Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:55 AM - Grizzly Bending Brake (Mark)
2. 06:18 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (Scott Bilinski)
3. 06:29 AM - Re: Re:Jon and VH-NOJ Received: ....dlwc.nsw.gov.au (Scott Bilinski)
4. 07:14 AM - Re: McMurdo Fuel (linn walters)
5. 07:25 AM - Re: Anyone in the Chicago area? (Dane Sheahen)
6. 07:35 AM - "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) (Bill Dube)
7. 07:37 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (James E. Clark)
8. 07:44 AM - Re: Re:Jon and VH-NOJ (Bill Dube)
9. 08:02 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (rv6tc)
10. 08:17 AM - Re: Re:Jon and VH-NOJ (Scott Bilinski)
11. 08:25 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (Scott Bilinski)
12. 08:28 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (Rob Prior)
13. 08:33 AM - Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) (Mickey Coggins)
14. 08:48 AM - Re: Re:Jon and VH-NOJReceived: ....dlwc.nsw.gov.au with (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
15. 09:11 AM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Charlie & Tupper England)
16. 09:15 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (William J. LaPorte)
17. 09:33 AM - Re: Our tax dollars (Pat Perry)
18. 09:47 AM - Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) (linn walters)
19. 09:54 AM - Welders (GLCole5475@aol.com)
20. 09:57 AM - MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Ross Mickey)
21. 09:57 AM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Blanton Fortson)
22. 10:11 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (Blanton Fortson)
23. 10:12 AM - New business- Flightline Interiors (Jeff Point)
24. 10:23 AM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Scott Bilinski)
25. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Our tax dollars (rv6tc)
26. 10:59 AM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (MSices)
27. 11:07 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (Pat Hatch)
28. 11:11 AM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (flmike)
29. 11:17 AM - Re: Jon Johanson (James E. Clark)
30. 11:30 AM - Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
31. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Rob Prior)
32. 12:02 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (rv6tc)
33. 12:02 PM - Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling authority (RV_8 Pilot)
34. 12:13 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Boyd Braem)
35. 12:37 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
36. 12:39 PM - t-bird videos (Bill VonDane)
37. 12:41 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (RV_8 Pilot)
38. 12:43 PM - sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
39. 12:56 PM - Re: Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Scott Bilinski)
40. 01:01 PM - Re: Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (rv6tc)
41. 01:04 PM - Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) (linn walters)
42. 01:06 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (LarryRobertHelming)
43. 01:10 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Scott Bilinski)
44. 01:19 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (rv6tc)
45. 01:21 PM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (flmike)
46. 01:22 PM - Fw: A Song for Earl (Bill VonDane)
47. 01:29 PM - Re: Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling authority (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
48. 01:31 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (John Brick)
49. 01:41 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (James E. Clark)
50. 01:41 PM - Re: Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Mickey Coggins)
51. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson/Shackleton (Boyd Braem)
52. 02:01 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Mike Nellis)
53. 02:01 PM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Mike Nellis)
54. 02:04 PM - Re: Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling (Mickey Coggins)
55. 02:08 PM - Alternator (Bill VonDane)
56. 02:18 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Mike Nellis)
57. 02:47 PM - Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Jim Jewell)
58. 03:15 PM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Charlie & Tupper England)
59. 03:15 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Kevin Horton)
60. 03:37 PM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (Mickey Coggins)
61. 03:37 PM - Jon Johanson & Mark Udall's response (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
62. 03:50 PM - Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Dan Checkoway)
63. 04:12 PM - Re: Alternator (Michael McGee)
64. 04:20 PM - Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Richard Dudley)
65. 04:51 PM - Jon on Fox news (Mark)
66. 05:58 PM - Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson (MSices)
67. 06:42 PM - Re: Re: Our tax dollars (Jerry Springer)
68. 07:31 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Blanton Fortson)
69. 07:43 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Bob U.)
70. 07:43 PM - Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
71. 07:45 PM - Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs (Jeff Point)
72. 07:48 PM - Re: Welders (Blanton Fortson)
73. 07:50 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Bob U.)
74. 08:15 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Blanton Fortson)
75. 08:26 PM - N520RR First Flight (Richard B. Rauch)
76. 08:31 PM - Drawing Software for a Mac (Garey Wittich)
77. 08:31 PM - Antarctica (Fred Kunkel)
78. 08:39 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Eustace Bowhay)
79. 08:54 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Blanton Fortson)
80. 09:19 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Richard Sipp)
81. 09:42 PM - Re: Jon Johanson (Dennis Parker)
82. 10:02 PM - Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" (Ross Mickey)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Grizzly Bending Brake |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark" <riveter@bellsouth.net>
In my search for an inexpensive bending brake I ordered the Grizzly H2788 24
inch Bending Brake. I was not pleased with it. See photos and my evaluation
of this unit at:
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-markmcgee
I'm still looking for a decent brake.
Mark McGee
RV-4 Fuselage
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
An environmental hazard??? How can one plane do this, compare to the 60~120
people with support equipment and vehicles at the station. The life span of
that station will do more harm in the long run than any amount of
"tourists" who stop by because there options are, die or land there.
do not archive
At 10:46 PM 12/10/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
>As the expression goes ... "they're working on it" (well, kinda) .
>
>See: http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031210_johanson.html
>
>Does not sound like they are pushing to get him gas though. Seems like the
>effort is to get him on a ship with his plane being "disassembled" and
>crated for shipment as well (so it will not create an environmental hazard
>to the area). If this occurs, Jon will surely get a VERY LARGE bill in the
>mail.
>
>Seem like it would be simpler to send in a few more gallons on the next ship
>over and let him fly out. Charge him for the shipment of the gas. Of course,
>this all assumes there isNO accessible SOURCE of gas on the continent.
>
>James
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerry Springer
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 8:46 PM
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>>
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Where the heck is EAA on this? As much publicity as Jon has generated
>> for them over the years they should be
>> all over this, are they?
>>
>> Jerry
>> do not archive.
>>
>>
>> Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club wrote:
>>
>> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield
>> Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>> >
>> >Aircraft Technical Book Company wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book
>> Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
>> >>
>> >>I have been in contact with Mark Udall (D-Colorado). An inquiry by his
>> >>office is now underway. I'll keep you posted.
>> >>
>> >>Andy
>> >>Builder's Bookstore
>> >>
>> >>do not archive
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >I sent a letter to Danglin' Dick Durbin, (D) IL and as normal,
>> no reply......Also to Pete
>> >Fitzgerald (R) IL , no Reply......
>> >
>> >Phil
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: re:Jon and VH-NOJ Received: ....dlwc.nsw.gov.au |
with ESMTP\234 id hBB4pOCZ022...
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com> with
ESMTP\234 id hBB4pOCZ022...
In stead of filling him up and sending him on his way with a promise to
never show up again and never tell anyone you got fuel there......NOOOOOO,
they have to drag this out. By the time its all done, hundreds of people
will have gotten involved in the entire process will have cost tens of
thousands dollars. All this over 30~100 gallons of fuel. There's or tax
dollars at work, lets see how much we can make this cost!
At 03:51 PM 12/11/03 +1100, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Peter Madden <pete@guranda.com>
>
>
>Thanks guys for your support for Jon from another Aussie.
>I cant believe they want to tear down Jons aircraft and crate it back
>all for the want of 100 US gals of gas.
>
>Pete
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
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: McMurdo Fuel |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Warren W Hurd wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Warren W Hurd <warren@ahyup.com>
>
>http://www.sethwhite.org/walking%20the%20fuel%20lines.htm
>http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/support/bidders/ppt/daveb-image/sld020.htm
>http://www.newzeal.com/theme/Ships/Tanker/Gianella.htm
>http://www.newzeal.com/theme/Ships/Tanker/guswdarnell.htm
>http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/AntarBases.html (scroll down to
>McMurdo)
>http://www.irmahale.com/1999e.html
>
>It is not like they do not have any fuel....
>
>Warren
>http://ahyup.com
>RV-9A wings
>
>Do Not Archive
>
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but y'all have missed the point.
The RV community has an affection for Jon. The McMurdo contingent does
not. Nor do they want to be friends. Or even aquaintenances. They do
not want ANYONE besides the research folks there, for any reason.
Doesn't matter what the noble cause. Doesn't matter that he did the
correct thing and set down there. Well, it appears that he should have
done some research into including it as an emergency site and having
some dialog with them beforehand. I was not asked to plan his trip.
This is their way of discouraging ANYONE from going there to do whatever
.... study snowballs or test their new down polar jackets ...... doesn't
matter.
Will he get gas? I don't know. I think they may relent a little and
let him ship some fuel in on the next ship. Only because of the
pressure put by congressmen, heads of state ..... ya know of whom I
speak. If the airplane can't weather the storm until the ship arrives,
however, I suspect that Jon will be allowed to disassemble his airplane
so it can be returned on the ship that would bring the fuel. I heard
that they'll crate it up for him. They'll give him wood but not
fuel??? If the airplane can't survive the elements whole, however, I
see not difference in it not surviving apart either, so there's not much
intelligent thought going on there. The C-130 (which he can have a seat
on) could also bring fuel ..... but at the expense of someone elses
'freight' as I bet they're carrying all the stuff they can cram into the
C-130.
Jon has fallen into their midst, and he's a major problem to them. He's
eating their food, drinking their water (and whatever else he can get
his hands on, I'll bet) and there aren't ANY provisions for that. It's
not the cost ..... it's the problem of getting stuff in there.
I'm sorry, guys, but I see their point. And calling them (the McMurdo
brass) all kinds of names is not going to help Jon's cause. All the
help Jon will ever get is in process. The wheels are turning. We must
be patient, and see how things work out. Still, contacting your
political representatives will help, but you have to be nice. Our
problem here in the States, is that Jon isn't one of us (by
citizenship). He's an Australian, and the Australian political machine
needs to mesh with ours for a happy outcome.
Patience, my friends, Patience.
Linn Walters
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: | Anyone in the Chicago area? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dane Sheahen" <dane@mutualace.com>
If you are coming to Chicago area stop in or call I have my RV8a at Waukegan
Airport (UGN)
Tom Barnes and I both live in Buffalo Grove north of the Chicago phone
847-913-9035
Dane Sheahen
RV8a N838RV
EAA Tech Counselor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill VonDane
Subject: RV-List: Anyone in the Chicago area?
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
What kind of RV presence is there in the Chicago area? Any airparks?
-Bill VonDane
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-8A ~ N8WV
www.vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
do not archive
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: | "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
In Yellowstone park, there is a strict policy against feeding the bears.
It's not that the bears don't want the food, or that a single hand-out is
going to harm a bear. If just a tiny number of folks feed the bears, the
bears learn quickly that tourists are a source of food and then are
diverted from their proper foraging activities. This is very bad for the
bears and very dangerous for the tourists.
If you think about it, this is very likely to be the reason that the
McMurdo folks have a strict policy about providing fuel to uninvited aircraft.
Has anyone worked the math on Jon's fuel budget? Could he have actually
made his prime destination with reserve on the route he had planned?
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Scott.
I *think* the idea was if his plane was left there and the ice melted or
something like that and it fell into the "water" then THAT would have some
environmental impact. See the quote below from the EAA page referenced.
<start quote>
The McMurdo staff will handle any logistics required to get Johanson and his
airplane off the base. Some possibilities include putting him on a scheduled
LC-130 flight after he disassembles the aircraft, which would then be
shipped out via boat at a later date. Reports that the RV would have to be
left behind, where it could be crushed by the icecap or sink after the
summer thaw, do not appear to be a possibility. The airplane will not be
left on the ice, as some fear, because it would present an environmental
issue to the area. NSF is quite motivated to work with Jon right now to get
him and his airplane off the island.
<end quote>
Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for the 100
gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him being there
(and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell him would
cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be gone and out
of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point he probably
would be happy to pay it.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Bilinski
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:18 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> An environmental hazard??? How can one plane do this, compare to
> the 60~120
> people with support equipment and vehicles at the station. The
> life span of
> that station will do more harm in the long run than any amount of
> "tourists" who stop by because there options are, die or land there.
>
> do not archive
>
> At 10:46 PM 12/10/03 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
> <james@nextupventures.com>
> >
> >As the expression goes ... "they're working on it" (well, kinda) .
> >
> >See: http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031210_johanson.html
> >
> >Does not sound like they are pushing to get him gas though.
> Seems like the
> >effort is to get him on a ship with his plane being "disassembled" and
> >crated for shipment as well (so it will not create an
> environmental hazard
> >to the area). If this occurs, Jon will surely get a VERY LARGE
> bill in the
> >mail.
> >
> >Seem like it would be simpler to send in a few more gallons on
> the next ship
> >over and let him fly out. Charge him for the shipment of the
> gas. Of course,
> >this all assumes there isNO accessible SOURCE of gas on the continent.
> >
> >James
>
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: re:Jon and VH-NOJ |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 06:28 AM 12/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com> with ESMTP\234 id hBB4pOCZ022...
>
>In stead of filling him up and sending him on his way with a promise to
>never show up again and never tell anyone you got fuel there......NOOOOOO,
>they have to drag this out. By the time its all done, hundreds of people
>will have gotten involved in the entire process will have cost tens of
>thousands dollars. All this over 30~100 gallons of fuel. There's or tax
>dollars at work, lets see how much we can make this cost!
Quite the opposite. I think they are achieving their goals quite
nicely.
Everyone will hear about how they refused to sell a drop of fuel
and made Jon disassemble his airplane and ship it back. They probably made
Jon do this at his own expense.
Would you land there if your life was not in danger? I certainly
wouldn't after hearing about Jon's experience.
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: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
I guess rules mean nothing to you people. That's what is bothering me about
this line of emotional ranting.
There are rules in aviation. If you live on a grass strip in the Midwest...
there are rules. If you live near the Denver TCA (I know) there are more.
If you live in Seattle or Washington DC there are even more. When you fly
inter-continental, there are many more. You don't obey the rules, you pay
the price... sometimes with your life.
I like and admire Jon. I certainly would not attempt what he has an I'm
very impressed with him. But...
He is the pilot in command. He is REQUIRED to know the status of any and
all alternates. So, he knew that McMurdo would not be a SUITABLE alternate
for anything other than an emergency. As an emergency alternate, it is
working just as a mature pilot would expect... they have allowed him to
land. They are housing and feeding him and providing him transportation
home. And they are making allowances for him to get his plane returned.
If he had made proper arrangements with McMurdo to land, gas up and clean
the windshield, and they changed their minds, then you all have a legitimate
gripe. But as we will find, that is likely not the case. He was likely
told of their policy and chose to go anyway.
There is one alternate down there... McMurdo. If it is not deemed suitable
by the pilot in command, then you have no alternates, other than your
departure point and destination. If it is deemed suitable by the pilot in
command, then you live with the rules that exist. Yes, you do. Now we are
trying to change the rules, and I think the political pressures from the EAA
or Congress (though they are in recess) will help. But don't fire up your
keyboard bitching about the people who went to great length to make the
rules. They were trying to avoid this very thing.
This is not about cost. It is their "long standing policy". You don't like
it, spend your life to get into a position of authority with the NSF and
change to rules to allow all the RV's that you want. This agency is
spending much more food and precious resources on housing, feeding and
transportation than it would on the lousy 100 gallons of gas. But they have
their rules.
Look at yourself before you go fly or finish your planes. Ask, "Can I
follow the rules?", before you strap on your plane. If the answer is "no"
then sell it and buy a nice boat. There are graveyards full of guys that
thought they could cheat the rules. And if you do KNOWINGLY break the
rules.... then you live with the consequences. Whether it's a funeral for
your family, or them crating up your baby on the Antarctic ice.
Keith Hughes
Denver
Do not archive.
Post script (for those still reading) I was a pilot in a C-141 Squadron at
McChord AFB in WA. We were tasked with the mid-winter airdrops at McMurdo.
I have seen the unbelievable amount of planning that goes into one of those
flights! It is THREE WEEKS in Christchurch NZ to prepare. The weather is
not the same in any ten minute period... hell, it's the polar region. You
plan and plan and plan... and things still go wrong. I'm sure Jon probably
did an extensive amount of planning... so he had to know what they would do
if he were to land there.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re:Jon and VH-NOJ |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
If one person spends an hours time on this, thats at least 50 bucks once
you figure in benifits etc. Now I read that state senators are envolved,
whats their rate with benifits? Now the EAA is helping how much time will
they spend on this? On and on it goes, starts to make 30~100 gallons of gas
look pretty cheap.
At 08:43 AM 12/11/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
>
>At 06:28 AM 12/11/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
>><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com> with ESMTP\234 id hBB4pOCZ022...
>>
>>In stead of filling him up and sending him on his way with a promise to
>>never show up again and never tell anyone you got fuel there......NOOOOOO,
>>they have to drag this out. By the time its all done, hundreds of people
>>will have gotten involved in the entire process will have cost tens of
>>thousands dollars. All this over 30~100 gallons of fuel. There's or tax
>>dollars at work, lets see how much we can make this cost!
>
> Quite the opposite. I think they are achieving their goals quite
>nicely.
>
> Everyone will hear about how they refused to sell a drop of fuel
>and made Jon disassemble his airplane and ship it back. They probably made
>Jon do this at his own expense.
>
> Would you land there if your life was not in danger? I certainly
>wouldn't after hearing about Jon's experience.
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Maybe I am a little dense here, so the ice melt and drop the plane into the
water? What keeps this from happening to the buildings, the cars, the
gasoline storage tanks etc, etc? What about the C-185 that is already there
in storage? Sorry Im not buying it.
At 10:37 AM 12/11/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
>Scott.
>
>I *think* the idea was if his plane was left there and the ice melted or
>something like that and it fell into the "water" then THAT would have some
>environmental impact. See the quote below from the EAA page referenced.
>
><start quote>
>The McMurdo staff will handle any logistics required to get Johanson and his
>airplane off the base. Some possibilities include putting him on a scheduled
>LC-130 flight after he disassembles the aircraft, which would then be
>shipped out via boat at a later date. Reports that the RV would have to be
>left behind, where it could be crushed by the icecap or sink after the
>summer thaw, do not appear to be a possibility. The airplane will not be
>left on the ice, as some fear, because it would present an environmental
>issue to the area. NSF is quite motivated to work with Jon right now to get
>him and his airplane off the island.
><end quote>
>
>Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for the 100
>gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him being there
>(and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell him would
>cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be gone and out
>of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point he probably
>would be happy to pay it.
>
>James
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott Bilinski
>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 9:18 AM
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>>
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
>> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>> An environmental hazard??? How can one plane do this, compare to
>> the 60~120
>> people with support equipment and vehicles at the station. The
>> life span of
>> that station will do more harm in the long run than any amount of
>> "tourists" who stop by because there options are, die or land there.
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> At 10:46 PM 12/10/03 -0500, you wrote:
>> >--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
>> <james@nextupventures.com>
>> >
>> >As the expression goes ... "they're working on it" (well, kinda) .
>> >
>> >See: http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/031210_johanson.html
>> >
>> >Does not sound like they are pushing to get him gas though.
>> Seems like the
>> >effort is to get him on a ship with his plane being "disassembled" and
>> >crated for shipment as well (so it will not create an
>> environmental hazard
>> >to the area). If this occurs, Jon will surely get a VERY LARGE
>> bill in the
>> >mail.
>> >
>> >Seem like it would be simpler to send in a few more gallons on
>> the next ship
>> >over and let him fly out. Charge him for the shipment of the
>> gas. Of course,
>> >this all assumes there isNO accessible SOURCE of gas on the continent.
>> >
>> >James
>
>>
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
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: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
James E. Clark wrote:
> Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for the 100
> gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him being there
> (and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell him would
> cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be gone and out
> of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point he probably
> would be happy to pay it.
I wonder if this is really an adequate solution, unfortunately... I
mean, surely they could come up with 100 gallons of gas to get him home
(auto, avgas, or some combination) if they put their minds to it. But
the problem could also be one of liability... What happens if they give
him 100 gallons of gas, and he *doesn't* make it home? Through no fault
of the gas, perhaps, but what then? Would that be a larger, or a
smaller, international incident than just telling him he has to ship the
plane out?
-Rob
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Good analogy. I can't seem to find any signs, however,
that say - "we won't help any visitors here beyond heat
and food". I'm sure there are lots of places in the
world that won't help someone with basics like fuel,
but I have not run across any, and I guess neither has Jon!
> In Yellowstone park, there is a strict policy against feeding the bears.
>It's not that the bears don't want the food, or that a single hand-out is
>going to harm a bear. If just a tiny number of folks feed the bears, the
>bears learn quickly that tourists are a source of food and then are
>diverted from their proper foraging activities. This is very bad for the
>bears and very dangerous for the tourists.
>
> If you think about it, this is very likely to be the reason that the
>McMurdo folks have a strict policy about providing fuel to uninvited aircraft.
do not archive
--
Mickey Coggins
GSM: +41-79-210-3762
FAX: +41-86-079-210-3762
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: re:Jon and VH-NOJReceived: ....dlwc.nsw.gov.au with |
ESMTP\234 id hBB4pOCZ022...
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
The US Government and the NSF needs to run a Million dollar study to see how
many people are going to be landing there in light aircraft while in persuit
of flight records. They just may be able to justify a few more jobs down
there....
Phil
do not archive
Peter Madden wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Peter Madden <pete@guranda.com>
>
> Thanks guys for your support for Jon from another Aussie.
> I cant believe they want to tear down Jons aircraft and crate it back
> all for the want of 100 US gals of gas.
>
> Pete
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
I think that if we take a deep breath, remove emotional attachment from
the thought process, & consider what's really happening, we might modify
our views a bit.
First, it seems that our man Jon didn't plan very well for rather
obvious potential problems. The plans for engine failure in that part of
the world would likely be limited to death. On the other hand, the
winds & weather down there are extreme & if the weatherman can't get it
right most of the time *here* for pilots, why should you trust him
without question down there? What's the plan for an unscheduled fuel
stop due to unforecast winds in an area that your home government does
not control? Maybe research the difficulty in obtaining fuel with the
country & agency in control, & have your own fuel waiting if there is an
obvious difficulty with buying available supplies?
What I'm hearing here sounds pretty close to some of the talk from
'liberals' who think that we should blame someone else for our troubles
& make them responsible for our irresponsible actions.
It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be honest. They do
nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself in the shoes
of those scientists. If they give/sell him the fuel to continue, they
put themselves at risk of having to rescue him if he messes up again,
using up precious resources and time in the process. Not to mention
answering to taxpayers for wasting tax dollars.
BTW, I suspect that losing the plane due to melting through the ice in
the spring thaw isn't a concern down there. If my grammar school
geography is serving me properly, it's mid-summer there. ;-)
Charlie
do not archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "William J. LaPorte" <LaPorte@EDACSystems.com>
Keith,
You've captured the essence of the issue. I concur. We should be glad that
Jon is safe and being taken care of in a brutally unforgiving environment.
Regards,
Bill
90696
William J. LaPorte
Director, Engineering & Operations
EDAC Systems, Inc.
540-361-1580
FAX 361-1581
LaPorte@EDACSystems.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of rv6tc
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
I guess rules mean nothing to you people. That's what is bothering me about
this line of emotional ranting.
There are rules in aviation. If you live on a grass strip in the Midwest...
there are rules. If you live near the Denver TCA (I know) there are more.
If you live in Seattle or Washington DC there are even more. When you fly
inter-continental, there are many more. You don't obey the rules, you pay
the price... sometimes with your life.
I like and admire Jon. I certainly would not attempt what he has an I'm
very impressed with him. But...
He is the pilot in command. He is REQUIRED to know the status of any and
all alternates. So, he knew that McMurdo would not be a SUITABLE alternate
for anything other than an emergency. As an emergency alternate, it is
working just as a mature pilot would expect... they have allowed him to
land. They are housing and feeding him and providing him transportation
home. And they are making allowances for him to get his plane returned.
If he had made proper arrangements with McMurdo to land, gas up and clean
the windshield, and they changed their minds, then you all have a legitimate
gripe. But as we will find, that is likely not the case. He was likely
told of their policy and chose to go anyway.
There is one alternate down there... McMurdo. If it is not deemed suitable
by the pilot in command, then you have no alternates, other than your
departure point and destination. If it is deemed suitable by the pilot in
command, then you live with the rules that exist. Yes, you do. Now we are
trying to change the rules, and I think the political pressures from the EAA
or Congress (though they are in recess) will help. But don't fire up your
keyboard bitching about the people who went to great length to make the
rules. They were trying to avoid this very thing.
This is not about cost. It is their "long standing policy". You don't like
it, spend your life to get into a position of authority with the NSF and
change to rules to allow all the RV's that you want. This agency is
spending much more food and precious resources on housing, feeding and
transportation than it would on the lousy 100 gallons of gas. But they have
their rules.
Look at yourself before you go fly or finish your planes. Ask, "Can I
follow the rules?", before you strap on your plane. If the answer is "no"
then sell it and buy a nice boat. There are graveyards full of guys that
thought they could cheat the rules. And if you do KNOWINGLY break the
rules.... then you live with the consequences. Whether it's a funeral for
your family, or them crating up your baby on the Antarctic ice.
Keith Hughes
Denver
Do not archive.
Post script (for those still reading) I was a pilot in a C-141 Squadron at
McChord AFB in WA. We were tasked with the mid-winter airdrops at McMurdo.
I have seen the unbelievable amount of planning that goes into one of those
flights! It is THREE WEEKS in Christchurch NZ to prepare. The weather is
not the same in any ten minute period... hell, it's the polar region. You
plan and plan and plan... and things still go wrong. I'm sure Jon probably
did an extensive amount of planning... so he had to know what they would do
if he were to land there.
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: Our tax dollars |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Perry" <pperryrv@hotmail.com>
Our government is spending millions to conduct "engineering and scientific
research" in Antarctica while Jon J. is doing it for free.
I'm ashamed that the US can't spare the $500 worth of fuel and time to help
an Ausie who has done more per dollar in the area of engineering research
than they ever could.
This particular RV-4 aircraft is destined to spend eternity in a museum (if
he ever stops setting records with it) and the pilot will be in the history
books of aviation forever. This should be like the next best thing to
having Lindbergh land in your farm field and our Gov is treating him like a
vagrant pilot.
Pat Perry
Dallas, PA
RV-4 N154PK Flies great!
>From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv4-list@matronics.com>
>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:56:45 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>
>Okay Guys & Gals,
>
> This is the reply I got. I'm gonna check further and I'll let
>you all know if something positive develops.
>
> Chuck
>
>Do Not Archive
>----- Original Message -----
>From: West, Peter T.
>To: 'Fiveonepw@aol.com' ; 'brettjepson@yahoo.com' ; 'crabaut@coalinga.com'
>; 'mick@rv8.ch'
>
>
>Dear recipient,
>
> You recently have expressed both interest and concern to the National
>Science Foundation about the situation at McMurdo Station regarding a
>private pilot who recently landed there.
>
>I thought you would perhaps be interested in the information contained in
>this news release, which NSF has issued in response to the situation.
>
>
>[West, Peter T.]
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Smith, Julie A. [mailto:jasmith@nsf.gov]
>To: NSF News
>
>
>National Science Foundation
>4201 Wilson Blvd.
>Arlington, VA 22230
>"Where discoveries begin"
>
>
>For Immediate Release
>Dec. 10, 2003
>
>NSF Media Contact: Peter West, (703) 292-7761, pwest@nsf.gov
>
>FROM ANTARCTICA
>
>ARLINGTON, Va.- A private pilot who landed at the main U.S.
>research station in Antarctica without sufficient fuel to
>continue his flight to South America will be offered passage back
>to New Zealand on a regularly scheduled flight, U.S. National
>Science Foundation representatives and their New Zealand
>counterparts said today.
>
>The officials also are discussing the possibility of sending the
>pilot's aircraft back aboard a supply ship that normally visits
>the station in February at the end of each research season.
>In keeping with U.S. policy toward private expeditions in
>Antarctica, NSF will charge the pilot, Jon Johanson, for the
>costs of the flight to New Zealand and for shipping his aircraft.
>
>Johanson, an Australian citizen, apparently was attempting to fly
>from New Zealand to South America over Antarctica, when he landed
>at McMurdo Station, NSF's logistics hub in Antarctica, on Dec. 8.
>
>Strong head winds forced him to abandon his intended destination,
>fearing he would not have enough fuel to complete his journey.
>Upon arriving at McMurdo, he told U.S. officials that he did not
>have enough fuel to continue and requested to buy some.
>
>Because officials at McMurdo Station or at New Zealand's Scott
>Base weren't informed of the flight, no preparations were made
>for an emergency landing.
>
>Under an agreement between the two nations, both the U.S. and New
>Zealand provide C-130 cargo aircraft to transport scientific and
>logistics personnel and cargo to Antarctic during the research
>season, which begins in late October and ends in February. In
>this case, it was agreed that Johansen would be allowed to fly
>north on one of the returning flights, which are scheduled
>several times a week.
>
>"We have extended the pilot the normal courtesies routinely
>offered by New Zealand and U.S. stations in Antarctica," said Lou
>Sanson, the chief executive officer of Antarctica New Zealand
>(ANZ), the national scientific research program. "The pilot
>should have made the decision to abandon his original flight
>plans much sooner when faced with these weather conditions and
>returned to Invercargill in New Zealand."
>
>Neither NSF nor Antarctica New Zealand, both of which are
>government-funded scientific research programs, supply or stock
>fuel for private individuals. NSF's policy is that private
>expeditions should carry sufficient insurance to cover the costs
>of search and rescue efforts, if needed.
>
>Had Johansen failed to reach McMurdo safely, the U.S. and New
>Zealand programs would have had to mount search-and-rescue
>efforts at considerable cost and risk not only to the search-and
>rescue teams, but also to scientific field teams in the field who
>might have required those resources.
>
>###
>
>NSF PR03-141
>
>The National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency
>that supports fundamental research and education across all
>fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of
>nearly $5 billion. National Science Foundation funds reach all
>50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and
>institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 30,000 competitive
>requests for funding, and makes about 10,000 new funding awards.
>The National Science Foundation also awards over $200 million in
>professional and service contracts yearly.
>
>Receive official National Science Foundation news electronically
>through the e-mail delivery system, NSFnews. To subscribe, send
>an e-mail message to join-nsfnews@lists.nsf.gov. In the body of
>the message, type "subscribe nsfnews" and then type your name.
>(Ex.: "subscribe nsfnews John Smith")
>
>Useful National Science Foundation Web Sites:
>NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov
>News Highlights: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa
>Newsroom: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/start.htm
>Science Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm
>Awards Searches: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a6/A6Start.htm
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to nsfnews as: pwest@nsf.gov
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-nsfnews-37594I@lists.nsf.gov
>
>
Dont worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Good analogy. I can't seem to find any signs, however,
>that say - "we won't help any visitors here beyond heat
>and food". I'm sure there are lots of places in the
>world that won't help someone with basics like fuel,
>but I have not run across any, and I guess neither has Jon!
>
Disney World (Orlando, Florida) has a runway. They don't wnat anyone
landing there unless really invited. Since it's inception, they have
the same 'rules' as McMurdo. You can fly in, but you can't fly out.
Your airplane must be dismantled and trucked out. I know of no airplane
that has had that happen to ...... either nobody lands there (uninvited)
..... or it was flown out with dire consequences if it became common
knowledge. We'll never know.
Linn Walters
>do not archive
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>GSM: +41-79-210-3762
>FAX: +41-86-079-210-3762
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007
>
>
>
>
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: GLCole5475@aol.com
All,
I live in Berkeley CA and am in need of a welder.
Do any of you have experience with or know of a good welder within 20 - 30
miles?
You may reply to me directly at glcole5475@aol.com.
Thanks in advance.
Do not archive.
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: | MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
Eustace,
In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to the
throttle setting."
being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you elaborate
on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I can not
cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate "squared"
settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to 2300
squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess you
could go the other way but I may be wrong.
So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP and RPM
settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good option then
how do you determine what settings to use?
Thanking in advance.
Ross Mickey
12 hours
N9PT
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
>>The plans for engine failure in that part of
>>the world would likely be limited to death.
Not really. Warm clothes, a GPS, and an Iridium phone and you might be
quite alright. The kind of stuff in my everyday flight kit (no
kidding).
Don't forget the Cessna 185 that traipses all over the continent year
after year with nothing more than a way wacky compass and very basic
GPS. Most of the country is land-able (with skis anyways). There is a
fair bit of aviation activity down there. Several stations, private
expeditions, international climbers, explorers, trans-continental
sled-kiters, skiiers, a fair bit of "industrial tourism", etc., etc.,
It's not quite as isolated and moon-like as some here would portray.
And yes, there are shit-loads of gasoline. And yes, it's not that
uncommon at all for "visitors" and "tourists" (adventurers) to
"drop-in" at Antarctic stations, particularly the polar stations.
They are just making a big deal over Jon's request for avgas, it seems.
B.
On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:10 AM, Charlie & Tupper England wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
> <cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> I think that if we take a deep breath, remove emotional attachment from
> the thought process, & consider what's really happening, we might
> modify
> our views a bit.
>
> First, it seems that our man Jon didn't plan very well for rather
> obvious potential problems. The plans for engine failure in that part
> of
> the world would likely be limited to death. On the other hand, the
> winds & weather down there are extreme & if the weatherman can't get it
> right most of the time *here* for pilots, why should you trust him
> without question down there? What's the plan for an unscheduled fuel
> stop due to unforecast winds in an area that your home government does
> not control? Maybe research the difficulty in obtaining fuel with the
> country & agency in control, & have your own fuel waiting if there is
> an
> obvious difficulty with buying available supplies?
>
> What I'm hearing here sounds pretty close to some of the talk from
> 'liberals' who think that we should blame someone else for our troubles
> & make them responsible for our irresponsible actions.
>
> It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be honest. They do
> nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself in the shoes
> of those scientists. If they give/sell him the fuel to continue, they
> put themselves at risk of having to rescue him if he messes up again,
> using up precious resources and time in the process. Not to mention
> answering to taxpayers for wasting tax dollars.
>
> BTW, I suspect that losing the plane due to melting through the ice in
> the spring thaw isn't a concern down there. If my grammar school
> geography is serving me properly, it's mid-summer there. ;-)
>
> Charlie
> do not archive
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
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: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
Keith, and Bill,
I don't think there are as many "rules" down there as you are
imagining. There's personal and rather random activity all over that
continent. (see my previous post, below).
Any person may go to Antarctica for any reason. No problem. There are
people who go down there and kite-ski across the continent. People sail
down there in smallish boats. There are individuals who go down there
to take pictures, climb mountains, or just hang out. There are no
"rules". Anyone may go. Anyone may come. The southern continent is not
"off-limits". It's not a "preserve".
The McMurdo chief has two choices here. Be hospitable and accommodating
in these unusual circumstances, or be not hospitable.
Rules? Do you imagine general aviation came to a halt up here (Alaska)
immediately post 911? Ha!
Kind Regards, B.
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:09 AM, William J. LaPorte wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "William J. LaPorte"
> <LaPorte@EDACSystems.com>
>
> Keith,
> You've captured the essence of the issue. I concur. We should be
> glad that
> Jon is safe and being taken care of in a brutally unforgiving
> environment.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
> 90696
>
> William J. LaPorte
> Director, Engineering & Operations
> EDAC Systems, Inc.
> 540-361-1580
> FAX 361-1581
> LaPorte@EDACSystems.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of rv6tc
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> I guess rules mean nothing to you people. That's what is bothering me
> about
> this line of emotional ranting.
>
> There are rules in aviation. If you live on a grass strip in the
> Midwest...
> there are rules. If you live near the Denver TCA (I know) there are
> more.
> If you live in Seattle or Washington DC there are even more. When you
> fly
> inter-continental, there are many more. You don't obey the rules, you
> pay
> the price... sometimes with your life.
>
> I like and admire Jon. I certainly would not attempt what he has an
> I'm
> very impressed with him. But...
>
> He is the pilot in command. He is REQUIRED to know the status of any
> and
> all alternates. So, he knew that McMurdo would not be a SUITABLE
> alternate
> for anything other than an emergency. As an emergency alternate, it is
> working just as a mature pilot would expect... they have allowed him to
> land. They are housing and feeding him and providing him
> transportation
> home. And they are making allowances for him to get his plane
> returned.
>
> If he had made proper arrangements with McMurdo to land, gas up and
> clean
> the windshield, and they changed their minds, then you all have a
> legitimate
> gripe. But as we will find, that is likely not the case. He was
> likely
> told of their policy and chose to go anyway.
>
> There is one alternate down there... McMurdo. If it is not deemed
> suitable
> by the pilot in command, then you have no alternates, other than your
> departure point and destination. If it is deemed suitable by the
> pilot in
> command, then you live with the rules that exist. Yes, you do. Now
> we are
> trying to change the rules, and I think the political pressures from
> the EAA
> or Congress (though they are in recess) will help. But don't fire up
> your
> keyboard bitching about the people who went to great length to make the
> rules. They were trying to avoid this very thing.
>
> This is not about cost. It is their "long standing policy". You
> don't like
> it, spend your life to get into a position of authority with the NSF
> and
> change to rules to allow all the RV's that you want. This agency is
> spending much more food and precious resources on housing, feeding and
> transportation than it would on the lousy 100 gallons of gas. But
> they have
> their rules.
>
> Look at yourself before you go fly or finish your planes. Ask, "Can I
> follow the rules?", before you strap on your plane. If the answer is
> "no"
> then sell it and buy a nice boat. There are graveyards full of guys
> that
> thought they could cheat the rules. And if you do KNOWINGLY break the
> rules.... then you live with the consequences. Whether it's a funeral
> for
> your family, or them crating up your baby on the Antarctic ice.
>
> Keith Hughes
> Denver
>
> Do not archive.
>
> Post script (for those still reading) I was a pilot in a C-141
> Squadron at
> McChord AFB in WA. We were tasked with the mid-winter airdrops at
> McMurdo.
> I have seen the unbelievable amount of planning that goes into one of
> those
> flights! It is THREE WEEKS in Christchurch NZ to prepare. The
> weather is
> not the same in any ten minute period... hell, it's the polar region.
> You
> plan and plan and plan... and things still go wrong. I'm sure Jon
> probably
> did an extensive amount of planning... so he had to know what they
> would do
> if he were to land there.
........................................................................
.........................................................
>>The plans for engine failure in that part of
>>the world would likely be limited to death.
Not really. Warm clothes, a GPS, and an Iridium phone and you might be
quite alright. The kind of stuff in my everyday flight kit (no
kidding).
Don't forget the Cessna 185 that traipses all over the continent year
after year with nothing more than a way wacky compass and very basic
GPS. Most of the country is land-able (with skis anyways). There is a
fair bit of aviation activity down there. Several stations, private
expeditions, international climbers, explorers, trans-continental
sled-kiters, skiiers, a fair bit of "industrial tourism", etc., etc.,
It's not quite as isolated and moon-like as some here would portray.
And yes, there are shit-loads of gasoline. And yes, it's not that
uncommon at all for "visitors" and "tourists" (adventurers) to
"drop-in" at Antarctic stations, particularly the polar stations.
They are just making a big deal over Jon's request for avgas, it seems.
B.
On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:10 AM, Charlie & Tupper England wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England
> <cengland@netdoor.com>
>
> I think that if we take a deep breath, remove emotional attachment from
> the thought process, & consider what's really happening, we might
> modify
> our views a bit.
>
> First, it seems that our man Jon didn't plan very well for rather
> obvious potential problems. The plans for engine failure in that part
> of
> the world would likely be limited to death. On the other hand, the
> winds & weather down there are extreme & if the weatherman can't get it
> right most of the time *here* for pilots, why should you trust him
> without question down there? What's the plan for an unscheduled fuel
> stop due to unforecast winds in an area that your home government does
> not control? Maybe research the difficulty in obtaining fuel with the
> country & agency in control, & have your own fuel waiting if there is
> an
> obvious difficulty with buying available supplies?
>
> What I'm hearing here sounds pretty close to some of the talk from
> 'liberals' who think that we should blame someone else for our troubles
> & make them responsible for our irresponsible actions.
>
> It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be honest. They do
> nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself in the shoes
> of those scientists. If they give/sell him the fuel to continue, they
> put themselves at risk of having to rescue him if he messes up again,
> using up precious resources and time in the process. Not to mention
> answering to taxpayers for wasting tax dollars.
>
> BTW, I suspect that losing the plane due to melting through the ice in
> the spring thaw isn't a concern down there. If my grammar school
> geography is serving me properly, it's mid-summer there. ;-)
>
> Charlie
> do not archive
>
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: | New business- Flightline Interiors |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I would like to take a second and plug a new business- Flightline
Interiors.
http://my.execpc.com/~erdmannb/index.htm
They do interior kits and seats for RVs. I don't have any connection to
them, other than being one of the first RV customers. Many of the
pictures on her website are of Chris Heitman's RV-9A (which flew a
couple weeks ago.) The interior kits are different from what you get
from some of the well-known interior kits. The sidewall panels and such
are cut out, glued and sewn on to very thin foam. Installation is
simply gluing the panel into the plane- no laying out, making patterns,
trimming etc. The quality of the upholstery is first rate, and the
owner, Abby Erdmann is very easy to work with. Her standard kit is very
plush, with almost no metal showing in the interior, which is a little
more than I wanted to do. She was very willing to work with me to put
together just the interior I wanted.
Another service she offers is covering for Oregon Aero seats. Oregon
makes very nice seats, but they sell them as un-upholstered cores. They
will cover them if you like, but they get $400 PER SEAT to do so, which
is outrageous. Abby did both of mine for considerably less than that,
and the quality is better than what I have seen from Oregon Aero. I
don't believe that she has this on her website yet, but I do have
pictures of the seats if anyone wants them.
Jeff Point
RV-6- at the airport, wings on, getting close
Milwaukee WI
do not archive
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: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I am no expert, but here it goes.
Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be different
for smoothest operation.
At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>
>Eustace,
>
>In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
>constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to the
>throttle setting."
>
>being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you elaborate
>on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I can not
>cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate "squared"
>settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to 2300
>squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
>traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess you
>could go the other way but I may be wrong.
>
>So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP and RPM
>settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good option then
>how do you determine what settings to use?
>
>Thanking in advance.
>
>Ross Mickey
>12 hours
>N9PT
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Our tax dollars |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Oh really?
Pat, have you flown international? Do you know that to landing the US from
a foreign destination (Guam included) you MUST land at an Airport of Entry
(AOE)? You MUST plan for customs and immigration to meet you. You must
have all necessary visas. Now... I know that Antarctica is an International
zone, but McMurdo is a shared station between the US and New Zealand. Did
he have the correct authorization to land? Sure you could say that his
Emergency Authority as pilot in command would allow him to do this, but what
happened to the crew of the USN P-3 that landed in China? They were
"detained" for about a week, and that was an "international incident" or
"Act of War" depending on who you talk to. Is Jon trespassing, since he had
no prior authorization to land?
You want to find out how governments treat "vagrant pilots"? Then hop into
your RV and fly down to Mexico or Panama and land without any clearance.
Lets see if they would house you, feed you and send you on the next Mexicana
flight home.
I doubt it.
Seriously..... he is an Australian, landing in Antarctica, on a joint
US/Kiwi station. I don't know which rules apply (and I flew international
for six years). Do you? Now, say again all after how he is being treated.
Keith Hughes
Denver
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Perry" <pperryrv@hotmail.com>
and our Gov is treating him like a
> vagrant pilot.
>
> Pat Perry
> Dallas, PA
> RV-4 N154PK Flies great!
>
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: | McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "MSices" <msices@core.com>
Charlie, you wrote:
>It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be honest. They do
>nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself in the shoes
>of those scientists.
Tell that to Capt. James Cook, the first to cross the Antarctic circle,
without whom McMurdo base would not be there. My point is that if Jon were
a simple tourist, that is one type of issue. To the contrary, Jon's role in
setting an aviation world record elevates his cause beyond the simple -
"should tax dollars go toward saving people trying to climb Everest?" type
of issue. To those who would say that the "world record" Jon is setting is
unimportant, I think that the frontier Jon is exploring here is the frontier
of flight in experimental aircraft, which is very important to our
community. I, for one, feel that the goodwill and public consciousness of
what experimental aviation is all about is at the heart of what Jon is
doing. I am sure if Lindbergh had to make an emergency landing in Ireland
rather than making it all the way to Paris, he still would have had a hero's
welcome.
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
How about this scenario: plane lands at McMurdo, let's give the guy a real
hard time, tell the world private planes are not welcome, etc., etc. In the
end we give him the 100 gallons--it's a win-win situation for all. McMurdo
comes out as the white knight, they avoid some hassle and bad publicity, but
the message is still that you are not welcome here. Jon gets to go home.
Oh wait, you have to sign a release and hold McMurdo harmless, OK now you
can go. Last time I checked, it was their base so I guess that gives them
the right to make their own rules--even though we might not like it. You do
have rules at your house, right?
do not archive
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> James E. Clark wrote:
> > Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for the
100
> > gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him being
there
> > (and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell him
would
> > cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be gone and
out
> > of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point he
probably
> > would be happy to pay it.
>
> I wonder if this is really an adequate solution, unfortunately... I
> mean, surely they could come up with 100 gallons of gas to get him home
> (auto, avgas, or some combination) if they put their minds to it. But
> the problem could also be one of liability... What happens if they give
> him 100 gallons of gas, and he *doesn't* make it home? Through no fault
> of the gas, perhaps, but what then? Would that be a larger, or a
> smaller, international incident than just telling him he has to ship the
> plane out?
>
> -Rob
>
>
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: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com>
First, Jon messed up. He should have asked for them
to ship him and his plane out. They probably would
have said "No way, we have no room. Take some gas and
get the heck out of here."
Regarding the planning, I guess Shackleton was a
slacker too.
If Quantas had a C-130, I'd say fill it with EAA'ers
and Hooters girls and fly the gas down to him. Make a
grand entrance and make sure there's a huge party
going on in the back. "Hey, we're just bringing down
some gas for our buddy Jon. You folks need anything?
Too bad! Bwahaha! Hey Travolta, do we have time for a
quick trip over the pole? Sweeeet."
do not archive
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Actually Keith, I agree with you.
And I too admire Jon and what he has done/is doing.
My only point in one of my posts is that since they are not "allowed by the
rules" to give up their gas, then maybe an approach would be to let him "buy
some from NZ (or whereever) and have it shipped in on the next ship ... at
HIS cost.
What probably bothered me more is the commentary atributed to one of the
people down there. He could have nicely said, sorry we are not allowed to
sell any of our (short in supply fuel). You will either have to get in
shipped in on the next ship or "borrow some from some other GA shop (like
the 185 people).
By the way, I cannot remember her name but there was a woman enroute in a
Dakota (another around the world flight to raise money for handicapped
kids). I seem to remember that she had in fact PLANNED to stop there. As
such I would assume that she had PLANNED to have fuel there and available
for the Dakota. Since she had to turn back before getting there due also to
the unforecasted high winds, maybe some of HER fuel might be available. Just
thinking out loud.
Of course I know there are people "above my pay grade" working on this.
James
Do Not Archive ... though somewhat RV related
[snip]
> He is the pilot in command. He is REQUIRED to know the status of any and
> all alternates. So, he knew that McMurdo would not be a SUITABLE
> alternate
> for anything other than an emergency. As an emergency alternate, it is
> working just as a mature pilot would expect... they have allowed him to
> land. They are housing and feeding him and providing him transportation
> home. And they are making allowances for him to get his plane returned.
>
> If he had made proper arrangements with McMurdo to land, gas up and clean
> the windshield, and they changed their minds, then you all have a
> legitimate
> gripe. But as we will find, that is likely not the case. He was likely
> told of their policy and chose to go anyway.
>
> There is one alternate down there... McMurdo. If it is not
> deemed suitable
> by the pilot in command, then you have no alternates, other than your
> departure point and destination. If it is deemed suitable by the pilot in
> command, then you live with the rules that exist. Yes, you do.
>
>
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: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
linn walters wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> >
> >Good analogy. I can't seem to find any signs, however,
> >that say - "we won't help any visitors here beyond heat
> >and food". I'm sure there are lots of places in the
> >world that won't help someone with basics like fuel,
> >but I have not run across any, and I guess neither has Jon!
> >
> Disney World (Orlando, Florida) has a runway. They don't wnat anyone
> landing there unless really invited. Since it's inception, they have
> the same 'rules' as McMurdo. You can fly in, but you can't fly out.
> Your airplane must be dismantled and trucked out. I know of no airplane
> that has had that happen to ...... either nobody lands there (uninvited)
> ..... or it was flown out with dire consequences if it became common
> knowledge. We'll never know.
> Linn Walters
But Linn,
There are many differnces here. At Disney there are fields in many quadrants
in rather close proximity that can be used in urgent situations so they don't
want to risk any of the lives of the thousands of people with a take-off after
a sucessful urgent landing, while at the South Pole, there are few suitable
landing spots and the only one at risk on a takeoff would be the pilot. The
other thing is that Disney is privately funded while the south pole is funded
by you and me. They seemed to have forgotten that.
But more than anything they would have not been out anything. No skin off
their butts.
As for costs, there are people at the NSF this very minute wasting millions of
dollars doing nothing. They don't need to come up with the cost B-S.
They are just wanting to show who's boss... They can't come up with a valid
reason.
"Reason? No reason... just company policy"
Phil
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: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
flmike wrote:
> Hey Travolta, do we have time for a
> quick trip over the pole? Sweeeet."
Hmm... I think someone just hit the nail on the head in terms of the
right solution. There's gotta be lots of celebrities who (a) fly, (b)
have the hardware to fly to McMurdo, and (c) are willing to do so.
Nobody's even indicated what would happen if he were to magically "find"
the gas he needs. ie. if someone flew in and said "here's 100 Gallons
of 100LL," would he be allowed to take off?
Has anyone even thought to ask if Shell, Exxon, etc. would donate the
gas and the means to transport it?
-Rob
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Blanton,
Granted. You are referring to the continent. How about McMurdo? What
obligations do they have that they have not already provided? I say again,
did he have Prior Permission? Did they misrepresent what they would and
would not provide in the event of a landing? Do you really think they want
all these hassles? Why then do you think they make this so difficult....
could it POSSIBLY be to deter others? I don't know how hospitable they are
being... and likely neither do you or most others speaking out on the list.
Their concerns may be very well founded or they may be pricks. Either way,
unless he had gotten something from them prior to wheels in the well, I
don't see how they "owe" him anymore.
I know Alaska is much different than the lower 48. But, go land at
Elmendorf, and taxi up to the pumps and DEMAND gas..... after all.... it was
your tax dollars that provided it. See what happens. And then post it here
for the rest of us.
Regards,
Keith
do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Blanton Fortson" <blanton@alaska.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
> --> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
>The southern continent is not
> "off-limits". It's not a "preserve".
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling authority |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
It's Antarctica.... there's no controlling authority. What rules apply?!
What chaps me is not that the arrogant employees of the NSF won't supply Jon
with fuel, it's that they have been ordained by "government" to protect the
area from the dirty masses for *their* sanctioned research. They have no
mandate nor authority. It's essentially an uninhabited continent. Now - if
the US chooses to annex it as a territory, then they may be able to set it
aside as some type of federally protected wildlife sactuary (for bacteria
and lichens).
Did Rutan have "permission" to make his trip around the world? I doubt they
had 100% approval from all countries they overflew. Who in the US would
approve the flight. Flying over Antarctica is no different.
Had they stuck to the tune of not supplying non employees or non
participants in the camp with fuel - I could accept that moreso than this
arrogant, authoritarian garbage about keeping the tourists out. *Exactly*
typical of the classic arrogant liberal! For goodness sake - we're upon the
100th anniversary of powered flight! In another 100 years, we may be having
$100 hamburger trips to this place. Maybe it'll be named Jon Johansen
Field!
Bryan Jones -8
Pearland, Texas
>--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
>I guess rules mean nothing to you people. That's what is bothering me
>about
>this line of emotional ranting.
>
>There are rules in aviation. If you live on a grass strip in the
>Midwest...
>there are rules. If you live near the Denver TCA (I know) there are more.
>If you live in Seattle or Washington DC there are even more. When you fly
>inter-continental, there are many more. You don't obey the rules, you pay
>the price... sometimes with your life.
>
Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the
FREE McAfee online computer scan!
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
"as long as RPM is higher than MP"--what are the settings (rpm/mp) any
time someone with a fixed pitch prop takes off and climbs out? I am no
expert, either, just curious.
Boyd.
do not archive
On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 01:22 PM, Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I am no expert, but here it goes.
>
> Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
> recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
> 2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be
> different
> for smoothest operation.
>
>
> At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>>
>> Eustace,
>>
>> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
>> constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to
>> the
>> throttle setting."
>>
>> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
>> elaborate
>> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I
>> can not
>> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate
>> "squared"
>> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to
>> 2300
>> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
>> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess
>> you
>> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
>>
>> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP
>> and RPM
>> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good
>> option then
>> how do you determine what settings to use?
>>
>> Thanking in advance.
>>
>> Ross Mickey
>> 12 hours
>> N9PT
>>
>>
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
> do not archive
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
vansairforce <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
I have two videos of the t-bird incident on my web site now... Bottom of the page:
http://www.vondane.com/videos/index.htm
-Bill VonDane
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-8A ~ N8WV
www.vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
do not archive
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>Granted. You are referring to the continent. How about McMurdo? What
>obligations do they have that they have not already provided? I say again,
>did he have Prior Permission? Did they misrepresent what they would and
>would not provide in the event of a landing? Do you really think they want
>all these hassles? Why then do you think they make this so difficult....
>could it POSSIBLY be to deter others?
This is exactly what has my aft side so chapped.... it's not their position
to worry about who else comes to McMurdo or Antarctica! Arrogant
authoritarians. There's no controlling authority. It's ANTARCTICA! Even
if the US and NZ has some treaty, I haven't heard where the Autralians
signed the treaty. JJ isn't bound to *any* rules...
It's plain and simple liberal arrogance - trying to keep the masses away
from the pristine ice and rock, because we're just not "smart" enough to act
accordingly.
> I know Alaska is much different than the lower 48. But, go land at
>Elmendorf, and taxi up to the pumps and DEMAND gas.....
guess I don't recall hearing anyone *demanded* gas.
Bryan Jones -8
Pearland, Texas
do not archive
Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer? Find out. Run the
FREE McAfee online computer scan!
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
And Sorry about the blank post titled Jon Johanson, hit send before I was
ready and it "sent"
Can someone tell me the O.D of Vans muffs? The Pipes are about 1.75"
I have a space problem with exhaust pipes and I am checking measurements to
see what will fit.
Does anyone use the off center ones like Spruce sells. more distance on one
side than the other side.
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Latest articles from the SoCal RV list.
Here are a two articles regarding the legendary Jon Johanson being stuck in
Antarctica with his RV-4. It pains me to know that the Americans are being
so callous.
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian adventurer Jon Johanson has become the first
person to fly solo over the South Pole in a fixed wing aircraft but has
received an icy reception after an emergency landing in the Antarctic.
Johanson had planned to fly from New Zealand, over the South Pole, and on
to Argentina, but dangerous headwinds after he flew over the pole on Monday
forced him to turn back and make an emergency landing at the U.S. McMurdo
Antarctic base.
Now he doesn't have enough fuel to fly back to New Zealand and officials at
the U.S. base and nearby New Zealand Scott base are refusing to give or
sell him the fuel to fly out.
"All he wants is some fuel to fly back to New Zealand," said Australian
adventurer Dick Smith, who in 1989 became the first person to fly a
helicopter solo from the North Pole to the South Pole, on Wednesday.
Johanson needs about 400 litres of aviation fuel, which costs about 42
pence a litre in Australia.
"The Americans have said we don't want you here," Smith said, adding they
had offered to fly Johanson out but not his plane.
Johanson is reluctant to leave his homemade RV-4 aircraft on the frozen
continent because he has flown it around the world, including over the
North Pole, three times.
New Zealand officials have been slightly more sympathetic, offering
Johanson a military flight out. They have also offered to ship his aircraft
to New Zealand in January at his expense, said Johanson's support staff in
Australia.
They said the adventurer was being allowed to sleep in the McMurdo
refueling shed and had been given some food by the Americans.
Smith said adventurers were not welcome in the Antarctic, remembering when
he landed at McMurdo on Thanksgiving Day 1989.
"The Americans only offered me a cup of coffee. I ended up getting fuel
from the Russians," he said.
Smith has contacted Australia's foreign minister to seek assistance for
Johanson
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/031210/80/egp46.html
An Australian who has just become the first pilot to fly a single-engined
aircraft over the South Pole is stranded in the Antarctic after being
refused fuel.
Jon Johanson completed a history-making 26.5-hour flight from Invercargill
in New Zealand across the South Pole and was bound for Ushuaia in Argentina.
But strong headwinds forced the Adelaide man to make an emergency landing
at the McMurdo-Scott base after deciding that not only was Argentina no
longer an option, but he would also be short of fuel if he attempted to
return to New Zealand.
However, US and New Zealand scientists at the base have refused to supply
him with fuel.
"The meteorological bureau said what caught him was what they call the A
factor, the Antarctic factor, where something happens that is just
unpredictable," said Mr Johanson's partner Sue Ball.
"The safest option he had was to turn back to the joint base at
McMurdo-Scott where he knew he could make it."
"He is stuck there."
Scientists at the base initially refused to grant him access to the
facility and asked him to use his emergency rations and camping gear. The
base deters tourists, insisting any visitors be totally self-sufficient.
Mr Johanson told the Seven Network last night that he had asked the US and
New Zealand scientists for between 300 and 400 litres of fuel but his
request had been refused.
"I'm not the one to understand how diplomatic affairs work. I'd certainly
be the last one to try and tell people how to do their jobs," he said.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said staff at McMurdo-Scott were taking
care of Mr Johanson and his aircraft and the New Zealand Government were
prepared to fly him home in a Hercules aircraft at his own expense.
"(But) I think the best solution would be if the New Zealanders were
prepared to provide the fuel," Mr Downer said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8125299%255E23
349,00.html
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Silly me,
I didn't know Shackleton was flying.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
>
> Regarding the planning, I guess Shackleton was a
> slacker too.
>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Feeding the Bears" (was Jon Johanson) |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
>
>But Linn,
>
>There are many differnces here. At Disney there are fields in many quadrants
>in rather close proximity that can be used in urgent situations so they don't
>want to risk any of the lives of the thousands of people with a take-off after
>a sucessful urgent landing, while at the South Pole, there are few suitable
>landing spots and the only one at risk on a takeoff would be the pilot. The
>other thing is that Disney is privately funded while the south pole is funded
>by you and me. They seemed to have forgotten that.
>But more than anything they would have not been out anything. No skin off
>their butts.
>
I was answering the specific question of 'where else'. The rules are
there, and if they bend the rules for Jon, maybe they'll bend them for
anyone else. If Jon had an american ticket, I'm going to bet that the
FAA would have cause to violate him for a number of things. Let's face
it, for whatever reason, he blew it. Unfortunately, he wasn't in an
area where the choice of landing fields was plentiful. He passed his
'point of no return' and plowed merrily on. I see this as poor planning
on Jon's part, but I have no data on what his planning was. Nobody on
the list, so far, has spoken from a position of knowledge about the
planning and implementation of his flight. We won't know until the full
story hits the streets. But, I digress.
>As for costs, there are people at the NSF this very minute wasting millions of
>dollars doing nothing.
>
I'm not sure where you got your information from. I believe your
comment is emotional, rather than factual.
>They don't need to come up with the cost B-S.
>
But, they do. I'll bet that supplying that station takes months of
prior planning, and since everything has to be flown or shipped in,
freight is a premium. His unplanned arrival COULD pose a problem
feeding and housing him at somebocy else's expense.
>They are just wanting to show who's boss... They can't come up with a valid
>reason.
>
But they did. The reason is to discourage just the kind of 'visitor'
that Jon is. Again, we don't know if he contacted McMurdo as part of
his planning etc. He should have, and I sure hope he did.
>"Reason? No reason... just company policy"
>
And they're the ones who make the policy. I haven't seen anything yet
that said why Jon can't pay to have the fuel shipped in, and then fly
out. It appears that they will sell him wood to crate up the airplane
but won't sell him fuel. Either way, this would be an unplanned use of
materiel, and for the life of me can't come up with a rational
explanation of the difference. Like many have said, the news could have
read 'McMurdo base rescues errant pilot in lifesaving gesture on trans
polar flight' and would have been far better off than where they are
now. I think that the folks at the top there surely didn't want to
raise the ire of their bosses elsewhere by willy-nilly changing the
longstanding policy that is in place. I don't agree with their stance,
but at least I understand it. I've dealt with bureaucratic nonsense
almost all my life, and trying to make sense out of this situation is
like trying to make sense out of the FAA stuff we deal with on a daily
basis. I agree. This whole situation has declined to the level of
'totally incredulous', but thee it is nontheless. I hope that some
ego's will deflate a little and reason to return ...... and we'll all
have to sit back and wait while the wheels of Gov't turn ever so slowly.
Linn
>Phil
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>In the end we give him the 100 gallons--it's a win-win situation for all.
McMurdo
> comes out as the white knight, they avoid some hassle and bad publicity,
but
> the message is still that you are not welcome here. Jon gets to go
home.<<
------
And, what does the next flyinginer down there come to expect? Any less?
Maybe not more, certainly not less. Now we have a regular stopping and
refueling point.
Kabong!!
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
On Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> How about this scenario: plane lands at McMurdo, let's give the guy a
real
> hard time, tell the world private planes are not welcome, etc., etc. In
the
> end we give him the 100 gallons--it's a win-win situation for all.
McMurdo
> comes out as the white knight, they avoid some hassle and bad publicity,
but
> the message is still that you are not welcome here. Jon gets to go home.
> Oh wait, you have to sign a release and hold McMurdo harmless, OK now you
> can go. Last time I checked, it was their base so I guess that gives them
> the right to make their own rules--even though we might not like it. You
do
> have rules at your house, right?
>
> do not archive
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4
> RV-6
> RV-7 QB (Building)
> Vero Beach, FL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
> >
> > James E. Clark wrote:
> > > Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for the
> 100
> > > gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him being
> there
> > > (and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell him
> would
> > > cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be gone
and
> out
> > > of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point he
> probably
> > > would be happy to pay it.
> >
> > I wonder if this is really an adequate solution, unfortunately... I
> > mean, surely they could come up with 100 gallons of gas to get him home
> > (auto, avgas, or some combination) if they put their minds to it. But
> > the problem could also be one of liability... What happens if they give
> > him 100 gallons of gas, and he *doesn't* make it home? Through no fault
> > of the gas, perhaps, but what then? Would that be a larger, or a
> > smaller, international incident than just telling him he has to ship the
> > plane out?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
>
>
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I know, several people have pointed that out. Can I place a "in general" in
front of the comment below? From what I can tell it is just eaisier on the
engine and keeps the engine from "lugging" but can be run there if desired.
At 03:11 PM 12/11/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
>
>"as long as RPM is higher than MP"--what are the settings (rpm/mp) any
>time someone with a fixed pitch prop takes off and climbs out? I am no
>expert, either, just curious.
>
>Boyd.
>
>do not archive
>
>On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 01:22 PM, Scott Bilinski wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
>> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>>
>> I am no expert, but here it goes.
>>
>> Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
>> recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
>> 2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be
>> different
>> for smoothest operation.
>>
>>
>> At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>>>
>>> Eustace,
>>>
>>> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
>>> constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to
>>> the
>>> throttle setting."
>>>
>>> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
>>> elaborate
>>> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I
>>> can not
>>> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate
>>> "squared"
>>> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to
>>> 2300
>>> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
>>> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess
>>> you
>>> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
>>>
>>> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP
>>> and RPM
>>> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good
>>> option then
>>> how do you determine what settings to use?
>>>
>>> Thanking in advance.
>>>
>>> Ross Mickey
>>> 12 hours
>>> N9PT
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Scott Bilinski
>> Eng dept 305
>> Phone (858) 657-2536
>> Pager (858) 502-5190
>> do not archive
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Regarding the following. For those of you that were in the military, you
remember how you can look to the regs, and virtually every accident or
incident resulted in an equal and opposite over-reaction of regulations....
This is what happens.
If you don't like excess government regulations, then don't press to test.
Looks like "they" are now looking at "regulating" Antarctic overflights.
This is directly quoted from the EAA's web site.
Argh.
Keith Hughes
do not archive
The timing of this event is particularly unfortunate because it comes at a
time when the multinational Antarctic Treaty Parties are debating whether to
further regulate access to Antarctica by tour companies and by individuals
such as Johansen. EAA's Washington Office has committed to engage in a
dialogue with the NSF and the State Department regarding the future of
general aviation activity over Antarctica.
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com>
That's just it, nobody "owns" Antarctica. Who's going
to tell him he can't take off, the Antarctica Air
Force? As far as I know, nobody can tell you you
can't land either. They could try, but I'd just tell
'em to pound sand...er snow. Of course, the USA could
claim it and throw up a TFR, then Jon would really be
hosed.
Mike
Do not archive
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: A Song for Earl |
vansairforce <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
Messagenot rv related, but... Got this from a friend and thought I would pass
it along... do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Subject: A Song for Earl
A friend of mine -- Quinn Keon -- wrote this song for a pilot friend who died in
an airplane accident. The pilot, Earl Gorsuch, was the local crop duster and
sort of a hometown hero. The song was played at Earl's memorial service, and
will touch anybody who has been around pilots and airplanes.
Listen to the song at: http://www.quinnkeon.com/earl.html (Click the song title near the bottom of the page.)
In memory of Earl and all of our pilot friends and heroes who have been lost, Quinn
would like us to pass this message to anyone who may appreciate the song.
Thanks for listening.
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling authority |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
RV_8 Pilot wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
> It's Antarctica.... there's no controlling authority. What rules apply?!
> What chaps me is not that the arrogant employees of the NSF won't supply Jon
> with fuel, it's that they have been ordained by "government" to protect the
> area from the dirty masses for *their* sanctioned research. They have no
> mandate nor authority. It's essentially an uninhabited continent. Now - if
> the US chooses to annex it as a territory, then they may be able to set it
> aside as some type of federally protected wildlife sactuary (for bacteria
> and lichens).
>
> Did Rutan have "permission" to make his trip around the world? I doubt they
> had 100% approval from all countries they overflew. Who in the US would
> approve the flight. Flying over Antarctica is no different.
>
> Had they stuck to the tune of not supplying non employees or non
> participants in the camp with fuel - I could accept that moreso than this
> arrogant, authoritarian garbage about keeping the tourists out. *Exactly*
> typical of the classic arrogant liberal! For goodness sake - we're upon the
> 100th anniversary of powered flight! In another 100 years, we may be having
> $100 hamburger trips to this place. Maybe it'll be named Jon Johansen
> Field!
>
> Bryan Jones -8
> Pearland, Texas
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Or a "Johanson Burger" with "Joh fries"
do not archive.....
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "John Brick" <jbrick@wolfenet.com>
A couple aphorisms come to mind:
1. Don't ask the question if you can't stand the answer.
2. Getting forgiveness is easier than getting permission.
Worked for Jon on Ascension Island. Hope it works again.
jb
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
On our 6 (160 Hp, Sterba Wood Prop) at sea level
Approximately 28.5", 24-25 (x100) RPM. Don't recall the exact numbers but MP
(") is HIGHER than RPM (x100) for a few minutes.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Boyd Braem
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:12 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade"
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
>
> "as long as RPM is higher than MP"--what are the settings (rpm/mp) any
> time someone with a fixed pitch prop takes off and climbs out? I am no
> expert, either, just curious.
>
> Boyd.
>
> do not archive
>
> On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 01:22 PM, Scott Bilinski wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> > I am no expert, but here it goes.
> >
> > Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
> > recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
> > 2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be
> > different
> > for smoothest operation.
> >
> >
> > At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
> >>
> >> Eustace,
> >>
> >> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
> >> constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to
> >> the
> >> throttle setting."
> >>
> >> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
> >> elaborate
> >> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I
> >> can not
> >> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate
> >> "squared"
> >> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to
> >> 2300
> >> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
> >> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess
> >> you
> >> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
> >>
> >> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP
> >> and RPM
> >> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good
> >> option then
> >> how do you determine what settings to use?
> >>
> >> Thanking in advance.
> >>
> >> Ross Mickey
> >> 12 hours
> >> N9PT
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Scott Bilinski
> > Eng dept 305
> > Phone (858) 657-2536
> > Pager (858) 502-5190
> > do not archive
>
>
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
This photo, posted here earlier, seems to show a BP logo on Jon's tail.
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/richardbyrd29
>Has anyone even thought to ask if Shell, Exxon, etc. would donate the
>gas and the means to transport it?
do not archive
--
Mickey Coggins
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson/Shackleton |
--> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
If any one doesn't know the Shackleton story, I suggest that they look
it up and read about it. It is truly an amazing story and he did not
lose a single crew member.
But, yes, he did screw up with his initial planning--he got there at
the wrong time of the year, and his ship got caught in the ice. He (or
the crew) took some really great photos of the ice crushing the ship
and, finally, sinking it.
On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 04:01 PM, rv6tc wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> Silly me,
>
> I didn't know Shackleton was flying.
>
>
> do not archive
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> Regarding the planning, I guess Shackleton was a
>> slacker too.
>>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" <mike@bmnellis.com>
"I am no expert, either, just curious."
Sure you are Boyd, you just to modest to admit it. You know the answer
as well as I do. It doesn't make much differnece. There is one group
out there that thinks you should run with the throttle WFO all the time
regardless of altitude and they say with proper leaning techniques it
improves efficiency. I don't know about that but I think the old "RPM
higher than MP" rule of thumb was just that....a rule of thumb.
BTW, how you doing down there?
Mike Nellis
RV-6 Fuselage N699BM
1947 Stinson 108-2 NC9666K
http://bmnellis.com
***
***
*** --> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
***
*** "as long as RPM is higher than MP"--what are the settings
*** (rpm/mp) any
*** time someone with a fixed pitch prop takes off and climbs
*** out? I am no
*** expert, either, just curious.
***
*** Boyd.
***
*** do not archive
***
*** On Thursday, December 11, 2003, at 01:22 PM, Scott Bilinski wrote:
***
*** > --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
*** > <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
*** >
*** > I am no expert, but here it goes.
*** >
*** > Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is
*** higher than MP. I
*** > recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is
*** anything
*** > over 2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set
*** up will be
*** > different for smoothest operation.
*** >
*** >
*** > At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
*** >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey"
*** <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
*** >>
*** >> Eustace,
*** >>
*** >> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge
*** installed and
*** >> the constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm
*** in relation
*** >> to the throttle setting."
*** >>
*** >> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
*** >> elaborate
*** >> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination
*** limits me so I
*** >> can not
*** >> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate
*** >> "squared"
*** >> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950
*** squared to
*** >> 2300
*** >> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
*** >> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than
*** MP. I guess
*** >> you
*** >> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
*** >>
*** >> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine
*** the best MP
*** >> and RPM
*** >> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good
*** >> option then
*** >> how do you determine what settings to use?
*** >>
*** >> Thanking in advance.
*** >>
*** >> Ross Mickey
*** >> 12 hours
*** >> N9PT
*** >>
*** >>
*** >
*** >
*** > Scott Bilinski
*** > Eng dept 305
*** > Phone (858) 657-2536
*** > Pager (858) 502-5190
*** > do not archive
***
***
*** =============
*** ==============
*** Matronics Forums.
*** ==============
*** ==============
*** ==============
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" <mike@bmnellis.com>
Nobody is saying we shouldn't help Jon, in fact he is receiving help.
He's being treated well and offered a lift home at his expense. What's
the problem? He tried an expidetion and failed...he landed short and
was lucky enough to have a group in the neighborhood to give him shelter
and food. For that he should be (and probably is) thankful.
Using the Mt Everest analogy....You get into trouble and run out of
oxygen near the top of Everest and someone will come and get you
(probably charge you for it too). What they won't do is bring you some
more oxygen and let you finish the ascent.
In this case the expidetion failed, it didn't reach it's destination.
Time to go home, regroup and try again later only this time make sure
you have your own fuel waiting at an emergency landing spot.
At this point Jon isn't a simple tourist and what he's doing is
interesting and he'll get some good press and sell a few more books
because of it. However, if they give Jon fuel then the next person that
lands and screams, "hey, you sold that Jon guy some fuel why not me?".
Next thing you know you've got tourist landing in RV10's knowing that
good ol McMurdo will bail them out with fuel.
If it's so important, then let Australia airlift the fuel to him.
It's my guess that Jon probably counts himself pretty lucky and, while
he'd like to get some gas and be on his way, is counting his blessings
and blaming no one but himself for the failure to cover all
contigencies. It's tough being the first. Lots of people have tried
being the first and many have failed. Don't blame the lonely outpost for
sticking to their policy.
If it was most of us down there we'd probably give him the gas, fill his
belly with a plate of beans and send him on his way. We're not and they
won't. That's the way it goes.
Mike Nellis
RV-6 Fuselage N699BM
1947 Stinson 108-2 NC9666K
http://bmnellis.com
***
***
*** Charlie, you wrote:
***
***
*** >It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be
*** honest. They do
*** >nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself
*** in the shoes
*** >of those scientists.
***
*** Tell that to Capt. James Cook, the first to cross the
*** Antarctic circle, without whom McMurdo base would not be
*** there. My point is that if Jon were a simple tourist, that
*** is one type of issue. To the contrary, Jon's role in
*** setting an aviation world record elevates his cause beyond
*** the simple - "should tax dollars go toward saving people
*** trying to climb Everest?" type of issue. To those who
*** would say that the "world record" Jon is setting is
*** unimportant, I think that the frontier Jon is exploring
*** here is the frontier of flight in experimental aircraft,
*** which is very important to our community. I, for one, feel
*** that the goodwill and public consciousness of what
*** experimental aviation is all about is at the heart of what
*** Jon is doing. I am sure if Lindbergh had to make an
*** emergency landing in Ireland rather than making it all the
*** way to Paris, he still would have had a hero's welcome.
***
***
*** ---
*** Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
***
*** ---
***
***
*** =============
*** ==============
*** Matronics Forums.
*** ==============
*** ==============
*** ==============
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Jon Johanson - Antarctica - no controlling |
authority
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> authority
I agree with your post.
Perhaps my high school civics classes failed me, but I believe
the arrogant, authoritarian garbage behavior you are referring
to would be considered "totalitarian", not "liberal". If the
base were run by what are commonly known as liberals in the USA
then the gas would be free for everyone, paid for by the taxpayers.
I'd prefer it to be run by libertarians, who would sell gas
to anyone that showed up with some cash, assuming the base had
not already been closed due to lack of necessity. :-)
>... Had they stuck to the tune of not supplying non employees or non
>participants in the camp with fuel - I could accept that moreso than this
>arrogant, authoritarian garbage about keeping the tourists out. *Exactly*
>typical of the classic arrogant liberal! ...
do not archive
--
Mickey Coggins
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
vansairforce <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
Can someone show me the way top wire up this alternator?
http://www.vondane.com/rv8a/alternator.jpg
-Bill
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" <mike@bmnellis.com>
You're getting yourself all worked up in a knot Bryan. Nobody is saying
"don't come play in Antartica, it's our playground". They're just
saying if you want to come play, knock yourself out but just don't
expect anything other than cordial hospital in the way of food and
shelter.
***
*** This is exactly what has my aft side so chapped.... it's
*** not their position
*** to worry about who else comes to McMurdo or Antarctica! Arrogant
*** authoritarians. There's no controlling authority. It's
*** ANTARCTICA! Even
*** if the US and NZ has some treaty, I haven't heard where the
*** Autralians
*** signed the treaty. JJ isn't bound to *any* rules...
***
*** It's plain and simple liberal arrogance - trying to keep
*** the masses away
*** from the pristine ice and rock, because we're just not
*** "smart" enough to act
*** accordingly.
***
*** > I know Alaska is much different than the lower 48. But,
*** go land at
*** >Elmendorf, and taxi up to the pumps and DEMAND gas.....
***
*** guess I don't recall hearing anyone *demanded* gas.
***
*** Bryan Jones -8
*** Pearland, Texas
*** do not archive
***
*** Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer?
*** Find out. Run the
*** FREE McAfee online computer scan!
***
***
*** =============
*** ==============
*** Matronics Forums.
*** ==============
*** ==============
*** ==============
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
The two differnt sizes ( one longer tthan the other) that I bought from Vans
about four yaers apart are both the "off center" type. I doubt that That
vans sells any other kind.
Of course I might be mistreaken, it could happen! {[;-)
Jim in Kelowna do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Subject: RV-List: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club"
<sisson@consolidated.net>
>
> And Sorry about the blank post titled Jon Johanson, hit send before I was
> ready and it "sent"
>
> Can someone tell me the O.D of Vans muffs? The Pipes are about 1.75"
>
> I have a space problem with exhaust pipes and I am checking measurements
to
> see what will fit.
>
> Does anyone use the off center ones like Spruce sells. more distance on
one
> side than the other side.
>
>
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
MSices wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "MSices" <msices@core.com>
>
>
>Charlie, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>It's fun to read about Jon's adventures, but let's be honest. They do
>>nothing to advance science or social issues. Put yourself in the shoes
>>of those scientists.
>>
>>
>
>Tell that to Capt. James Cook, the first to cross the Antarctic circle,
>without whom McMurdo base would not be there. My point is that if Jon were
>a simple tourist, that is one type of issue. To the contrary, Jon's role in
>setting an aviation world record elevates his cause beyond the simple -
>"should tax dollars go toward saving people trying to climb Everest?" type
>of issue. To those who would say that the "world record" Jon is setting is
>unimportant, I think that the frontier Jon is exploring here is the frontier
>of flight in experimental aircraft, which is very important to our
>community. I, for one, feel that the goodwill and public consciousness of
>what experimental aviation is all about is at the heart of what Jon is
>doing. I am sure if Lindbergh had to make an emergency landing in Ireland
>rather than making it all the way to Paris, he still would have had a hero's
>welcome.
>
Again, they do nothing to advance science or social issues.
No rational person (including Jon, I suspect) would equate what Jon is
doing with the pioneers you mention. Now, if he wound up there after a
glitch in the 1st orbital space flight attempt by a private individual,
my attitude would be a bit different. I suspect that the NSF's attitude
would be a bit different, as well.
A little perspective: it seems that the base is a cooperative effort
between the US & New Zealand, & they have a long standing agreement to
not assist 'adventurers'. This would lead us to believe that this type
of problem is not infrequent. It also indicates that the US is not
standing alone on this. (See the snip from an AP internet news source,
below.)
Would you feel the same way if a snowmobile enthusiast showed up at the
station riding an experimental long-range snowmobile & wanting fuel
because he 'miscalculated' his needs for his solo trip across the ice?
Charlie
Again, do not archive
quote
"I'm not very optimistic about being able to persuade the New Zealanders
and the Americans," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said
Thursday.
The U.S. National Science Foundation and Antarctica New Zealand, both
government-funded scientific research programs, do not "supply or stock
fuel for private individuals," the U.S. agency said in a statement
e-mailed Thursday to The Associated Press.
"NSF's policy is that private expeditions should carry sufficient
insurance to cover the costs of search and rescue efforts, if needed."
The foundation argues that rescuing adventurers and explorers who get
stranded on the icy continent is expensive and endangers their staff.
Downer, who knows Johanson personally, tried to persuade U.S. and New
Zealand authorities to waive the rule this time, but they refused.
unquote
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
>By the way, I cannot remember her name but there was a woman enroute in a
>Dakota (another around the world flight to raise money for handicapped
>kids). I seem to remember that she had in fact PLANNED to stop there. As
>such I would assume that she had PLANNED to have fuel there and available
>for the Dakota. Since she had to turn back before getting there due also to
>the unforecasted high winds, maybe some of HER fuel might be available. Just
>thinking out loud.
>
>Do Not Archive ... though somewhat RV related
The woman with the Dakota is Polly Vacher, and she got caught in a somewhat
similar predicament to Jon Johanson. She ran into high winds on her flight
to McMurdo, and she had to turn back to her point of departure (some other
airfield in Antarctica). She used up her prepositioned fuel cache at that
airfield already, so she is trying to arrange to get more fuel brought in
so she can continue on to McMurdo. I doubt she wants to part with any of
the fuel she has at McMurdo, as that would mean her around-the-world trip
would have to end.
http://www.worldwings.org/
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>In this case the expidetion failed, it didn't reach it's destination.
>Time to go home, regroup and try again later only this time make sure
>you have your own fuel waiting at an emergency landing spot.
>...
Here's the part that might bother me a bit:
"You just head on home, son, we'll take care of that-there
arrow-plane for ya."
"Don't get a burr under your saddle, boy. Once we get it boxed up,
and shipped out, we'll just send ya'll a bill."
--
Mickey Coggins
do not archive
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Jon Johanson & Mark Udall's response |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
Public figures should operate in the public light. Thus, here is a response
from Mark Udall's office (D-Colorado) and my further reply to him. I'll
keep you posted on how, if at all this progresses.
Mr. Gold:
I spoke with Mr. David Stone of the National Science Foundation in
Washington, D.C. He works with the administration of McMurdo Station and
other United States stations in Antarctica. He also works with Karl Erb
with whom you've communicated.
Mr Johanson has done some remarkable things in his airplane and deserves
recognition for his humanitarian aid. However, the NSF and the US
Department of State have always held a policy that US stations in Antarctica
should deter travellers like Mr. Johanson from "adventuring" through
Antarctica. Naturally, when people run into any trouble on the continent
they rely on US stations for help. At that point, the stations become
responsible for the traveller's safety. For legal reasons, stations want to
avoid these situations. For that reason, Mr. Johanson is being made an
example. Part of that example is that McMurdo will not aid Mr. Johanson in
a potentially dangerous mission. Currently the United States Department of
State is working with Australia and New Zealand to negotiate an acceptable
result for all parties. Mr. Johanson's airplane is not at risk of being
destroyed (it will be shipped back home) and he has been offered a safe trip
home.
I have contacted the NSF on behalf of you and Mr. Johanson. Hopefully, this
will help expedite the process. Because the Department of State is involved
in resolution of this problem, there is little more our office can do than
express our support for Mr. Johanson on your behalf. So I would appreciate
if you kept me informed of this story. I hope that it comes to an agreeable
solution. Please contact me with further questions. Thank you.
Matthew Henken
Congressman Mark Udall's Office
8601 Turnpike Dr. Ste. 206
Westminster, CO 80031
(303) 650-7820
...and my reply to him
Matt,
I'm wondering if Mr. Stone really expects hoards of crazed pilots suddenly
converging on his Antarctic facility. I would expect that regardless of
NSFs action, that is not the likely outcome. Johanson was the first and
only. This is not an epidemic for which "examples" need to be made.
The prudent and expeditious action is to sell him the needed fuel, tell him
never to return, and for NSF to pronounce international policy that future
unauthorized arrivals at McMurdo will not be tolerated. This works on many
levels:
1] Everyone walks away happy
2] The administrative and logistical cost of this event are kept to a
minimum.
3] NSF gets to "look good" by handling a difficult situation in a civil
manner, yet is allowed to save face by presenting and enforcing new policy.
4] Even on a political level, Mr Udall presents a compassionate Democratic
alternative to the policy of an uncompassionate Republican administration;
and in doing so ingratiates himself to such high profile organizations as
AOPA, EAA, and millions of aviation enthusiasts through Colorado and the
country.
Besides Matt, if you were an Australian, how would you view this; as another
example of American arrogance? Aren't we supposed to be trying to make some
friends in the world. Isn't that to be a significant plank for the upcoming
campaigns?
Please try harder Matt.
Sincerely,
Andrew Gold
do not archive
>
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
2.75" That's the OD of the heat muff I've got, which came with the RV-7 FWF
kit.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Subject: RV-List: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club"
<sisson@consolidated.net>
>
> And Sorry about the blank post titled Jon Johanson, hit send before I was
> ready and it "sent"
>
> Can someone tell me the O.D of Vans muffs? The Pipes are about 1.75"
>
> I have a space problem with exhaust pipes and I am checking measurements
to
> see what will fit.
>
> Does anyone use the off center ones like Spruce sells. more distance on
one
> side than the other side.
>
>
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
At 14:06 2003-12-11, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
>
>Can someone show me the way top wire up this alternator?
>
>http://www.vondane.com/rv8a/alternator.jpg
>
>
>-Bill
Okay, I'll bite...
Looking at the picture on the data plate, I would say:
The IG (ignition) terminal wires to the alternator field breaker (5 amp).
The L (light) terminal would go to an alternator warning lamp on the panel
(most people don't use this).
The big copper stud pointing at you in the picture wires to the alternator
output breaker (SWAG says this is a small alternator so 40 amp breaker).
Funny, I don't see any reference to a ground for the field circuit. This
unit must use the alternator frame for ground connection. My alternator
has a third wire on the plug in the back for the field circuit ground.
Can I have a cookie now?
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Phil,
My Van's heat muff is 2.875" O.D and 8" long.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A completing details
Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
> And Sorry about the blank post titled Jon Johanson, hit send before I was
> ready and it "sent"
>
> Can someone tell me the O.D of Vans muffs? The Pipes are about 1.75"
>
> I have a space problem with exhaust pipes and I am checking measurements to
> see what will fit.
>
> Does anyone use the off center ones like Spruce sells. more distance on one
> side than the other side.
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mark" <riveter@bellsouth.net>
I just saw Jon Johanson and his RV-4 in a brief segment on Fox news channel.
Maybe they'll show it again later.
Mark McGee
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | McMurdo Fuel/Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: "MSices" <msices@core.com>
Charlie:
>Would you feel the same way if a snowmobile enthusiast showed up at the
>station riding an experimental long-range snowmobile & wanting fuel
You are right, Jon's airplane does not rise to the level of historical or
technological achievement represented by the aircraft capable of orbital
space flight by a private individual. Likewise, your snowmobile tourist is
completely subdued by an individual setting a world record for flight in an
experimental aircraft. I kind of doubt there are any snowmobile world
records of any import being attempted in Antarctica, and I think you know
that. I also do not know of any snowmobiles licensed in the "experimental"
category. Other than that, I concede, a snowmobile "enthusiast" attempting
to cross the ice solo and wanting fuel is the same as Jon wanting fuel.
Mike
NO NOT ARCHIVE
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
Message 67
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Our tax dollars |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
How true Pat, and especially in a year when we are getting ready to
calibrate the history of flight.
do not archive
Pat Perry wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Perry" <pperryrv@hotmail.com>
>
>Our government is spending millions to conduct "engineering and scientific
>research" in Antarctica while Jon J. is doing it for free.
>
>I'm ashamed that the US can't spare the $500 worth of fuel and time to help
>an Ausie who has done more per dollar in the area of engineering research
>than they ever could.
>
>This particular RV-4 aircraft is destined to spend eternity in a museum (if
>he ever stops setting records with it) and the pilot will be in the history
>books of aviation forever. This should be like the next best thing to
>having Lindbergh land in your farm field and our Gov is treating him like a
>vagrant pilot.
>
>Pat Perry
>Dallas, PA
>RV-4 N154PK Flies great!
>
>
>
>
>>From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>To: <rv4-list@matronics.com>
>>Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:56:45 -0600
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>>
>>Okay Guys & Gals,
>>
>> This is the reply I got. I'm gonna check further and I'll let
>>you all know if something positive develops.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>Do Not Archive
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: West, Peter T.
>>To: 'Fiveonepw@aol.com' ; 'brettjepson@yahoo.com' ; 'crabaut@coalinga.com'
>>; 'mick@rv8.ch'
>>
>>
>>Dear recipient,
>>
>> You recently have expressed both interest and concern to the National
>>Science Foundation about the situation at McMurdo Station regarding a
>>private pilot who recently landed there.
>>
>>I thought you would perhaps be interested in the information contained in
>>this news release, which NSF has issued in response to the situation.
>>
>>
>>[West, Peter T.]
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Smith, Julie A. [mailto:jasmith@nsf.gov]
>>To: NSF News
>>
>>
>>National Science Foundation
>>4201 Wilson Blvd.
>>Arlington, VA 22230
>>"Where discoveries begin"
>>
>>
>>For Immediate Release
>>Dec. 10, 2003
>>
>>NSF Media Contact: Peter West, (703) 292-7761, pwest@nsf.gov
>>
>>
>>
>>FROM ANTARCTICA
>
>
>>ARLINGTON, Va.- A private pilot who landed at the main U.S.
>>research station in Antarctica without sufficient fuel to
>>continue his flight to South America will be offered passage back
>>to New Zealand on a regularly scheduled flight, U.S. National
>>Science Foundation representatives and their New Zealand
>>counterparts said today.
>>
>>The officials also are discussing the possibility of sending the
>>pilot's aircraft back aboard a supply ship that normally visits
>>the station in February at the end of each research season.
>>In keeping with U.S. policy toward private expeditions in
>>Antarctica, NSF will charge the pilot, Jon Johanson, for the
>>costs of the flight to New Zealand and for shipping his aircraft.
>>
>>Johanson, an Australian citizen, apparently was attempting to fly
>>
>>
>>from New Zealand to South America over Antarctica, when he landed
>
>
>>at McMurdo Station, NSF's logistics hub in Antarctica, on Dec. 8.
>>
>>Strong head winds forced him to abandon his intended destination,
>>fearing he would not have enough fuel to complete his journey.
>>Upon arriving at McMurdo, he told U.S. officials that he did not
>>have enough fuel to continue and requested to buy some.
>>
>>Because officials at McMurdo Station or at New Zealand's Scott
>>Base weren't informed of the flight, no preparations were made
>>for an emergency landing.
>>
>>Under an agreement between the two nations, both the U.S. and New
>>Zealand provide C-130 cargo aircraft to transport scientific and
>>logistics personnel and cargo to Antarctic during the research
>>season, which begins in late October and ends in February. In
>>this case, it was agreed that Johansen would be allowed to fly
>>north on one of the returning flights, which are scheduled
>>several times a week.
>>
>>"We have extended the pilot the normal courtesies routinely
>>offered by New Zealand and U.S. stations in Antarctica," said Lou
>>Sanson, the chief executive officer of Antarctica New Zealand
>>(ANZ), the national scientific research program. "The pilot
>>should have made the decision to abandon his original flight
>>plans much sooner when faced with these weather conditions and
>>returned to Invercargill in New Zealand."
>>
>>Neither NSF nor Antarctica New Zealand, both of which are
>>government-funded scientific research programs, supply or stock
>>fuel for private individuals. NSF's policy is that private
>>expeditions should carry sufficient insurance to cover the costs
>>of search and rescue efforts, if needed.
>>
>>Had Johansen failed to reach McMurdo safely, the U.S. and New
>>Zealand programs would have had to mount search-and-rescue
>>efforts at considerable cost and risk not only to the search-and
>>rescue teams, but also to scientific field teams in the field who
>>might have required those resources.
>>
>>###
>>
>>NSF PR03-141
>>
>>The National Science Foundation is an independent federal agency
>>that supports fundamental research and education across all
>>fields of science and engineering, with an annual budget of
>>nearly $5 billion. National Science Foundation funds reach all
>>50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and
>>institutions. Each year, NSF receives about 30,000 competitive
>>requests for funding, and makes about 10,000 new funding awards.
>>The National Science Foundation also awards over $200 million in
>>professional and service contracts yearly.
>>
>>Receive official National Science Foundation news electronically
>>through the e-mail delivery system, NSFnews. To subscribe, send
>>an e-mail message to join-nsfnews@lists.nsf.gov. In the body of
>>the message, type "subscribe nsfnews" and then type your name.
>>(Ex.: "subscribe nsfnews John Smith")
>>
>>Useful National Science Foundation Web Sites:
>>NSF Home Page: http://www.nsf.gov
>>News Highlights: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa
>>Newsroom: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/start.htm
>>Science Statistics: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/stats.htm
>>Awards Searches: http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a6/A6Start.htm
>>
>>---
>>You are currently subscribed to nsfnews as: pwest@nsf.gov
>>To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-nsfnews-37594I@lists.nsf.gov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Dont worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.
>
>
>
>
Message 68
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
Over-squared refers to MP higher than RPM. Some folks do not recommend
this as a rule of thumb though many POH's do permit certain ranges of
over-square settings. For some engines an over-squared power setting
with a very lean mixture may result in optimal fuel economy.
A constant speed prop is essentially a variable transmission for your
airplane. You get to choose any "gear ratio". Way over-square is like
lugging an engine in too high a gear.
B.
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 11, 2003, at 9:22 AM, Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
> I am no expert, but here it goes.
>
> Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
> recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
> 2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be
> different
> for smoothest operation.
>
>
> At 09:57 AM 12/11/03 -0800, you wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>>
>> Eustace,
>>
>> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
>> constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to
>> the
>> throttle setting."
>>
>> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
>> elaborate
>> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I
>> can not
>> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate
>> "squared"
>> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to
>> 2300
>> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
>> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess
>> you
>> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
>>
>> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP
>> and RPM
>> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good
>> option then
>> how do you determine what settings to use?
>>
>> Thanking in advance.
>>
>> Ross Mickey
>> 12 hours
>> N9PT
>>
>>
>
>
> Scott Bilinski
> Eng dept 305
> Phone (858) 657-2536
> Pager (858) 502-5190
> do not archive
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 69
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Scott Bilinski wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I am no expert, but here it goes.
>
>Squared settings are not required as long as RPM is higher than MP. I
>recommend setting for smoothest operation. For me that is anything over
>2400 RPM, and a MP setting under 24 inches.Your set up will be different
>for smoothest operation.
>
Funny --
With my fixed pitched prop, I'm forced to have more MP
than RPM in any number of situations and I ain't dead yet...
and neither is my 0-320. :-)
Bob
do not archive
Message 70
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
Dan Checkoway wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> 2.75" That's the OD of the heat muff I've got, which came with the RV-7 FWF
> kit.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
Thank very much Dan,
Phil in Illinois
Message 71
| 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: sorry this is off subject--heater muffs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
I don't have them handy to measure, but the ones I got from Van's are
the off-center type. The small radius is around 3/8 inch or so.
Jeff Point
Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club" <sisson@consolidated.net>
>
>And Sorry about the blank post titled Jon Johanson, hit send before I was
>ready and it "sent"
>
>Can someone tell me the O.D of Vans muffs? The Pipes are about 1.75"
>
>I have a space problem with exhaust pipes and I am checking measurements to
>see what will fit.
>
>Does anyone use the off center ones like Spruce sells. more distance on one
>side than the other side.
>
>
>
>
Message 72
| 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: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
Ricardo Kuhn of Berkeley will be able to weld for you or he will be
able to point you to a good welder.
http://patineto.smugmug.com/
http://www.motomacondo.com
Tell him Blanton (from Alaska) sent you.
Kind Regards, Blanton
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:53 AM, GLCole5475@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: GLCole5475@aol.com
>
>
> All,
>
> I live in Berkeley CA and am in need of a welder.
>
> Do any of you have experience with or know of a good welder within 20
> - 30
> miles?
>
> You may reply to me directly at glcole5475@aol.com.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 73
| 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: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Boyd Braem wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem <bcbraem@comcast.net>
>
>"as long as RPM is higher than MP"--what are the settings (rpm/mp) any
>time someone with a fixed pitch prop takes off and climbs out? I am no
>expert, either, just curious.
>
>Boyd.
>
With my fixed pitch prop, RPM are as low as 2100 and MP as high as 29
inches.
I usually climb at 2250 RPM and MP as high as the law of physics allows
at WOT.
Bob
Do not archive
Message 74
| 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: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
I basically agree with most everything you say Keith.
To my way of thinking, one of our "first principles" going back
centuries is the custom of providing aid to voyagers in distress. It's
a rather basic principle, or I thought it was.
There are corollaries in other cultures regarding providing aid to
travelers, pilgrims, wayfarers of many stripes.
B.
On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:01 AM, rv6tc wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> Blanton,
>
> Granted. You are referring to the continent. How about McMurdo? What
> obligations do they have that they have not already provided? I say
> again,
> did he have Prior Permission? Did they misrepresent what they would
> and
> would not provide in the event of a landing? Do you really think they
> want
> all these hassles? Why then do you think they make this so
> difficult....
> could it POSSIBLY be to deter others? I don't know how hospitable
> they are
> being... and likely neither do you or most others speaking out on the
> list.
> Their concerns may be very well founded or they may be pricks. Either
> way,
> unless he had gotten something from them prior to wheels in the well, I
> don't see how they "owe" him anymore.
>
> I know Alaska is much different than the lower 48. But, go land at
> Elmendorf, and taxi up to the pumps and DEMAND gas..... after all....
> it was
> your tax dollars that provided it. See what happens. And then post
> it here
> for the rest of us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>
> do not archive.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Blanton Fortson" <blanton@alaska.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
>
>
>> The southern continent is not
>> "off-limits". It's not a "preserve".
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 75
| 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: | N520RR First Flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard B. Rauch" <richardr@apcon.com>
My RV8-A, N520RR, took to the air for the first time today, after 2 years 11 months
of building. It was a nice 45 minute first flight, the only squawk being
a slightly heavy right wing and a nervous pilot.
My 8 is equipped with a factory Lycoming O-360-A1A, MTV-12 3 blade constant speed
prop, IFR panel, and one excited builder/pilot.
The help from this site was enormous.
Thanks to all.
Richard B. Rauch
Email: richardr@apcon.com
APCON, Inc.
17938 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd.
Portland, OR 97224 USA
Ph: (503)639-6700
Fax: (503)639-6740
Web: www.apcon.com
Message 76
| 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: | Drawing Software for a Mac |
--> RV-List message posted by: Garey Wittich <gareywittich2000@yahoo.com>
Does anybody know of any software I can use to draw
Electrical Schematics and do Mechanical Drawings on an
iMac (Operating System 10.2.7) ? All Drawing S/W
seems to be for a PC (AutoCAD)
Thanks, Garey (RV-8A) Santa Monica, CA
__________________________________
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Message 77
| 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: "Fred Kunkel" <rvator@socal.rr.com>
Not to digress from the thread about Jon, but someone earlier posted about resupplying
the bases in Antarctica. I remember flying in & out of Pt. Magu & seeing
the orange painted C-130's that flew those routes, but I never heard anything
about them.
Someone out there have some experience doing so that they'd like to share?
Message 78
| 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: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
Hi Ross:
Some time ago I posted a detailed account on how I have handled the
naturally aspirated small engine over a sixty year span. Almost all of my
flying was of a commercial nature and this dictated safety and economy of
operation.
If you can find that post in the achieves it covers the whole operation from
start up to shut down. I just tried to find it and was not successful.
Assuming we are talking about a Lycoming 0320 or 0360 or for that matter a
0540 equipped with a constant speed prop, in a nutshell it is full throttle
for take-off (2700 RPM), throttle back to 24 inches MP and back to 2400 in
that order for the climb, this will give you roughly 75% start leaning above
3500 MSL staying well on the rich side of peek. Then for cruise back to
21-22 inches and 2350-2400 RPM giving you around 65%, then lean to peek
minus 50 on the leanest cylinder usually #3. With fuel injection they
normally are close to the same.
When adding power increase the RPM first and throttle back first when
reducing power. There is lots more to it, if you can't find my post on this
subject let me know.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay B.C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RV-List: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade"
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
>
> Eustace,
>
> In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
> constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to the
> throttle setting."
>
> being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you elaborate
> on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I can not
> cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate "squared"
> settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to 2300
> squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
> traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess you
> could go the other way but I may be wrong.
>
> So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP and
RPM
> settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good option
then
> how do you determine what settings to use?
>
> Thanking in advance.
>
> Ross Mickey
> 12 hours
> N9PT
>
>
Message 79
| 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: Jon Johanson |
--> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson <blanton@alaska.net>
As this story evolves it will be interesting to learn of some of the
similarities and differences in the approaches that Sally and Jon have
taken towards accomplishing their goals. Was Sally's planning any more
complete in that she had fuel pre-positioned at McMurdo? Perhaps not.
I'm guessing Jon's AC has longer legs.
Is Sally going to be any more welcome at MacMurdo than Jon? How did she
come by her McMurdo fuel cache? Cab anyone simple send a few barrels
down there through commercial channels? Did Sally have congressional
support? So many questions!
This is an interesting thread. I'd like to learn more.
B.
http://homepage.mac.com/blanton
On Dec 11, 2003, at 1:18 PM, Mike Nellis wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" <mike@bmnellis.com>
>
> You're getting yourself all worked up in a knot Bryan. Nobody is
> saying
> "don't come play in Antartica, it's our playground". They're just
> saying if you want to come play, knock yourself out but just don't
> expect anything other than cordial hospital in the way of food and
> shelter.
>
>
> ***
> *** This is exactly what has my aft side so chapped.... it's
> *** not their position
> *** to worry about who else comes to McMurdo or Antarctica! Arrogant
> *** authoritarians. There's no controlling authority. It's
> *** ANTARCTICA! Even
> *** if the US and NZ has some treaty, I haven't heard where the
> *** Autralians
> *** signed the treaty. JJ isn't bound to *any* rules...
> ***
> *** It's plain and simple liberal arrogance - trying to keep
> *** the masses away
> *** from the pristine ice and rock, because we're just not
> *** "smart" enough to act
> *** accordingly.
> ***
> *** > I know Alaska is much different than the lower 48. But,
> *** go land at
> *** >Elmendorf, and taxi up to the pumps and DEMAND gas.....
> ***
> *** guess I don't recall hearing anyone *demanded* gas.
> ***
> *** Bryan Jones -8
> *** Pearland, Texas
> *** do not archive
> ***
> *** Wonder if the latest virus has gotten to your computer?
> *** Find out. Run the
> *** FREE McAfee online computer scan!
> ***
> ***
> *** =============
> *** ==============
> *** Matronics Forums.
> *** ==============
> *** ==============
> *** ==============
> ***
> ***
> ***
> ***
> ***
> ***
> ***
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
Message 80
| 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: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Greetings all:
While the power charts in the Lyc engine operating manuals are a little
difficult to read, they do provide the limitations for "over-square"
(MP>RPM) and allow for several inches more MP than RPM i.e. 24" MP & 2200
RPM.
Dick Sipp
RV4 - RV10
Message 81
| 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: "Dennis Parker" <dennis@k2workflow.com>
Personally I can't wait to fuel up and get down to McMurdo - and it's
summer too.....
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
<lhelming@sigecom.net>
>>In the end we give him the 100 gallons--it's a win-win situation for
all.
McMurdo
> comes out as the white knight, they avoid some hassle and bad
publicity,
but
> the message is still that you are not welcome here. Jon gets to go
home.<<
------
And, what does the next flyinginer down there come to expect? Any less?
Maybe not more, certainly not less. Now we have a regular stopping and
refueling point.
Kabong!!
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak
On Finish Kit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> How about this scenario: plane lands at McMurdo, let's give the guy a
real
> hard time, tell the world private planes are not welcome, etc., etc.
In
the
> end we give him the 100 gallons--it's a win-win situation for all.
McMurdo
> comes out as the white knight, they avoid some hassle and bad
publicity,
but
> the message is still that you are not welcome here. Jon gets to go
home.
> Oh wait, you have to sign a release and hold McMurdo harmless, OK now
you
> can go. Last time I checked, it was their base so I guess that gives
them
> the right to make their own rules--even though we might not like it.
You
do
> have rules at your house, right?
>
> do not archive
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4
> RV-6
> RV-7 QB (Building)
> Vero Beach, FL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Jon Johanson
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
> >
> > James E. Clark wrote:
> > > Again, it seems like a logical thing to do would be charge him for
the
> 100
> > > gallons at **REPLACEMENT COST**. Since they did not plan on him
being
> there
> > > (and neither did he), they could argue that whatever fuel the sell
him
> would
> > > cause them to incur such "replacement costs". He would then be
gone
and
> out
> > > of their hair. Might cost him $10.00 a gallon, but at this point
he
> probably
> > > would be happy to pay it.
> >
> > I wonder if this is really an adequate solution, unfortunately... I
> > mean, surely they could come up with 100 gallons of gas to get him
home
> > (auto, avgas, or some combination) if they put their minds to it.
But
> > the problem could also be one of liability... What happens if they
give
> > him 100 gallons of gas, and he *doesn't* make it home? Through no
fault
> > of the gas, perhaps, but what then? Would that be a larger, or a
> > smaller, international incident than just telling him he has to ship
the
> > plane out?
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >
>
>
=
==
==
==
==
Message 82
| 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: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade" |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
Thanks, Eustace. I found this post. Is it the one you were thinking of?
Ross Mickey
+++++++++++++++++++
From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@shuswap.net> Subject: Engines-Care and
feeding of Lycomings Date: Jan 19, 1999
Fellow RVer's
Bart is away until next week so am a little slow getting started on the
engine questions but here are a couple of items I will pass on along with
what I have picked up over the years as to the maintaining and handleing of
the Lycomings. While we are talking about Lycomings in particular these
observations would apply to most naturally aspirated opposed
engines that I have had experience with.
First the items:
(1) With regard to the discussion on replacing the crankshaft oil seal, it
is not recommended to stretch a seal over the prop flange due to the stress
on the seal, the preferred method is to use the split seal P/N LW11997.
This seal has no spring and should be installed using 3M sealant #847
Rubber & Gasket Adhesive. Thourghly clean the seat and prep with MEK or
acetone so that the new seal will seat properly and apply the adhesive, a
cotton swab works good for this. Be sure to coat the area of the crankshaft
that the seal will contact with engine oil so that the new seal is not
damaged on start up before it gets lube from the engine. This seal
installed in a careful manner should not be more prone to leak than the
one piece.
(2) Re service bulliten 1435. I believe that the new engines as purchased
from Van's are set up as they are so they can be run either fixed pitch
or constant speed. When this decision is made you must make certain that it
is set up properly for the application you have chosen. You have already
seen a couple of posts referring to forced landings. When the front plug is
blown out all oil is lost in a matter of minutes as well as covering the
canopy making a forced landing extremely difficult. Bart's engines are set
up per your instructions so this problem will not occur.
(3) The line from the accesory case to the front is for a constant speed
application. The flow of oil through this line is controlled by the
governor. Will have more on this next post.
(4) "Never never" run an engine without a propeller.
After getting out of the air force in 1945 I became a part owner in a small
charter and flying school operation and continued to be involved in
commercial aviation until retirement. With the switch from the airforce
paying the bills to me paying them I really got interested in how my
engines were being handled. It didn't take long to see the difference in
costs between the engine that was carefully handled and one that was
handled by an inexperienced pilot or hot rodder.
My priorities have always been safety first and costs second, and over the
years it became very plain that the best and cheapest way to acommplish
this was to start out with a new engine or a premium overhaul and don't cut
corner's under the cowlings. After a few years finally settled on the
following procedures and found them to do the best job. At the risk of
being a bit repetative I am forwarding a post that I made up some time ago.
> These are the power settings and handleing procedures I have used on the
> Lycoming O540,O360. and O320 engines over the past thirty years or so
and found this to give the best combination of long life,speed versus fuel
> consumption and most importantly no engine failures. All of my life my
> engine handleing priorities have been:
>
> 1 Do the best you can to prevent a engine failure.
>
> 2 Keep engine operating cost as cheap as possible by having every engine
> run their full time between overhauls.
>
> 3 Avoiding proppeller damage during ground running and try to cause the
> leased amount of disturbance to others from noise and prop wash etc.
>
> 4 Max performance was never a consideration unless conditions warranted
it.
>
> In my opinion engine handeling starts when you first decide to start it.
So these are the rules I have followed.
>
> Never attempt a start below freezing without pe-heating.
> Learn how much prime is required under various condtions to start in say
> three or four blades. Never prime with the throttle.
> Keep engine rpm to 1000-1200 for a few minutes monitoring oil pressure
> ..Keep under red line. May have to drop below 1000 initially if engine is
> started close to freezing temps with heavy oil to keep oil pressure
within limits.
> Move to run up area and assuming one is on pavement warm up into wind at
1400 to say 100-120 degrees on the oil.
> Then go to 1700 and check mags and or electronic ignition. In the case of
a constant speep prop exercise a couple of times useing a 300-400 rpm drop.
I don't go above 1700 for a mag check unless something shows up for the
good of the prop. Going into grass or gravel strips if I have any concerns
about prop damageI will check the mags in the circuit on landing and then
just check for a dead
one prior to take off.
> Take of at full throttle and in the case of the RV's climb out at say
> 110-120 indicated. As soon as comfortble throttle back to 25-24 in
manifold pressure and in the case of a constant speed prop would reduce rpm
to
> 2500-2400. I have always made it a rule to keep full throttle operation
to one minute max unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
> Continue climb out at these settings until reaching desired altitude
> starting to lean at 3500-4000 ft keeping well on the rich side of peak.
On reaching cruiseing altitude level of and cruise at 2400 and 21-22 ins
> manifold pressure for say 5 min to stabilize temps. Then lean to peak on
> the hottest cylinder less 50 degrees on the rich side.
>
> Plan decents to maintain 400-500 ft per min at say 18-20 inches manifold
> gradually reduceing to say 14 on arriving at circuit hight This is done
to cool the engine gradually or as we say prevent shock cooling On
leveling
> out in vicinity of airport power can be reduced to what ever to maintain
> desired speed. .Speed is now low enough that this power setting will keep
> engine temp ok. Another reason for resricting decents to 500 ft per min
is for passenger comfort. I have found that people who don"t fly very often
> have sensitive ears especially if one has been at a high altitude for an
> extended period. This means that if you have to let down say 7000 ft one
> has to sart the let down in a RV roughly 45-50 miles back.
> Useing this method assures the proper control of engine temperatures and
> also allows for immediate shut down of engine after landing.
>
> All of the above rpm pertains to a constant speed prop which will be
> turning 2700 in full fine for takeoff. I have no experience whith a
fixed pitch on an RV but in talking to others, procedures should be the
same .
> The difference would be (in the case of the new Sensenich prop for the
O360 for example) the rpm at start of takeoff would be somewhere around
> 2200-2300 increasing with airspeed until reaching around 2700 in level
> flight at critical altitude. I believe for the good of the engine it
should never be operated over 2500 continuously which with the Sensenich
prop
> would mean reducing the manifold pressure to around 20 in.
The Lycoming manual says not to operate at over 75% continuously this
equates to around 2400 and 24 inches. The recommended TBO is 2000 and this
can be achieved if the a/c is flown on a regular basis (at least every two
weeks) and cruised at 65 %.
> This has worked for me. I have never had to change a cylinder on a Lyc,
all have run their full time and never had one quit except for fuel
starvation.
> Useing these settings ran 9 light twins with 0540's and I0540's for
several
years each one flying 1000-1100 hrs. a year without a single cylinder
change and everyone reaching it's recommended TBO.
> Restricting rpm on the ground to 1000 or so will keep prop damage to a
min.
>
> Really what all this boils down to is use 75% for climb and as close
> to 65% for cruise as you can get. The rest is just common sense.
>
> One need not feel restricted by these procedures, if you need it use it.
The small Lyc's are famous for their reliability but every time one strays
from the above it takes a bit away from safety and increases the costs.
If I don't get kicked of the list for this post will try one on picking and
careing for your engine in the next few days.
Fly Safe
> Eustace Bowhay -Blind Bay B.C
>
>
++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade"
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
>
> Hi Ross:
>
> Some time ago I posted a detailed account on how I have handled the
> naturally aspirated small engine over a sixty year span. Almost all of my
> flying was of a commercial nature and this dictated safety and economy of
> operation.
>
> If you can find that post in the achieves it covers the whole operation
from
> start up to shut down. I just tried to find it and was not successful.
>
> Assuming we are talking about a Lycoming 0320 or 0360 or for that matter a
> 0540 equipped with a constant speed prop, in a nutshell it is full
throttle
> for take-off (2700 RPM), throttle back to 24 inches MP and back to 2400 in
> that order for the climb, this will give you roughly 75% start leaning
above
> 3500 MSL staying well on the rich side of peek. Then for cruise back to
> 21-22 inches and 2350-2400 RPM giving you around 65%, then lean to peek
> minus 50 on the leanest cylinder usually #3. With fuel injection they
> normally are close to the same.
>
> When adding power increase the RPM first and throttle back first when
> reducing power. There is lots more to it, if you can't find my post on
this
> subject let me know.
>
> Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay B.C.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: MP vs RPM was "Constant Speed Upgrade"
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" <rmickey@ix.netcom.com>
> >
> > Eustace,
> >
> > In a recent post you stated, " With a manifold gauge installed and the
> > constant speed you can now set the most suitable rpm in relation to the
> > throttle setting."
> >
> > being relatively new to the constant speed prop world, could you
elaborate
> > on what determines "most suitable?" My combination limits me so I can
not
> > cruise between 2000 and 2250. I believe most people advocate "squared"
> > settings. My options for low cruise jump from say 1950 squared to 2300
> > squared. The other option is running "over squared." I think
> > traditionally, this would mean running a higher RPM than MP. I guess
you
> > could go the other way but I may be wrong.
> >
> > So my question to the group is.....how do you determine the best MP and
> RPM
> > settings for different cruise objectives? Is oversquared a good option
> then
> > how do you determine what settings to use?
> >
> > Thanking in advance.
> >
> > Ross Mickey
> > 12 hours
> > N9PT
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! --
|