---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 12/31/03: 60 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:23 AM - Re: Todd's Canopies (Mickey Coggins) 2. 05:41 AM - New (for me) Trick (Albert Gardner) 3. 05:45 AM - BRS Option (Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com) 4. 05:47 AM - Heated Pitot testing (Jim Nolan) 5. 05:50 AM - Re: Todd's Canopies (Bob Hassel) 6. 06:03 AM - Re: [rv8list] Wing Tips (lucky macy) 7. 06:05 AM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Kevin Horton) 8. 06:07 AM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Kevin Horton) 9. 06:18 AM - Re: Todd's Canopies (lucky macy) 10. 07:22 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (linn walters) 11. 08:07 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Jerry Springer) 12. 08:33 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Tim Bryan) 13. 08:42 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (SportAV8R@aol.com) 14. 08:45 AM - Re: Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator (Ross Mickey) 15. 08:57 AM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Tom Gummo) 16. 09:23 AM - Trouble Starting (Eustace Bowhay) 17. 09:30 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48 (Mike Nellis) 18. 09:36 AM - First Flight C-FZQX (Steve & Denise) 19. 09:45 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Kysh) 20. 09:55 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Doug Rozendaal) 21. 09:57 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Randy Lervold) 22. 10:44 AM - Re: Trouble Starting (Gert) 23. 11:24 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Boyd Braem) 24. 11:35 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (RV_8 Pilot) 25. 11:43 AM - Re: Ballistic parachutes on RVs (rv6tc) 26. 11:46 AM - Re: Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier) 27. 11:51 AM - Re: Trouble Starting (RobHickman@aol.com) 28. 11:51 AM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Doug Rozendaal) 29. 11:52 AM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Boyd Braem) 30. 12:10 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (rv6tc) 31. 12:22 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out (Jeff Peltier) 32. 12:23 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (rv6tc) 33. 12:33 PM - Re: First Flight C-FZQX (Charles Rowbotham) 34. 12:43 PM - Re: Trouble Starting (C. Rabaut) 35. 12:50 PM - Re: Questions about Chutes for RVs (Jeff Peltier) 36. 12:53 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Kysh) 37. 01:02 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Jeff Peltier) 38. 01:05 PM - Re: First Flight C-FZQX (Michel) 39. 01:14 PM - Re: Trouble Starting (Dan Checkoway) 40. 01:18 PM - Re: Trouble Starting (Gert) 41. 01:36 PM - Re: Trouble Starting (Eustace Bowhay) 42. 01:39 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Jeff Peltier) 43. 01:43 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)) 44. 02:00 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Lenleg@aol.com) 45. 02:14 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Doug Rozendaal) 46. 02:18 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Greg Young) 47. 02:35 PM - Re: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out (Kevin Horton) 48. 02:37 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Jeff Peltier) 49. 02:37 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Tom Gummo) 50. 02:50 PM - Re: RV-9 Emp kit for sale (Genev E Reed) 51. 03:03 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Dr. Kevin P. Leathers) 52. 03:24 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight (Jeff Peltier) 53. 03:32 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Kysh) 54. 03:33 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Cy Galley) 55. 05:18 PM - Re: First Flight C-FZQX (Richard Dudley) 56. 05:18 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (Tracy Crook) 57. 05:46 PM - Re: Trouble Starting (C. Rabaut) 58. 05:52 PM - Re: New (for me) Trick (lucky macy) 59. 05:58 PM - It's New Years Eve you losers (jack eckdahl) 60. 11:39 PM - Happy 2004 (James E. Clark) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:23:55 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Todd's Canopies --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins Hi, What is the advantage of a thicker canopy? Is there any concern that if you end up on your back and you have to break out of the canopy, that it takes more time? I guess the ideal would be very thick in front of the roll bar (on the slider) and then thinner behind. Thick stuff in front to help mitigate effects of a bird strike, for instance. >... Also, he >doesn't get the 1/4" tinted material anymore, just 3/16. If you want 1/4 >inch, you gotta get clear. ... -- Mickey Coggins GSM: +41-79-210-3762 FAX: +41-86-079-210-3762 http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 Empennage complete, QB wings/fuse scheduled for Monday ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:41:20 AM PST US From: "Albert Gardner" Subject: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. Albert Gardner RV-9A 872RV Yuma, AZ ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:23 AM PST US Subject: RV-List: BRS Option From: Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com 12/31/2003 08:40:38 AM --> RV-List message posted by: Don.Alexander@AstenJohnson.com It cracks me up to read all of the debate on the BRS option. First, it makes me happy that a company like BRS is viewing the RV market as being mature enough to merit R&D money. It reinforces my belief that the RV series is the best place for my money and that other businesses are staking their futures on the continued success of the RVs. My personal opinion is that I wouldn't be a likely customer for BRS due to my own cost/benefit analysis. Having said this, time for the reality check... If my ship were placed in any hopeless situation, (and there are many which I can envision) I'm sure that my last thoughts after I did my best to save myself would have been that I wish I had a BRS to deploy. Who gives a dang whether or not the airframe is destroyed by the deployment at this point? We are talking about having the chance to live another day. We are all involved in a very serious undertaking when we build and fly our own ships. Who among us hasn't been working on their plane late at night and had a fleeting thought that they hoped they were building an airplane and not a coffin. Thoughts like these, as unsettling as they may be, are healthy and lead to better quality control along the way. I view the BRS system like I do an Anthrax innoculation...if you need it and don't have it, then tough luck. Don Alexander RV-8 fuselage do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:47:31 AM PST US From: "Jim Nolan" Subject: RV-List: Heated Pitot testing --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Nolan" Listers, Just got back from trying out my Piper heated pitot blade. Electrical system with just the radio, vor head, GPS and Deviation Indicator along with the transponder turned on was at 14.2 volts. Turning on the nav and strobe and landing light took it to 13.9 volts. Hitting the transmit key on the nav took it to 13.7 volts. Turning on the heated pitot took it to 13.5 volts. Using the flaps and doing everything listed above took it to 13.4 volts. I have a 35 amp breaker and a 35 amp alternator. IS THIS NORMAL, AM I OK Another question. The outside temp was 24 degrees while I was doing this and I left the heated pitot on until after I landed. Jumped out to feel the pitot tube and liked to burned my damned fingers off. The wing skin had started to heat up also. IS THIS ALSO NORMAL I found out later I need a gasket between the pitot blade and wing, will this gasket keep the paint on the wing. Jim Nolan N444JN ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:32 AM PST US From: "Bob Hassel" Subject: RE: RV-List: Todd's Canopies --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Hassel" Thicker can translate to quieter & more protection from FOD. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Todd's Canopies --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins Hi, What is the advantage of a thicker canopy? Is there any concern that if you end up on your back and you have to break out of the canopy, that it takes more time? I guess the ideal would be very thick in front of the roll bar (on the slider) and then thinner behind. Thick stuff in front to help mitigate effects of a bird strike, for instance. >... Also, he >doesn't get the 1/4" tinted material anymore, just 3/16. If you want 1/4 >inch, you gotta get clear. ... -- Mickey Coggins GSM: +41-79-210-3762 FAX: +41-86-079-210-3762 http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 Empennage complete, QB wings/fuse scheduled for Monday ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:03:28 AM PST US From: "lucky macy" Subject: RV-List: RE: [rv8list] Wing Tips --> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" John, I have the older style and wouldn't mind trading with anyone who has the newer style. Where are you at? I'm near Philly PA. lucky macy >From: "brad snodgrass" >Reply-To: rv8list@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [rv8list] Wing Tips >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:31:27 -0500 > >John, >I would say order your kit today (12/31). I think the price will go up >tomorrow (1/1). There is a good chance that someone on the list or one >of the other RV list's will trade you new style wing tips for the older >style. > >Brad Snodgrass, N520BS, going to paint > > >-----Original Message----- >From: John [mailto:jbixby@sbcglobal.net] >Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 5:18 PM >To: rv8list@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [rv8list] Wing Tips > >I'm just about ready to take the big plunge and order an -8 QB, wings >and fuse. Regarding the wings, my problem is that I don't like the >new standard sheared tips; much prefer the older style (Hoerner?) >tips. Are there any vendors that sell the old style tips, or does >Vans still provide them as an option? > >My main concern here, other than looks, is the provisions for >mounting the nav/strobe lights. I'd prefer to avoid having a tail >light on the rudder and instead use the Whelen combined >nav/strobe/tail lights on the wingtips... doesn't really look to me >like those light assemblies would mount very well on the sheared tips. > >Any ideas? > >John Bixby >82030 empennage > > >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/ > > Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:48 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 31 Dec 2003, at 00:28, Jeff Peltier wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier > > > On 12/29/03 10:35 PM, "Tom Gummo" wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" >> >> 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 >> But, if we accept that the speed following structural failure will be low, as you said earlier, then a static line could work. If we are exiting in a controlled condition (engine failure at night, or over very rugged terrain, etc), we could ensure the speed was low enough. Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:07:10 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-9 Emp kit for sale --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 30 Dec 2003, at 18:05, Ron Walker wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Ron Walker" > > 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 Well, the aircraft would certainly fly, but I think it would be a worse aircraft than either the -7 or -9. The large horizontal tail would increase the static longitudinal stability, which would increase the stick forces required to manoeuvre. But, that tail is not designed for 6g, so you would have to work within the same g envelope as the -9. The -9 tail must be heavier, and the extra span and square footage would give more drag. So, if we compare to the -7, this hybrid would be heavier, have more drag, heavier stick forces, and wouldn't be aerobatic. If we compare to the -9, the hybrid would have a higher stall speed and more drag at low speeds due to the higher induced drag of the short span wing. I'm not sure how the weight would compare as I don't know whether the -9 wing is heavier or lighter than the -7 wing. Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:18:16 AM PST US From: "lucky macy" Subject: Re: RV-List: Todd's Canopies --> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" Subjective. I think Van's RV8 canopies are so thin in some areas after their formed for a 200+ mph airplane it's amazing they hold up over time but they do, apparently. Thicker also means stronger/heavier and the canopy holds shape easier when it's cut in two. It should also help keep the back end of the canopy from lifting up in flight as much (an annoyance to deal with in the winter). This should help contribute to lower noise, etc, etc, etc. What's not subjective is that Todd's canopies are pre-trimmed almost to final size which is worth it right there for me plus the replacement guarantee if you crack it. Finally his method off forming the shape is different from Van's fella in Ohio and at SnF I saw a canopy that looked a little better than normal and it turned out to be one of Todd's thick ones. He contributes his superior method for the better uniformity of shape, thickness and optical quality. My eyes tend to focus in on canopy blemishes so the purer the better for me. lucky >From: Mickey Coggins >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com >To: rv-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: Todd's Canopies >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:23:09 +0100 > >--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > >Hi, > >What is the advantage of a thicker canopy? Is there >any concern that if you end up on your back and you >have to break out of the canopy, that it takes more >time? I guess the ideal would be very thick in front >of the roll bar (on the slider) and then thinner behind. >Thick stuff in front to help mitigate effects of a >bird strike, for instance. > > >... Also, he > >doesn't get the 1/4" tinted material anymore, just 3/16. If you want 1/4 > >inch, you gotta get clear. ... > > >-- >Mickey Coggins >GSM: +41-79-210-3762 >FAX: +41-86-079-210-3762 >http://www.rv8.ch/ >#82007 >Empennage complete, QB wings/fuse scheduled for Monday > > Make your home warm and cozy this winter with tips from MSN House & Home. http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:57 AM PST US From: linn walters Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: linn walters Albert Gardner wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" > >I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to >breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it >my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and >level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got >home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. >Albert Gardner >RV-9A 872RV >Yuma, AZ > Oh no! You didn't!!! Tell me it isn't so! Another pilot succombs to the aerobatic drug! You should get yourself (and your buddy to AA (that's Aerobatics Anonymous) real soon, or there isn't any help for either one of you. Aerobatics are addictive. I'm addicted. There, I've said it. It's true. Just like you, it started with a roll. A barrel roll. Then on to the hard stuff ..... loops. Cool! What a rush! Well, why not a hammerhead? Wow! Straight down!!! Damn, the ground sure looks close! What a rush! Folks, it doesn't quit there. You'll find yourself, at some point, doing snap rolls, torque rolls, tail slides .... ah, the thrill of it all. Gotta get that fix! More fuel!!! Where can I go? I need support! Well, along with AA, there's the IAC (they're changing the name to "Aerobatics USA" .... AUSA??? dumb stupid move IMHO) for your support group. All addicts, every one! They'll understand and guide you. They will help. Please, for the sake of your loved ones, your job, and your friends, get help. It's never too late! There is no cure, but with a huge effort on your part, the addiction can be controlled. Happy New Year! Linn ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:09 AM PST US From: Jerry Springer Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48 --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer Albert Gardner wrote: >--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" > >I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to >breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it >my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and >level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got >home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. >Albert Gardner >RV-9A 872RV >Yuma, AZ > > > Isn't there something about -9 and -9A not doing aerobatics? Jerry ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:03 AM PST US From: "Tim Bryan" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Tim Bryan" I was under the impression a 9A was a non airobatic airplane. Well have fun but be super carefull. In fact, get some instruction before you try more than you can handle. Tim Bryan RV-6 (Still not flying) Redmond, Oregon -------Original Message------- From: rv-list@matronics.com Subject: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. Albert Gardner RV-9A 872RV Yuma, AZ . ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:43 AM PST US From: SportAV8R@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com In a message dated 12/31/2003 8:26:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, spudnut@worldnet.att.net writes: > I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I > tried it > my self. Some years ago, I was talked out of self-taught aerobatics by some concerned friends on this very list. I have done 3 aileron rolls 5 years ago (Positive G all the way around) with Mike Segar in Van's red 6. With that as the full extent of my aerobatic instruction, I do not really consider myself competent to try the maneuver alone, in my own 6A. But I secretly have always wanted to. Obviously, you got away with it. I hope you never have to dish out of a botched roll; and I assume they are rather difficult to screw up anyway. So, talk me into it. Why should I or shouldn't I do this myself? Flame retardant suit now on... -Bill B ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:22 AM PST US From: "Ross Mickey" Subject: Re: RV-List: Vans Firewall Forward...gasolator --> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Mickey" Thank you all for your replies. I also put my gasolator in the left wing root at the low point of the system. The 7 series, however, runs the gas lines down the middle of the floor to the firewall rather than to the sidewall. Since this is not my plane, I was just trying to find the logic of Vans placement. What I surmise is that the gasolator placed high on the firewall is not supposed to be drained each flight and is where it is to fit with the firewall forward kit Vans sells. Ross N9PT > I believe you are supposed to drain the gascolator when you remove the > cowling, like at oil change time. Water should be caught in the low spot of > the wing tank when you check that before each flight. > > Why do they put it there? It is there, where it is designed to be I guess, > because that is where the premade gascolator reinforce installation bracket > fits and is riveted nicely to a couple of firmly attached angled alum parts > for strength. In addition that location makes the piece of firesleeved fuel > line be just the right length as supplied in the FWF kit for hooking up the > gascolator with the engine fuel pump. It all ties together nicely. They > could have put it in a lot of places but the gascolator spot to fuel pump is > just about level to each other too with level and straight flight. > > Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip-up TMX-O-360 ACS2002 Dynon CNS430 Digitrak ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:46 AM PST US From: "Tom Gummo" Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" Jeff, There was a small typo in my email: "250 KIAS" was to say "below 200 KIAS". The ejection seat was programmed for two main issues, High or Low Altitude and High or Low Airspeed and what ever combination of the two. The chute in the ejection seat, had a 8 foot drogue chute which stabilized things before the main 28 foot chute deployed. The max safe ejection speed was 450 KIAS over that they claimed that you would get hurt, broken arms, dislocated shoulders, etc. The drogue chute slowed you down to a safe main chute deployment speed. Anyway, I am now over the 254 pound boarding weight :-( so I need a non-standard chute anyway. My bailing out of the Rocket would be just like my ejecting from the F-4G, IF I STAYED IN THE PLANE I WOULD DIE (My takeoffs and landings are equal.). Therefore, speed would not matter. No chance in the plane vs some chance in the chute. My Rocket is a couple hundred pound heavier that most RVs, 2000 pound gross weight, and has seen 250KIAS downhill on a test run. So, I don't think you are up-scaling to my plane's size yet. I don't think that I would be interested but I am not completely in the NO category yet. Enjoyed you responses, we have some hard headed guys in this group (I have been called worse). Tom Gummo Apple Valley, CA Harmon Rocket-II do not archive http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html > 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 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:23:38 AM PST US From: "Eustace Bowhay" Subject: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" Hi Doug: At the risk of starting another round of discussion on this subject, starting without a primer is not the greatest way to do it. I know that a lot of builders do it and get away with it but when the temperatures drop the trouble starts. Your situation is typical, at 35 F you are getting close to the point were for the good of the engine it should be preheated. At that temp with cold oil the old style starter it's having a hard time cranking it and it is turning slower making it harder for the engine to bring and vaporize the raw fuel into the cylinders. It also takes a lot more fuel to prime it at these temperatures. By pumping the throttle all you are doing is dumping raw fuel into the venturi of the carb and if the engine isn't turning it just runs down into the filtered air box and out the drain hole in the bottom. Even if the engine is turning with the old style starter and slow turning only a portion of the fuel you are pumping in gets to the cylinders, not enough to start the engine. As you keep pumping and trying to start the battery is taking a beating and the cranking slows further. At this point the risk of fire is real, even if you don't get a backfire if the engine does start you could still get a fire by ignition from the exhaust. With an engine equipped with a three cylinder priming system you completely eliminate the problem. When you get used to the amount of prime required your engine will start by the third or fourth blade every time especially with the light weight starters. This post is in no way intended to criticize only to try and help. Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay B.C. ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:30:40 AM PST US From: "Mike Nellis" Subject: RE: RV-List: New (for me) Trick tests=DATE_IN_FUTURE_24_48 --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" Right you are Jerry (but then you already knew that :) ) I think it's in the same paragraph as the one about needing a parachute when doing aerobatics. Some people don't understand what a public forum is all about. Don't admit to doing anything publicly that you don't want to come back and haunt you. All the insurance in the world won't help you or your surviving family members if the insurance company won't pay out because you were using your airplane in a manner that violates the FAR's or the mfg's. recommended operating limitations. Yea, Yea, I know, the builder is the Manufacturer but Van's is the supplier of the materials and he says the plane isn't approved for aerobatics. I'm not going to sit here and try to tell someone what they can or can't do with their aircraft. As a currently licensed Expert Motorcycle Roadracer, I love a good rush probably more than the next person and I'm not trying to be a killjoy here, all I'm saying is that if you go out and flop your RV9 around in the air, I sure as heck wouldn't state so in a public forum. I'm going off of memory here but I seem to recall representatives (attorneys or otherwise) trolling this list looking for information after Von Alexander's death. The point is, the archives are public information and can be used against you. My $.02 FWIW. Mike Nellis RV-6 Fuselage N699BM 1947 Stinson 108-2 NC9666K http://bmnellis.com *** > *** > *** > *** Isn't there something about -9 and -9A not doing aerobatics? *** *** *** Jerry *** ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:46 AM PST US From: "Steve & Denise" "RV7 Yahoo List" Subject: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" RV7A, Serial number 70015, C-FZQX finally got airborne this morning. Flight went perfectly as expected. No numbers to report as the flight was a simple take-off, climb to 4000, stall 61 mph, and land. Engine parameters were all normal throughout the flight. Sure feels great to have such a nice airplane, Special thankx to these lists for all the information they make available and all the great 'email' friends I've made along the way. Steve Hurlbut C-FZQX RV7A Eggenfellner Subaru EJ25 (no supercharger installed yet) Quinti CS Prop ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:45:08 AM PST US From: Kysh Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh As Jerry Springer was saying: > --> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer > > > Albert Gardner wrote: > > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" > > > >I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to > >breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it > >my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and > >level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got > >home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. > >Albert Gardner > >RV-9A 872RV > >Yuma, AZ > > > > Isn't there something about -9 and -9A not doing aerobatics? Come on, now. :> Except for the bank exceeding 60 degrees, an aileron roll is barely an aerobatic maneuver! (All the gain, none of the pain). If Tex Johnston can do it in the dash-80, you can do it in your RV-anything. Just don't fuck it up too bad. (Only way I can think of is to enter it too slow) -Kysh Do not archive -- | 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying | | CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr | | 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang | | Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ | | KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham | | Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ | ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:55:31 AM PST US From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" Albert, I pretty much taught myself to do acro, so I should not harp to loud on the hazards inherent in that method, but self-teaching acro in a "non-acro" airplane is not a good idea. A roll in an RV is a pretty very easy maneuver. (I have not flown the -9, but Van designed it so I am sure it flies well) Most first attempts at rolls result in a Split-S sooner or later (Mine did). The RV does great Gentlemen's acro, but it is a LOUSY aerobatic trainer, it is too fast, too clean, and too light on the controls. Since learning acro, I have flown with several highly experienced acro types and I am still trying to break some of my self-taught bad habits. A little training up front is a much better choice. Do not try to transfer your new trick to a spam can or you may well scare the snot out of yourself. A Split-S from cruise speed will put a BIG number on the airspeed indicator, and burn up a bunch of Altitude, or put a big number on the G-meter, or all three. An hour or two of acro dual would be the best investment you could make. I highly recommend it. Preferably in something like a Citabria or Decathalon. They require better technique and are much more forgiving. You could learn a lot in a short time and it just might save your bacon. As to whether you roll your -9 is your business, it is an experimental airplane and "my understanding is" if you demonstrate acro in the test phase, then you can do it. Is it a bad idea? A properly executed roll is not a high-G or high stress maneuver, but self teaching acro, of any kind, in a non-acro airplane is a VERY bad idea. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal > > I watched one of my buddies do an aileron roll the other day on our way to > breakfast. I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I tried it > my self. What a blast! I rolled my 9A till I was sick, flew straight and > level till I wasn't, and then rolled it again till I was sick. When I got > home and told my wife about it she just looked at me funny. > Albert Gardner > RV-9A 872RV > Yuma, AZ > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:36 AM PST US From: "Randy Lervold" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Randy Lervold" > I was under the impression a 9A was a non airobatic airplane. Well have > fun but be super carefull. In fact, get some instruction before you try > more than you can handle. > > Tim Bryan > RV-6 (Still not flying) > Redmond, Oregon Indeed the -9A is "non-aerobatic" which means it is not designed to meet the FAR part 23 specs for the Aerobatic category which is 6 positive and ? negative Gs with a 50% margin (+9G). Instead I believe Van's specs the -9 as a Utility Category equivalent which is +4.4 gs and ? negative. Most all aerobatic maneuvers can be safely flown within a +4g envelope. I do loops, rolls, Immelmans, etc. sporadically and never go over 4 Gs, in fact I seldom go over 3-3.5. Therefore if I had a -9 I would not be shy about the gentleman type positive-G aerobatics we're describing here. Randy Lervold RV-8 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:49 AM PST US From: Gert Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: Gert Eustace Here's a question for you from an inquiring mind. Never too old to learn ;-) You indicate 3 out of 4 cylinder primer. Why?? is this because the 4th is normally for the manifold pressure?? If so, why not take the manifold pressure from the plenum, like most cars do?? Is this an anachronism because the ports were cast into the cylinders anyway so it was convienent?? I have an IO360-A1B and have pondered this ever since I got the engine. I was tentavively planning on a 4 cylinder priming system, solenoid operated, and getting the manifold pressure from the plenum. Thanks Gert > With an engine equipped with a three cylinder priming system you completely eliminate the problem. When you get used to the amount of prime required your engine will start by the third or fourth blade every time especially with the light weight starters. > > This post is in no way intended to criticize only to try and help. > > Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay B.C. > > > > > > > -- is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:29 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick From: Boyd Braem --> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem ....or not anticipating/correcting for the nose drop. A lot of people I've seen do really sloppy aileron rolls/barrel rolls. It IS an aerobatic maneuver and to do it right takes practice and coordination. Take some pride in your airmanship and think about flying like an artist would about his painting or sculpture. Boyd. RV-Super 6 do not archive Happy New Year On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 12:43 PM, Kysh wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh > > Come on, now. :> Except for the bank exceeding 60 degrees, an aileron > roll is > barely an aerobatic maneuver! (All the gain, none of the pain). > > If Tex Johnston can do it in the dash-80, you can do it in your > RV-anything. > > Just don't fuck it up too bad. (Only way I can think of is to enter it > too slow) > > -Kysh > Do not archive ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:29 AM PST US From: "RV_8 Pilot" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" Since it's free, I'll throw some fuel on the fire... Second much of what Randy L said. Would also like to add a couple of points: 1. Being competent at even beginning level acro will make a better pilot out of you. Just like an instrument rating, formation skills, etc., it all helps make you a better/safer pilot. 2. Who can decide if a person is of adequate skill and knwledge level to self teach acro? Only someone with the skills and knowledge *and* direct experience with the person in question. If in doubt, do as others have said and get some basic help. An unintended split S can be a really eye opening event!! and this is exactly the thing that occurs most with inexperienced pilots doing rolls. They get upside down, the picture is unfamiliar and they do what comes natural (very unfortunately) and pull. 3. Be carefull about banking and pulling (compound loading). You may be seeing 3-gs in the cockpit, but the climbing wing is seeing much more possibly. Those with experience, isn't this a touchy issue in T-38's? I try to only bank *then* yank in my plane. 4. My most radical maneuver done regularly is a loop or some variant of a Cuban 8. ~3-g pull. Just watch your weights (cg too), airspeeds, altitudes and know the sequence of the maneuver before entering. Sounds silly, but it's easy to get disoriented and confused if you just start cranking maneuvers with no planning (e.g., gonna roll - check for clear area, check for proper airspeed, pitch up 10, bank, look for upside down horizon, look for upright horizon, recover). 5. no two people have the same idea abot politics, religeon or safety. Some will tell you flying homebuilt planes is too dangerous, some say night or IFR is too dangerous. Everyone has limits. Just know your own. Good luck. Bryan Jones -8 www.LoneStarSquadron.com Houston, Texas >Indeed the -9A is "non-aerobatic" which means it is not designed to meet >the >FAR part 23 specs for the Aerobatic category which is 6 positive and ? >negative Gs with a 50% margin (+9G). Instead I believe Van's specs the -9 >as >a Utility Category equivalent which is +4.4 gs and ? negative. Most all >aerobatic maneuvers can be safely flown within a +4g envelope. I do loops, >rolls, Immelmans, etc. sporadically and never go over 4 Gs, in fact I >seldom >go over 3-3.5. Therefore if I had a -9 I would not be shy about the >gentleman type positive-G aerobatics we're describing here. > >Randy Lervold >RV-8 Tired of slow downloads? Compare online deals from your local high-speed providers now. https://broadband.msn.com ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:11 AM PST US From: "rv6tc" Subject: Re: RV-List: Ballistic parachutes on RVs --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" Blanton, Do the math on an RV, and you'll soon see that (at least for a -6) with full gas and two people, you are pretty close to the max gross weight. The "decrease in useful load" might be a much bigger problem that you might think. Especially if you need the gas. Second, I encourage you to scan old RVAtors. A year or so ago, there was a story of a pilot that had to dead stick his -6 in the Sierras due to an engine failure. The only field he could find was one that had been logged, but still had the stumps in it. I know Alaska is tough, but there aren't too many worse scenarios, other than rock wall. Anyway, he walked away with very minor cuts and bruises. Mostly because, he did a nice job of flying the plane, and the RV is designed to be survivable in a crash landing. It can be slowed down to minimize the forces, and remember, kinetic energy is a function of velocity squared. To me... (opinion time) the loss of ANY useful load is not acceptable. Because there isn't enough to go around. Maybe a -10 is different, I don't know. But I'll build a straight, light plane and work on my piloting skills. Regards, Keith ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blanton Fortson" Subject: Re: RV-List: Ballistic parachutes on RVs > --> RV-List message posted by: Blanton Fortson > > Jerry, > > BRS wasting their time? I think not. Other than a decrease in useful > load and the $, there's not much of a trade-off. I'm guessing, Jerry, > that you might be one of those mid-western pilots, rarely far from > decent forced landing alternatives. Being an Alaska guy, ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:46:42 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/30/03 1:12 PM, "Bob U." wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." > > Ken Stribling wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Ken Stribling" >> >> 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. > > > > > > Bob, You're exactly right- thank you. We wanted all input, it helps us with the many decisions we have to make. Jeff Peltier ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:01 AM PST US From: RobHickman@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com Gert, With an Injected engine you have a priming system, the injectors dump fuel right into the inlet valve. My IO-360 B1B will start right up when it is cold. Rob Hickman RV-4 N401RH ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:01 AM PST US From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" > If Tex Johnston can do it in the dash-80, you can do it in your RV-anything. > > Just don't ---- it up too bad. (Only way I can think of is to enter it too slow) > > -Kysh On your first point you are correct nearly any airplane "can" be rolled. The only airplane I have ever flown that I am pretty confident that I could not roll is the PBY. I don't think it would go around! I promise, I will never know for sure. On your second point, you are dead wrong! There are a bazillion ways to screw up a roll. I may have invented some of them. The common errors in an Aileron, or a Primary, Roll are: Not raising the nose far enough at the start. Holding back pressure on the stick during the roll. Stopping the roll at the inverted point instead of finishing it. All of these can result in a Split-S recovery and a split-S recovery from a roll almost assures you will exceed redline, or 4 Gs or both. That assumes you have enough altitude. Don't forget the light stick forces on the RV and how a "non-acro" pilot might react. Don't forget that when the ailerons are displaced the rule of thumb is reduce the Structural G limit by 1/3. That gets the RV-9 down to a 2.67G airplane with roughly a 4 G theoretical failure limit. What concerns me most about your post is the casual attitude you take toward Acro. Rolls are one of the simplest maneuvers and the major killer of airshow pilots. I do acro on nearly every flight in my airplane, and I love it! I would encourage others to get the training and explore the airplane from another perspective. But get some training and understand it is a serious business. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 11:52:22 AM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight From: Boyd Braem --> RV-List message posted by: Boyd Braem The F-4 also had retraction straps that kept your legs pulled into the seat (F-4J). They assumed that your arms would stay attached at the shoulders if you kept holding on to the ejection handle (yeah, right). But, like the A-4, if you had long legs, the instrument panel could do a number on your knee caps on the way up and the GIB always got out first. The older seats that were explosive rather than rocket driven caused a fair number of spinal compression fractures. My idea of a fun ride at Disney would be an F-18 with a 0/0 seat and you sit in it and then pull! Boyd. do not archive On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 11:57 AM, Tom Gummo wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > > Jeff, > > There was a small typo in my email: "250 KIAS" was to say "below 200 > KIAS". > The ejection seat was programmed for two main issues, High or Low > Altitude > and High or Low Airspeed and what ever combination of the two. The > chute in > the ejection seat, had a 8 foot drogue chute which stabilized things > before > the main 28 foot chute deployed. The max safe ejection speed was 450 > KIAS > over that they claimed that you would get hurt, broken arms, dislocated > shoulders, etc. The drogue chute slowed you down to a safe main chute > deployment speed. > > Anyway, I am now over the 254 pound boarding weight :-( > so I need a non-standard chute anyway. > My bailing out of the Rocket would be just like my ejecting from the > F-4G, > IF I STAYED IN THE PLANE I WOULD DIE (My takeoffs and landings are > equal.). > Therefore, speed would not matter. No chance in the plane vs some > chance in > the chute. > > My Rocket is a couple hundred pound heavier that most RVs, 2000 pound > gross > weight, and has seen 250KIAS downhill on a test run. So, I don't > think you > are up-scaling to my plane's size yet. > > I don't think that I would be interested but I am not completely in > the NO > category yet. > > Enjoyed you responses, we have some hard headed guys in this group (I > have > been called worse). > > Tom Gummo > Apple Valley, CA > Harmon Rocket-II > > do not archive > > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:10:15 PM PST US From: "rv6tc" Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" Jeff, The point I believe Gummo was trying to make is that if you exit an RV at low altitudes, then you want to minimize the time to deploy the chute. That was the function of the "Zero Delay Lanyard" that he was describing. At other altitudes, and airspeeds, I think the function of some sort of bastardized system would be to actually ensure that the D-ring gets pulled, in case of pilot incapacitation due to smacking one's melon on the tail as you leave. In such a situation, I think risking some blown out panels would be preferable to not deploying the chute at all. Then again, I could be wrong. Keith Hughes Former T-38 IP (The T-38 no longer uses a Zero Delay... it was unnecessacary when they got the new and improved seats.) Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Peltier" Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight > > > > 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 ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:57 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/30/03 1:30 PM, "RV_8 Pilot" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" > > 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? Why would any airplane, missing a wing (or structurally broken in any way), suddenly be capable of speeds that it had a difficult time assuming when it was in a flyable condition? Assuming they would remain attached, how fast can you get your airplane with full flaps? Not as fast as without, I'd bet. Look at this another way. Take 2 paper airplanes, crumple one of them up. Which has the least drag? > 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. There is no "roll rate" to a spin. An aircraft in a spin yaws about its vertical axis. > > 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! ;) When the parachute is used in a true spin, the spin is stopped immediately due to the fact that the airplane is stalled equally, rather than one wing stalled a little more than the other. Just as a spin chute would do. After 159 real life deployments and around 100 in-flight tests, I believe we may have sufficient information regarding the requirements for deploying the parachutes. Not to say more testing doesn't hurt anything. > > 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 32 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:24 PM PST US From: "rv6tc" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" Excellent, excellent post. < > Please notice the professional manner that comes across in Doug's attitude to flying. Sure will raise his chances for having a long healthy life. Side note: Remember years ago, there was a new RVAtor who was a little "cavalier" about the RV. Calling it his little "fighter" and sorely complaining about the fact his insurance company wanted him to actually get INSTRUCTION in the plane before they would cover him? Well he got some <> instruction and then killed himself in said "little fighter" before the start of Arlington. Very Sad. Now I may have some of the facts a little off, so forgive me, but I damn sure had the attitudes right. Don't believe me, go read the archives. Yup, aviation is unforgiving any carelessness or neglect, but with an attitude like Doug's you help improve your odds. < > Keith do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick > --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" > > > If Tex Johnston can do it in the dash-80, you can do it in your > RV-anything. > > > > Just don't ---- it up too bad. (Only way I can think of is to enter it too > slow) > > > > -Kysh > > On your first point you are correct nearly any airplane "can" be rolled. > The only airplane I have ever flown that I am pretty confident that I could > not roll is the PBY. I don't think it would go around! I promise, I will > never know for sure. > > On your second point, you are dead wrong! There are a bazillion ways to > screw up a roll. I may have invented some of them. The common errors in an > Aileron, or a Primary, Roll are: > > Not raising the nose far enough at the start. > Holding back pressure on the stick during the roll. > Stopping the roll at the inverted point instead of finishing it. > > All of these can result in a Split-S recovery and a split-S recovery from a > roll almost assures you will exceed redline, or 4 Gs or both. That assumes > you have enough altitude. > > Don't forget the light stick forces on the RV and how a "non-acro" pilot > might react. Don't forget that when the ailerons are displaced the rule of > thumb is reduce the Structural G limit by 1/3. That gets the RV-9 down to a > 2.67G airplane with roughly a 4 G theoretical failure limit. > > What concerns me most about your post is the casual attitude you take toward > Acro. Rolls are one of the simplest maneuvers and the major killer of > airshow pilots. > > I do acro on nearly every flight in my airplane, and I love it! I would > encourage others to get the training and explore the airplane from another > perspective. But get some training and understand it is a serious business. > > Tailwinds, > Doug Rozendaal > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 12:33:32 PM PST US From: "Charles Rowbotham" Subject: RE: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Rowbotham" Steve, CONGRATULATIONS and WELL DONE !! Chuck & Dave Rowbotham RV-8A >From: "Steve & Denise" >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com >To: "RV List" , "RV7 Yahoo List" > >Subject: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:33:46 -0500 > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" > >RV7A, Serial number 70015, C-FZQX finally got airborne this morning. > >Flight went perfectly as expected. No numbers to report as the flight was a >simple >take-off, climb to 4000, stall 61 mph, and land. Engine parameters were all >normal >throughout the flight. > >Sure feels great to have such a nice airplane, > >Special thankx to these lists for all the information they make available >and all the great >'email' friends I've made along the way. > >Steve Hurlbut >C-FZQX >RV7A >Eggenfellner Subaru EJ25 (no supercharger installed yet) >Quinti CS Prop > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 12:43:31 PM PST US From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" Yeah, it's the "Hot Starts" that give me some difficulty with these Lycoming "IO" engines. do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > --> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com > > Gert, > > With an Injected engine you have a priming system, the injectors dump fuel > right into the inlet valve. My IO-360 B1B will start right up when it is cold. > > Rob Hickman > RV-4 N401RH > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 12:50:04 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Questions about Chutes for RVs From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/30/03 2:21 PM, "Bill Dube" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube > > >> >> "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. >> >> > > > > > > Hi Bill, Our website has just been rebuilt and still is not up to date yet. (Know any good webmasters?) The parachute which finished up testing in April is approved to 1800lbs and was tested at 190mph. Jeff Peltier ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:17 PM PST US From: Kysh Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh As Doug Rozendaal was saying: > > Just don't ---- it up too bad. (Only way I can think of is to enter it too > slow) > > > > -Kysh > > On your first point you are correct nearly any airplane "can" be rolled. > The only airplane I have ever flown that I am pretty confident that I could > not roll is the PBY. I don't think it would go around! I promise, I will > never know for sure. > > On your second point, you are dead wrong! There are a bazillion ways to > screw up a roll. I may have invented some of them. The common errors in an > Aileron, or a Primary, Roll are: Granted, but I wasn't trying to be thorough, just cavalier. :> I do see what you're saying, though I think that a pilot with even basic acro training wouldn't be terribly succeptible to any of those. > What concerns me most about your post is the casual attitude you take toward > Acro. Rolls are one of the simplest maneuvers and the major killer of > airshow pilots. Yes, as flying is the major killer of most pilots in general. Especially low-level acro, which is just plain foolhardy without a lot of experience, and often questionable even then. I somehow doubt that rolls done at a safe altitude are one of the major killers of airshow pilots. The whole idea behind airshow pilots is usually about giving the viewers a sense of speed and a good view, which means most maneuvers are done right close to the ground. > I do acro on nearly every flight in my airplane, and I love it! I would > encourage others to get the training and explore the airplane from another > perspective. But get some training and understand it is a serious business. I agree, I never suggested training was a bad idea. Trusting the aircraft a little and performing aileron rolls in an airplane not certified for aerobatics, though, isn't necessarily as big a deal as people here are making it out to be. I would never do it in a certified aircraft, and certainly never with a passenger, but if someone wants to get a better view of the ground, who are we to say they shouldn't? -Kysh -- | 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying | | CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr | | 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang | | Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ | | KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham | | Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ | ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 01:02:36 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/30/03 4:31 PM, "Kevin Horton" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > 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" >> >> 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 > Is the skin of your passengers really worth "little to nothing"?>They may disagree. Jeff Peltier >> >>> >>> 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" >>> To: >>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight >>> >>> >>>> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> 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 38 ____________________________________ Time: 01:05:30 PM PST US From: "Michel" Subject: RE: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX --> RV-List message posted by: "Michel" Got to give you credit just managed to sneak it in the Centennial. Congratulation and well done. Michel RV3 and 8 Happy New Year with lots of RVing to everyone. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve & Denise Subject: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" RV7A, Serial number 70015, C-FZQX finally got airborne this morning. Flight went perfectly as expected. No numbers to report as the flight was a simple take-off, climb to 4000, stall 61 mph, and land. Engine parameters were all normal throughout the flight. Sure feels great to have such a nice airplane, Special thankx to these lists for all the information they make available and all the great 'email' friends I've made along the way. Steve Hurlbut C-FZQX RV7A Eggenfellner Subaru EJ25 (no supercharger installed yet) Quinti CS Prop ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 01:14:26 PM PST US From: "Dan Checkoway" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" Have you looked into integrating a purge valve, such as the one from Airflow Performance? I haven't tried mine yet, but everybody raves about it. Open the purge valve, run the fuel pump, and cool fuel gets circulated all the way up to the flow divider. It promises to make hot starting a no-brainer. I'll know for sure in a few months... )_( Dan RV-7 N714D http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" > > Yeah, it's the "Hot Starts" that give me some difficulty with these Lycoming > "IO" engines. > > > do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com > > > > Gert, > > > > With an Injected engine you have a priming system, the injectors dump fuel > > right into the inlet valve. My IO-360 B1B will start right up when it is > cold. > > > > Rob Hickman > > RV-4 N401RH > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:30 PM PST US From: Gert Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: Gert Yes, I am aware that the fuel is delivered right at the inlet valve, a soleniod operated primer valve would act as an alternative fuel delivery system though. Anybody has any experience with the purge system added to Airmotive (?) modified injection systems in relation to hot starts?? Another mod I was considering. anybody got ideas about the manifold pressure pick-up point. Gert C. Rabaut wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" > > Yeah, it's the "Hot Starts" that give me some difficulty with these Lycoming > "IO" engines. > > > do not archive > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > > > >>--> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com >> >>Gert, >> >>With an Injected engine you have a priming system, the injectors dump fuel >>right into the inlet valve. My IO-360 B1B will start right up when it is > > cold. > >>Rob Hickman >>RV-4 N401RH >> >> > > > > > > > > -- is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:17 PM PST US From: "Eustace Bowhay" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" Hi Gert: In my post I should have mentioned that it only applied to carburated engines. Your fuel injection system is also your priming system. With the boost pump on you are priming the engine as soon as you move the mixture to rich and the amount of prime is controlled by the throttle setting and length of time you leave the mixture in rich. The three cylinder priming is as you say one is used for manifold pressure. As I recall some cylinders did not have a port on the lower side, the manifold pressure line is taken of the top of the cylinder to prevent fuel from collecting in the manifold pressure line and on into the gauge. With your fuel injected engine you will have to take the manifold pressure of the bottom of the cylinder and then up high enough to drain any fuel back into the cylinder. Eustace ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > --> RV-List message posted by: Gert > > Eustace > > Here's a question for you from an inquiring mind. > Never too old to learn ;-) > > You indicate 3 out of 4 cylinder primer. > Why?? is this because the 4th is normally for the manifold pressure?? > > If so, why not take the manifold pressure from the plenum, like most > cars do?? Is this an anachronism because the ports were cast into the > cylinders anyway so it was convenient?? > > I have an IO360-A1B and have pondered this ever since I got the engine. > I was tentatively planning on a 4 cylinder priming system, solenoid > operated, and getting the manifold pressure from the plenum. > > Thanks > > Gert > > > > With an engine equipped with a three cylinder priming system you completely eliminate the problem. When you get used to the amount of prime required your engine will start by the third or fourth blade every time especially with the light weight starters. > > > > This post is in no way intended to criticize only to try and help. > > > > Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay B.C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 01:39:39 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/31/03 8:05 AM, "Kevin Horton" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > On 31 Dec 2003, at 00:28, Jeff Peltier wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier >> >> >> On 12/29/03 10:35 PM, "Tom Gummo" wrote: >> >>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" >>> >>> 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 >>> > > But, if we accept that the speed following structural failure will be > low, as you said earlier, then a static line could work. If we are > exiting in a controlled condition (engine failure at night, or over > very rugged terrain, etc), we could ensure the speed was low enough. > > Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit > Ottawa, Canada > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8 > >Kevin, Yes, assuming the aircraft isn't tumbling too badly. In that case its very possible the static line becomes fouled on aircraft structure and the chute is deployed too close. Personnel chutes have saved many hundreds of lives- I'm absolutely not disputing that. However, a 200lb thrust rocket motor pulling a 25lb parachute has a much better chance to clear the structure in most cases. Jeff > > > > ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 01:43:22 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV-List: New (for me) Trick From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" I remember doing my first rv roll. My first loop. (man I was nervous on that one) Both went great. Then somewhere around roll number 14, loop number 5, I botched both and it turned out to be a very very ugly split 8ish. 4+ g's Your rolls are fine , until they are not, then you had better have the plane that can take the ugly out. Like my dad used to say. Its all fun and games till someone gets their eye poked out. And if you keep rolling, you WILL get your eye poked out. I could probably get a 172 around, but by the 3 one, Im sure to hose something up, then Im toast. So the first one does not get done. Oh, and listen to DR, he know what he is talking about. He get to fly p-51's and Corsairs for a reason. Mike Do not archive. ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 02:00:44 PM PST US From: Lenleg@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: Lenleg@aol.com I have botched a couple of loops also .... have taken several acro lessons. My biggest fear in a loop is stalling inverted ... well eventually it was bound to happen. I can tell you from experience .... you won't have any idea which way is up or down or where the heck you are ..... you better have some training to be able to recover before things get too bad. I really feel training is the key !!! Len Leggette, RV-8A Greensboro, NC N910LL 186 hrs ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 02:14:52 PM PST US From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" It must be slow day at the office for everyone, not just me..... ;-) Because I did not get it right the first time, I will take one more whack at this..... > --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh > > > Granted, but I wasn't trying to be thorough, just cavalier. :> I do see what > you're saying, though I think that a pilot with even basic acro training wouldn't > be terribly succeptible to any of those. > You are correct, my concern is that you were being cavalier. Further my point about the airshow pilots, which I failed to make effectively, was even highly experienced, qualified airshow pilots screw up rolls. When you screw up a roll close to the ground the results are deadly. You can roll Boeing -80s, DC-3's Twin Beeches, and many other non acro airplanes, including RV-9s... but if you screw up, which even the pros do all to often.... the results could be deadly. If Tex Johnson would have dished that roll, there was no recovery If I owned an RV-9 I would probably roll it occasionally, But self teaching in any non-acro airplane, including an RV-9, is a REALLY bad idea. Tailwinds, Doug Rozendaal ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 02:18:14 PM PST US From: "Greg Young" Subject: RE: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" You shouldn't! You did the right thing when you backed off before so don't screw it up now. Go get an intro to acro course. It will be the best 5-10 hrs and $1000 investment you could make. You need to know what it feels like to move the controls from stop to stop, not be surprised at green over blue and develop an instinct to move whatever controls are necessary to put the airplane where you want it from where ever it is. Not so you can safely do a roll but so you can recover if something goes astray. For those that defy common sense and still think it's ok to do acro in an RV-9, RV-10 or non-acro spam can, just remember that shit happens. I doubt there's any acro pilot that hasn't botched a maneuver. But there's far more than botched maneuvers. A little zero or negative G can float objects to jam controls or even just distract you. How about a wind gust, bird strike or any number of unforeseeable events? In my case it was a side window that blew out on a Decathlon. It hung on the HS and blanked the elevator at the worst part of an outside loop. I did everything right but when it was over the G-meter read -2.5/+7.5 (a +6/-3 airframe) and I was at least 30mph over redline before I grayed-out. Freak occurrence but if I hadn't been in an acro airplane with a safety margin, had good acro instruction and a 25 year old's reflexes I wouldn't be here. Think about it... It's not if you can do the maneuvers but if you can handle when things go wrong. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A > --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com > > In a message dated 12/31/2003 8:26:30 AM Eastern Standard > Time, spudnut@worldnet.att.net writes: > > > I got a good briefing over toast and on the way back I > > tried it > > my self. > > Some years ago, I was talked out of self-taught aerobatics by > some concerned friends on this very list. > > I have done 3 aileron rolls 5 years ago (Positive G all the > way around) with Mike Segar in Van's red 6. With that as the > full extent of my aerobatic instruction, I do not really > consider myself competent to try the maneuver alone, in my > own 6A. But I secretly have always wanted to. > > Obviously, you got away with it. I hope you never have to > dish out of a botched roll; and I assume they are rather > difficult to screw up anyway. So, talk me into it. Why > should I or shouldn't I do this myself? Flame retardant suit > now on... > > -Bill B > ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 02:35:50 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: RV-List: Chutes for RVs, opening canopys, getting out --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier > > > On 12/30/03 1:30 PM, "RV_8 Pilot" wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" >> >> 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. > > There is no "roll rate" to a spin. An aircraft in a spin yaws about its > vertical axis. This is only true in a flat spin, where the aircraft pitch attitude is level. In this case there would be yaw rate, but no roll rate. At the other extreme, if the nose was pointing straight down there would be a roll rate, but no yaw rate. If the nose is somewhere between level with the horizon and straight down then there is a combination of both roll and yaw rate. Kevin Horton RV-8 Finishing Kit Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8 ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:00 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/31/03 10:57 AM, "Tom Gummo" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > > Jeff, > > There was a small typo in my email: "250 KIAS" was to say "below 200 KIAS". > The ejection seat was programmed for two main issues, High or Low Altitude > and High or Low Airspeed and what ever combination of the two. The chute in > the ejection seat, had a 8 foot drogue chute which stabilized things before > the main 28 foot chute deployed. The max safe ejection speed was 450 KIAS > over that they claimed that you would get hurt, broken arms, dislocated > shoulders, etc. The drogue chute slowed you down to a safe main chute > deployment speed. > > Anyway, I am now over the 254 pound boarding weight :-( > so I need a non-standard chute anyway. > My bailing out of the Rocket would be just like my ejecting from the F-4G, > IF I STAYED IN THE PLANE I WOULD DIE (My takeoffs and landings are equal.). > Therefore, speed would not matter. No chance in the plane vs some chance in > the chute. > > My Rocket is a couple hundred pound heavier that most RVs, 2000 pound gross > weight, and has seen 250KIAS downhill on a test run. So, I don't think you > are up-scaling to my plane's size yet. > > I don't think that I would be interested but I am not completely in the NO > category yet. > > Enjoyed you responses, we have some hard headed guys in this group (I have > been called worse). > > Tom Gummo > Apple Valley, CA > Harmon Rocket-II Tom, Correction so noted. I know a guy that ejected from an A-4 at 500' and over 500k. He did suffer broken arms and legs-fortunately his captors were very kind to him (yeh,right) Jeff Peltier > > do not archive > > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html > > >> 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 > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:15 PM PST US From: "Tom Gummo" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > Oh, and listen to DR, he know what he is talking about. He get to fly > p-51's and Corsairs for a reason. > > Mike Do not archive. Then reason is to just piss me off. I really hate the guy. He knows far to much about flying, writing about flying, etc. Besides, I hear from those who have met him, that he is a nice guy too. Just more reasons to hate him. :-) Tom "GummiBear" Gummo Wild Weasel #1753 Apple Valley, CA Harmon Rocket-II http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 02:50:19 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-9 Emp kit for sale From: Genev E Reed --> RV-List message posted by: Genev E Reed On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 19:21:26 EST BGCrook@aol.com writes: > --> 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 > I don't know where you have been hiding. But a 7 has an 8 wing and a 9 fuse Doyle Reed 7A what an awsome plane > > = > = > = > ============= > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 03:03:57 PM PST US From: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Kevin P. Leathers" But then, you are an old "Fighter Jock" yourself, aren't you Gummi? One of the very lucky few who will ever know what that feels like! Thank you for your service to our country! Doc ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Gummo" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick > --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" > > > Oh, and listen to DR, he know what he is talking about. He get to fly > > p-51's and Corsairs for a reason. > > > > Mike > Do not archive. > > > Then reason is to just piss me off. I really hate the guy. He knows far to > much about flying, writing about flying, etc. Besides, I hear from those > who have met him, that he is a nice guy too. Just more reasons to hate him. > :-) > > Tom "GummiBear" Gummo > Wild Weasel #1753 > Apple Valley, CA > Harmon Rocket-II > http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html > > ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 03:24:47 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight From: Jeff Peltier --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier On 12/31/03 2:10 PM, "rv6tc" wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" > > Jeff, > > The point I believe Gummo was trying to make is that if you exit an RV at > low altitudes, then you want to minimize the time to deploy the chute. That > was the function of the "Zero Delay Lanyard" that he was describing. At > other altitudes, and airspeeds, I think the function of some sort of > bastardized system would be to actually ensure that the D-ring gets pulled, > in case of pilot incapacitation due to smacking one's melon on the tail as > you leave. In such a situation, I think risking some blown out panels would > be preferable to not deploying the chute at all. > > Then again, I could be wrong. > > Keith Hughes > Former T-38 IP > (The T-38 no longer uses a Zero Delay... it was unnecessacary when they got > the new and improved seats.) > > Do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Peltier" > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight > Keith, OK, now I understand. Little insight on parachutes. Its an extremely fine line between blown panels and total destruction of the chute. When a parachute begins to develop a hole during a maximum condition inflation, all the fabric around the hole suddenly has to take up the slack. This usually propagates to complete destruction of the canopy in a split second. In my experience, most holes of any size in surviving canopies occurred in lower speed tests where there may have been a rigging problem with test equipment. The nature of testing. Jeff Peltier > >>> >> >> 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 > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 03:32:37 PM PST US From: Kysh Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh As Doug Rozendaal was saying: > --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" > > It must be slow day at the office for everyone, not just me..... ;-) > Because I did not get it right the first time, I will take one more whack at > this..... > > You are correct, my concern is that you were being cavalier. Further my > point about the airshow pilots, which I failed to make effectively, was even > highly experienced, qualified airshow pilots screw up rolls. When you screw > up a roll close to the ground the results are deadly. > > You can roll Boeing -80s, DC-3's Twin Beeches, and many other non acro > airplanes, including RV-9s... but if you screw up, which even the pros do > all to often.... the results could be deadly. If Tex Johnson would have > dished that roll, there was no recovery Fair enough, and I do agree. I just can't help but think that blasting pilots from doing maneuvers in an aircraft just because that aircraft isn't certified for them (despite their running afoul of the regulations), isn't necessarily productive. Lord knows, if I built and flew an RV-9, I'd at least want to take it out for an aileron roll or two. The fact is, there's a certain joy in aviation that sometimes can only be expressed through some type of flying, however limited. Not everyone gets to fly sleek P-51s, throaty F4Us, heartrendingly beautiful A-26s, busty B-17s, perky P-38s, or mean and beautiful F7Fs. Nor does everyone have an aerobatic airplane just sitting in the hangar behind them. Not everyone is looking for the wonderful experience of keeping the needles centered all the way down to minimums in hard IMC. Perhaps you might say they should have chosen a different airplane.. But flying is all about managed risk. If you take the steps (Acro course, plenty of experience, no loose objects, no pax, chutes) to mitigate the risk.. eh. The point is, sometimes pilots do 'stupid' things. Sometimes pilots do things that aren't exactly 'safe' or 'smart'. If they succeed, they're a hero. If they fail, they were a fool. These may not be the golden days of aviation anymore, and there may be little left to prove, but I don't think that absolves us of risk or responsibilivy, nor do I think it should prevent us from pushing ourselves a little. Who knows? Maybe we pilots, as a group, have become too safety-oriented, too conservative. Maybe it's society at large. Maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps it's not. Maybe it's just me who thinks so. Who knows? -Kysh, who would never risk someone else or someone else's airplane doing anything 'foolish', but would have no qualms rolling a '9. -- | 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying | | CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr | | 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang | | Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ | | KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham | | Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ | ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 03:33:08 PM PST US From: "Cy Galley" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" We lost a pilot in a Stearman at Oshkosh when he messed up a take-off roll. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Rozendaal" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick > --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" > > It must be slow day at the office for everyone, not just me..... ;-) > Because I did not get it right the first time, I will take one more whack at > this..... > > > --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh > > > > > > Granted, but I wasn't trying to be thorough, just cavalier. :> I do see > what > > you're saying, though I think that a pilot with even basic acro training > wouldn't > > be terribly succeptible to any of those. > > > You are correct, my concern is that you were being cavalier. Further my > point about the airshow pilots, which I failed to make effectively, was even > highly experienced, qualified airshow pilots screw up rolls. When you screw > up a roll close to the ground the results are deadly. > > You can roll Boeing -80s, DC-3's Twin Beeches, and many other non acro > airplanes, including RV-9s... but if you screw up, which even the pros do > all to often.... the results could be deadly. If Tex Johnson would have > dished that roll, there was no recovery > > If I owned an RV-9 I would probably roll it occasionally, But self teaching > in any non-acro airplane, including an RV-9, is a REALLY bad idea. > > Tailwinds, > Doug Rozendaal > > ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 05:18:46 PM PST US From: Richard Dudley Subject: Re: RV-List: First Flight C-FZQX --> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley Congratulations Steve!! Richard Dudley -6A getting close Steve & Denise wrote: > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" > > RV7A, Serial number 70015, C-FZQX finally got airborne this morning. > > Flight went perfectly as expected. No numbers to report as the flight was a simple > take-off, climb to 4000, stall 61 mph, and land. Engine parameters were all normal > throughout the flight. > > Sure feels great to have such a nice airplane, > > Special thankx to these lists for all the information they make available and all the great > 'email' friends I've made along the way. > > Steve Hurlbut > C-FZQX > RV7A > Eggenfellner Subaru EJ25 (no supercharger installed yet) > Quinti CS Prop > ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 05:18:46 PM PST US From: "Tracy Crook" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" ----- Original Message ----- From: Kysh Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: Kysh vans-dragon@lapdragon.org These may not be the golden days of aviation anymore, and there may be little left to prove, but I don't think that absolves us of risk or responsibilivy, nor do I think it should prevent us from pushing ourselves a little. Who knows? Maybe we pilots, as a group, have become too safety-oriented, too conservative. Maybe it's society at large. Maybe that's a good thing. Perhaps it's not. Maybe it's just me who thinks so. Who knows? -Kysh, who would never risk someone else or someone else's airplane doing anything 'foolish', but would have no qualms rolling a '9. This is always a touchy one. The guy who I most respected as a mentor taught me two memorable things: 1. Rules are made for those who are not smart enough to make up their own. (read carefully without jumping to conclusions) 2. A man's got to know his own limitations. (courtesy of Dirty Harry) Tracy (hopefully remembering to apply both properly) ________________________________ Message 57 ____________________________________ Time: 05:46:53 PM PST US From: "C. Rabaut" Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" Dan, Check oway back with me and let me know how it works. Thanks. :-} do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" > > Have you looked into integrating a purge valve, such as the one from Airflow > Performance? I haven't tried mine yet, but everybody raves about it. Open > the purge valve, run the fuel pump, and cool fuel gets circulated all the > way up to the flow divider. It promises to make hot starting a no-brainer. > I'll know for sure in a few months... > > )_( Dan > RV-7 N714D > http://www.rvproject.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "C. Rabaut" > To: > Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" > > > > Yeah, it's the "Hot Starts" that give me some difficulty with these > Lycoming > > "IO" engines. > > > > > > do not archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Trouble Starting > > > > > > > --> RV-List message posted by: RobHickman@aol.com > > > > > > Gert, > > > > > > With an Injected engine you have a priming system, the injectors dump > fuel > > > right into the inlet valve. My IO-360 B1B will start right up when it is > > cold. > > > > > > Rob Hickman > > > RV-4 N401RH > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 58 ____________________________________ Time: 05:52:12 PM PST US From: "lucky macy" Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick --> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" My two cents is everyone one of us flying an RV or any experimental AC is stereotyped and lumped together when it comes to many including the government and insurance companies. I kind of feel like I'm talking to my kids now, sorry. But don't be so damned stupid you discredit the rest of us being lumped in with you. There are consequences for the rest of us when someone does something truly stupid like flying a perfectly sound airplane into the ground because they think they could scud run one more time, etc. Doing acro in a 9 would probably fall into that category if you got yourself killed or worse killed innocents on the ground. If you're gonna be dumb, keep it to yourself and say your prayers. do not archive >From: "Tracy Crook" >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick >Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:17:53 -0500 > >--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Kysh >To: rv-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: RV-List: New (for me) Trick > >--> RV-List message posted by: Kysh vans-dragon@lapdragon.org > > These may not be the golden >days of aviation anymore, and there may be little left to prove, but I >don't think that absolves us of risk or responsibilivy, nor do I think >it should prevent us from pushing ourselves a little. > >Who knows? Maybe we pilots, as a group, have become too safety-oriented, >too conservative. Maybe it's society at large. Maybe that's a good thing. >Perhaps it's not. Maybe it's just me who thinks so. Who knows? > >-Kysh, who would never risk someone else or someone else's airplane doing >anything 'foolish', but would have no qualms rolling a '9. > > >This is always a touchy one. The guy who I most respected as a mentor >taught me two memorable things: >1. Rules are made for those who are not smart enough to make up their own. > (read carefully without jumping to conclusions) >2. A man's got to know his own limitations. (courtesy of Dirty Harry) >Tracy (hopefully remembering to apply both properly) > > Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and yourself. http://special.msn.com/msnbc/workingmom.armx ________________________________ Message 59 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:49 PM PST US From: "jack eckdahl" Subject: RV-List: It's New Years Eve you losers tests=MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER --> RV-List message posted by: "jack eckdahl" What are all of you losers out there doing monitoring the RV list on New Years Eve? It must be one of the symtoms of RVitis or RVholic. Oh no...... I must have it too. p.s. It tells me to keep on building. It's got to be a real rush to fly something that you spend so much time and labor on. -- ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 11:39:23 PM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: RV-List: Happy 2004 --> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" May 2004 be a wonderful year for all of you. Blue skies and happy landings. James