Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:48 AM - Re: Re: Al Haynes needs our help (Dana Overall)
2. 06:40 AM - Seatback adjustment mechanism (Matthew Brandes)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: Seatback adjustment mechanism (Jeff Orear)
4. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: Al Haynes needs our help (C. Rabaut)
5. 09:13 AM - Re: Prop indexing (John Decuir)
6. 10:05 AM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Jeff Peltier)
7. 10:28 AM - Re: Slow Starter (Rich Chiappe)
8. 11:34 AM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Rob Prior)
9. 12:23 PM - airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
10. 12:34 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Jerry Springer)
11. 01:27 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Dana Overall)
12. 01:54 PM - Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine (Genev E Reed)
13. 02:23 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Radomir Zaric)
14. 02:51 PM - Re: Help with 3 blade Catto Prop on RV3 (Jim Bower)
15. 03:00 PM - Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine (Kevin Horton)
16. 03:13 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (J. R. Dial)
17. 03:54 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Scott Bilinski)
18. 04:04 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Jerry Springer)
19. 04:15 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Rob Prior)
20. 04:24 PM - Re: [Bearhawk] new eggenfellner 3.0 Lt Engine (Dr. Leathers)
21. 04:24 PM - any Airworthy Inspectors on the list? (RV8ter@aol.com)
22. 04:34 PM - Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine (Tom Gummo)
23. 04:52 PM - WAS Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas NOW RVs & Parachutes (James E. Clark)
24. 04:58 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG))
25. 05:13 PM - Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine (James E. Clark)
26. 05:16 PM - Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas (Alex Peterson)
27. 06:47 PM - Fw: What every woman wants] (Dean)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Al Haynes needs our help |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: N90ATC@aol.com
>I am currently starting my RV7 fuselage and I am glad word about Al Haynes'
>daughter is getting out. You see, I was the controller working the UAL
>flight at Sioux City that day when Al Haynes brought it in. >
>Al is a great guy. He has already lost his wife and son. Now his
>daughter is very illThey recognize he has been and is an ambassador to
>all that is right in the aviation world.
>
>Kevin Bachman
>N900KB (Reserved)
>
RV Stuff follows: Keven, welcome aboard and good luck with the fuselage.
If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to contract me on or off the
list.
Non RV. Time for me to take a look at that site. I didn't see "what's his
name" go arm waving over spam when the post about the military officer
defense fund site being posted.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
Working moms: Find helpful tips here on managing kids, home, work and
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Seatback adjustment mechanism |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
I'll be starting on my fuselage this spring and am wondering if anyone
has seen a redesign of the seat back adjustment mechanism to make it
easier/quicker to adjust. My wife is vertically challenged at 4'10"
while I'm 5'11". We are both pilots, so I'm building things so it can be
flown from either seat easily. The challenge comes when I want to give
someone a ride and need to adjust the seat back to allow for a taller
person.
The piano hinge is very simple but seems likes it might not be user
friendly to change often. I'm open to ideas if anyone has any or seen
any. I have one or two in mind but would like to know what others have
come up with.
Matthew Brandes,
Van's RV-9A (Wings-Flaps)
EAA Chapter 868
www.n523rv.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Seatback adjustment mechanism |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Hi Matt:
One way to make it easier to accommodate different sized pilots is to have
seat cushions that can be added or removed from the standard cushions. You
can make one for the seat bottom as well as the seat back and then use
whatever combination works.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A
Panel
Peshtigo, WI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
Subject: RV-List: Seatback adjustment mechanism
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Matthew Brandes" <matthew@n523rv.com>
>
> I'll be starting on my fuselage this spring and am wondering if anyone
> has seen a redesign of the seat back adjustment mechanism to make it
> easier/quicker to adjust. My wife is vertically challenged at 4'10"
> while I'm 5'11". We are both pilots, so I'm building things so it can be
> flown from either seat easily. The challenge comes when I want to give
> someone a ride and need to adjust the seat back to allow for a taller
> person.
> The piano hinge is very simple but seems likes it might not be user
> friendly to change often. I'm open to ideas if anyone has any or seen
> any. I have one or two in mind but would like to know what others have
> come up with.
>
> Matthew Brandes,
> Van's RV-9A (Wings-Flaps)
> EAA Chapter 868
> www.n523rv.com
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Al Haynes needs our help |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
I am humbled.
Chuck
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <N90ATC@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Al Haynes needs our help
> --> RV-List message posted by: N90ATC@aol.com
>
> I am currently starting my RV7 fuselage and I am glad word about Al
Haynes'
> daughter is getting out. You see, I was the controller working the UAL
> flight at Sioux City that day when Al Haynes brought it in. You would
> not believe where the landing gear hit on the runway before it rolled
> over on him. He landed the crippled aircraft on a permanently closed
> runway that was crumbling due to years of no maintenance. His gear
> touched down just past the numbers. I have pictures taken the day
> after and am still amazed at the airmanship displayed that day.
>
> Al is a great guy. He has already lost his wife and son. Now his
> daughter is very ill. I contributed (tax deductible) through the
> transplants.org website. What is really pulls at your heart...and your
> wallet... is all the people on the list that need funds to make the
> transplant happen. This site will be a regular stop for me. Here you
> know your contribution is going to a specific purpose. I have posted
> the story at work, NY Approach Control, and several controllers have
> mentioned that they will be contributing even though they do not know
> him personally. They recognize he has been and is an ambassador to
> all that is right in the aviation world.
>
> Thanks for reading the non-RV post. Back to bending longerons now. :)
>
> Kevin Bachman
> N900KB (Reserved)
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Prop indexing |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Decuir <dacure@earthlink.net>
Did anyone who indexed thier prop per skyranch manual, to reduce
vibration, check with Ly-con? just wondering if they still honor
warranties and such in the unlikely event of an "event" that could be
related to balance and indexing.
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier <jeffpeltier@brsparachutes.com>
On 1/3/04 5:38 PM, "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> Jeff Peltier wrote:
>>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>>>> Now this is one of the most important reasons I read The List. here's
>>>> an example of something fairly easy to accomplish adding value. whether
>>>> you use a cable reel, or length of nylon cord (carefully!) bound with a
>>>> rubber band and velcro'd to your chute harness, it may still save your skin
>>>> and cost little to nothing.
>
>> Is the skin of your passengers really worth "little to nothing"? They may
>> disagree.
>>
>> Jeff Peltier
>
> In the computer industry, this is called spreading FUD about a product.
> That's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. You're just casting a doubt on the
> safety of body-worn parachutes over the supposed increased safety of a BRS
> (which hasn't been proven).
>
> It's the same marketing ploy that Cirrus uses to sell their airplanes to the
> spouses of pilots. "This one has it's own parachute to save you from
> accidents." Never mind the fact that it *presumes* an accident will occur,
> and that the pilot *will not* be capable of dealing with it. It takes
> advantage of people who don't understand flying, and who may happen to hold
> some of the pursestrings when choosing to buy an aircraft.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rob,
Ballistic parachute systems have been WELL PROVEN over the last 23 years.
How much more proof do some of you people need. 159 lives saved is not quite
enough, huh? We have successful deployment with lives saved as low as 60'
for a small ultra-light. A larger airplane such as Vans RV7, C172 or Cirrus
could be saved at altitudes as low as 100'. How could you possible compare
that with a personal safety chute?
Of course we use fear, uncertainty and doubt to promote the message. Why?
Because those factors exist in aviation. You are flying a mechanical device
built by amateurs. If I climb into that aircraft with you, you cannot
am completely safe while driving with you. There is great "FUD" that exists
with the non-flying populace, however unreasonable you and I may believe
that to be.
Like it or not, the purse-strings are often held by someone other than the
pilot (as it is at my house) and an airplane is not going to be owned if
both parties don't agree. Wouldn't the installation of a BRS system be a
relatively small price to pay, if that would make your spouse more
comfortable with the idea? You may not have that problem, but many others
do!
I will tell you, that through our research, most non-flying passengers
overwhelmingly feel more comfortable with a device that doesn't require them
to have to get out of the airplane.
Jeff Peltier
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Slow Starter |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rich Chiappe <service@skytecair.com>
> Bob U. wrote on 1/2: "Battery voltage shows 12.63. Anyone else used this combination
> successfully or am I going to have to send B&C some more $$$?!"
Try the troubleshooting guide at http://www.skytecair.com/troubleshooting_V.htm . Static battery voltage doesn't give you enough information to figure out what the issue might be.
Of course, to answer your question toungue-in-cheek, I wouldn't recommend you send
B&C a dollar (and their cheapest starter will take you for 550 of those as
I understand it). I also don't understand the interest in the Air-Tec automotive
starter conversion solution at $225 when a Sky-Tec starter for your -6 would
run only $125 more. I cannot imagine 'saving' $125 so I could have MORE work
to do trying to get it to fit my project. Heck, an overhauled Sky-Tec is
about the same price as the Air-Tec and at least you know what you're getting
(will fit & LAST) and I will personally stand behind it.
Please don't hesistate to call Les or myself at Sky-Tec. We're all builder/restorer/flyers
here and we can speak the language (and feel the pain). We'd love
to help if we can.
- Rich Chiappe
Sky-Tec
800-476-7896
richc@skytecair.com
www.skytecair.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Jeff Peltier wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier
Compare this:
> We have successful deployment with
> lives saved as low as 60' for a small ultra-light.
with:
> A larger airplane such as Vans RV7, C172 or Cirrus could be saved at
> altitudes as low as 100'.
You *have* 160 saves for ultralights. So you can show that ultralights
have a number of saves. On the other hand, you only say that a larger
airplane *could* be saved, not that many *have* been saved.
For comparison's sake, how many BRS-equipped ultralights have crashed
without deploying the BRS, or where the BRS malfunctioned? Or do you
have that data? It seems that (correct me if i'm wrong here) there have
been half a dozen incidents in Cirrus aircraft, and two of them involved
fatalities despite being equipped with BRS. How many of the other 4
aircraft are flying today? I think it's one, right?
Many (but not all) ultralights are small, confined, and have wires and
tubes running in awkward places such that exiting one may be difficult
in flight, especially if there's been a breakup. In contrast, an RV has
a cantilevered wing, and a bubble canopy that can be jettisoned in
flight (most likely true even in the event of an in-flight breakup). I
believe (rightly or wrongly) that the chances of exiting the airframe
are much higher in an RV.
> Of course we use fear, uncertainty and doubt to promote the message.
> Why? Because those factors exist in aviation. You are flying a
> mechanical device built by amateurs. If I climb into that aircraft
> with you, you cannot am completely safe while driving with you.
There is no fear, uncertainty, or doubt in my mind any time I leave the
ground in any aircraft... Certified, Amateur-Built, *or* Ultralight. I
either have 100% confidence that the airplane I lift off in will bring
me back to the ground safely or I won't fly in it. I remain *prepared*
for unexpected events (engine failure, etc.), but the moment I *expect*
one, I don't fly.
> There is great "FUD" that exists with the non-flying populace,
> however unreasonable you and I may believe that to be.
I submit that this FUD is only present because companies like yours are
promoting how *dangerous* flying is, instead of promoting how *safe*
flying is.
> Wouldn't the installation of a
> BRS system be a relatively small price to pay, if that would make
> your spouse more comfortable with the idea? You may not have that
> problem, but many others do!
What would be a larger problem... Telling your wife that there's a big
parachute mounted back there for when you screw up (thereby making her
nervous that you may screw up), or that you tell her she can't take any
baggage with her, because of that 100lb parachute back there that you
put in to make *her* happy.
> I will tell you, that through our research, most non-flying
> passengers overwhelmingly feel more comfortable with a device that
> doesn't require them to have to get out of the airplane.
I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities that
they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
-Rob
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine |
01/07/2004 01:44:10 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
Guys who are flying an RV8/8A what are you showing airspeed wise with an
0-320 powerplant? I am interested to know the speeds of the 150 horsepower
and the modified 160 horsepower speeds and typical range veres the 0-360. I
am looking at going with the 0-320 powerplant for range and fuel economy.
Thanks
Glenn Williams
do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Rob Prior wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
>
>Jeff Peltier wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Peltier
>>
>>
>
>Compare this:
>
>
>
>>We have successful deployment with
>>lives saved as low as 60' for a small ultra-light.
>>
>>
>
>with:
>
>
>
>>A larger airplane such as Vans RV7, C172 or Cirrus could be saved at
>>altitudes as low as 100'.
>>
>>
>
>You *have* 160 saves for ultralights. So you can show that ultralights
>have a number of saves. On the other hand, you only say that a larger
>airplane *could* be saved, not that many *have* been saved.
>
>For comparison's sake, how many BRS-equipped ultralights have crashed
>without deploying the BRS, or where the BRS malfunctioned? Or do you
>have that data? It seems that (correct me if i'm wrong here) there have
>been half a dozen incidents in Cirrus aircraft, and two of them involved
>fatalities despite being equipped with BRS. How many of the other 4
>aircraft are flying today? I think it's one, right?
>
>Many (but not all) ultralights are small, confined, and have wires and
>tubes running in awkward places such that exiting one may be difficult
>in flight, especially if there's been a breakup. In contrast, an RV has
>a cantilevered wing, and a bubble canopy that can be jettisoned in
>flight (most likely true even in the event of an in-flight breakup). I
>believe (rightly or wrongly) that the chances of exiting the airframe
>are much higher in an RV.
>
>
>
>>Of course we use fear, uncertainty and doubt to promote the message.
>>Why? Because those factors exist in aviation. You are flying a
>>mechanical device built by amateurs. If I climb into that aircraft
>>with you, you cannot am completely safe while driving with you.
>>
>>
>
>There is no fear, uncertainty, or doubt in my mind any time I leave the
>ground in any aircraft... Certified, Amateur-Built, *or* Ultralight. I
>either have 100% confidence that the airplane I lift off in will bring
>me back to the ground safely or I won't fly in it. I remain *prepared*
>for unexpected events (engine failure, etc.), but the moment I *expect*
>one, I don't fly.
>
>
>
>>There is great "FUD" that exists with the non-flying populace,
>>however unreasonable you and I may believe that to be.
>>
>>
>
>I submit that this FUD is only present because companies like yours are
>promoting how *dangerous* flying is, instead of promoting how *safe*
>flying is.
>
>
>
>>Wouldn't the installation of a
>>BRS system be a relatively small price to pay, if that would make
>>your spouse more comfortable with the idea? You may not have that
>>problem, but many others do!
>>
>>
>
>What would be a larger problem... Telling your wife that there's a big
>parachute mounted back there for when you screw up (thereby making her
>nervous that you may screw up), or that you tell her she can't take any
>baggage with her, because of that 100lb parachute back there that you
>put in to make *her* happy.
>
>
>
>>I will tell you, that through our research, most non-flying
>>passengers overwhelmingly feel more comfortable with a device that
>>doesn't require them to have to get out of the airplane.
>>
>>
>
>I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities that
>they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
Good call Rob.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
> >You *have* 160 saves for ultralights. So you can show that ultralights
> >have a number of saves. On the other hand, you only say that a larger
> >airplane *could* be saved, not that many *have* been saved.
> >
> >For comparison's sake, how many BRS-equipped ultralights have crashed
> >without deploying the BRS, or where the BRS malfunctioned? Or do you
> >have that data? It seems that (correct me if i'm wrong here) there have
> >been half a dozen incidents in Cirrus aircraft, and two of them involved
> >fatalities despite being equipped with BRS. How many of the other 4
> >aircraft are flying today? I think it's one, right?
BRS, first of all build the chutes, I'm certain there are some RV people who
will buy them. I'm thinking, even though Van's said in a RVator that
substantial modifications would have to be made to the airframe along with
the weight issue, the 10 crowd will be a good target group.
With that said, I checked the website and found, as best as I could, 45
"saves" where structural failure occurred although one of the structural
failures was a guy popping one when the prop came off his ultralight. The
rest were either fuel starvation, engine out or "loss of control". Loss of
control in an ultralight is a very easy thing to do as the flight envelope
is so small. That is not the case with the RV.
To answer the above, two very good friends of mine took off in a very well
made BRS ultralight before a sudden change in wind direction caused the
"ultralight pilot" to lose control. The ultralight hit the gound at about
160 degrees. Both spend a good year in rehab. The BRS was not popped.
These chutes are not a save all. They have drawbacks in addition to
advantages, in my mind perceived advantages. If someone will not fly with
me if I don't have two engines, two personnal parachutes, a BRS and a
partridge in a pear tree...............screw them, let them sit on the
ground.
Even if you want to scare the population into believing flying is unsafe or
dangerous...........if you play with fire sometimes you get
burnt..........but most of the time you end up with a nice steak:-).
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
Buying Instruments. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com
do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Genev E Reed <genevreed@juno.com>
Glenn: I have a 7A with 0360 and C/S Hartzell. We flew from Wichita Ks to
Las Cruses. One RV8A with 0360 wood prop. One RV6 with 0320 wood prop.
One RV6A with a detuned 0360 and C/S prop. With my 0360 Superior and
hartzell C/S prop I had the least fuel burn of all going and coming.
Doyle Reed RV7A
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Radomir Zaric" <radomirz@vitez.net>
>
>I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities
that
>they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
Good call Rob.
Jerry
do not archive
======
I guess some things get forgotten fast...
I just have one "word" -- N58RV
'nuf said
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Help with 3 blade Catto Prop on RV3 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Bower" <rvbuilder@hotmail.com>
Rick,
I just got my 3-blade prop from Craig Catto (it's a beaut), and I knew none
of those numbers either. I had only finished one wing of my -6A when I
ordered it. All I knew was the particulars of my AeroSport O-320, and that
my airplane is a -6A. I think he will carve you the best prop based on that
info, and also whether you want it biased toward cruise or climb. I asked
for a good compromise of both. Hope this helps.
Jim Bower
St. Louis, MO
RV-6A Fuselage
>From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv3-list@matronics.com>, "RV List" <rv-list@matronics.com>, "Chuck
>Brietigam" <brietigam@earthlink.net>
>Subject: RV-List: Help with 3 blade Catto Prop on RV3
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 20:37:01 -0700
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
>
>I am ordering a 3 blade Catto prop for my RV3 with 0320 engine. The engine
>was a rebuilt by AeroSport with dual E.I. and Air Flow Performance fuel
>injection. I'm not sure what to tell Catto in terms of:
>1) max performance HP
>2) max RPM at say 8000 ft.
>3) max airspeed at say 8000ft.
>4) other useful info.
>
>in order for him to carve the prop. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>Rick Fogerson
>finishing wiring
>Boise, ID
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
At 14:21 -0600 7/1/04, Glenn Williams wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
>
>
>Guys who are flying an RV8/8A what are you showing airspeed wise with an
>0-320 powerplant? I am interested to know the speeds of the 150 horsepower
>and the modified 160 horsepower speeds and typical range veres the 0-360. I
>am looking at going with the 0-320 powerplant for range and fuel economy.
>
>Thanks
> Glenn Williams
>
You don't need to run the O-360 at 75% power if you don't want to.
It should burn the same amount of fuel as the O-320, if you pull the
throttle back so it produces the same power as the O-320. If you
want fuel economy, consider fuel injection (more even fuel
distribution lets you run leaner), electronic ignition and cruise at
45 - 55% power.
Max range is achieved at speeds that are a lot slower than most RV
pilots want to fly. The power required (and hence fuel flow) will be
the same whether you have an O-320 or O-360.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "J. R. Dial" <jrdial@hal-pc.org>
I keep seeing these back and fourths on exiting an RV with a
parachute and my question is what does Van say? He wears one when he
does testing.
RV6 slider.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Radomir Zaric
Subject: RE: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas
--> RV-List message posted by: "Radomir Zaric" <radomirz@vitez.net>
>
>I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities
that
>they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
>
>-Rob
>
>
>
Good call Rob.
Jerry
do not archive
======
I guess some things get forgotten fast...
I just have one "word" -- N58RV
'nuf said
==
==
==
==
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I have never been in a out of control plane or one with a mechanical
failure that is causing you to go down NOW. The G forces would probably be
low 2-3 (?) and the air speed high 150 plus.........So in the case of an 8
just how are you going to open the canopy?
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
J. R. Dial wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "J. R. Dial" <jrdial@hal-pc.org>
>
>
> I keep seeing these back and fourths on exiting an RV with a
>parachute and my question is what does Van say? He wears one when he
>does testing.
>RV6 slider.
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Radomir Zaric
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Radomir Zaric" <radomirz@vitez.net>
>
>
>
>>I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities
>>
>>
>that
>
>
>>they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Good call Rob.
>
>Jerry
>do not archive
>
>
>======
>
>I guess some things get forgotten fast...
>
>I just have one "word" -- N58RV
>
>'nuf said
>
>
>==
>==
>
NO not "nuf said" John who was flying N58RV was my hangar neighbor.
There is no evidence
whatsoever that a BRS well help in an aircraft that is going as fast as
an RV when a wing comes off.
what is to keep all that BRS stuff from becoming one giant knot in the
sky. As was stated in anther post
when saves are recorded that is not really an accurate picture.
Ultralites are not going as fast as RVs
As far as I know the Cirrus was not totally out of control when the
chute was pulled. In another case I
referred to and Jeff did not comment on, was a Cirrus pilot that tried
to deploy a chute and it malfunctioned.
These are available for Cessnas so why is there not a big rush to
install them on Cessnas? Jeff how many are
actually installed on Cessnas?
Jerry
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Scott Bilinski wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> I have never been in a out of control plane or one with a mechanical
> failure that is causing you to go down NOW. The G forces would probably be
> low 2-3 (?) and the air speed high 150 plus.........So in the case of an 8
> just how are you going to open the canopy?
I've never tried opening an -8 canopy in flight. But I expect that
quick-release pins that would disconnect the front rollers(*) from the
front of the canopy would allow you to push up the front of the canopy
enough that the slipstream could take it from there. I have *no* idea
if this would work in practise.
(*) Releasing the back of the canopy probably isn't necessary. If the
slipstream catches the front of it like I think it would, it would
probably rip the back roller off the airframe like it wasn't attached.
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [Bearhawk] new eggenfellner 3.0 Lt Engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dr. Leathers" <DrLeathers@822heal.com>
Hi Chris,
I went for a ride in Charlie Walker's show quality Glastar with the 2.5L 4 cyl.
Egg. Subie. I was sold on the spot. What a fantastically smooth, quiet, and powerful
engine. And not the least of the advantages is the heating system. We
were toasty warm as we flew around between Snohomish and Arlington on a cold
Western Washington morning. We fiddled around for about an hour, as Charlie demonstrated
his extraordinary airmanship and the electric Quinti prop. Fuel burn
was less than 3 gallons. I offered to top off Charlie's tanks when we returned
to Snohomish. He wouldn't hear of it. Besides, he uses auto gas ;-)
When it is time to hang a power plant on my Patrol, I will be looking at the Egg. H6 and the new Bombardier V200 6 cyl. as well. Here is a link to the Bombardier info. in case you have not seen it. http://www.vaircraftengines.com/en/thePackage.asp
Cheers
Doc
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Sinfield
To: Bearhawk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:40 PM
Subject: [Bearhawk] new eggenfellner 3.0 Lt Engine
Anyone thinking of using this new engine on their Bearhawk??
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | any Airworthy Inspectors on the list? |
--> RV-List message posted by: RV8ter@aol.com
I got my tinted canopy samples from Todd's Canopies today. I REALLY like the
darkest one and I can get it in 1/4 inch thickness to boot. I've been looking
through them outside this evening and the darkest one is safe in my opinion
but it's definatley dark. How can I tell if there will be any issues WRT night
flight restrictions? How is that call made and if it goes against me is there
an appeal process?
lucky
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Another example is when I fly my IO-540 Harmon Rocket with a RV-4 with a
IO-360. The drag between the two planes must be within a couple of
percentage points. Anyway, with the RPM set the same, my bigger engine MP
is several inches lower and the fuel flows were within a couple of tenth of
a gallon. Once the drag and speed are set, it takes a given amount of HP to
make it happen. The bigger the engine, the less hard it has to work to
achieve that HP. But the amount of fuel needed will be about the same.
Energy in has to equal energy out.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> At 14:21 -0600 7/1/04, Glenn Williams wrote:
> >--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
> >
> >
> >Guys who are flying an RV8/8A what are you showing airspeed wise with an
> >0-320 powerplant? I am interested to know the speeds of the 150
horsepower
> >and the modified 160 horsepower speeds and typical range veres the 0-360.
I
> >am looking at going with the 0-320 powerplant for range and fuel economy.
> >
> >Thanks
> > Glenn Williams
> >
>
> You don't need to run the O-360 at 75% power if you don't want to.
> It should burn the same amount of fuel as the O-320, if you pull the
> throttle back so it produces the same power as the O-320. If you
> want fuel economy, consider fuel injection (more even fuel
> distribution lets you run leaner), electronic ignition and cruise at
> 45 - 55% power.
>
> Max range is achieved at speeds that are a lot slower than most RV
> pilots want to fly. The power required (and hence fuel flow) will be
> the same whether you have an O-320 or O-360.
> --
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | WAS Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas NOW RVs & Parachutes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Just a few comments, but FIRST ....
I do NOT have a BRS system.
I do NOT plan to install a BRS system in the RV6A under construction
I HAVE flown an aircraft with a BRS system (Cirrus)
James
> -----Original Message-----
[SNIP]
>
> You *have* 160 saves for ultralights. So you can show that ultralights
> have a number of saves. On the other hand, you only say that a larger
> airplane *could* be saved, not that many *have* been saved.
>
> For comparison's sake, how many BRS-equipped ultralights have crashed
> without deploying the BRS, or where the BRS malfunctioned? Or do you
> have that data? It seems that (correct me if i'm wrong here) there have
> been half a dozen incidents in Cirrus aircraft, and two of them involved
> fatalities despite being equipped with BRS. How many of the other 4
> aircraft are flying today? I think it's one, right?
I don't think they ever claim they will save the "airframe" ... just reduce
injury to the occupants. As a matter of fact I recall a lot of the early
Cirrus info basically saying if you deploy, you can kiss the airframe
goodbye. If it were me and I HAD to deploy and I survived, I would be just
happy to be alive and the airframe would not be of great concern to ME. Of
course if the airframe is reuseable ... great! I would also assume (don't
know for sure) that the insurance company would replace the aircraft with a
new one.
>
> Many (but not all) ultralights are small, confined, and have wires and
> tubes running in awkward places such that exiting one may be difficult
> in flight, especially if there's been a breakup. In contrast, an RV has
> a cantilevered wing, and a bubble canopy that can be jettisoned in
Hmmmm....
"... jettisoned" in flight (RV canopy). I have no data but this would
probably require some "special forces". I have had discussions with RVers
who "forgot" to latch the canopy and I even er ..."forgot" to double latch
our tip-up canopy for a flight. It did not rip off. I could NOT pull it down
and get it closed though and it would seem that at high speed you might have
problems opening it enough to get out. Again, this is sheer speculation on
my part.
> flight (most likely true even in the event of an in-flight breakup). I
> believe (rightly or wrongly) that the chances of exiting the airframe
> are much higher in an RV.
>
> > Of course we use fear, uncertainty and doubt to promote the message.
> > Why? Because those factors exist in aviation. You are flying a
> > mechanical device built by amateurs. If I climb into that aircraft
> > with you, you cannot am completely safe while driving with you.
>
> There is no fear, uncertainty, or doubt in my mind any time I leave the
> ground in any aircraft... Certified, Amateur-Built, *or* Ultralight. I
> either have 100% confidence that the airplane I lift off in will bring
Not trying to start anything, but on this did you really mean 100%
confidence or 100% "expectation"? Personally I have 100% expectation but am
not always "100 confident" that EVERYTHING will go just fine. Therefore I am
always just a bit on edge ... just in case. {I do have a very high
confidence though}
> me back to the ground safely or I won't fly in it. I remain *prepared*
> for unexpected events (engine failure, etc.), but the moment I *expect*
> one, I don't fly.
>
> > There is great "FUD" that exists with the non-flying populace,
> > however unreasonable you and I may believe that to be.
>
> I submit that this FUD is only present because companies like yours are
> promoting how *dangerous* flying is, instead of promoting how *safe*
> flying is.
>
This might not be fair to BRS. I can recall ***MANY*** a passenger and/or
parent (with NO lknowledge of companies like BRS or their products) who
asked whether my plane (Archer or RV) had a parachute. They did not ask
because they were so much misled people. They asked because they had some
amount of "fear, uncertainty and doubt".They had not been "informed" to
their comfort level yet. After taking the time to explain to MOST, there is
not problem. On the other hand for SOME, their comfort level is increased
with the parachute system.
One of these people (recently) was an older brother of mine who is not into
aviation AT ALL. Over the years, parachutes have been put forth as a final
backup plan (e.g. for fighters) and he made the leap from maybe if they can
help people then they can help "this little plane" if it gets into trouble.
If I had said from the beginning we had a parachute, I am sure he would have
flown with me sooner. But after a quiet discussion by me and other brothers,
he decided to go up with me (because he decided he trusted ME and my
decisions) and he discovered it was actually pretty cool without any type of
parachute.
> > Wouldn't the installation of a
> > BRS system be a relatively small price to pay, if that would make
> > your spouse more comfortable with the idea? You may not have that
> > problem, but many others do!
>
> What would be a larger problem... Telling your wife that there's a big
> parachute mounted back there for when you screw up (thereby making her
> nervous that you may screw up), or that you tell her she can't take any
> baggage with her, because of that 100lb parachute back there that you
> put in to make *her* happy.
In the example above(re my brother), there was not an assumption that *I*
would be the cause of the problem. The "what-if" was associated with
something "going wrong" with the plane. And baggage was not a factor. It was
a just a fun ride.
>
> > I will tell you, that through our research, most non-flying
> > passengers overwhelmingly feel more comfortable with a device that
> > doesn't require them to have to get out of the airplane.
>
> I prefer to make my passengers comfortable enough with my abilities that
> they consider that device to be *me*. 8-)
>
Yes, you have to do this. But for a few, having that extra (perceived)
safety means a lot.
James
... just another viewpoint
> -Rob
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz>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Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Ditto to Tom and Kevins' comments.
I find it quite remarkable that Lycoming has been able to build these
engines and keep the (is it Specific Fuel Consumption (SPC)??) fuel needed
for "x" HP so close to being identical. We regularly fly 160 and 180 HP
RV6's at the same speeds (limited by the 160 HP model :-} ) and see
basically the same fuel consumption.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom Gummo
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 7:34 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> Another example is when I fly my IO-540 Harmon Rocket with a RV-4 with a
> IO-360. The drag between the two planes must be within a couple of
> percentage points. Anyway, with the RPM set the same, my bigger engine MP
> is several inches lower and the fuel flows were within a couple
> of tenth of
> a gallon. Once the drag and speed are set, it takes a given
> amount of HP to
> make it happen. The bigger the engine, the less hard it has to work to
> achieve that HP. But the amount of fuel needed will be about the same.
> Energy in has to equal energy out.
>
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: airspeeds of RV8/8A with 0-320 engine
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
> >
> > At 14:21 -0600 7/1/04, Glenn Williams wrote:
> > >--> RV-List message posted by:
> glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
> > >
> > >
> > >Guys who are flying an RV8/8A what are you showing airspeed
> wise with an
> > >0-320 powerplant? I am interested to know the speeds of the 150
> horsepower
> > >and the modified 160 horsepower speeds and typical range veres
> the 0-360.
> I
> > >am looking at going with the 0-320 powerplant for range and
> fuel economy.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > > Glenn Williams
> > >
> >
> > You don't need to run the O-360 at 75% power if you don't want to.
> > It should burn the same amount of fuel as the O-320, if you pull the
> > throttle back so it produces the same power as the O-320. If you
> > want fuel economy, consider fuel injection (more even fuel
> > distribution lets you run leaner), electronic ignition and cruise at
> > 45 - 55% power.
> >
> > Max range is achieved at speeds that are a lot slower than most RV
> > pilots want to fly. The power required (and hence fuel flow) will be
> > the same whether you have an O-320 or O-360.
> > --
> > Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> > Ottawa, Canada
> > http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
> >
> >
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Exiting an RV in Flight - Ideas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)"
> --> <F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz>
>
> SG9wZWZ1bGx5IHRoaXMgZW1haWwgd2lsbCB3b3JrIHByb3Blcmx5IG5vdy4uLg
> 0KIA0KPiAxNTkg
> bGl2ZXMgc2F2ZWQgaXMgbm90IHF1aXRlIGVub3VnaCwgaHVoPw0KIA0KSSB0aG
Frank, I thought New Zealanders spoke English.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 425 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: What every woman wants] |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Marvin
Subject: [Fwd: What every woman wants]
-------- Original Message -------- From: MJSVegas@aol.com
Subject: What every woman wants
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
See the attachment
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|