other. Well, slight change in >plans I got in a car accident yesterday and now our tool money is going to >be repair the car money. > >We are both still in college and short on cash to begin with, does anyone >have tools they might be willing to sell? > >Thanks, >Stephanie Marshall >Oregon State University >541-715-3976 > > Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers. https://broadband.msn.com ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:06:38 AM PST US From: Dwight Frye Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye Godbout CompuPro S-100 bus based system. Had an 8085 processor and ran CP/M (the moral predecessor to MS/DOS), and ran on an eight inch dual floppy drive. Through various upgrades (including adding static memory, a 68000 processor card, a small hard disk, etc.) it eventually ran a version of System V Unix. This was "real" Unix, not Linux. The shock came one day when I was visiting the Museum of American History in Washington and upon wandering through the display of "antique" computers I saw the *same* *machine* in the display! This was by far not the first (or smallest) machine I ever worked with, but it was the first I was able to personally own. The PC wasn't even a gleam in IBM's eyes at that point. Do I win? :) -- Dwight *Please* Do Not Archive this silliness ..... On Tue Oct 28 23:27:24 2003, Dave Smith wrote : >IBM PC-1. 16k on the motherboard, SSSD floppies... ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:23:42 AM PST US From: kempthornes Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes If you win, you'll have to share the prize with me. Or maybe I win since I started with an 8080 CPU. Before that I had a log log duplex decitrig! hal At 09:15 AM 10/29/2003 -0500, you wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye > >Godbout CompuPro S-100 bus based system. Had an 8085 processor and ran >CP/M (the moral predecessor to MS/DOS), and ran on an eight inch dual floppy >drive. Through various upgrades (including adding static memory, a 68000 >processor card, a small hard disk, etc.) it eventually ran a version of >System V Unix. This was "real" Unix, not Linux. > >The shock came one day when I was visiting the Museum of American History >in Washington and upon wandering through the display of "antique" computers >I saw the *same* *machine* in the display! > >This was by far not the first (or smallest) machine I ever worked with, but >it was the first I was able to personally own. The PC wasn't even a gleam >in IBM's eyes at that point. > >Do I win? :) > > -- Dwight > >*Please* Do Not Archive this silliness ..... > >On Tue Oct 28 23:27:24 2003, Dave Smith wrote : > >IBM PC-1. 16k on the motherboard, SSSD floppies... > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:56:38 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" --> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" Ok, my pocket protector is twitching and I can't stand it anymore. My first computer was an Altair 8800A S-100 bus system w/2K RAM, CPU was a 2 MHz 8080, no mass storage, program entry was through the front panel switches. After some upgrades (8K RAM, I/O ports, manual paper tape reader) I also had a copy of the first Microsoft BASIC interpreter on paper tape (seriously!). Bob -----Original Message----- From: Dwight Frye [mailto:dwight@openweave.org] Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye Godbout CompuPro S-100 bus based system. Had an 8085 processor and ran CP/M (the moral predecessor to MS/DOS), and ran on an eight inch dual floppy drive. Through various upgrades (including adding static memory, a 68000 processor card, a small hard disk, etc.) it eventually ran a version of System V Unix. This was "real" Unix, not Linux. The shock came one day when I was visiting the Museum of American History in Washington and upon wandering through the display of "antique" computers I saw the *same* *machine* in the display! This was by far not the first (or smallest) machine I ever worked with, but it was the first I was able to personally own. The PC wasn't even a gleam in IBM's eyes at that point. Do I win? :) -- Dwight *Please* Do Not Archive this silliness ..... On Tue Oct 28 23:27:24 2003, Dave Smith wrote : >IBM PC-1. 16k on the motherboard, SSSD floppies... == direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. == == == ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:10:36 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > Do I win? :) So far. The question is, what's an appropriate prize? Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:12:18 AM PST US From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: RV-List: Fw: Rocket-List: horsepower envy --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" I forgot to cc this to the 4 list (I'm probably gonna need back-up in this fight!!!) ----- Original Message ----- From: C. Rabaut Subject: Re: Rocket-List: horsepower envy > Vince, > > Us RV-4 pilots know that you Rocket pilots (and that includes Gummi > Bear) are really just trying to compensate for smaller appendages.... > ;-} > > "DO NOT ARCHIVE" Chuck > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frazier, Vincent A > To: > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:12 AM > Subject: Rocket-List: horsepower envy > > > > --> Rocket-List message posted by: "Frazier, Vincent A" > > > > > > Whenever my RV pal's wives are around, I can sense that they are staring > at all of that throbbing horsepower that's stuffed into my plane. ;-) > > > > Vince > > > > do not archive > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > ************ > > Everybody, > > > > > > Over the last couple of days, there has been a thread on the > > SoCal RV-List about the old question Fixed or Constant Speed Prop. Of > > course, the answers depend on the viewpoint of the answerer. Anyway, one > > guy wrote that the aircraft with bigger engines and more horsepower are > > "Chick Magnets." I think I have some proof. > > > > The other day I got an Email from a young lady who had built a > > RV-4. She wanted to see what all the talk was about. So, she flew her RV > > up to Apple Valley. I knew things were going to be good when I watched > her > > come into the pattern. She needed to maneuver to avoid some traffic and I > > watched her plane quickly roll into a 60-80 degree bank and smartly turn > to > > downwind. Looks like she knows how to fly her plane, i.e., no sissy 30 > > degree bank turns. We jumped into the Rocket and did some light acro and > > just got the feel for the plane. I think she liked the ride and the > rocket. > > She must have read my web page too, as she asked for low and fast. I > think > > she like that too. > > > > Back into the pattern, I got very lucky. I am showing off so I wanted the > > landing to be good. As luck would have it, I did one of those landings > > where you know you are down when you hear the wheels start rolling. I > saved > > my bouncers for when people aren't watching. > > > > So mark up another great day at the airport. Days like this > are > > not deduced from your life span. > > > > Tom Gummo > > Apple Valley, CA > > Harmon Rocket-II > > > > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:59 AM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" I've got mine hung on my office wall in a shadowbox with a plaque reading "In case of power failure, break glass." And I've still got the leather holster with the belt clip - it was quite a fashion statement with bell bottoms:-) Regards, Greg Young Do not archive, shred all copies, erase the memory and destroy all evidence! > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > > Yep...The batteries never go dead on the slide rule! > > Cheers, > Stein Bruch > > Do Not Archive! > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Gummo > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > > Humor - Builders Delete now. :-) > > My first computer was made of wood and was straight. > It had no memory. > If fact, it couldn't even add only multiply and divide. > You had to do some of the math in your head. > A knowledge of logarithms really helped too. > > If you had one, everybody at college knew you were not a > liberal arts major, i.e., but a nerd. Pocket protector was > optional. But it made doing problems in chemistry possible. > > My second was made of metal and was round. Most everybody on > this list over thirty has used one, the whiz wheel. Or E6B > Flight Calculator. > > Tom Gummo > Apple Valley, CA > Harmon Rocket-II > > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:03 AM PST US From: Wheeler North Subject: RV-List: Landings --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North Hummmph, Rocket guys who use a slide rule while making perfect landings with pretty ladies who own RV-4s.... All I can say is "the bad thing about a perfect landing is the next one is going to be worse, so be careful" ;{) Brian, thanks for the advice on the tail link clips. Has anyone come up with an adjustable connector for the chains? My new springs and chains seem to be different than the old ones, they are either too loose or they are very tight, and put some significant preload on the rudder spar. I am going to try putting AN42B eyebolts on the rudder ends to make the chain lay more flat and hopefully fit better. I'll go get the connectors you mentioned Brian, thanks, remind me of this when the call for list donations comes around again. W ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:45 AM PST US From: "Mike Robertson" Subject: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" Several weeks ago I siad that I would come up with something about Homebuilts and the need for TSO'd equipment. Well, for better of worse here it is. It is quite lenghtly so if you are interested now is the time to delete and carry on. Any comments are very welcome. Mike Robertson HOMEBUILTS AND IFR By Mike Robertson Recently the issue has come up several times about Amateur-Built aircraft and their ability to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). There are some that say that Amateur-Built aircraft cannot be certified to fly IFR unless the instruments and equipment installed in them are TSOD (TSO means Technical Standard Order). There are some that say that there are NO requirements at all and that they cant be stopped from flying IFR. Then there are some in the middle that say that certain instruments and equipment must be TSOd. In fact these are all incorrect. The real truth is somewhere in the middle. Before going any further let me explain that this article is mostly for new aircraft. Aircraft that have already been issued an airworthiness certificate and operating limitations must follow the operating limitations, or apply to have the operating limitations amended. Amateur-Built aircraft today are certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(g) and operated under 14 CFR 91 (FAR 91). The guidance that FAA Inspectors and Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) reference to issue airworthiness certificates to ALL aircraft is FAA Order 8130.2. Section 7 of the Order covers the requirements for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft and tells us about eligibility, aircraft inspection, issuance of the Airworthiness Certificate, and the issuance of Operating Limitations. This Order does not specifically mention requirements for TSO equipment and instruments to be installed in Amateur-Built aircraft. The key to equipment requirements is found in the operating limitations, which are a part of the airworthiness certificate. 14 CFR 91.9(a) requires that pilots follow operating limitations. 14 CFR 91.319(c) and (e) both authorize the FAA to issue necessary limitations that are prescribed in the interest of safety. FAA Order 8130.2 paragraph 134, paragraph (a) states, Operating limitation must be designed to fit the specific situation encountered. The ASI may impose any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest of safety. The ASI and/or designee must review each imposed operating limitation with the applicant to ensure that the operating limitations are understood by the applicant. However, this does not mean that the ASI can require the use of TSOd equipment. The following operating limitations prescribe aircraft equipment requirements and may be imposed: 1. This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only or; 2. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated VFR, day only and, 3. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records. To understand equipment requirements for IFR, we must ask two questions: What are the Part 91 requirements for the equipment? And, What equipment is prudent or safe? So lets look at FAR 91 and see what we have. There are three rules that effect the operation of amateur-built aircraft that do mention TSO equipment. FAR 91.207 address emergency locator transmitters (ELT) and states that any new installations after June 21, 1995, may not use an ELT that meets the requirements of TSO-C91. FAR 91.215 addresses ATC transponders and altitude reporting equipment and their use. It states that the ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C47b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A with altitude reporting capabilities) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S). FAR 91.217 goes on to state that the altimeters and digitizers in the altitude reporting equipment must meet the standards in TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively, or were tested and calibrated and shown to meet the standard referenced therein. You will notice that in each of these rules that there is no wording that this equipment must, in fact, be TSOd. Each does say that they must, or must not, meet the requirements of their prospective TSO. Conceivably, you could build your own transponder, and if you are able to prove it meets the requirements of the appropriate TSO, you could use it. You will also notice rules that use the word, approved. Section 91.205(a) states, or FAA approved equivalents. Paragraph (b) references an approved safety belt. Paragraph (c) requires approved position lights. Approved typically means something that is approved by the FAA through a Parts Manufacture Approval (PMA), a Technical Standard Order (TS0), in conjunction with a type certification procedure, or in any other manner approved by the Administrator (21.305). For amateur built aircraft, equipment installed on the aircraft at certification is considered FAA approved. It is expected that operating limitations will be issued as necessary to cover this equipment, in the interest of safety. Even though this equipment is considered approved, it still may not meet the standards of a TSO. Its up to the operator to ensure that the equipment meets all Part 91 requirements prior to operating the aircraft. Even though 91.205(a) excludes amateur-built aircraft, we now know that per the operating limitations amateur built aircraft are required by to be appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205 to operate under IFR, so lets take a look and see what we need. Paragraph (b) talks about those basic instruments required for day VFR flight. Paragraph (c) gives the requirements for VFR flight at night. In paragraph (1) it states that those instruments and equipment required for day VFR per paragraph (b) must be installed. Paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) talk about position lights and anticollision lights, and clearly stated that they must be approved. To be approved the lights must meet the requirements of FAR 23 at a minimum. Therefore, if they do not come with an approval from the FAA then you must be able to prove that they meet the requirements of FAR 23. But you will notice that paragraph (c) doesnt say anything about a TSO. Paragraph (d) gives the requirements for IFR flight. It states that for IFR flight all the instruments in paragraph (b) are required, and if the IFR flight is to be at night then the requirements of paragraph (c) must also be met. Then the paragraph states that two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used, a gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, a slip-skid indicator, a sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure, a clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds, a generator or alternator of adequate capacity, a gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon), and a gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). Paragraph (e) of 91.205 is for flight above 24,000 feet and states that if you are using a VOR then you must also have approved distance measuring equipment (DME). Paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) talk about Cat II and Cat III and do not pertain to this article unless you plan on building a jet powered aircraft. So, after thoroughly looking at FAR 91.205 we see that other than those items already discussed there is no mention about a TSO. We must remember that a TSO is a standard to which equipment is manufactured. This is where our second question comes in. As an instrument pilot flying IFR in an amateur built aircraft, what equipment is prudent and safe for you and your family to fly with? It is necessary that when evaluating your aircraft during certification, that the FAA or designee (DAR) inspect the aircraft and issue the necessary operating limitations in the interest of safety. Remember, all the equipment listed in 91.205 installed in a STANDARD category aircraft at the time of its certification, was evaluated by the FAA through a type certification process, a TSO process, or a parts manufacturing process (PMA). For an amateur built aircraft most of the equipment listed in Part 91.205 requires no adhereance to any FAA standards. In light of how much time has been spent building these aircraft, we all want to operate them safely for many years. And safety is the first concern when the aircraft are being inspected for issuance of an airworthiness certificate. Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:23 AM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network (Humor) --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" Ok, it's time to suggest that those whom wish to continue using list band width for a computer geek pissing into the wind contest please use the ( do not archive ) feature. As entertaining as you might have found it to be to collect issues of Kilobaud and watch little red flashing lights tell you that the 1K memory board kit you just bought and built from the local ham radio shop could store more information than you could effectively make use of . (phew! long sentence) The rest of us would rather get back to subject matter that tends to lend itself to the aircraft building theme. My delete finger is already worn to a nub dealing with bloody spam so don't feed me any of the delete suggestions.{; ]! OH! by the way, your sneakers are wet!(8>)! Jim in Kelowna - laughing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network > --> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" > > Ok, my pocket protector is twitching and I can't stand it anymore. My > first computer was an Altair 8800A S-100 bus system w/2K RAM, CPU was a > 2 MHz 8080, no mass storage, program entry was through the front panel > switches. After some upgrades (8K RAM, I/O ports, manual paper tape > reader) I also had a copy of the first Microsoft BASIC interpreter on > paper tape (seriously!). > > Bob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dwight Frye [mailto:dwight@openweave.org] > To: rv-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye > > Godbout CompuPro S-100 bus based system. Had an 8085 processor and ran > CP/M (the moral predecessor to MS/DOS), and ran on an eight inch dual > floppy drive. Through various upgrades (including adding static memory, > a 68000 processor card, a small hard disk, etc.) it eventually ran a > version of System V Unix. This was "real" Unix, not Linux. > > The shock came one day when I was visiting the Museum of American > History in Washington and upon wandering through the display of > "antique" computers I saw the *same* *machine* in the display! > > This was by far not the first (or smallest) machine I ever worked with, > but it was the first I was able to personally own. The PC wasn't even a > gleam in IBM's eyes at that point. > > Do I win? :) > > -- Dwight > > *Please* Do Not Archive this silliness ..... > > On Tue Oct 28 23:27:24 2003, Dave Smith wrote : > >IBM PC-1. 16k on the motherboard, SSSD floppies... > > > == > direct advertising on the Matronics Forums. > == > == > == > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:23 AM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" OK, I already regret jumping in here, but sitting under the bench in my obsolete darkroom is a Sol 20 8080 based computer with 4k of memory. It was assembled by a kid at the Retail Computer Store in Seattle who went on to found Seattle Computing and write an operating system for 16 bit computers that he sold to Bill Gates who sold it to IBM and as MS-DOS. Rumor has it that it was a rip-off of the CPM operating system by Gary Kildall, who had been too busy to meet with IBM when they came shopping for an operating system. Radio Shack Model 1 was way beyond my Sol 20. You could buy it assembled. So now you know that I'm old and that if I were smart I would also be rich. Terry There is a "do not archive" in here somewhere, isn't there? --> RV-List message posted by: "Lyle Peterson" Double Harumph. My first computer had 4k. Still have it and is is keeping up with the Internet just fine! LOL Anyone want an early Radio Shack computer, Model I, II IV or 16. Your choice. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior Chris W wrote: Harumph. My first computer had 8K. -Rob (wondering when "mine is smaller than yours" became a bragging point...) Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:53:01 AM PST US From: "Dana Overall" Subject: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" I've looked around and can't seem to find the URL for Jim Cone's detailed explaination of the slider install. Could someone please post it. One big question, most builders I see have riveted on the forward aft top skin before working on the canopy frame. Since the 7 is prepunched it is very easy to cleco the thing on to get your contour. I would like to leave this skin off as long as I can. If movement of the frame is required I could always just put the skin to bulkhead clecos in from the inside out. I realize I will have to have the skin riveted on before I do the skirt. Pros............Cons Yep, I have looked in the archives:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit!! Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:11:57 AM PST US From: Tedd McHenry Subject: RE: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry > Ok, my pocket protector is twitching and I can't stand it anymore. My > first computer was an Altair 8800A S-100 bus system w/2K RAM, CPU was a > 2 MHz 8080, no mass storage, program entry was through the front panel > switches. After some upgrades (8K RAM, I/O ports, manual paper tape > reader) I also had a copy of the first Microsoft BASIC interpreter on > paper tape (seriously!). Luxury. I had to build my own first computer from hand-rolled gold wire and blown glass, mounted on a papyrus board. I wrote the operating system myself, which was tough because we didn't yet have zero in those days. Tedd McHenry Surrey, BC ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:15:09 AM PST US From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: Fw: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" Hey "Das Fed", Thank you (once again) for all your time & efforts. You make a very significant contribution to the safety of us all... and cut down the Federal Legalese to manageable facts for our consumption. Chuck do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Robertson Subject: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" > > Several weeks ago I siad that I would come up with something about > Homebuilts and the need for TSO'd equipment. Well, for better of worse here > it is. It is quite lenghtly so if you are interested now is the time to > delete and carry on. Any comments are very welcome. > > Mike Robertson > > > HOMEBUILTS AND IFR > By Mike Robertson > > Recently the issue has come up several times about Amateur-Built aircraft > and their ability to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). There are > some that say that Amateur-Built aircraft cannot be certified to fly IFR > unless the instruments and equipment installed in them are TSOD (TSO means > Technical Standard Order). There are some that say that there are NO > requirements at all and that they cant be stopped from flying IFR. Then > there are some in the middle that say that certain instruments and equipment > must be TSOd. In fact these are all incorrect. The real truth is > somewhere in the middle. Before going any further let me explain that this > article is mostly for new aircraft. Aircraft that have already been issued > an airworthiness certificate and operating limitations must follow the > operating limitations, or apply to have the operating limitations amended. > > Amateur-Built aircraft today are certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(g) and > operated under 14 CFR 91 (FAR 91). The guidance that FAA Inspectors and > Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) reference to issue > airworthiness certificates to ALL aircraft is FAA Order 8130.2. Section 7 > of the Order covers the requirements for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft > and tells us about eligibility, aircraft inspection, issuance of the > Airworthiness Certificate, and the issuance of Operating Limitations. > > This Order does not specifically mention requirements for TSO equipment and > instruments to be installed in Amateur-Built aircraft. The key to equipment > requirements is found in the operating limitations, which are a part of the > airworthiness certificate. 14 CFR 91.9(a) requires that pilots follow > operating limitations. 14 CFR 91.319(c) and (e) both authorize the FAA to > issue necessary limitations that are prescribed in the interest of > safety. FAA Order 8130.2 paragraph 134, paragraph (a) states, Operating > limitation must be designed to fit the specific situation encountered. The > ASI may impose any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest > of safety. The ASI and/or designee must review each imposed operating > limitation with the applicant to ensure that the operating limitations are > understood by the applicant. However, this does not mean that the ASI can > require the use of TSOd equipment. The following operating limitations > prescribe aircraft equipment requirements and may be imposed: > > 1. This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only or; > 2. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately > equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this > aircraft is to be operated VFR, day only and, > 3. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must > be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. > Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the > aircraft maintenance records. > > To understand equipment requirements for IFR, we must ask two questions: > What are the Part 91 requirements for the equipment? And, What equipment is > prudent or safe? > > So lets look at FAR 91 and see what we have. There are three rules that > effect the operation of amateur-built aircraft that do mention TSO > equipment. FAR 91.207 address emergency locator transmitters (ELT) and > states that any new installations after June 21, 1995, may not use an ELT > that meets the requirements of TSO-C91. FAR 91.215 addresses ATC > transponders and altitude reporting equipment and their use. It states that > the ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and > environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C47b (Mode A) or any class of > TSO-C74b (Mode A with altitude reporting capabilities) as appropriate, or > the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S). FAR 91.217 goes on to state > that the altimeters and digitizers in the altitude reporting equipment must > meet the standards in TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively, or were tested and > calibrated and shown to meet the standard referenced therein. You will > notice that in each of these rules that there is no wording that this > equipment must, in fact, be TSOd. Each does say that they must, or must > not, meet the requirements of their prospective TSO. Conceivably, you could > build your own transponder, and if you are able to prove it meets the > requirements of the appropriate TSO, you could use it. > > You will also notice rules that use the word, approved. Section 91.205(a) > states, or FAA approved equivalents. Paragraph (b) references an approved > safety belt. Paragraph (c) requires approved position lights. Approved > typically means something that is approved by the FAA through a Parts > Manufacture Approval (PMA), a Technical Standard Order (TS0), in conjunction > with a type certification procedure, or in any other manner approved by the > Administrator (21.305). For amateur built aircraft, equipment installed on > the aircraft at certification is considered FAA approved. It is expected > that operating limitations will be issued as necessary to cover this > equipment, in the interest of safety. Even though this equipment is > considered approved, it still may not meet the standards of a TSO. Its up > to the operator to ensure that the equipment meets all Part 91 requirements > prior to operating the aircraft. > > Even though 91.205(a) excludes amateur-built aircraft, we now know that per > the operating limitations amateur built aircraft are required by to be > appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with > 91.205 to operate under IFR, so lets take a look and see what we need. > Paragraph (b) talks about those basic instruments required for day VFR > flight. Paragraph (c) gives the requirements for VFR flight at night. In > paragraph (1) it states that those instruments and equipment required for > day VFR per paragraph (b) must be installed. Paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) > talk about position lights and anticollision lights, and clearly stated that > they must be approved. To be approved the lights must meet the requirements > of FAR 23 at a minimum. Therefore, if they do not come with an approval from > the FAA then you must be able to prove that they meet the requirements of > FAR 23. But you will notice that paragraph (c) doesnt say anything about a > TSO. Paragraph (d) gives the requirements for IFR flight. It states that > for IFR flight all the instruments in paragraph (b) are required, and if the > IFR flight is to be at night then the requirements of paragraph (c) must > also be met. Then the paragraph states that two-way radio communications > system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be > used, a gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, a slip-skid indicator, a > sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure, a clock displaying > hours, minutes, and seconds, a generator or alternator of adequate capacity, > a gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon), and a gyroscopic > direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). Paragraph (e) of > 91.205 is for flight above 24,000 feet and states that if you are using a > VOR then you must also have approved distance measuring equipment (DME). > Paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) talk about Cat II and Cat III and do not > pertain to this article unless you plan on building a jet powered aircraft. > > So, after thoroughly looking at FAR 91.205 we see that other than those > items already discussed there is no mention about a TSO. We must remember > that a TSO is a standard to which equipment is manufactured. This is where > our second question comes in. As an instrument pilot flying IFR in an > amateur built aircraft, what equipment is prudent and safe for you and your > family to fly with? It is necessary that when evaluating your aircraft > during certification, that the FAA or designee (DAR) inspect the aircraft > and issue the necessary operating limitations in the interest of safety. > Remember, all the equipment listed in 91.205 installed in a STANDARD > category aircraft at the time of its certification, was evaluated by the FAA > through a type certification process, a TSO process, or a parts > manufacturing process (PMA). For an amateur built aircraft most of the > equipment listed in Part 91.205 requires no adhereance to any FAA standards. > > In light of how much time has been spent building these aircraft, we all > want to operate them safely for many years. And safety is the first concern > when the aircraft are being inspected for issuance of an airworthiness > certificate. > > Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy > patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:05:41 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: Humor - Builders Delete now. From: j1j2h3@juno.com --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com Original message 1 (clip): It wasn't that long ago that I was using a computer with only 16 meg and I still remember using computers with 640K of memory Hah! I remember 8K (Atari 800). Even our Quest mini-mainframe at work only had 64K. Removable media were dinner plate-sized disks that resided in their own cabinet and took about 5 minutes to change. Original message 2 (clip): If fact, it couldn't even add only multiply and divide. Wrong - it could only add and subtract - it added and subtracted logarithms. Original message 3 (clip): Rob (wondering when "mine is smaller than yours" became a bragging point...). And I used to have to walk to school - barefoot - through 3 foot snow drifts - uphill both ways. Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in Franklin, Tennessee) Do not archive ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:29:26 AM PST US From: Dwight Frye Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye Ok ... now that Terry brings up Processor Technology Sol computers, I can admit that I _sold_ them many years ago. Great machine, for the time. :) Pity I was too broke to own one. By that point in time I considered it to be a rather "advanced" machine over the single-board computers I had been playing with prior to that point. Regarding the "rip-off" issue .. if you look inside the old MSDOS BIOS calls you will discover that the first handful of BIOS function numbers are _identical_ in function and parameters as would be found in CP/M. I still have my old Digital Research CP/M manuals around the house somewhere. I wonder if they are worth the paper they are printed on. Might be time to eBay them as "collectibles". :) I touched Altair and IMSAI machines along the way, with a good friend owning an IMSAI at one point. We won't even talk about loading a Fortran compiler into a PDP-8 core memory from paper tape. Or front-panel toggling in the boot loader for Version 7 Unix on a PDP-11/34. Or the really novel Linc-8 machine for which my above-mentioned friend's father built his own 4K core-plane addition which doubled the memory in that machine. I'll stop myself now before I go as far back as the GE-265 system I used, or our excitement when the 8080 was announced since the 8008 and 4004 were both such minimalist processors. And .. yes .. there is more, but as I say, I will stop. I think I'm getting old. *groan* What Terry says about "if I were smart" applies here as well. *double groan* -- Dwight Do not, Do not, DO NOT ARCHIVE! On Wed Oct 29 12:39:51 2003, Terry Watson wrote : > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > >OK, I already regret jumping in here, but sitting under the bench in my >obsolete darkroom is a Sol 20 8080 based computer with 4k of memory. It was >assembled by a kid at the Retail Computer Store in Seattle who went on to >found Seattle Computing and write an operating system for 16 bit computers >that he sold to Bill Gates who sold it to IBM and as MS-DOS. Rumor has it >that it was a rip-off of the CPM operating system by Gary Kildall, who had >been too busy to meet with IBM when they came shopping for an operating >system. Radio Shack Model 1 was way beyond my Sol 20. You could buy it >assembled. > >So now you know that I'm old and that if I were smart I would also be rich. > >Terry > >There is a "do not archive" in here somewhere, isn't there? > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Lyle Peterson" > >Double Harumph. My first computer had 4k. Still have it and is is >keeping up with the Internet just fine! LOL Anyone want an early Radio >Shack computer, Model I, II IV or 16. Your choice. > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior >To: rv-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network > > >--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior > >Chris W wrote: >Harumph. My first computer had 8K. > >-Rob (wondering when "mine is smaller than yours" became a bragging >point...) > >Do Not Archive > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:07 AM PST US From: "Pat Hatch" Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" Thanks, Mike, for a very succinct, logical, and important study of the IFR-in-hombuilts issue. Very well done. This is a great document and guide for those contemplating IFR in their airplane. One would think that you work for the FAA! Can you make this the official FAA position paper on the subject? Thanks again. do not archive Pat Hatch RV-4 RV-6 RV-7 QB (Building) Vero Beach, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Robertson" Subject: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" > > Several weeks ago I siad that I would come up with something about > Homebuilts and the need for TSO'd equipment. Well, for better of worse here > it is. It is quite lenghtly so if you are interested now is the time to > delete and carry on. Any comments are very welcome. > > Mike Robertson > > > HOMEBUILTS AND IFR > By Mike Robertson > > Recently the issue has come up several times about Amateur-Built aircraft > and their ability to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). There are > some that say that Amateur-Built aircraft cannot be certified to fly IFR > unless the instruments and equipment installed in them are TSOD (TSO means > Technical Standard Order). There are some that say that there are NO > requirements at all and that they cant be stopped from flying IFR. Then > there are some in the middle that say that certain instruments and equipment > must be TSOd. In fact these are all incorrect. The real truth is > somewhere in the middle. Before going any further let me explain that this > article is mostly for new aircraft. Aircraft that have already been issued > an airworthiness certificate and operating limitations must follow the > operating limitations, or apply to have the operating limitations amended. > > Amateur-Built aircraft today are certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(g) and > operated under 14 CFR 91 (FAR 91). The guidance that FAA Inspectors and > Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) reference to issue > airworthiness certificates to ALL aircraft is FAA Order 8130.2. Section 7 > of the Order covers the requirements for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft > and tells us about eligibility, aircraft inspection, issuance of the > Airworthiness Certificate, and the issuance of Operating Limitations. > > This Order does not specifically mention requirements for TSO equipment and > instruments to be installed in Amateur-Built aircraft. The key to equipment > requirements is found in the operating limitations, which are a part of the > airworthiness certificate. 14 CFR 91.9(a) requires that pilots follow > operating limitations. 14 CFR 91.319(c) and (e) both authorize the FAA to > issue necessary limitations that are prescribed in the interest of > safety. FAA Order 8130.2 paragraph 134, paragraph (a) states, Operating > limitation must be designed to fit the specific situation encountered. The > ASI may impose any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest > of safety. The ASI and/or designee must review each imposed operating > limitation with the applicant to ensure that the operating limitations are > understood by the applicant. However, this does not mean that the ASI can > require the use of TSOd equipment. The following operating limitations > prescribe aircraft equipment requirements and may be imposed: > > 1. This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only or; > 2. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately > equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this > aircraft is to be operated VFR, day only and, > 3. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must > be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. > Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the > aircraft maintenance records. > > To understand equipment requirements for IFR, we must ask two questions: > What are the Part 91 requirements for the equipment? And, What equipment is > prudent or safe? > > So lets look at FAR 91 and see what we have. There are three rules that > effect the operation of amateur-built aircraft that do mention TSO > equipment. FAR 91.207 address emergency locator transmitters (ELT) and > states that any new installations after June 21, 1995, may not use an ELT > that meets the requirements of TSO-C91. FAR 91.215 addresses ATC > transponders and altitude reporting equipment and their use. It states that > the ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and > environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C47b (Mode A) or any class of > TSO-C74b (Mode A with altitude reporting capabilities) as appropriate, or > the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S). FAR 91.217 goes on to state > that the altimeters and digitizers in the altitude reporting equipment must > meet the standards in TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively, or were tested and > calibrated and shown to meet the standard referenced therein. You will > notice that in each of these rules that there is no wording that this > equipment must, in fact, be TSOd. Each does say that they must, or must > not, meet the requirements of their prospective TSO. Conceivably, you could > build your own transponder, and if you are able to prove it meets the > requirements of the appropriate TSO, you could use it. > > You will also notice rules that use the word, approved. Section 91.205(a) > states, or FAA approved equivalents. Paragraph (b) references an approved > safety belt. Paragraph (c) requires approved position lights. Approved > typically means something that is approved by the FAA through a Parts > Manufacture Approval (PMA), a Technical Standard Order (TS0), in conjunction > with a type certification procedure, or in any other manner approved by the > Administrator (21.305). For amateur built aircraft, equipment installed on > the aircraft at certification is considered FAA approved. It is expected > that operating limitations will be issued as necessary to cover this > equipment, in the interest of safety. Even though this equipment is > considered approved, it still may not meet the standards of a TSO. Its up > to the operator to ensure that the equipment meets all Part 91 requirements > prior to operating the aircraft. > > Even though 91.205(a) excludes amateur-built aircraft, we now know that per > the operating limitations amateur built aircraft are required by to be > appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with > 91.205 to operate under IFR, so lets take a look and see what we need. > Paragraph (b) talks about those basic instruments required for day VFR > flight. Paragraph (c) gives the requirements for VFR flight at night. In > paragraph (1) it states that those instruments and equipment required for > day VFR per paragraph (b) must be installed. Paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) > talk about position lights and anticollision lights, and clearly stated that > they must be approved. To be approved the lights must meet the requirements > of FAR 23 at a minimum. Therefore, if they do not come with an approval from > the FAA then you must be able to prove that they meet the requirements of > FAR 23. But you will notice that paragraph (c) doesnt say anything about a > TSO. Paragraph (d) gives the requirements for IFR flight. It states that > for IFR flight all the instruments in paragraph (b) are required, and if the > IFR flight is to be at night then the requirements of paragraph (c) must > also be met. Then the paragraph states that two-way radio communications > system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be > used, a gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, a slip-skid indicator, a > sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure, a clock displaying > hours, minutes, and seconds, a generator or alternator of adequate capacity, > a gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon), and a gyroscopic > direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). Paragraph (e) of > 91.205 is for flight above 24,000 feet and states that if you are using a > VOR then you must also have approved distance measuring equipment (DME). > Paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) talk about Cat II and Cat III and do not > pertain to this article unless you plan on building a jet powered aircraft. > > So, after thoroughly looking at FAR 91.205 we see that other than those > items already discussed there is no mention about a TSO. We must remember > that a TSO is a standard to which equipment is manufactured. This is where > our second question comes in. As an instrument pilot flying IFR in an > amateur built aircraft, what equipment is prudent and safe for you and your > family to fly with? It is necessary that when evaluating your aircraft > during certification, that the FAA or designee (DAR) inspect the aircraft > and issue the necessary operating limitations in the interest of safety. > Remember, all the equipment listed in 91.205 installed in a STANDARD > category aircraft at the time of its certification, was evaluated by the FAA > through a type certification process, a TSO process, or a parts > manufacturing process (PMA). For an amateur built aircraft most of the > equipment listed in Part 91.205 requires no adhereance to any FAA standards. > > In light of how much time has been spent building these aircraft, we all > want to operate them safely for many years. And safety is the first concern > when the aircraft are being inspected for issuance of an airworthiness > certificate. > > Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy > patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:53 PM PST US From: Sam Buchanan Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan Mike Robertson wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" > > Several weeks ago I siad that I would come up with something about > Homebuilts and the need for TSO'd equipment. Well, for better of worse here > it is. It is quite lenghtly so if you are interested now is the time to > delete and carry on. Any comments are very welcome. > > Mike Robertson Mike, thanks for the submission of your interpretation of the FARS in regard to IFR ops in an experimental aircraft. This matter confuses a lot of people, and I can't count the number of times I have heard builders refer to getting an "IFR Certification" for their experimental aircraft. I found it interesting that your views parallel very closely the opinion of the EAA; here is a link to the EAA position on IFR ops in experimental aircraft: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/_borders/IFR%20equipment.pdf Unfortunately, it appears that to a large degree the effort needed to get an airworthiness certificate is still dictated by the individual DAR. As has been stated on this list, and stated in your post in regards to "approved" equipment, there are some DARs that have personal opinions on what is acceptable for IFR ops and those opinions are not based on a working understanding of the relevant FARs. Such a DAR can make life miserable for the builder who is not up to speed on his/her rights under the FARs. I strongly suggest that any builder who wants to have the ability to file IFR flight plans in their experimental aircraft to first educate themselves on the FARs, then get in touch with a local DAR........NOW. Feel out the DAR to get an idea of what they expect to see in your panel and if the DAR has a clue as to what the FARs have to say in this regard. If you don't like what you hear, then find another DAR. Waiting until you are ready for the first flight is too late to find out that your DAR is clueless as to what AHRS means, or that they think everything in the panel has to have the blessing of a TSO. The ignorant DARs are out there, you need to find them before you end up in a bind. Doug Reeves has a list of DARs with which RV builders have had a good experience: http://65.219.228.161/dar.htm Thanks again, Mike, and hopefully this will help bring all DARs up to speed on this critical issue! Sam Buchanan ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:53 PM PST US From: Rob Prior Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior Tedd McHenry wrote: > Luxury. I had to build my own first computer from hand-rolled gold wire and > blown glass, mounted on a papyrus board. I wrote the operating system myself, > which was tough because we didn't yet have zero in those days. You must have had the "quickbuild" kit. We had to mine our own gold, and gather sand from the beach to melt down into glass. And you wouldn't believe how hard it is to write an OS without a 1 either. But you try to tell this to kids today, and they just won't believe you... -Rob Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:46:13 PM PST US From: Dwight Frye Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: Dwight Frye First I'll simply say "wow", and thank you for this effort. This is great information! I do have a question (and this has nothing to do with ancient computers). :) In the section I quote below you say : On Wed Oct 29 12:01:27 2003, Mike Robertson wrote : >[ ... snip ... ] >You will also notice rules that use the word, approved. Section 91.205(a) >states, or FAA approved equivalents. Paragraph (b) references an approved >safety belt. Paragraph (c) requires approved position lights. Approved >typically means something that is approved by the FAA through a Parts >Manufacture Approval (PMA), a Technical Standard Order (TS0), in conjunction >with a type certification procedure, or in any other manner approved by the >Administrator (21.305). For amateur built aircraft, equipment installed on >the aircraft at certification is considered FAA approved. It is expected >that operating limitations will be issued as necessary to cover this >equipment, in the interest of safety. Even though this equipment is >considered approved, it still may not meet the standards of a TSO. Its up >to the operator to ensure that the equipment meets all Part 91 requirements >prior to operating the aircraft. >[ ... snip ... ] Where I'm trying to puzzle out the details is with respect to things like the new integrated LED position lights which Bill VonDane and Bill Dube are making available. While I am unsure as of yet whether I'm going to build my RV for IFR or not, I don't want to make choices which categorically rule IFR operation out. I _do_ know I like the perceived higher reliability that the LED solution seems to bring to the table. I'm trying to parse the section quoted above and what I get from this is that if the DAR gives you your certificate and does *not*, for whatever reason, include any limitations regarding your choice of lights ... you are good to go. The assumption is that unless explicitly noted they are, by definition, approved. If my interpretation is right, this begs the question of how do we know that a DAR will NOT include limitations regarding your position lights unless you purchase and install units which have _clearly_ approved previously by the FAA? If I install the spiffy LED position lights, will I have a chance of being limited from IFR ops in my RV? Any clue? Or is it a case of you pay your money and take your chances? -- Dwight ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:07:01 PM PST US From: Bob Subject: Re: RV-List: Dynon Install Kit --> RV-List message posted by: Bob Guys This is a good deal. Wish I had it when I was installing my Dynon. I spent a lot more money than this and got a lot less (not counting shipping). Next time I build an airplane, I am going to buy stock in UPS, so at least I get some of my money back. As for flying with the Dynon, I am now flying my RV6 much better. Before I always had problems in a turn by gaining altitude. This thing sure helps me make turns and stay on altitude. One thing I do not like is the bank angle indicator marks only goes to about 50 degrees, that is fine for shallow turns, but for me steep turns do not start until I get to 60+ degrees. I still have not calibrated the remote compass module. With a GPS, who needs it? This Dynon thing is GREAT! I love it. Bob RV6 NightFighter >Hi All, > >Just a quick note to let you all know that I "FINALLY" got all the >components together for the Dynon EFIS install kit's I promised awhile ago. > >They include connectors, crimper, pins, etc.. > >Price is $55.00 >http://www.steinair.com ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:17 PM PST US From: "Brian Denk" Subject: Re: RV-List: Landings --> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Denk" >--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North > >Hummmph, > >Rocket guys who use a slide rule while making perfect landings with pretty >ladies who own RV-4s.... Yeah, Gummibear must be livin' right. I now will join the "I hate Rocket Drivers" club with Doug R. > >All I can say is "the bad thing about a perfect landing is the next one is >going to be worse, so be careful" ;{) Sort of a "glass is half empty" paradigm as applied to landing an aircraft? :) > > >Brian, thanks for the advice on the tail link clips. Has anyone come up >with >an adjustable connector for the chains? My new springs and chains seem to >be >different than the old ones, they are either too loose or they are very >tight, and put some significant preload on the rudder spar. I don't know of a simple means to fine tune the chain length, either it's too loose or too tight, from my experience. I prefer the chains to be snug. The steering arm is made of some pretty beefy metal and the springs are supposed to take the bumps and bounces. Oh, and the chain link repair clips aren't an original idea of mine....Doug R gave me the idea one day after he had just flown into my home airfield in a B-25. Now I hate Doug too. Also, be sure to use a thread locker to secure the link nuts once installed. > >I am going to try putting AN42B eyebolts on the rudder ends to make the >chain lay more flat and hopefully fit better. I'll go get the connectors >you >mentioned Brian. I installed those on the rudder horn and they work great. You'll like the result. > Brian Denk RV8 N94BD RV10 40051 Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account has exceeded ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 01:43:53 PM PST US From: "Scott Brown" Subject: RV-List: Hartzell Spinner --> RV-List message posted by: "Scott Brown" Listers, I have an RV4 with a 360 engine and a hartzell 2-blade CS prop. I am looking for a metal spinner with a 13 inch back plate. Does anyone have one for sale or know the part number so that I can look for it somewhere? Scott ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:33 PM PST US From: tomrv8@gvtc.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Landings --> RV-List message posted by: tomrv8@gvtc.com Wheeler, I've had good luck on my RV-4 "adjusting" the chain/ spring length as follows: If the chain is too tight, devise a method to hold one end of the chain/ spring (off the plane in a vise is preferrable), and pull the hell out of the other end of the chain several times, thereby fully compressing the spring. It will slightly shorten the spring a small amount, giving you a "looser" fit. To tighten up a slightly loose chain, stick a large, flat bladed screwdriver between each curl in the spring itself, and "pry" them apart. This will have the opposite effect of slightly increasing the length of the spring, taking out some slack. Your mileage may vary, but it's worked for me. Tom RV-4 15 years old and 1040 hours... > Brian, thanks for the advice on the tail link clips. Has anyone come up with > an adjustable connector for the chains? My new springs and chains seem to be > different than the old ones, they are either too loose or they are very > tight, and put some significant preload on the rudder spar. > > I am going to try putting AN42B eyebolts on the rudder ends to make the > chain lay more flat and hopefully fit better. I'll go get the connectors you > mentioned Brian, > > thanks, remind me of this when the call for list donations comes around > again. > > W ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:56 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" Hi Dana, I have sliders on both my -6's, and I didn't rivet the top skin on either of them until I was comopletely done with everything. Because you have to work on the center rib under the top skin, it's much easier leaving the thing removable until you're completely done trimming, drillin, etc.. There is no real reason you need that riveted on before you start the canopy. Just make sure you have the cleco's out of the way and the skin on for the trimming and fitting. >From my experience, the forward top skin on these sliders can be left until just before you're ready to permanantly attach the windscreen and lay-up the fairing. As an added note, I built my rear skirts out of fiberglass this time and it was a breeze! They are a perfectly tight fit, and it actually took much less time than doing the metal ones on my last plane. I also have a near perfect fit on the metal ones, but used a "shrinker/stretcher" to get some nice tight compoud curves...the glass was much easier! Best of luck Stein Bruch RV6's, Minneapolis http://www.steinair.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dana Overall Subject: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" I've looked around and can't seem to find the URL for Jim Cone's detailed explaination of the slider install. Could someone please post it. One big question, most builders I see have riveted on the forward aft top skin before working on the canopy frame. Since the 7 is prepunched it is very easy to cleco the thing on to get your contour. I would like to leave this skin off as long as I can. If movement of the frame is required I could always just put the skin to bulkhead clecos in from the inside out. I realize I will have to have the skin riveted on before I do the skirt. Pros............Cons Yep, I have looked in the archives:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit!! Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 03:29:04 PM PST US From: "Dana Overall" Subject: RE: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" >From: "Stein Bruch" >I have sliders on both my -6's, and I didn't rivet the top skin on either >of >them until I was comopletely done with everything. Because you have to >work >on the center rib under the top skin, it's much easier leaving the thing >removable until you're completely done trimming, drillin, etc.. There is >no >real reason you need that riveted on before you start the canopy. Just >make >sure you have the cleco's out of the way and the skin on for the trimming >and fitting. > > >From my experience, the forward top skin on these sliders can be left >until >just before you're ready to permanantly attach the windscreen and lay-up >the >fairing. Now just to make sure, the skin I am talking about is the forward aft top fuselage skin located behind the canopy frame........the one the rail sits on. Stein, I believe that is what you are talking about in addition to the forward deck skin............. Rivet on.............or wait?? Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:27 PM PST US From: "Fred Stucklen" Subject: RV-List: Re: Electric flap motor failures HTML_SHOUTING3, HTML_TAG_EXISTS_TBODY --> RV-List message posted by: "Fred Stucklen" Larry, I just got back from the hanger where I repaired the flap motor. It too had a greasy black film on the commutator & brushes. Since the "O" ring on the gearbox end was damaged, I can only suspect that is how the grease is getting into the motor area. Since I didn't have a replacement "O" ring, I re-installed the motor with some RTV around the cleaned "O" ring and the mating metal areas. I'm hoping that this will prevent the problem from repeating. In the meantime, I'm going to try to contact the manufacturer to see if there has been any QC related complaints for this product. My motor has date stamped 2/8/00, so I doubt if I can get a free replacemnet... But it might be worth the cost to get a backup motor..... Fred Stucklen RV-6A N926RV 70+ Hrs Time: 05:05:12 PM PST US From: Larygagnon@aol.com Subject: Re: Electric flap motor failures --> RV-List message posted by: Larygagnon@aol.com The flap motor in my RV6 failed at 8 hours and again at 30 hours. I could hear the flap relay click but the motor would not move. Both times an oily substance on the brush/armature area caused it to work intermittently but I never saw an excess of grease in the motor. The second time I also found a brush broken so I'm waiting for a replacement from Van's. BTW make sure the lock nut on the rod end is tight, if it looseness up the arm will unscrew itself from the rod end. Ask me how I know. I agree on the necessary tools, I'll be sure to carry what I need on board to deal with this if it happens again. Larry Gagnon RV6 O360 N6LG ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 04:47:54 PM PST US From: "Tracy Crook" Subject: Re: RV-List: HUMOR - are bigger engine's Chick Magnets --> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" - are bigger engine's Chick Magnets? > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > aircraft with bigger engines and more horsepower are > "Chick Magnets." I think I have some proof. Now I *Really* can't wait to get my 3 rotor 270 HP RV-8 flying : ) Tracy Crook ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 04:53:46 PM PST US From: "Elsa & Henry" Subject: Re: RV-List: RV Builder IM Network and bragging points --> RV-List message posted by: "Elsa & Henry" For God's sake guys how about cutting this out and get back to RV stuff. I'm fed up of getting this unrelated NONSENSE!!!!!!!! Henry Hore ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 05:19:00 PM PST US From: Michael Stewart Subject: RV-List: Dynon EMI update --> RV-List message posted by: Michael Stewart Thought I would give you all an update on my Dynon install now with over 100 hours of use. The head unit has preformed flawlessly and its accuracy is simply amazing. I have never felt more comfortable flying the plane in the soup as i do flying with this thing in my panel. What is neat about it is that even in turbulance, it is not bouncing around like a normal vac gyro would. It only moves when you do, and does not see ill effects of inertial forces. Now the bad news. My self,along with many others, are experienceing serious EMI (electro magnetic interference) resulting from the remote compass unit. I have received many e-mails from others who are having this problem. Myself, along with others, have tried various solutions, none solve the problem. The symptoms of the problem are simply broad band white noise across the com. Ill bet every plane has the problem but most don't know it. If you have the remote compass, try flying and tuning in a distant AWOS or something with a weak signal, turn your dynon on and off and hear the difference. The degree to which the problem exists varies greatly. In my airplane, the noise will break squelch often and cause terrible noise on the com. A scan across the com frequencies will dislay the noise across all frequencies at all times the remote compass is powered. My local electro buzzhead friend brought his bag of tools and is convinced the noise is coming from the Dynon screen and traveling around in the wiring. The same problem that Garmin is having with their weather updates (I have been playing with that stuff too in my neighbors Mooney. How would you like to be Garmin and taking back the thousands of wx installs that are not reliable do to this noise stuff. EEK!.). These screens put out a bunch of noise. Dynon suggests a couple of temp fixes. 1. Shield the lines to the compass. (did nothing for me) 2. power the compass from a different buss. (took about 30% of the noise out for me.) I have ended up putting a toggle switch between the head and the compass so I can kill the power to the compass at will. If I get noise, which is a lot, I kill the power and the noise disappears. Of courser my dynon compass goes whacky when I power down the compass. But at least my com gets clear and it is a quick and imediate solution to the noise problem. My plan is to remove the compass unit and return it. It is just not workable for me and I am way past tired of messing with it. In the end, although i have spent an inordinate amount of time dealing with this compass issue, I am very happy with the horizon capibility. I have not gotten used to the speed and altitude tapes. I still have steam gauges and i am sure this is why I am not using the tapes. Since I have pulled out my vac and gyros, I am considering putting a second one in. My only fear in IFR, other than that one prop/engine I have, is that if the Dynon goes TU, I am down to turn coordinator, whisky compass, and steam gauges on partial panel to keep her upright. Not fun in a bouncing RV in the soup. The cost/benefit of this instrument is so low/high, that having 2 of these to me, really makes sense. Anyway, there is my update. Mike __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:51:00 PM PST US From: "Dave Ford" Subject: RV-List: fastening sliderwindshield --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" I'm getting ready to secure in place the windshield for my slider 6. Question is about attaching and securing the front edge. I have opted to make a removable windshield fairing which is completed and fits like a glove to the windshield except in the front where the plex does not touch the top forward skin, it is about 1/2 inch above the skin so there is some floating of the plex to reach the fairing. I would like to make a clean, secure, good looking attachment of the plex to the fairing and top skin. Some have mentioned clips touching the plex and riveted to the skin, others riveting the fairing and using epoxy to attach plex to the fairing. Still another would be using Lexel between plex and fairing, and pop riveting fairing to skin. My concern is the force and pressure of the air against the plex since I have a 1/2 inch gap where the plex does not touch the top skin. Any suggestions or opinions as to the best way to attach forward plex to top skin? Dave Ford RV6 finishing ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 06:06:52 PM PST US From: "Ed Holyoke" Subject: RE: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" Hi Dana, I'm working on this now in my 6. I found that the skin wanted to sit up at the top center without clecoes in, and with them in, I had no place to put the center slider track. I riveted the skin on, but first I installed the autopilot servo mount, strobe power supply, elt and did all the wiring back there. Have fun with it. Ed Holyoke -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dana Overall Subject: RV-List: 7 slider install --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" I've looked around and can't seem to find the URL for Jim Cone's detailed explaination of the slider install. Could someone please post it. One big question, most builders I see have riveted on the forward aft top skin before working on the canopy frame. Since the 7 is prepunched it is very easy to cleco the thing on to get your contour. I would like to leave this skin off as long as I can. If movement of the frame is required I could always just put the skin to bulkhead clecos in from the inside out. I realize I will have to have the skin riveted on before I do the skirt. Pros............Cons Yep, I have looked in the archives:-) Dana Overall Richmond, KY RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic" Finish kit!! Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon. http://rvflying.tripod.com do not archive == == == == ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:50 PM PST US From: "Alan McKeen" Subject: Re: RV-List: EGT/CHT probes --> RV-List message posted by: "Alan McKeen" I have an O-320 in my RV-6. At idle all four cylinders run similar EGT and CHT. At full power climb out #3 cylinder is the highest for CHT and EGT. At cruise power #1 and #3 consistently are higher CHT and EGT than #2 and #4. During climb and cruise, #4 is consistently the lowest temperature for both CHT and EGT. Based on my plane and my observation of it, #3 is most often the highest CHT and EGT. Alan McKeen N418AL RV-6 O-320 602 Hours on the Hobbs ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 07:24:56 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: IFR, HOmebuilts, and TSO's --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton Great stuff Mike. You didn't mention GPSs. My understanding is that GPSs that are to navigate when IFR must meet the requirements of TSO C129A. Do you concur? That is certainly the way our regs are interpreted up here in Canada, but I'm not sure of the situation in the US. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ >--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" > >Several weeks ago I siad that I would come up with something about >Homebuilts and the need for TSO'd equipment. Well, for better of worse here >it is. It is quite lenghtly so if you are interested now is the time to >delete and carry on. Any comments are very welcome. > >Mike Robertson > > >HOMEBUILTS AND IFR >By Mike Robertson > >Recently the issue has come up several times about Amateur-Built aircraft >and their ability to fly under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). There are >some that say that Amateur-Built aircraft cannot be certified to fly IFR >unless the instruments and equipment installed in them are TSOD (TSO means >Technical Standard Order). There are some that say that there are NO >requirements at all and that they cant be stopped from flying IFR. Then >there are some in the middle that say that certain instruments and equipment >must be TSOd. In fact these are all incorrect. The real truth is >somewhere in the middle. Before going any further let me explain that this >article is mostly for new aircraft. Aircraft that have already been issued >an airworthiness certificate and operating limitations must follow the >operating limitations, or apply to have the operating limitations amended. > >Amateur-Built aircraft today are certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(g) and >operated under 14 CFR 91 (FAR 91). The guidance that FAA Inspectors and >Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DARs) reference to issue >airworthiness certificates to ALL aircraft is FAA Order 8130.2. Section 7 >of the Order covers the requirements for Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft >and tells us about eligibility, aircraft inspection, issuance of the >Airworthiness Certificate, and the issuance of Operating Limitations. > >This Order does not specifically mention requirements for TSO equipment and >instruments to be installed in Amateur-Built aircraft. The key to equipment >requirements is found in the operating limitations, which are a part of the >airworthiness certificate. 14 CFR 91.9(a) requires that pilots follow >operating limitations. 14 CFR 91.319(c) and (e) both authorize the FAA to >issue necessary limitations that are prescribed in the interest of >safety. FAA Order 8130.2 paragraph 134, paragraph (a) states, Operating >limitation must be designed to fit the specific situation encountered. The >ASI may impose any additional limitations deemed necessary in the interest >of safety. The ASI and/or designee must review each imposed operating >limitation with the applicant to ensure that the operating limitations are >understood by the applicant. However, this does not mean that the ASI can >require the use of TSOd equipment. The following operating limitations >prescribe aircraft equipment requirements and may be imposed: > >1. This aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only or; >2. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately >equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this >aircraft is to be operated VFR, day only and, >3. Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used >under 91.205 must >be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. >Any maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the >aircraft maintenance records. > >To understand equipment requirements for IFR, we must ask two questions: >What are the Part 91 requirements for the equipment? And, What equipment is >prudent or safe? > >So lets look at FAR 91 and see what we have. There are three rules that >effect the operation of amateur-built aircraft that do mention TSO >equipment. FAR 91.207 address emergency locator transmitters (ELT) and >states that any new installations after June 21, 1995, may not use an ELT >that meets the requirements of TSO-C91. FAR 91.215 addresses ATC >transponders and altitude reporting equipment and their use. It states that >the ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and >environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C47b (Mode A) or any class of >TSO-C74b (Mode A with altitude reporting capabilities) as appropriate, or >the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S). FAR 91.217 goes on to state >that the altimeters and digitizers in the altitude reporting equipment must >meet the standards in TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively, or were tested and >calibrated and shown to meet the standard referenced therein. You will >notice that in each of these rules that there is no wording that this >equipment must, in fact, be TSOd. Each does say that they must, or must >not, meet the requirements of their prospective TSO. Conceivably, you could >build your own transponder, and if you are able to prove it meets the >requirements of the appropriate TSO, you could use it. > >You will also notice rules that use the word, approved. Section 91.205(a) >states, or FAA approved equivalents. Paragraph (b) references an approved >safety belt. Paragraph (c) requires approved position lights. Approved >typically means something that is approved by the FAA through a Parts >Manufacture Approval (PMA), a Technical Standard Order (TS0), in conjunction >with a type certification procedure, or in any other manner approved by the >Administrator (21.305). For amateur built aircraft, equipment installed on >the aircraft at certification is considered FAA approved. It is expected >that operating limitations will be issued as necessary to cover this >equipment, in the interest of safety. Even though this equipment is >considered approved, it still may not meet the standards of a TSO. Its up >to the operator to ensure that the equipment meets all Part 91 requirements >prior to operating the aircraft. > >Even though 91.205(a) excludes amateur-built aircraft, we now know that per >the operating limitations amateur built aircraft are required by to be >appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with >91.205 to operate under IFR, so lets take a look and see what we need. >Paragraph (b) talks about those basic instruments required for day VFR >flight. Paragraph (c) gives the requirements for VFR flight at night. In >paragraph (1) it states that those instruments and equipment required for >day VFR per paragraph (b) must be installed. Paragraph (c)(2) and (c)(3) >talk about position lights and anticollision lights, and clearly stated that >they must be approved. To be approved the lights must meet the requirements >of FAR 23 at a minimum. Therefore, if they do not come with an approval from >the FAA then you must be able to prove that they meet the requirements of >FAR 23. But you will notice that paragraph (c) doesnt say anything about a >TSO. Paragraph (d) gives the requirements for IFR flight. It states that >for IFR flight all the instruments in paragraph (b) are required, and if the >IFR flight is to be at night then the requirements of paragraph (c) must >also be met. Then the paragraph states that two-way radio communications >system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be >used, a gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, a slip-skid indicator, a >sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure, a clock displaying >hours, minutes, and seconds, a generator or alternator of adequate capacity, >a gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon), and a gyroscopic >direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). Paragraph (e) of >91.205 is for flight above 24,000 feet and states that if you are using a >VOR then you must also have approved distance measuring equipment (DME). >Paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) talk about Cat II and Cat III and do not >pertain to this article unless you plan on building a jet powered aircraft. > >So, after thoroughly looking at FAR 91.205 we see that other than those >items already discussed there is no mention about a TSO. We must remember >that a TSO is a standard to which equipment is manufactured. This is where >our second question comes in. As an instrument pilot flying IFR in an >amateur built aircraft, what equipment is prudent and safe for you and your >family to fly with? It is necessary that when evaluating your aircraft >during certification, that the FAA or designee (DAR) inspect the aircraft >and issue the necessary operating limitations in the interest of safety. >Remember, all the equipment listed in 91.205 installed in a STANDARD >category aircraft at the time of its certification, was evaluated by the FAA >through a type certification process, a TSO process, or a parts >manufacturing process (PMA). For an amateur built aircraft most of the >equipment listed in Part 91.205 requires no adhereance to any FAA standards. > >In light of how much time has been spent building these aircraft, we all >want to operate them safely for many years. And safety is the first concern >when the aircraft are being inspected for issuance of an airworthiness >certificate. > >Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your current Internet access and enjoy >patented spam control and more. Get two months FREE! > -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/ ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 08:49:48 PM PST US From: JusCash@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Hartzell Spinner --> RV-List message posted by: JusCash@aol.com In a message dated 10/29/2003 1:45:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, scottbrown@precisionjet.com writes: Listers, I have an RV4 with a 360 engine and a hartzell 2-blade CS prop. I am looking for a metal spinner with a 13 inch back plate. Does anyone have one for sale or know the part number so that I can look for it somewhere? Scott I replaced my fiberglass spinner with an aluminum spinner from GBI http://www.fly-gbi.com/ It is a direct replacement for Van's fiberglass spinner. One trick I would like to pass on is how to locate the holes in the spinner using the existing back plate. I used 1/4" long #8 pointed set screws. Insert the screws in the backplate from the outside in making them flush with the outer circumference. After the spinner is cut for the prop and centered for runout gently turn the set screws into the spinner. This will leave center marks for each hole. Using this method my spinner runs true. Cash Copeland RV6 Hayward, Ca ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 09:42:58 PM PST US From: "RV4Joe" Subject: RV-List: -4 Canopy --> RV-List message posted by: "RV4Joe" I just purchased a -4 with 600 hours on it. The canopy has what appears to be a retaining piston similar to what you find on a hatchback car. It is needs to be redesigned because when opened, it is putting too much stress on the canopy frame at the attach point of the 'piston'. I am looking for ways to redesign this. At Osh 2002, I seem to recall a couple of ingenious solutions, but do not have any photos and at that time did not have a plane so did not take careful notes. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:49 PM PST US From: WMPALM@aol.com Subject: RV-List: SoCAL RV RendezVous - Nov. 8 --> RV-List message posted by: WMPALM@aol.com RV Enthusiasts, Due to the wildfires currently raging in Southern California (SoCAL) and the unfavorable flying weather forecast for this Saturday, Nov. 1, we have decided to delay the SoCAL RV RendezVous to Saturday, Nov. 8. We assume that our SoCAL weather will return to its normal sunny, clear self by Nov. 8, and that the wildfires will be out, or nearly out. RendezVous information and procedures will remain as before. We will send out a detailed reminder next week. For those RV enthusiasts who cannot make Nov. 8, we're still planning to have an informal, unorganized RV hangar-flying session at Cable Airport this Saturday, Nov. 1. It will be a relatively small, but friendly, gathering. We'll have free donuts, juice, etc. for morning arrivals. Please drive or fly-in if you can, Safely! Bottom Line: THE RV SHOW MUST GO ON! EVENT: SoCAL RV RendezVous NEW DATE: Saturday, Nov. 8, 2003 TIME: 9am to 4pm LOCATION: Cable Airport (KCCB), Upland, CA (http://www.cableairport.com) Best Regards, Gary Sobek SoCAL RV RendezVous Chairman EAA Technical Counselor, AB DAR-elect RV-6 N157GS Bill Palmer RendezVous Marketing and Communications Officer RV-8A QB In-Progress