Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:17 AM - Re: Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator (Jim Sears)
2. 03:21 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
3. 04:58 AM - Re: RV-8 Test Plan and Operators Manual (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
4. 05:57 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
5. 06:13 AM - >Re:Help with starting technique for an O-320 (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
6. 06:28 AM - Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out (RV_8 Pilot)
7. 06:44 AM - Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (RV_8 Pilot)
8. 07:22 AM - Chutes for RV's (Glen Matejcek)
9. 07:41 AM - Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator (Glen Matejcek)
10. 07:56 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out (Jeff Peltier)
11. 08:12 AM - Re: Canopy jettison (Dave Bristol)
12. 09:45 AM - Engine start (Wheeler North)
13. 10:00 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Ken Stribling)
14. 10:01 AM - Re: RV-8 Test Plan and Operators Manual (Kevin Horton)
15. 10:28 AM - Accidents (Wheeler North)
16. 11:05 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
17. 11:11 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
18. 11:24 AM - chute discussion (jack eckdahl)
19. 11:30 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out (RV_8 Pilot)
20. 11:31 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jerry Springer)
21. 11:37 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (RV_8 Pilot)
22. 12:01 PM - RV-9 Emp kit for sale (BGCrook@aol.com)
23. 12:10 PM - Re: Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator (Steve Sampson)
24. 12:22 PM - Questions about Chutes for RVs (Bill Dube)
25. 01:16 PM - gascolator (jack eckdahl)
26. 01:28 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Richard Tasker)
27. 01:45 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Jerry Springer)
28. 01:46 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Darwin N. Barrie)
29. 01:54 PM - Re: gascolator tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER (Gary Zilik)
30. 02:23 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Terry Watson)
31. 02:32 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Kevin Horton)
32. 02:52 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (BGCrook@aol.com)
33. 02:59 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Michael D. Crowe)
34. 03:03 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Bob U.)
35. 03:39 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jerry Springer)
36. 03:58 PM - Todd's Canopies (lucky macy)
37. 04:05 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Ron Walker)
38. 04:21 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (BGCrook@aol.com)
39. 05:04 PM - Flying The Antarctic (JNice51355@aol.com)
40. 10:29 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Jeff Peltier)
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: | Re: Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Sears <sears@searnet.com>
> > I am helping someone on their 7A and was reviewing Vans firewall
> > layout. He
> > shows the gasolator about 10" up from the bottom of the cowl. How
> > are you
> > supposed to drain the thing if its that far up? Why does he put it
> > there
> > other than it is in line with the fuel filter?
> >
> > Ross Mickey
> > N9PT
> >
> > Ross: put it anywhere you want it. Its a useless peice of junk anyway.
> Doyle Reed 7A I've built two and didn't put a gascolater on either.
I second Doyle's remarks. I have a RV-6A with four years of flight time on
it. No gascolator. I did use one of the cylinder styled Facet pumps on
mine, though. It has a screen and small settling area in it. No way to
drain it other than to take the bottom of for screen inspection. So far,
both have been clean. The reason I used that style pump is that I had one
like it on the Cheetah I owned. I liked the pump.
Oh, yeah. I also use auto gas. Both ideas would be considered a no-no to
some on this list. :-) Anyway, I flew the Cheetah for over nine years
without a gascolator and had no problems because it wasn't there. KISS is
goodness.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
do not archive
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: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Hi Bob,
Your comments about a ditching being the best scenario for deployment of a
BRS aren't exactly right IMHO.
I tried to send the following message to the RV-list in reply to Jeff
Peltier, but it seems that Outlook is doing some kind of translation...
could you please forward it for me?
A couple of comments about ditching...
1. I know of a low-wing fixed-gear airplane (Piper Warrior, I think) which
ditched and did NOT get thrown on its back. Nor did it sink immediately (but
the fact that the fuel tanks were full of air may have assisted there). The
occupants got out of the cockpit and sat on the floating plane for 15
minutes or more.
Regarding "infinitely safer to contact the water in a controlled vertical
descent"...
2. Under a BRS, you are in an UNCONTROLLED descent.
3. Your descent may not be vertical... if the wind is blowing 15kts, you'll
also be moving at 15kts horizontally.
4. I've got to wonder where you live... not near an ocean, I guess. Water
round here is not flat... waves may be 3m (or more) in height. Assuming wind
is present, most likely (although not certainly) your motion will be in
approximately the same direction as the waves, but faster. So you're likely
to land on the backside of a wave that's moving away from you. Whatever,
it's likely that you won't land flat on the water.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob U. [mailto:rv3@comcast.net]
Sent: Sun 28/12/2003 12:08 a.m.
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less than
>before. You use scare tactics and untruths
>to try to justify your chute on an RV. Using an example of a young
>eagle, (scare tactic) saying you have to be a tiny
>person to exit an RV-6. (untrue) I am 6'3" 210 lb. and would not have
a
>problem getting out. Yes I have jumped out of
>airplanes before still do not see a need for ballistics in an RV. BRS
>were originally designed for ultralights that were having
>structural failures in the early stages. I believe that is still the
>best use of ballistic chutes after reading your saves and all the
> malfunctions on the airplanes they are installed on.
>BTW tell us what Van thinks of using ballistic chutes on his design? You
>say it is not an excuse for poor building
>practices, well I doubt very much that anyone is going to build their
>airplane poorly and say to him/herself I well just use a
>a BRS. So I guess I am still waiting for the myths you are going to
>dispel. By your 2 cent comment seems like you
>are not happy with the comments that don't agree with yours. BTW I
>noticed in your saves list only one Cirrus
>listed wasn't there another one where the chute did not deploy
>correctly? March 2002 I believe.
>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they feel best
>for them.
>Jerry
>
Jerry,
I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my two
cents worth.
1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE. The
report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the fall of
the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even hit the
ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs. Other
Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching over
water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute since my
luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush hour
traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in 30 knot
winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent the
occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the standard pan
used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of TEMP-R-FOAM
or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might swim to
shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of gliding
distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what kind of
superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
3. YMMV
P.S.
Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his death was
caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces of the
aircraft.he was piloting.
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: | RV-8 Test Plan and Operators Manual |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
My downloads section has both. I think you will find both to be very
comprehensive. You can tweak to suit your needs.
Mike Stewart
http://www.mstewart.net/michael/rv/index.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of C462c@aol.com
Subject: RV-List: RV-8 Test Plan and Operators Manual
--> RV-List message posted by: C462c@aol.com
We are a few months away from flight testing our RV-8 (180 HP Lycoming
O-360-A4M), with fixed pitch prop. Was wondering if anyone has a flight
test plan
that they would like to share and/or Pilots Operating Handbook?
Thanks!
==
==
==
==
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: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Ed Bundy wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" <ebundy@velocitus.net>
>
>I've resisted commenting on this this thread because both sides have
>presented most of the information. However, I feel it necessary to comment
>on a few issues.
>
>First off, I want to commend Jeff for patiently and calmly pointing out his
>side of the story if the face of some overzealous opposing viewpoints. It
>never ceases to amaze me how some people whip out the flamethrower whenever
>they disagree with an Email. There have been many excellent 'listers drive
>away by this. Jeff apparently has thick enough skin to make it here on the
>list. :-)
>
Jeff is here to promote a product and every good salesman is smooooth
and at least acts like he has a thick skin. Caveat Emptor.
Bob - if your glass is half empty, get a smaller glass.
Do not archive.
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: >Re:Help with starting technique for an O-320 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
As a quick and 'Dirty' test you might switch "P" leads on the mag & EI to see
if starting on th EI works any better.
If it works better,then make a permanent change.
The impulse might not be working on the left mag. If it isn't , then you are
set up for a backfire and subsequent induction fire.
My opinion,
Bob Olds A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
"Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers"
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: | Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>Thanks, I needed that! You're right, it is definitely more comforting
>flying at night with it. I'm a CFI myself. Have you noticed how little
>time
>you spend on emergency landings at night compared to day time? Not much
>option then is there?
Jeff - you've finally hit upon something that I see as useful witha light
single engine plane. A chute for night engine failures. I personally don't
see an overall positive benefit for daytime flights using an integral
aircraft chute, but night - you have a pretty good point.
I'm still not interested in the current chute technology until one's
available that'll function at 250-mph and spinning violently after breaking
something.
As for a couple of related questions that have come back up related to the
topic -
Opening a slider on an RV (and even a tip over), would be not much of a
problem IMO. Even easier if you used quick disconnect system on the
rollers. Getting out would be a totally different story. With a fire and
the plane under control. No big deal. I'd unbuckle, trim down and roll the
plane. Take your chance with the tail if you didn't have a helmet.
Some mid air collisions might also be survivable. But I'd sure be tempted
to make a landing if the plane was still flyable. If not, see the paragraph
below on broken planes.
If you're unfortunate enough to break the plane, then I'd say your odds are
near zero. Just a month or so ago, a T-34 wing broke N of Houston. The
instructor was very experienced and both were wearing chutes. Neither got
out. I've seen what happens when a plane breaks. In this case, the
empennage disentigrated and about 1 second later, one wing failed in
negative g load. It all spun very violently into the ground. That pilot
was also wearing a parachute, but did not get out either.
The only thing that would stand a chance at helping with a (badly) broken
plane is some kind of extreme G load triggered ejection seat with auto
deplying chute, and no need to discuss how much this would cost.
mt 2
Bryan Jones -8
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
Houston, Texas
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Now this is one of the most important reasons I read The List. here's an
example of something fairly easy to accomplish adding value. whether you
use a cable reel, or length of nylon cord (carefully!) bound with a rubber
band and velcro'd to your chute harness, it may still save your skin and
cost little to nothing.
Thanks for the ideas.
Bryan Jones -8
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
Houston, Texas
>
>As most RV flights are at low altitude, below 10,000, and low speed, 250
>KIAS, why not design a simple system that would pull your D-Ring once you
>cleared the tail of the aircraft.
>
>
>My idea would be a spring-loaded pulley or reel with about 15 feet of cable
>or long enough to allow you to clear the tail surfaces and a device to hook
>to the D-Ring of the chute. The spring would keep the cable reeled up but
>would allow movement. We would not want to have 15 feet of cable lying
>around the cockpit.
>
>
>A short cable without a reel might work but I thought you might want to
>clear the tail before the chute starts to deploy. I would think that you
>would want to reduce the chance that the chute might hang up on the tail
>during deployment.
>
>
>The cable would not have to be overly strong but just strong enough to pull
>your D-Ring out.
>
>
>Sounds like a lot cheaper and simpler system.
>
>Tom Gummo
>Apple Valley, CA
>Harmon Rocket-II
>
>http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> >
> > I had a misfire on my e-mail system, and an incomplete version of my
> > last message escaped from my computer. I added some more on the end of
> > this version:
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared2@brier.net>
> > >
> > > Interesting this BRS debate.
> > >
> > > But, for those who are so ardently against the BRS, I still have a few
> > > questions:
> > >
> > > 1. How do you get the slider canopy open in flight to bail out (for
> > > those
> > > who do aerobatics and wear a parachute)?
> > I'm planning on having "pip pins" instead of bolts where my canopy
> > frame attaches to the rollers. Pull the pins, unlatch the canopy, pull
> > aft a bit then push up. It should depart the aircraft.
> > >
> > > 2. Once the canopy is open, how does one actually get out of the
> > > aircraft?
> > >
> > I'm certainly no expert here, and it would be interesting to talk to
> > people that have bailed out of low-wing monoplanes. But I would plan
> > to pull the intercom cords from the jacks, unbuckle the belt, stand up
> > and dive over the side. I'm considering adding in-line jacks in the
> > intercom cord from my helmet so they would unplug from the tension when
> > the cord goes tight.
> >
> > > 3. What are the chances of leaving the aircraft without hitting the
> > > tail
> > > structure?
> > >
> >
> >
> > You may very well hit the tail, but you don't jump unless you are sure
> > to die if you stayed. I would want to be wearing a helmet if I wore a
> > chute, to provide some protection against a tail strike. And I am
> > consider using a 25 ft static line connected from the chute to the
> > harness, so that the chute opens even if I hit my head on the tail. Is
> > a static line the right answer in all situations? No, there are too
> > many possible different scenarios for one answer (static line or no
> > static line) to be the right answer in every case. It is possible in
> > some cases that you would really rather be farther from the aircraft
> > when the chute opens.
> >
> > I'm also going to look into the devices from CYPRES automatic
> > activation devices that are quite popular in the sky-diving world.
> >
> > http://www.cypres-usa.com/
> >
> > They are installed on the chutes that we wear when doing hazardous
> > flight testing with Bombardier. The full functionality is a bit
> > complicated to explain, but you basically set the altitude at which you
> > want the chute to open, and it will open if you descend through that
> > altitude at a high rate of descent (i.e. in a free fall). The chute
> > doesn't open if your rate of descent is lower than some threshold. So,
> > you wouldn't be able to do low altitude loops without the chute opening
> > in the cockpit, but I'm not a big fan of low level acro anyway. And it
> > wouldn't be a good thing if you tried to bail out at too low an
> > altitude, but I believe acro should be done at a reasonably high
> > altitude to allow some options when things go awry. I haven't yet
> > looked at the full specs of all the various models they sell to see if
> > they are really suited for out mission, nor do I know how much they
> > cost. I fear the price might be prohibitive for most of us.
> >
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8
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 |
|
MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
1. How do you get the slider canopy open in flight to bail out (for those
who do aerobatics and wear a parachute)?
Release the forward attach point(s) and push the leading edge of the canopy
up into the slipstream.
2. Once the canopy is open, how does one actually get out of the aircraft?
A. Ditch your headset. Release your airframe harness, leaving the parachute
harness in place. Climb out onto the wing and run towards the wingtip.
B. Ditch your headset. Release your airframe harness, leaving the parachute
harness in place. Push the stick forward (don't hang on to it to tightly,
though...)
3. What are the chances of leaving the aircraft without hitting the tail
structure?
Pretty darn good. From the MLG of a Cessna 182, the aft door of a Piper
Cherokee six, or the main (aft) door of a DC-3, you couldn't touch the tail
no matter how hard you tried. I've also gone off standing on the lower wing of
a Stearman, as well as out of the front pit at the top of a loop with no problem,
and have a buddy that had to pull the ripcord while stuck halfway out of
the rear pit of a Christen Eagle while pushing forward as hard as he could.
I've no idea how he missed the tail, but he did.
Jeff writes: Good points. Can you ensure your passenger can get out and
operate his parachute properly, also.
If one is concerned about that, you can do as in the EU and mount an eye
bolt in the canopy rail or thereabouts and fasten a static line from there to
the rig. The static line can stow on the rig itself, out of harm's way. Then
the only thing the pax has to do is release his / her belts. The PIC jettisons
the canopy and pushes fwd. Assuming the pax isn't already long gone, they
get tossed out and the static line opens the canopy at ~ 25 feet separation (I.E.,
clear of the a/c structure).
And further: What of the occasions when your not wearing them?
Okay, nomex on. If one were sufficiently concerned about being able to
use a canopy at any given time that they would consider a BRS, all they would
have to do is leave their emergency rigs in the seat pans and strap them on each
time they flew. My beautiful, brand new Softies (that I own today) cost less
than half the projected cost of the BRS system that may or may not exist in
the future. My installation cost: zero. Airframe mod time: zero. Probability
of being able to function after a mid air or catastrophic structural failure:
Quite a bit higher, I dare say. Ability to leave a burning airplane:
Infinitely better. Not to mention the fact that the emergency rigs are good to
about 125% of the terminal velocity of a non-tracking falling body. Using the
data on your and Van's website, your BRS has been tested to only 90% of my
RV-8's CRUISE speed, to say nothing of the speeds likely to be involved in a structural
failure.
Regarding the Cypress AADs' - I've not used one, but the old brand X's
that I had used in the past fired if you went through about 1,000 ft AGL at greater
that about 1/4 terminal velocity. Therefore, they had to be calibrated
daily to the local conditions. Sooooo, if you took off from STL and bailed out
over DEN, you'd bounce before the AAD fired....
And lastly, re: exit altitudes. If memory serves (more and more questionable
as time passes) the military would put troops out with a static line and 1950's
technology parachutes at 300' AGL.
As with everything else discussed in this forum, there are no absolute guarantees
with these systems. I do think that most people not familiar with this subject
would be amazed at some of the saves scored by parachutes. The bottom line,
of course, is just as "'lectric Bob" says - fly comfortably.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Howdy-
After pondering the situation a while, I decided to put my gascolator on
the outside of the fuselage, in the left wing root area adjacent to the
fuel selector valve. This puts it much lower in the system than it would
be on the firewall (at least with a tail dragger), eliminates engine heat
saturation / vaporlock issues, removes that many more fuel line joints from
the engine compartment, and puts the drain in a very accessible spot, just
inches inboard of and slightly ahead of the left tank drain.
Having accomplished this, I happened to be looking in an old RVator, and
saw an article about how someone did the same thing a while back.
Hope this is of some use to you....
gm
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: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/30/03 8:25 AM, "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
>> Thanks, I needed that! You're right, it is definitely more comforting
>> flying at night with it. I'm a CFI myself. Have you noticed how little
>> time
>> you spend on emergency landings at night compared to day time? Not much
>> option then is there?
>
> Jeff - you've finally hit upon something that I see as useful witha light
> single engine plane. A chute for night engine failures. I personally don't
> see an overall positive benefit for daytime flights using an integral
> aircraft chute, but night - you have a pretty good point.
>
> I'm still not interested in the current chute technology until one's
> available that'll function at 250-mph and spinning violently after breaking
> something.
>
> As for a couple of related questions that have come back up related to the
> topic -
>
> Opening a slider on an RV (and even a tip over), would be not much of a
> problem IMO. Even easier if you used quick disconnect system on the
> rollers. Getting out would be a totally different story. With a fire and
> the plane under control. No big deal. I'd unbuckle, trim down and roll the
> plane. Take your chance with the tail if you didn't have a helmet.
>
> Some mid air collisions might also be survivable. But I'd sure be tempted
> to make a landing if the plane was still flyable. If not, see the paragraph
> below on broken planes.
>
> If you're unfortunate enough to break the plane, then I'd say your odds are
> near zero. Just a month or so ago, a T-34 wing broke N of Houston. The
> instructor was very experienced and both were wearing chutes. Neither got
> out. I've seen what happens when a plane breaks. In this case, the
> empennage disentigrated and about 1 second later, one wing failed in
> negative g load. It all spun very violently into the ground. That pilot
> was also wearing a parachute, but did not get out either.
>
> The only thing that would stand a chance at helping with a (badly) broken
> plane is some kind of extreme G load triggered ejection seat with auto
> deplying chute, and no need to discuss how much this would cost.
>
> mt 2
>
> Bryan Jones -8
> www.LoneStarSquadron.com
> Houston, Texas
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Bryan,
A parachute capable of 250k may still be a couple years in the future for
us, however, in our research we've discovered that in the condition where
someone needs to make the decision to deploy their BRS, the airspeeds are
usually quite low. In the condition you site, it would be improbable that a
broken, spinning airplane could maintain 250k for any length of time. A
broken and spinning airplane is just a pile of aluminum falling through the
air- extremely draggy, no longer a streamlined engine driven dart like it
was previously. True, if you broke the airplane at the bottom of a loop
300'agl you'd have some problems. Unless you're flying an air-show this
normally isn't the case.
An airplane in a spin is actually not descending very fast. A 5,000 fpm
descent (enough to kill you ) is still less than 60 miles per hour vertical-
thats nothing for a BRS. We've done many spin tests with Cessnas and
Cirrus, and these tests show the loads on the aircraft to be quite low, with
the rocket having plenty of thrust to pull the parachute clear.
Obviously, there is no greater probability of mechanical failure at night or
IMC than during the day-time, but the element of risk is much higher. The
2002 Nall Report shows that the probability of fatality for a night accident
is 30%- almost 1 person out of every 3 will die. In IMC its almost 60%!
Thanks for the comments Bryan!
Jeff Peltier
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Canopy jettison |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
According to FAR 91.307 (c) crew members are exempted from having to
wear a parachute. It would appear that this applies to all aircraft.
(The pilot does qualify as a crew member doesn't he?)
Dave -6, So Cal
>Randy,
>
>If the only reason you are wearing a chute is to satisy an FAR, relax.
>There is no FAR requiring you to wear a chute for aerobatics in your 3
>
>Larry Pardue
>Carlsbad, NM
>
>RV-6 N441LP Flying
>http://n5lp.net
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
"'dmedema@att.net'" <dmedema@att.net>,
"'rv-list-digest@matronics.com'" <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
Doug,
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
I just caught your post re engine starting.
Question 1, some of the 140hp E2Ds had the MA3 carb on them with no
accelerator pump. The 150 hps had the MA4 SPA carbs that has an accelerator
pump. What's yours?
#2 Does your ignition switch kill one system while starting. The traditional
right/left/both/start switches are designed to ground the right mag in start
position so the engine starts on the left. This puts the impulse coupler as
the only thing fast firing the engine at a very retarded timing, which is
good. It prevents the engine from kicking back. Are you having any kick
back, and does your ignition switch interfere with the lightspeed, which I
believe also has a retard for start feature???? In any event, if it runs
good with the appropriate mag drops then your timing is probably not the
culprit, but your wiring could be.
To isolate for a fuel problem you might try having someone shoot some ether
down the snorkel just prior to cranking. If it starts then there is a good
chance that enough fuel vapor is not easily making it to your combustion
chambers from the carb. (have a fire extinguisher handy)
This could be due to funcky fuel (use 100ll only) or no primer. My engine
0360 won't start easily in this cold WX without using the primer. It takes a
lot of cranking using only throttle induced fuel. As it is with 3 cyls
primed for four seconds at full fuel press it starts on the fourth blade.
If the ether trick makes no change, after a failed starting attempt try
checking a few plugs to see if they are drowned in fuel. Its unlikely but
you could be getting too much liquid fuel, but not enough vaporized fuel.
If the ether trick helps you might consider a solenoid primer type system
for at least two cylinders as the primer nozzles do a better job of
delivering vaporized fuel into the cylinders then the accelerator pump ever
will.
W
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
something that is not even on the shelf yet.
If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
Ken S.
RV 6A 125 hours.
Moving to new List
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob U.
Subject: RE: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Hi Bob,
Your comments about a ditching being the best scenario for deployment of
a
BRS aren't exactly right IMHO.
I tried to send the following message to the RV-list in reply to Jeff
Peltier, but it seems that Outlook is doing some kind of translation...
could you please forward it for me?
A couple of comments about ditching...
1. I know of a low-wing fixed-gear airplane (Piper Warrior, I think)
which
ditched and did NOT get thrown on its back. Nor did it sink immediately
(but
the fact that the fuel tanks were full of air may have assisted there).
The
occupants got out of the cockpit and sat on the floating plane for 15
minutes or more.
Regarding "infinitely safer to contact the water in a controlled
vertical
descent"...
2. Under a BRS, you are in an UNCONTROLLED descent.
3. Your descent may not be vertical... if the wind is blowing 15kts,
you'll
also be moving at 15kts horizontally.
4. I've got to wonder where you live... not near an ocean, I guess.
Water
round here is not flat... waves may be 3m (or more) in height. Assuming
wind
is present, most likely (although not certainly) your motion will be in
approximately the same direction as the waves, but faster. So you're
likely
to land on the backside of a wave that's moving away from you. Whatever,
it's likely that you won't land flat on the water.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob U. [mailto:rv3@comcast.net]
Sent: Sun 28/12/2003 12:08 a.m.
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
<jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less
than
>before. You use scare tactics and untruths
>to try to justify your chute on an RV. Using an example of a
young
>eagle, (scare tactic) saying you have to be a tiny
>person to exit an RV-6. (untrue) I am 6'3" 210 lb. and would
not have a
>problem getting out. Yes I have jumped out of
>airplanes before still do not see a need for ballistics in an
RV. BRS
>were originally designed for ultralights that were having
>structural failures in the early stages. I believe that is
still the
>best use of ballistic chutes after reading your saves and all
the
> malfunctions on the airplanes they are installed on.
>BTW tell us what Van thinks of using ballistic chutes on his
design? You
>say it is not an excuse for poor building
>practices, well I doubt very much that anyone is going to build
their
>airplane poorly and say to him/herself I well just use a
>a BRS. So I guess I am still waiting for the myths you are
going to
>dispel. By your 2 cent comment seems like you
>are not happy with the comments that don't agree with yours.
BTW I
>noticed in your saves list only one Cirrus
>listed wasn't there another one where the chute did not deploy
>correctly? March 2002 I believe.
>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they
feel best
>for them.
>Jerry
>
Jerry,
I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my
two
cents worth.
1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE.
The
report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the
fall of
the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even
hit the
ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs.
Other
Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching
over
water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute
since my
luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush
hour
traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in
30 knot
winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent
the
occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the
standard pan
used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of
TEMP-R-FOAM
or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might
swim to
shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of
gliding
distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what
kind of
superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
3. YMMV
P.S.
Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his
death was
caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces
of the
aircraft.he was piloting.
==
==
==
==
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: RV-8 Test Plan and Operators Manual |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 29 Dec 2003, at 22:42, C462c@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: C462c@aol.com
>
> We are a few months away from flight testing our RV-8 (180 HP Lycoming
> O-360-A4M), with fixed pitch prop. Was wondering if anyone has a
> flight test plan
> that they would like to share and/or Pilots Operating Handbook?
>
> Thanks!
>
There are links to several test plans and POHs on my web site. You'll
find the test plans in the Flight Test Links section. The POHs are in
the RV Links section. I'm on the road right now and don't have good
web access very often or I would provide detailed links.
Web site: http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8
Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit
Ottawa, Canada
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
The reason we see Fuel and WX often listed as the most common cause of
accidents is that they are the most common "avoidable" cause of accidents.
And in our area, WX then fuel mismanagement, then system problems are the
most common cause of accidents.
But that said, does anyone know of a good national study showing the rate of
incidents, by what ever cause, being turned into fatal accidents from pilot
errors? This is the data that really determines the decision on whether to
spend your money on training or parachutes.
In our area most of the fatal incidents I've studied could have been
non-fatal had the pilot started making correct choices after the initial
incident. In fact the only ones that this was not true of are the inflight
breakups, which have included CDF planes, numerous exps and type certified
aircraft, and a PSA 727 quite a few years ago. Most of these occured due to
midair collisions, and in many of these a chute, properly deployed could
have saved lives in the smaller airplanes. (I'm not sure BRS is up to making
a chute for a 727 though).
But this represents a small portion of the aircraft fatal incidents in our
area. So again it really comes down to risk vs resources management.
Will your resources reduce risk more effectively with a parachute launch
system or with regular and consistent training and practice?
If you can afford both, then buy a Cirrus with airbags and chutes and
springs and self etching alodining primer, and
slider,tipper,gullwing,nose/tail wheel gear doors.
otherwise I would, and do opt for an RV with lots of training and practice.
As William Langweische puts it, "A pilot is merely a well trained passenger"
W
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: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I for one have been highly entertained with both sides. One of the best
threads to date. Lets not confuse "flinging poo poo" with very good
arguments on why not to do something. We should not give a hall pass
cause its new and we want to wait and see. Poo poo flingers, keep it
coming.
And on the chute issue, I just completed a hand full of solo jumps so
that in the event I was able to get out, at least I might do the right
thing after exiting.
Now getting out? I doubt it. I have forgotten to latch my slider more
than once, taken off, had the rear pins jammed, and tried to slide the
slider back to try and re-engage the pins. Could not do it at 130kts,
but could at 80 barely. I think me and my chute will go down together in
the plane unfortunately. I can only hope that the added adrenalin would
help me exit.
And I loved those stories or rolling upside down, trim down, etc.
getting out. Now that would take some doing:) I can barely get out on
the ramp with out hurting myself.
Mike
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken Stribling
Subject: RE: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
something that is not even on the shelf yet.
If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
Ken S.
RV 6A 125 hours.
Moving to new List
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob U.
Subject: RE: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Hi Bob,
Your comments about a ditching being the best scenario for deployment of
a
BRS aren't exactly right IMHO.
I tried to send the following message to the RV-list in reply to Jeff
Peltier, but it seems that Outlook is doing some kind of translation...
could you please forward it for me?
A couple of comments about ditching...
1. I know of a low-wing fixed-gear airplane (Piper Warrior, I think)
which
ditched and did NOT get thrown on its back. Nor did it sink immediately
(but
the fact that the fuel tanks were full of air may have assisted there).
The
occupants got out of the cockpit and sat on the floating plane for 15
minutes or more.
Regarding "infinitely safer to contact the water in a controlled
vertical
descent"...
2. Under a BRS, you are in an UNCONTROLLED descent.
3. Your descent may not be vertical... if the wind is blowing 15kts,
you'll
also be moving at 15kts horizontally.
4. I've got to wonder where you live... not near an ocean, I guess.
Water
round here is not flat... waves may be 3m (or more) in height. Assuming
wind
is present, most likely (although not certainly) your motion will be in
approximately the same direction as the waves, but faster. So you're
likely
to land on the backside of a wave that's moving away from you. Whatever,
it's likely that you won't land flat on the water.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob U. [mailto:rv3@comcast.net]
Sent: Sun 28/12/2003 12:08 a.m.
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Jerry Springer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer
<jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less
than
>before. You use scare tactics and untruths
>to try to justify your chute on an RV. Using an example of a
young
>eagle, (scare tactic) saying you have to be a tiny
>person to exit an RV-6. (untrue) I am 6'3" 210 lb. and would
not have a
>problem getting out. Yes I have jumped out of
>airplanes before still do not see a need for ballistics in an
RV. BRS
>were originally designed for ultralights that were having
>structural failures in the early stages. I believe that is
still the
>best use of ballistic chutes after reading your saves and all
the
> malfunctions on the airplanes they are installed on.
>BTW tell us what Van thinks of using ballistic chutes on his
design? You
>say it is not an excuse for poor building
>practices, well I doubt very much that anyone is going to build
their
>airplane poorly and say to him/herself I well just use a
>a BRS. So I guess I am still waiting for the myths you are
going to
>dispel. By your 2 cent comment seems like you
>are not happy with the comments that don't agree with yours.
BTW I
>noticed in your saves list only one Cirrus
>listed wasn't there another one where the chute did not deploy
>correctly? March 2002 I believe.
>Of course this is all my opinions and others should do as they
feel best
>for them.
>Jerry
>
Jerry,
I agree with most your assessment above and would like to add my
two
cents worth.
1. I read that the Cirrus that is back flying was a FREAK SAVE.
The
report I read stated that tree branches or some such broke the
fall of
the aircraft sufficiently before it hit the ground - if it even
hit the
ground, allowing the airframe to be reused at practical costs.
Other
Cirrus deployments were not so 'press-worthy' , it seems.
2. I believe the scenario describing a low wing plane ditching
over
water is probably the best and safest use of a ballistic chute
since my
luck would have me landing directly on a flag pole, in busy rush
hour
traffic, the Indy 500 or being bounced down a mountain slope in
30 knot
winds.... provided the seat in an RV can be modified to prevent
the
occupants from breaking their backs on impact. Using the
standard pan
used in my RV would be a killer. Dunno if three inches of
TEMP-R-FOAM
or some such can save my delicate spine and vertebrae so I might
swim to
shore. [Yes, good judgment would minimize flying outside of
gliding
distance to shore in the first place, but ya never know what
kind of
superior fool will fool a foolproof airplane.] ;-)
3. YMMV
P.S.
Anybody know how the famous Jim Handbury died? I was told his
death was
caused by a test parachute that tangled in the control surfaces
of the
aircraft.he was piloting.
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
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: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Ken Stribling wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
>
>You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
>product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
>
> Ken S.
> RV 6A 125 hours.
> Moving to new List
>
Ken,
Excuse me, but....
IMO, there is no justification for saying what you have.
Why?
Here's how it all started and I quote....
"We are also open to any questions or comments that you may have regarding parachute
installation on Vans aircraft. Any input will be appreciated. We would
really like to hear from you.
Jeff Peltier
Design Engineer
BRS INC.
(651)457-7491
............
I believe ANY INPUT means.... ANY INPUT !!!!!!!!
What part of *any* don't we all understand?
I believe, anything less than *ANY* makes a mockery of what is being sought.
If I'm wrong, never mind.
Bob U.
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: | chute discussion |
tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER
--> RV-List message posted by: "jack eckdahl" <eckdahl@dellmail.com>
I agree with the recent post regarding new products. Don't the list rules suggest
that we be courteous? I went with the lycoming standard installation, and
wasn't ready to experiment with an auto conversion. But I'm glad that hundreds
of other builders are breaking new ground with suburus and others, and I don't
think we should be discourteous to them or anyone who wants to develop a chute
or someday install one on their RV. As a first time builder, I wouldn't
have been able to complete the airframe without this and other groups. It's a
great resource, lets not run people off. Opinions can be offered without being
rude.
--
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
As long as we're all beating this horse...
>... in our research we've discovered that in the condition where
>someone needs to make the decision to deploy their BRS, the airspeeds are
>usually quite low.
Overall - might be. In my case, and with many other RV type owners, it's
really hard for me to see this being the case. Someone would have broken
the plane or have entered a steep graveyard spiral. In both cases, I just
can't see anything less than Vne or greater.
>In the condition you site, it would be improbable that a
>broken, spinning airplane could maintain 250k for any length of time.
Sounds like your company needs to do a litte research to convince people
like me otherwise. It's just my perception that the speeds would in fact be
higher.
>A broken and spinning airplane is just a pile of aluminum falling through
>the
>air- extremely draggy, no longer a streamlined engine driven dart like it
>was previously. True, if you broke the airplane at the bottom of a loop
>300'agl you'd have some problems. Unless you're flying an air-show this
>normally isn't the case.
Could be, but it defies my intuition. On what do you base your opinion?
I'd have to see some evidence to assume something like an RV isn't going to
be moving (up, down, left , right - it's through the air that counts) at 250
*or more* with one wing or no empennage, engine possibly at a high power
setting, and still attached to the front of the pile of aluminum keeping it
moving forward in a fast streamlined attitude.
>An airplane in a spin is actually not descending very fast. A 5,000 fpm
>descent (enough to kill you ) is still less than 60 miles per hour
>vertical-
>thats nothing for a BRS.
Careful - you're mixing apples and oranges. I think the assumption that a
spinning intact airplane will decend at some speed comparable to a broken
one it too big of a stretch.
>We've done many spin tests with Cessnas and
>Cirrus, and these tests show the loads on the aircraft to be quite low,
>with
>the rocket having plenty of thrust to pull the parachute clear.
but have y'all done any research or testing on a *broken* plane. the roll
rate can be tremendous - maybe 5 or more times that of a normal spin.
IMO, y'all (BRS) should do some destructive model testing to see what kind
of dynamics occur and what's required to get the chute far enough away, or
open quick enough to stop the rapid spinning - hey, that sounds to me like a
pretty fun assignment! Wouldn't be hard to do. Let me know if you need any
help on that one! ;)
Some buddies and I used to strap 3-4' nylon chutes on RC models 12-14 yrs
ago and open them 200-300 feet in the air. was lots of fun. Speaking of
the decent, how do you address the oscillations induced by the engine thrust
or dynamics of the decending plane? This was our big problem - the plane
started swinging badly on the way down. They also do some really cool, full
throttle "carrier" landings when you pop the chute at 6" agl during a full
throttle low pass!
Bryan Jones -8
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
Houston, Texas
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: | Re: Chutes for RVs |
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Ken Stribling wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
>
>You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
>product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
>I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
>list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
>titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
>start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
>introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
>enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
>something that is not even on the shelf yet.
>If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
>rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
>it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
>deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
>and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
>list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
>
> Ken S.
> RV 6A 125 hours.
> Moving to new List
>
>
>
Other words you don't like it when other people voice their opinions? No
one has told Jeff not to
try to design it for an RV. I believe he also can learn a lot form the
differing opinions out there.
Your "loss" to move to a list that only has ideas that agree with yours.
I am sure he can also use
the feedback to determine what his market would be. There is probably a
good representation
of RV builders and flyers here.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
BRS ought to be paying us for all this "poo-poo". If they're smart, they'll
catalog every poo-poo item and consider it in future product development.
This is one of the best "project teams" they'll ever find for a RV or any
other airplane product. You think they want to invest in and market
something that either won't sell or won't work?! Talk about wasted money!!
This is part of the process... not all ideas are dooable. Doh!! I used a
"poo" related word too!! ;) But some are. One day BRS or someone will come
up with a solution that works even better. Good enough that people like me
will look at it seriously.
Bryan Jones -8
www.LoneStarSquadron.com
do not archive
>You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
>product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
>I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
>list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
>titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
>start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
>introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
>enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
>something that is not even on the shelf yet.
>If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
>rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
>it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
>deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
>and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
>list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
>
> Ken S.
> RV 6A 125 hours.
> Moving to new List
>
Expand your wine savvy and get some great new recipes at MSN Wine.
http://wine.msn.com
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: | RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
I have a -9 emp kit I need to sale. The kit is almost completely done. Only
about 50% of the left elevator is left to do. It could be easily completed in a
few more hours. These parts have been inspected by an experienced RV builder
and he found them to be of above aveage (for a first time builder) quality.
I'm only selling because I've deceided to build a -7 instead. I'm only asking
1000.00 because I need these parts out of my garage as soon as I can.
I'm located in Stockton, California and would prefer sell to someone local as
the crating and shipping would be too much. If interested, e-mail or give me
a call.
Bryon Crook
(209) 478-8703
kit # 90828
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: | Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Ross - I looked at a -6 the other day and the owner had cut a hole the size
of one of those drain thingies comprising a clear plastic tube with a
central spigot sticking up. He sais he can push it up quite easily and
engage the drain valve on the base of the gascalotor.
Lots of people seem negative about the VANS gascolator but I have just
bolted one to the wall of a -9a and was quite impressed. It has a large
capacity to trap water and a large gauze to catch crud if it got in. It does
not weigh much and is robust. I plan to implement the system described above
with the standard layout.
Hope that helps, Steve.
-9a #90360
Cowl and engine plumbing.
N Yorkshire, UK
---
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: | Questions about Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
>
>"We are also open to any questions or comments that you may have regarding
>parachute installation on Vans aircraft. Any input will be
>appreciated. We would really like to hear from you.
>
I looked at the BRS web site. I couldn't figure out which product
would be correct for a typical RV-7.
The "generic" systems go up to about 1500 pounds, then the
"certified" systems start up at about 2500 pounds, with a huge jump in price.
What style and size would be best for a typical RV-7? How much
would it cost?
I noticed the 172 system was mounted under the rear window in the
baggage area. Would one do something similar in an RV-7?
I would think it would be an excellent idea to install a chute for
the initial flight testing. Once I had flown off the "close to the nest"
hours, I would think that I would want to remove the chute to get the
payload capacity back. Is there any way to lease a chute for flight
testing, then return it once you are done?
>Jeff Peltier
>Design Engineer
>BRS INC.
>(651)457-7491
>
> ............
>
>
>I believe ANY INPUT means.... ANY INPUT !!!!!!!!
>What part of *any* don't we all understand?
>I believe, anything less than *ANY* makes a mockery of what is being sought.
>
>If I'm wrong, never mind.
>
>
>Bob U.
>
>
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 |
|
tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER
--> RV-List message posted by: "jack eckdahl" <eckdahl@dellmail.com>
Shouldn't the drain fitting on the van's or other gascolators come with a hole
for safety wire? What keeps it from accidently unscrewing itself out of the bottom
of the bowl? Do I have the wrong drain plug? Seems like a potential source
for fuel problem. thanks, jack #90508.
--
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
I am building a 9 and I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 7 and 9
empennage are very similar now (or even the same). Check with Van's.
Dick Tasker, 90573
BGCrook@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
>
>I have a -9 emp kit I need to sale. The kit is almost completely done. Only
>about 50% of the left elevator is left to do. It could be easily completed in
a
>few more hours. These parts have been inspected by an experienced RV builder
>and he found them to be of above aveage (for a first time builder) quality.
>
>I'm only selling because I've deceided to build a -7 instead. I'm only asking
>1000.00 because I need these parts out of my garage as soon as I can.
>
>I'm located in Stockton, California and would prefer sell to someone local as
>the crating and shipping would be too much. If interested, e-mail or give me
>a call.
>
>Bryon Crook
>(209) 478-8703
>kit # 90828
>
>
>
>
>
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: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Rudder and vertical are the same but the horizontal and elevators are
different.
Jerry
Richard Tasker wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
>
>I am building a 9 and I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 7 and 9
>empennage are very similar now (or even the same). Check with Van's.
>
>Dick Tasker, 90573
>
>BGCrook@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
>>
>>I have a -9 emp kit I need to sale. The kit is almost completely done. Only
>>about 50% of the left elevator is left to do. It could be easily completed in
a
>>few more hours. These parts have been inspected by an experienced RV builder
>>and he found them to be of above aveage (for a first time builder) quality.
>>
>>I'm only selling because I've deceided to build a -7 instead. I'm only asking
>>1000.00 because I need these parts out of my garage as soon as I can.
>>
>>I'm located in Stockton, California and would prefer sell to someone local as
>>the crating and shipping would be too much. If interested, e-mail or give me
>>a call.
>>
>>Bryon Crook
>>(209) 478-8703
>>kit # 90828
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn@cox.net>
The -9 stab is a constant chord whereas the -7 is a double taper. I don't
believe they are interchangeable.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-9 Emp kit for sale
> --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> I am building a 9 and I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 7 and 9
> empennage are very similar now (or even the same). Check with Van's.
>
> Dick Tasker, 90573
>
> BGCrook@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
> >
> >I have a -9 emp kit I need to sale. The kit is almost completely done.
Only
> >about 50% of the left elevator is left to do. It could be easily
completed in a
> >few more hours. These parts have been inspected by an experienced RV
builder
> >and he found them to be of above aveage (for a first time builder)
quality.
> >
> >I'm only selling because I've deceided to build a -7 instead. I'm only
asking
> >1000.00 because I need these parts out of my garage as soon as I can.
> >
> >I'm located in Stockton, California and would prefer sell to someone
local as
> >the crating and shipping would be too much. If interested, e-mail or give
me
> >a call.
> >
> >Bryon Crook
> >(209) 478-8703
> >kit # 90828
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: gascolator tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gary Zilik <zilik@excelgeo.com>
Good point. Since the fitting uses a pipe thread it is self locking. The
same drain is used on the fuel tanks. If one was truly worried about the
fittings backing out they could be drilled to accept safety wire.
Z
jack eckdahl wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "jack eckdahl" <eckdahl@dellmail.com>
>
>Shouldn't the drain fitting on the van's or other gascolators come with a hole
for safety wire? What keeps it from accidently unscrewing itself out of the
bottom of the bowl? Do I have the wrong drain plug? Seems like a potential source
for fuel problem. thanks, jack #90508.
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Jerry,
I don't think many of us object to the discussion of ideas different from
our own, but I know that we have very diverse ideas of on what's appropriate
in terms of HOW we disagree. Questioning the honesty and intentions of
someone with differing ideas is, at least in my mind, out of line. I think
this has been a very interesting discussion, but I was very surprised to see
Jeff shrug off flames such as this:
"Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less than
before. You use scare tactics and untruths
to try to justify your chute on an RV. ...."
Those of us who have been on the list awhile know to expect this from some
people on occasion, but Jeff just walked in the door. I am in awe of his
unperturbed response to some of the comments. Some have responded as if he
was somehow going to require them to put a chute on their RV rather than
offer them a choice they don't now have. I think Ken had it just right.
And Jeff seems to have a great sense of living in the Real World, where both
the real and imagined shortcomings of a product must be addressed.
I will be so bold as to make a prediction. Within five years, some small
percentage of RV's being built will incorporate some kind of airframe
parachute, and they will do it with Van's blessing.
Terry
RV-8A wiring
Seattle
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Ken Stribling wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
>
>You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
>product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
>I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
>list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
>titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
>start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
>introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
>enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
>something that is not even on the shelf yet.
>If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
>rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
>it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
>deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
>and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
>list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
>
> Ken S.
> RV 6A 125 hours.
> Moving to new List
>
>
Other words you don't like it when other people voice their opinions? No
one has told Jeff not to
try to design it for an RV. I believe he also can learn a lot form the
differing opinions out there.
Your "loss" to move to a list that only has ideas that agree with yours.
I am sure he can also use
the feedback to determine what his market would be. There is probably a
good representation
of RV builders and flyers here.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
The CAP-10 that I flew a few times in France many years ago was set up
with a static line. There was a long nylon cord attached to the
chute's rip cord, with a clip on the other end which was clipped to the
shoulder harness when you strapped in. The cord was carefully coiled
up and held under a couple of pieces of rubber band on the chute
harness. I don't know what the bail-out record on this type of static
line connection is. I intend to do some research in the aerobatic
community before I get to the flight test phase.
Kevin Horton
On 30 Dec 2003, at 08:41, RV_8 Pilot wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
> Now this is one of the most important reasons I read The List. here's
> an
> example of something fairly easy to accomplish adding value. whether
> you
> use a cable reel, or length of nylon cord (carefully!) bound with a
> rubber
> band and velcro'd to your chute harness, it may still save your skin
> and
> cost little to nothing.
>
> Thanks for the ideas.
>
> Bryan Jones -8
> www.LoneStarSquadron.com
> Houston, Texas
>
>
>>
>> As most RV flights are at low altitude, below 10,000, and low speed,
>> 250
>> KIAS, why not design a simple system that would pull your D-Ring once
>> you
>> cleared the tail of the aircraft.
>>
>>
>> My idea would be a spring-loaded pulley or reel with about 15 feet of
>> cable
>> or long enough to allow you to clear the tail surfaces and a device
>> to hook
>> to the D-Ring of the chute. The spring would keep the cable reeled
>> up but
>> would allow movement. We would not want to have 15 feet of cable
>> lying
>> around the cockpit.
>>
>>
>> A short cable without a reel might work but I thought you might want
>> to
>> clear the tail before the chute starts to deploy. I would think that
>> you
>> would want to reduce the chance that the chute might hang up on the
>> tail
>> during deployment.
>>
>>
>> The cable would not have to be overly strong but just strong enough
>> to pull
>> your D-Ring out.
>>
>>
>> Sounds like a lot cheaper and simpler system.
>>
>> Tom Gummo
>> Apple Valley, CA
>> Harmon Rocket-II
>>
>> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight
>>
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>>
>>> I had a misfire on my e-mail system, and an incomplete version of my
>>> last message escaped from my computer. I added some more on the end
>>> of
>>> this version:
>>>
>>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared2@brier.net>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting this BRS debate.
>>>>
>>>> But, for those who are so ardently against the BRS, I still have a
>>>> few
>>>> questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. How do you get the slider canopy open in flight to bail out (for
>>>> those
>>>> who do aerobatics and wear a parachute)?
>>> I'm planning on having "pip pins" instead of bolts where my canopy
>>> frame attaches to the rollers. Pull the pins, unlatch the canopy,
>>> pull
>>> aft a bit then push up. It should depart the aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Once the canopy is open, how does one actually get out of the
>>>> aircraft?
>>>>
>>> I'm certainly no expert here, and it would be interesting to talk to
>>> people that have bailed out of low-wing monoplanes. But I would plan
>>> to pull the intercom cords from the jacks, unbuckle the belt, stand
>>> up
>>> and dive over the side. I'm considering adding in-line jacks in the
>>> intercom cord from my helmet so they would unplug from the tension
>>> when
>>> the cord goes tight.
>>>
>>>> 3. What are the chances of leaving the aircraft without hitting the
>>>> tail
>>>> structure?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You may very well hit the tail, but you don't jump unless you are
>>> sure
>>> to die if you stayed. I would want to be wearing a helmet if I wore
>>> a
>>> chute, to provide some protection against a tail strike. And I am
>>> consider using a 25 ft static line connected from the chute to the
>>> harness, so that the chute opens even if I hit my head on the tail.
>>> Is
>>> a static line the right answer in all situations? No, there are too
>>> many possible different scenarios for one answer (static line or no
>>> static line) to be the right answer in every case. It is possible in
>>> some cases that you would really rather be farther from the aircraft
>>> when the chute opens.
>>>
>>> I'm also going to look into the devices from CYPRES automatic
>>> activation devices that are quite popular in the sky-diving world.
>>>
>>> http://www.cypres-usa.com/
>>>
>>> They are installed on the chutes that we wear when doing hazardous
>>> flight testing with Bombardier. The full functionality is a bit
>>> complicated to explain, but you basically set the altitude at which
>>> you
>>> want the chute to open, and it will open if you descend through that
>>> altitude at a high rate of descent (i.e. in a free fall). The chute
>>> doesn't open if your rate of descent is lower than some threshold.
>>> So,
>>> you wouldn't be able to do low altitude loops without the chute
>>> opening
>>> in the cockpit, but I'm not a big fan of low level acro anyway. And
>>> it
>>> wouldn't be a good thing if you tried to bail out at too low an
>>> altitude, but I believe acro should be done at a reasonably high
>>> altitude to allow some options when things go awry. I haven't yet
>>> looked at the full specs of all the various models they sell to see
>>> if
>>> they are really suited for out mission, nor do I know how much they
>>> cost. I fear the price might be prohibitive for most of us.
>>>
Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8
>
>
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: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
As already mentioned, the vertical and rudder are the same, but the
Horizontal and elevators are very different.
I talked with Van's and yes, the vertical and rudder could be used on a 7.
However, it is not cost effective to order just a horizontal and elevators. I
would have to order each and every part, rivets, hardware, etc. seperately.
Meaning I would have to know all the part numbers and quanities. I'd rather not.
Besides, what would I do with the -9 horizontal and elevators? Not likely I
could sell an emp kit that is missing the vertical and rudder.
Bryon
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: | RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael D. Crowe" <tripacer@bellsouth.net>
Almost true. The 9 vertical skin is .020 and the 7 is .032
Mike Crowe
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Rudder and vertical are the same but the horizontal and elevators are
different.
Jerry
Richard Tasker wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
>
>I am building a 9 and I may be mistaken, but I believe that the 7 and 9
>empennage are very similar now (or even the same). Check with Van's.
>
>Dick Tasker, 90573
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: Chutes for RVs |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>
>BRS ought to be paying us for all this "poo-poo". If they're smart, they'll
>catalog every poo-poo item and consider it in future product development.
>This is one of the best "project teams" they'll ever find for a RV or any
>other airplane product. You think they want to invest in and market
>something that either won't sell or won't work?! Talk about wasted money!!
>
>This is part of the process... not all ideas are dooable. Doh!! I used a
>"poo" related word too!! ;) But some are. One day BRS or someone will come
>up with a solution that works even better. Good enough that people like me
>will look at it seriously.
>
>Bryan Jones -8
>www.LoneStarSquadron.com
>
WoW Bryan,
You have RRRREALLY made my day, buddy.
I sure dooo like yer style. :-D
P.S.
One of these days if/when I grow up,
I'm gonna get me a ride in an RV-8.
P.S.S.
Perhaps you have eyeballed Bob Reed of Houston.
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
P.S.S.S.
I worked in Houston in 1960 for a while after
leaving the USAF.
P.S.S.S.S.
Ya know where Roby or Rotan TX is?
I use to crop dust there many long moons ago.
Until things turned to doo-doo... or poo-poo. :-\
Take care.
Bob Urban - N863WL
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: Chutes for RVs |
tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Terry Watson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>Jerry,
>
>I don't think many of us object to the discussion of ideas different from
>our own, but I know that we have very diverse ideas of on what's appropriate
>in terms of HOW we disagree. Questioning the honesty and intentions of
>someone with differing ideas is, at least in my mind, out of line. I think
>this has been a very interesting discussion, but I was very surprised to see
>Jeff shrug off flames such as this:
>
>"Here is my reply, after reading yours I want a BRS even less than
>before. You use scare tactics and untruths
>to try to justify your chute on an RV. ...."
>
I don't see it as a flame and I bet Jeff does not either.
Scare tactic = what if you have to ditch over water with a Young EagleNot true=
you have to be a tiny person to exit an RVAs I have said many times my opinions!!!
you do as you see best for you.
>Those of us who have been on the list awhile know to expect this from some
>people on occasion, but Jeff just walked in the door. I am in awe of his
>unperturbed response to some of the comments. Some have responded as if he
>was somehow going to require them to put a chute on their RV rather than
>offer them a choice they don't now have. I think Ken had it just right.
>And Jeff seems to have a great sense of living in the Real World, where both
>the real and imagined shortcomings of a product must be addressed.
>
>I will be so bold as to make a prediction. Within five years, some small
>percentage of RV's being built will incorporate some kind of airframe
>parachute, and they will do it with Van's blessing.
>
Hmm... guess you have not talked to him as I did this last Saturday.
I am not saying it can't be done, I am saying the whole fuselage well
have to be redesigned to accept a chute and have it perform its job
correctly.
This include seat material, etc. to absorb the landing shock. This
includes a structure design
to adequately hold the chute to the airframe
a BRS is not going to let you just gently touch down.
Design it, I hope they sell thousands of them and they save lives.
I realize there is a risk each time I start down a runway and take to
the skies
and I have willingly taken that risk since getting my certificate in
high school over 40
years ago. My greatest risk is getting to the airport.
Time well tell how this well play out.
Jerry
do not archive
>
>Terry
>RV-8A wiring
>Seattle
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
>
>
>Ken Stribling wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" <ken@soundsuckers.com>
>>
>>You know it seems that every time someone try's to help or has a new
>>product for our RV that someone always has some poo poo to fling at it.
>>I have seen it with bill (I Think) from vans when he was monitoring the
>>list. The person that was engraving the Fuel Caps. You never here of the
>>titanium Tie downs anymore, I am sure that there others to but I just
>>start deleting most discussions any more and I would never try to
>>introduce any product to the RV list just because it would destroy my
>>enthusiasm to be trying to help and hear such negative replies to
>>something that is not even on the shelf yet.
>>If it doesn't work after it was been tested then we would have to
>>rethink it but it is not fair to put a product down till we see it Used
>>it and seen how it is installed and what kind of damage it causes after
>>deployment. Give the new products a chance before we just toss it away
>>and drive maybe someone with more knowledge than most of us off the
>>list. They may have a way of saving our bacon someday.
>>
>> Ken S.
>> RV 6A 125 hours.
>> Moving to new List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Other words you don't like it when other people voice their opinions? No
>one has told Jeff not to
>try to design it for an RV. I believe he also can learn a lot form the
>differing opinions out there.
>Your "loss" to move to a list that only has ideas that agree with yours.
>I am sure he can also use
> the feedback to determine what his market would be. There is probably a
>good representation
>of RV builders and flyers here.
>
>Jerry
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
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@yahoogroups.com, Mid-AtlRVwing@yahoogroups.com
--> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
I talked to Todd today. He talked me out of the tinted canopy. He said the
engineers from his lexan suppliers tell him there's only a 4 or 5 percent UV
blocking difference between the tinted and clear (around 93 vs 87% if I
recall corrrectly). And further he said they said and his own anectodal
evidence suggests the difference in cockpit cooling between the clear and
medium tinted canopy was negligeable. He really doesn't like the tinted
canopies for airplanes, in short, as he gave me a host of builders who have
built second and third planes who went from tinted to clear, etc. Also, he
doesn't get the 1/4" tinted material anymore, just 3/16. If you want 1/4
inch, you gotta get clear. He said the clear was also much better for
picture takers and scenery admirers along with the obvious night vision, on
and on.
He preferred the static cling shade screen that you can move around the
canopy for shade if that's what you want.
Here's the result. Van's gave me a little over $400 credit for their
canopy, which is formed differently and very thin in some places once
formed. Todd gave me a Christmas special. $275 for his 1/4 clear which is
also optically superior to the Van's canopy (he claims) and that includes
crating. It's $110 for shipping so it's a draw money wise but I'll get
better canopy that's already got almost all of the excess trimmed off and if
it cracks you got his replacement guarantee. Can't beat that. Don't know
how long the "special" will last but just in case you were in the market I
thought I'd pass along the info.
lucky
>From: Gert <gert@execpc.com>
>Reply-To: rv8list@yahoogroups.com
>To: rv8list@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [rv8list] tinted canopies
>Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:24:55 -0600
>
>For those of you contemplating Todd's canopee, I have one by the way,
>Van's credit to me for the canopee was 412.50, this december 2003.
>
>wmpalm@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Lucky,
> >
> > Todd manufactures RV canopies with multiple tint choices. Also, from my
> > experience, Todd's a great guy to work with, does very high quality
>work, and has
> > reasonable prices. Van's gave me a canopy credit from my finishing kit,
>and I
> > purchased a tinted canopy from Todd. Based on Todd's recommendation, I
> > ordered tint #2094 - - it's a good "light to medium" tint. Todd's new
>website is:
> > http://toddscanopies.com/
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > Information exchange for builders of Vans Aircraft RV-8 kits.
> >
> > IF YOU WISH TO UNSUBSCRIBE, PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO :
> >
> > rv8list-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> >
> >
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rv8list/
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > rv8list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
>
>
Enjoy a special introductory offer for dial-up Internet access limited
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ron Walker" <ron@walker.net>
Just curious ... since the fuse for the 7 and 9 are the same, the 9 emp
would fit an otherwise 7 main fuselage. Would the 7 wing work favorably with
the 9 emp?
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <BGCrook@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-9 Emp kit for sale
> --> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
>
> As already mentioned, the vertical and rudder are the same, but the
> Horizontal and elevators are very different.
>
> I talked with Van's and yes, the vertical and rudder could be used on a 7.
> However, it is not cost effective to order just a horizontal and
elevators. I
> would have to order each and every part, rivets, hardware, etc.
seperately.
> Meaning I would have to know all the part numbers and quanities. I'd
rather not.
> Besides, what would I do with the -9 horizontal and elevators? Not likely
I
> could sell an emp kit that is missing the vertical and rudder.
>
> Bryon
>
>
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale |
--> RV-List message posted by: BGCrook@aol.com
I would think that combining a 9 emp with a 7 wing/fuse would not be a good
idea. The 9 emp is not up to the task structurally. Also, I doubt that a 7 wing
would fit a 9 fuse.
I think it is best to just build a complete 9 or 7 from a kit and not get
into mixing wings, emps or fuses. Although, there are a few cases where you might
be able to use some of the emp parts from a different model of RV. However, I
don't think that this would one of those cases.
Bryon
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: | Flying The Antarctic |
--> RV-List message posted by: JNice51355@aol.com
Folks
I just read an article about a fellow that is starting out on a Pole to Pole
flight in a Velocity.
Of particular interest was part of his "plan" regarding McMurdo. He said he
had hopes of being able to obtain fuel that was pre-positioned for another
aviator. Could this be the fuel that Jon Johansen burnt on his way home??
Jim Nice
WA State
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: Exiting an RV in Flight |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 12/29/03 10:35 PM, "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> Kevin,
>
>
> The idea comes from the ejection system on the T-37 and T-38, but below
> 10,000 feet, we had a snap ring and short cable hooked to the parachute
> D-Ring that manually pulled it once you cleared the seat. Below 10,000
> feet MSL, we had it hooked up. Once we climbed above 10,000 and the air was
> cold and not a lot of oxygen for breathing, we unhooked it and allowed the
> system to let us free fall and open automatically.
>
>
> As most RV flights are at low altitude, below 10,000, and low speed, 250
> KIAS, why not design a simple system that would pull your D-Ring once you
> cleared the tail of the aircraft.
>
>
> My idea would be a spring-loaded pulley or reel with about 15 feet of cable
> or long enough to allow you to clear the tail surfaces and a device to hook
> to the D-Ring of the chute. The spring would keep the cable reeled up but
> would allow movement. We would not want to have 15 feet of cable lying
> around the cockpit.
>
>
> A short cable without a reel might work but I thought you might want to
> clear the tail before the chute starts to deploy. I would think that you
> would want to reduce the chance that the chute might hang up on the tail
> during deployment.
>
>
> The cable would not have to be overly strong but just strong enough to pull
> your D-Ring out.
>
>
> Sounds like a lot cheaper and simpler system.
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
Hi Tom,
Deploying directly from your airplane by static line would not be a very
good idea at 250k. Most civilian emergency systems are certified to TSO C23c
which only considers a load of 254lbs at 175k- and no, you cannot fudge on
the weight (much) to get a higher airspeed since its a squared function. At
anything above the 175k the likelihood of destroying the canopy goes up
dramatically. The military systems that you may have flown with were
designed specifically for the conditions in which you describe, with the
help of government money and very expensive testing.
Jeff Peltier
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>> I had a misfire on my e-mail system, and an incomplete version of my
>> last message escaped from my computer. I added some more on the end of
>> this version:
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared2@brier.net>
>>>
>>> Interesting this BRS debate.
>>>
>>> But, for those who are so ardently against the BRS, I still have a few
>>> questions:
>>>
>>> 1. How do you get the slider canopy open in flight to bail out (for
>>> those
>>> who do aerobatics and wear a parachute)?
>> I'm planning on having "pip pins" instead of bolts where my canopy
>> frame attaches to the rollers. Pull the pins, unlatch the canopy, pull
>> aft a bit then push up. It should depart the aircraft.
>>>
>>> 2. Once the canopy is open, how does one actually get out of the
>>> aircraft?
>>>
>> I'm certainly no expert here, and it would be interesting to talk to
>> people that have bailed out of low-wing monoplanes. But I would plan
>> to pull the intercom cords from the jacks, unbuckle the belt, stand up
>> and dive over the side. I'm considering adding in-line jacks in the
>> intercom cord from my helmet so they would unplug from the tension when
>> the cord goes tight.
>>
>>> 3. What are the chances of leaving the aircraft without hitting the
>>> tail
>>> structure?
>>>
>>
>>
>> You may very well hit the tail, but you don't jump unless you are sure
>> to die if you stayed. I would want to be wearing a helmet if I wore a
>> chute, to provide some protection against a tail strike. And I am
>> consider using a 25 ft static line connected from the chute to the
>> harness, so that the chute opens even if I hit my head on the tail. Is
>> a static line the right answer in all situations? No, there are too
>> many possible different scenarios for one answer (static line or no
>> static line) to be the right answer in every case. It is possible in
>> some cases that you would really rather be farther from the aircraft
>> when the chute opens.
>>
>> I'm also going to look into the devices from CYPRES automatic
>> activation devices that are quite popular in the sky-diving world.
>>
>> http://www.cypres-usa.com/
>>
>> They are installed on the chutes that we wear when doing hazardous
>> flight testing with Bombardier. The full functionality is a bit
>> complicated to explain, but you basically set the altitude at which you
>> want the chute to open, and it will open if you descend through that
>> altitude at a high rate of descent (i.e. in a free fall). The chute
>> doesn't open if your rate of descent is lower than some threshold. So,
>> you wouldn't be able to do low altitude loops without the chute opening
>> in the cockpit, but I'm not a big fan of low level acro anyway. And it
>> wouldn't be a good thing if you tried to bail out at too low an
>> altitude, but I believe acro should be done at a reasonably high
>> altitude to allow some options when things go awry. I haven't yet
>> looked at the full specs of all the various models they sell to see if
>> they are really suited for out mission, nor do I know how much they
>> cost. I fear the price might be prohibitive for most of us.
>>
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|