Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:00 AM - More on toe (Wheeler North)
2. 06:10 AM - Re: More on toe (Ron Calhoun)
3. 07:06 AM - Re: More on toe (Cy Galley)
4. 07:42 AM - Re: EZ pilot Report (Lockamy, Jack L)
5. 08:38 AM - Re: EZ pilot Report (Bill VonDane)
6. 08:40 AM - Re: Taildraggers and X wind landings (Doug Rozendaal)
7. 09:25 AM - Ordering Harbor Freight Tools (r miller)
8. 09:33 AM - Re: More on toe (Wheeler North)
9. 09:50 AM - Re: Ordering tools online from Harbor Freight and drill press speeds (HCRV6@aol.com)
10. 10:14 AM - Re: Toe (Rob Prior)
11. 10:21 AM - Re: One Yoke for Squeezer? (David Carter)
12. 11:10 AM - Re: More on toe (Rob Prior)
13. 11:50 AM - Re: More on toe (Rob Prior)
14. 12:44 PM - Moving an RV... (RV6AOKC@aol.com)
15. 01:30 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (JusCash@aol.com)
16. 01:31 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Scott Bilinski)
17. 01:41 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Tom Gummo)
18. 01:49 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (BELTEDAIR@aol.com)
19. 01:53 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com)
20. 02:29 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Paul Besing)
21. 02:44 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Bartrim, Todd)
22. 02:44 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (vansrv4grvmj)
23. 02:55 PM - Wheel alignment/Tire ware (John D. Heath)
24. 03:15 PM - Re:More on Toe (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
25. 03:21 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Cy Galley)
26. 03:52 PM - Web references on toe-in/toe-out (Bill Garrett)
27. 04:23 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Jim Jewell)
28. 04:25 PM - Re: Web references on toe-in/toe-out (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
29. 04:36 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (Jim Jewell)
30. 05:17 PM - Should I cancel my wing kit? :-) (Bill Dube)
31. 05:19 PM - Re: Web references on toe-in/toe-out (Ron Walker)
32. 06:56 PM - Re: Ordering Harbor Freight Tools (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
33. 08:23 PM - Re: Moving an RV... (linn walters)
34. 10:29 PM - This way up. (Rob W M Shipley)
35. 11:28 PM - Re: Re: Ordering Harbor Freight Tools (kempthornes)
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
To beat this sucker some more...
Cars are designed to be stable, so they go straight down the road. This is
acutally required by both Federal and some state's laws. Most aircraft are
also designed to be stable as well, as required by the FARs, Part 23, both
on the ground and in the air. We then add devices to unstabilize them so
they may be pointed in the direction of our choice.
In a car and an aircraft you have toe, camber, possibly castor, offset and
steering inclination (or rake for you motorcycle buffs)
Toe is the parallelness of the wheels to the longitudinal centerline (wheel
fronts in or out)
Camber is the perpendicularness of the wheel to the road (wheel tops in or
out)
castor, offset and SI relate to wheels that are meant to be steered rather
than fixed on an axle
Castor is the amount the steering pivot is angled inboard or outboard and
comes into play when you have two steerable wheels on a common axle.
SI or rake is the amount the steering pivot is angled fore and aft.
Offset is the amount the axle is offset fore or aft of the pivot point.
These latter two apply to all dual and single steerable wheels.
Ride height in and of itself doesn't effect any of this, but you usually
have to screw up all of this to change ride height, so if ride height is
off, so usually is everything else.
So the fixed gear axles on any car or aircraft are effected by camber and
toe.
Since most aircraft only have one steerable wheel, this is only effected by
SI/rake and offset, whereas cars are also effected by castor.
Positive static stability is the desire to not drift, to stay straight
ahead, to not roll, or pitch, and to return to balance when unstabilized.
Positive dynamic stability is the desire to dampen the drift oscillation
during each cycle and rebound.
In any system there can be any combination of positive, negative or neutral
static and dynamic stability. The factors affecting this are mass, motion,
or ability to move, rotate, etc., the mass location relative to the motion
or ability to move, and finally the external and internal forces acting upon
the mass such as airflow, road load, hookes law of springs, air pressure in
struts or tires, etc.
By and large the design engineers have figured out that for most three and
four wheeled vehicles the following holds true with respect to stability and
effect.
Excessive toe out creates straight ahead static stability, dynamic
instability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
Excessive toe in creates straight ahead static instability, dynamic
stability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
Minor toe out still creates dynamic instability.
Minor toe in still creates dynamic stability.
But neither of the last two effect static stability much, nor do they eat
tires too rapidly.
Camber mostly effects traction even when the camber angle is being moved out
of the perpendicular plain as in a steerable wheel with castor and SI.
Castor by itself mostly effects camber and if combined correctly with
SI/rake causes the wheel to dig in, bottoms away from the direction of the
turn, as it is turned. This does create a static force causing it to want to
stay straight ahead because the turning of the wheel has to raise the
vehicle slightly.
Steering inclination, like castor, by itself, effects camber, but if you add
forward offset with aft SI it adds a powerful static force for centering. It
can also effect the lifting effect castor has so that the outboard wheel
lifts and the inboard wheel lowers. But it causes static instability without
offset.
Aft SI/rake with forward offset is why the Harley Choppers were so stable on
the freeway but couldn't turn around in a stadium parking lot. Nose gear
often make use of this combination as well. But too much fwd offset will
then create a mass pendulum creating dynamic instability.
Tail wheels also utilize this, but they have to be very careful because
forward SI/rake and rearward offset are the same ingredients needed for
control surface flutter, ie dynamic instability due to center of mass aft of
the hinge line, even though it creates a static straight ahead stability.
This is why bigger tail wheels may have shimmy dampers.
Since I have helped design and install several of those $100K lasar guided
alignment systems recently mentioned, and I have taught both car alignment,
and aircraft rigging courses many times and have been adjusting both for a
long time, and I have tested what I am saying, and I have watched the result
of doing it wrong many times, and I have watched engineers test what I am
saying, I feel fairly confident that if you have either no, or slight toe-in
with the weight on the wheels, with the aircraft in the leveled position,
and its an RV, you will have the best ground handling characteristics with
reasonable tire life that you can get from and RV. (was that a run on
sentence or what), annnnddd, as a final testimony to what I have said in the
last few posts, my RV-6, which a few of you can testify to, seems to handle
very nicely, just got 500 hours of tire life out of the last set of McCreary
semi cheapos, and it is set to 1/8 deg toe-in for each wheel in the
previously mentioned adjusting configuration.
But if you want to believe that aircraft are so special that the laws of
physics for them are different than for cars, go for it. Toe 'em out. We're
always looking for a few good parts.
W
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ron Calhoun" <roncal@earthlink.net>
Wheeler,
I tried to pick out of your explanation what is causing my rv-4 tires to
wear excessively on the outside. It runs straight and true. The wear is
the only problem. My tires do appear to have excessive camber, even with
full weight on them. My flying friends say I just have not made enough hard
landings. What say ye?
Ron
RV-4 Flying
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
You have left out the effect of Center of Gravity and the dynamic controls
in 3 axis instead of just the 2 of automotive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: More on toe
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
>
> To beat this sucker some more...
>
> Cars are designed to be stable, so they go straight down the road. This is
> acutally required by both Federal and some state's laws. Most aircraft are
> also designed to be stable as well, as required by the FARs, Part 23, both
> on the ground and in the air. We then add devices to unstabilize them so
> they may be pointed in the direction of our choice.
>
> In a car and an aircraft you have toe, camber, possibly castor, offset and
> steering inclination (or rake for you motorcycle buffs)
>
> Toe is the parallelness of the wheels to the longitudinal centerline
(wheel
> fronts in or out)
> Camber is the perpendicularness of the wheel to the road (wheel tops in or
> out)
>
> castor, offset and SI relate to wheels that are meant to be steered rather
> than fixed on an axle
> Castor is the amount the steering pivot is angled inboard or outboard and
> comes into play when you have two steerable wheels on a common axle.
>
> SI or rake is the amount the steering pivot is angled fore and aft.
> Offset is the amount the axle is offset fore or aft of the pivot point.
> These latter two apply to all dual and single steerable wheels.
>
> Ride height in and of itself doesn't effect any of this, but you usually
> have to screw up all of this to change ride height, so if ride height is
> off, so usually is everything else.
>
> So the fixed gear axles on any car or aircraft are effected by camber and
> toe.
>
> Since most aircraft only have one steerable wheel, this is only effected
by
> SI/rake and offset, whereas cars are also effected by castor.
>
> Positive static stability is the desire to not drift, to stay straight
> ahead, to not roll, or pitch, and to return to balance when unstabilized.
>
> Positive dynamic stability is the desire to dampen the drift oscillation
> during each cycle and rebound.
>
> In any system there can be any combination of positive, negative or
neutral
> static and dynamic stability. The factors affecting this are mass, motion,
> or ability to move, rotate, etc., the mass location relative to the motion
> or ability to move, and finally the external and internal forces acting
upon
> the mass such as airflow, road load, hookes law of springs, air pressure
in
> struts or tires, etc.
>
> By and large the design engineers have figured out that for most three and
> four wheeled vehicles the following holds true with respect to stability
and
> effect.
>
> Excessive toe out creates straight ahead static stability, dynamic
> instability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
> Excessive toe in creates straight ahead static instability, dynamic
> stability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
> Minor toe out still creates dynamic instability.
> Minor toe in still creates dynamic stability.
> But neither of the last two effect static stability much, nor do they eat
> tires too rapidly.
>
> Camber mostly effects traction even when the camber angle is being moved
out
> of the perpendicular plain as in a steerable wheel with castor and SI.
>
> Castor by itself mostly effects camber and if combined correctly with
> SI/rake causes the wheel to dig in, bottoms away from the direction of the
> turn, as it is turned. This does create a static force causing it to want
to
> stay straight ahead because the turning of the wheel has to raise the
> vehicle slightly.
>
> Steering inclination, like castor, by itself, effects camber, but if you
add
> forward offset with aft SI it adds a powerful static force for centering.
It
> can also effect the lifting effect castor has so that the outboard wheel
> lifts and the inboard wheel lowers. But it causes static instability
without
> offset.
>
> Aft SI/rake with forward offset is why the Harley Choppers were so stable
on
> the freeway but couldn't turn around in a stadium parking lot. Nose gear
> often make use of this combination as well. But too much fwd offset will
> then create a mass pendulum creating dynamic instability.
>
> Tail wheels also utilize this, but they have to be very careful because
> forward SI/rake and rearward offset are the same ingredients needed for
> control surface flutter, ie dynamic instability due to center of mass aft
of
> the hinge line, even though it creates a static straight ahead stability.
> This is why bigger tail wheels may have shimmy dampers.
>
> Since I have helped design and install several of those $100K lasar guided
> alignment systems recently mentioned, and I have taught both car
alignment,
> and aircraft rigging courses many times and have been adjusting both for a
> long time, and I have tested what I am saying, and I have watched the
result
> of doing it wrong many times, and I have watched engineers test what I am
> saying, I feel fairly confident that if you have either no, or slight
toe-in
> with the weight on the wheels, with the aircraft in the leveled position,
> and its an RV, you will have the best ground handling characteristics with
> reasonable tire life that you can get from and RV. (was that a run on
> sentence or what), annnnddd, as a final testimony to what I have said in
the
> last few posts, my RV-6, which a few of you can testify to, seems to
handle
> very nicely, just got 500 hours of tire life out of the last set of
McCreary
> semi cheapos, and it is set to 1/8 deg toe-in for each wheel in the
> previously mentioned adjusting configuration.
>
> But if you want to believe that aircraft are so special that the laws of
> physics for them are different than for cars, go for it. Toe 'em out.
We're
> always looking for a few good parts.
>
> W
>
>
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: EZ pilot Report |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy@navy.mil>
Wheeler,
Jerry (Trio Avionics) emailed me yesterday that my LCD EZ Pilot would be shipping
today....
So far, I am very impressed with the customer support from Trio Avionics, unlike
the NAVAID Devices, Inc. folks which is one reason I yanked out their A/P Control
Head before even flying my RV-7A.
Let's just hope the EZ Pilot LCD screen doesn't suffer from possible EMI. I'm
wiring the Dynon EFIS into the panel this weekend and plan to shield EVERYTHING....
Please keep the EZ Pilot reports coming....
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A QB N174JL reserved
www.jacklockamy.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EZ pilot Report |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
Do you have to use the Navaid Servo? Or can you use something else?
-Bill VonDane
EAA Tech Counselor
RV-8A ~ N8WV ~ Colorado Springs
www.vondane.com
www.creativair.com
www.epanelbuilder.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy@navy.mil>
Subject: Re: RV-List: EZ pilot Report
--> RV-List message posted by: "Lockamy, Jack L" <jack.lockamy@navy.mil>
Wheeler,
Jerry (Trio Avionics) emailed me yesterday that my LCD EZ Pilot would be
shipping today....
So far, I am very impressed with the customer support from Trio Avionics,
unlike the NAVAID Devices, Inc. folks which is one reason I yanked out their
A/P Control Head before even flying my RV-7A.
Let's just hope the EZ Pilot LCD screen doesn't suffer from possible EMI.
I'm wiring the Dynon EFIS into the panel this weekend and plan to shield
EVERYTHING....
Please keep the EZ Pilot reports coming....
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
RV-7A QB N174JL reserved
www.jacklockamy.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Taildraggers and X wind landings |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
Rotation is not where people get in trouble, it is raising and lowering the
tail. This is one of the prime elements of the endless 3 point vs Wheel
landing debate. In a trike, The gyroscopic effect is not that great because
the pitch change at rotation should be very small and fairly slow. Raising
and lowering the tail is a large pitch change which can be done at a brisk
rate which exacerbates the problem.
Alex is correct, when you rotate, lower the tail, the nose goes right, but
by then you have enough airspeed that the rudder and vertical stabilizer is
very effective. If you do "lose it" you just pull back a little more and
fly away.
A right crosswind is definitely best for takeoff, P-factor is the biggie in
a tailwheel airplane. Gyroscopic effect is a fairly small contributor here,
. On landing in a small airplane with a large propeller(s), like the
Mustang, T-6, or the Twin Beech, you notice a definite right turning
tendency while lowering the tail.
As a direct result of this phenomenon, Left wings for a T-6 are about 3 to 4
times more money than right wings. (I will resist the obvious political pun)
Rushing the tail down aggravates this problem. The pitch change rate is
high and the increase in AOA results in less weight on the wheels. People
learning in the T-6 get spooked when the runway disappears over the nose and
try to rush the tail down for tailwheel steering. A well timed gust from
the right and the next thing you know, you are farming. (BTDT)
At the risk of starting the dreaded 3 pt vs Wheel Landing debate, 3 point
take-offs and landings will, all but, totally negate gyroscopic effect, but
P-Factor will be greater in a 3 point take off. That all said, I mostly T/O
& land on the wheels.
Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
>
> John, my instructors were wrong. What was said is that when one rotates
> on takeoff, the nose will veer left from the gyroscopic precession of
> the prop, adding a third left yawing component. Rotation implies tail
> comes down. There would appear to be two components pulling left and
> one pulling right during the rotation.
>
> Alex Peterson
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: | Ordering Harbor Freight Tools |
--> RV-List message posted by: r miller <robertpmiller@comcast.net>
I live near a Harbor Freight store. You often get less than you pay
for. Unless you can see the stuff I think your taking a gamble. You
should only buy stuff from them when it is on sale, as the sales rotate
through their stock all the time. I got some mics and they were like
15 and they are pretty good, but you can't count on it. The prices
can be so low that the stuff is just disposable anyway.
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 |
|
"'rv-list@matronics.com'" <rv-list@matronics.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
woops,
late night emails are a bad idea, I definately was using the terms SI and
Castor reversed. thx John,
RE lateral offset and independant non steerable suspension, I was trying not
to add to many factors, nor did I add the effects of tire wear, worn
suspension etc.
But the basic rules of static force and dynamic force apply to all vehicles
as they are all a chunk of mass hurtling down the road, with tires fore and
aft. Just because it has wings or three wheels doesn't change the physics of
it.
And in all the vehicles I have ever test driven/flown with toe out, they are
squirrely for the reasons I tried to describe (ie: eliminating the toe out
fixed the problem). This is even true with rear axle toe out, but it is
canceled by the front wheel(s) overriding that dynamic instability.
Some of the old german cars would get rear axle toe out and they would
wiggle their asses ever so slightly, much like german girls and also very
much like a nose dragger with the mains toed out. I have never rigged a
three or four wheel vehicle that intentionally had toe-out specs from the
manufacturer, but there may be cases of this, particularly if the vehicle
changes weight a large amount thereby flexing the steering geometery.
Longitudinal offset does compensate for road crown, among other things. It
creates a centering action, but only if coupled with aft rake or castor
(correctly stated, duh)
The common starting point is the above relationship of static force and
dynamic force as it applies to a mass in motion. So far I believe Newton has
never been proven wrong, but who knows in this new day of "anything goes".
Who knows, maybe Britney can rip off Michael Jacksons jock strap in the
world series.
thanks for catching that,
W
-----Original Message-----
From: John D. Heath [mailto:altoq@direcway.com]
Subject: Re: RV-List: More on toe
Almost, not quite.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: More on toe
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
>
> To beat this sucker some more...
>
> Cars are designed to be stable, so they go straight down the road. This is
> acutally required by both Federal and some state's laws. Most aircraft are
> also designed to be stable as well, as required by the FARs, Part 23, both
> on the ground and in the air. We then add devices to unstabilize them so
> they may be pointed in the direction of our choice.
Most cars are designed to satisfy the same minds that promote sliding to the
scene of the accident with all four wheels locked up, thereby removing any
control from the driver.
> In a car and an aircraft you have toe, camber, possibly castor, offset and
> steering inclination (or rake for you motorcycle buffs)
>
> Toe is the parallel of the wheels to the longitudinal centerline
(wheel
> fronts in or out)
> Camber is the perpendicular of the wheel to the road (wheel tops in or
> out)
>
> castor, offset and SI relate to wheels that are meant to be steered rather
> than fixed on an axle
Offset is designed into vehicles, with four wheels or more, to help
compensate for road crown (Which is not built into roads on purpose any
more).
Some Ridged rear axel cars and most independent rear suspension cars do have
Camber. All independent rear suspension cars have toe in or out and some
have caster. Some cars have active rear steer and some have designed in bump
steer.
> Castor is the amount the steering pivot is angled inboard or outboard and
> comes into play when you have two steer wheels on a common axle.
Castor is the amount the steering pivot or axis is angled fore and aft.
> SI or rake is the amount the steering pivot is angled fore and aft.
> Offset is the amount the axle is offset fore or aft of the pivot point.
> These latter two apply to all dual and single steerable wheels.
SI is the amount the steering axis is angled inboard or outboard.
Rake is the amount the axel is offset fore or aft of the pivot axis.
> Ride height in and of itself doesn't effect any of this, but you usually
> have to screw up all of this to change ride height, so if ride height is
> off, so usually is everything else.
> So the fixed gear axles on any car or aircraft are effected by camber and
> toe.
>
> Since most aircraft only have one steerable wheel, this is only effected
by
> SI/rake and offset, whereas cars are also effected by castor.
Steerable wheels on aircraft are much like motor cycles, the steering axis
is tipped fore or aft, so they do have caster.
The axel is most often aft of the steering axis. so they do have rake.
> By and large the design engineers have figured out that for most three and
> four wheeled vehicles the following holds true with respect to stability
and
> effect.
>
> Excessive toe out creates straight ahead static stability, dynamic
> instability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
> Excessive toe in creates straight ahead static instability, dynamic
> stability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
> Minor toe out still creates dynamic instability.
> Minor toe in still creates dynamic stability.
> But neither of the last two effect static stability much, nor do they eat
> tires too rapidly.
I don't know if this is what the design engineers have figured out. Any of
this might be true in a particular circumstance. More times than you would
believe, good design is sacrificed for the sake of a good marketable
product.
> Since I have helped design and install several of those $100K lasar guided
> alignment systems recently mentioned, and I have taught both car
alignment,
> and aircraft rigging courses many times and have been adjusting both for a
> long time, and I have tested what I am saying, and I have watched the
result
> of doing it wrong many times, and I have watched engineers test what I am
> saying,
I would like to say here that I am not in question of anyone's competence or
lack of experience. However, a sweep solution to all alignment and stability
problems for all aircraft of type,is not within my grasp. My experience
tells me
that regardless of how you arrive at design settings for caster, camber,
etc, you must have that common starting point.
Then you must make further adjustment to achieve the desired serviceability
and stability. Excessive is just that, excessive.A requirement for an
excessive amount of adjustment suggest that execution of the design is poor
or that structural limits have been exceeded.
> I feel fairly confident that if you have either no, or slight
>toe-in
> with the weight on the wheels, with the aircraft in the leveled position,
> and its an RV, you will have the best ground handling characteristics with
> reasonable tire life that you can get from and RV. (was that a run on
> sentence or what), annnnddd, as a final testimony to what I have said in
the
> last few posts, my RV-6, which a few of you can testify to, seems to
handle
> very nicely, just got 500 hours of tire life out of the last set of
McCreary
> semi cheapos, and it is set to 1/8 deg toe-in for each wheel in the
> previously mentioned adjusting configuration.
>
> But if you want to believe that aircraft are so special that the laws of
> physics for them are different than for cars, go for it. Toe 'em out.
Can't agree more.
>
> W
>
John D.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ordering tools online from Harbor Freight and drill press |
speeds
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 2/4/04 1:17:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
linenwool@comcast.net writes:
<< does the slow 250 RPM come in handy in other situations that I'm not
thinking of? >>
Unless you really like living dangerously, don't even think of using a
flycutter at higher speed than 250 RPM. Just MHO of course.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, moving to hangar soon
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
(delete now if you don't like long discussions... 8-)
Wheeler North wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
> Possibly you missed the point about dynamic flexing. I have tested this by
> physically moving wheel alignment from toe in to toe out and back to see
> what this does on several different airplanes, both tail draggers and nose
> draggers.
Of course, all of this analysis depends on the static case, where you're
making a smooth landing on a smooth paved strip. If you're landing on a
bumpy grass strip, and your gearleg is "bouncy", your wheel could be
oscillating from toed-in to toed-out, and cambered-in to cambered-out,
at the same time. Still, you have to be able to analyze it, so you work
with the assumed "mean" position of the wheel. Which will be the static
case.
> Also this vector analysis only deals with
> static balance IE the desire to return to straight ahead.
Isn't that the goal? To prevent a groundloop?
> But dynamically although
> toe out causes the plane and heavy wheel to run away from its CG vector
> causing a desire to stay straight ahead, the accumlative pull and gear flex
> causes it to suddenly rebound thereby pointing CG vector to the other side
> rapidly rather than controllably keeping it loaded in one direction until
> the user changes it.
I don't think so. As the heavy wheel runs away from it's CG vector, the
heaviness decreases, and it reaches a static state. Of course there
will be an oscillation around the static point, but it will approach
that static point as the plane settles and both wheels get on the
ground. During this time, the lateral force is oscillating between
stabilizing (which is good) and no force at all (or maybe slight
destabilizing, if the wheel oscillates to a toed-in alignment).
But if your wheels are toed-in, the heavy wheel will be fighting your
ability to land smoothly from the time it hits. The lateral force will
be oscillating between destabilizing (which is bad) and no force at all
(or maybe slight stabilizing, if the wheel oscillates to toed-out).
> this is kinda tough to visiualize which is why I was
> trying to avoid going there
Yeah, and I tried to stay out of this discussion as long as possible
before diving headlong into it as well... But i'm in it now. 8-)
> Usually when a pilot squacks "squirrley" this is what I look for,
> ie: large toe out as evidenced by sharp ridges on the outboard edges of the
> tire tread ribs.
Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? Toe-out or toe-in, the
wheel could still be contacting the ground at the center of it's tread.
Are you thinking camber, ie. the top of the tire further out than the
bottom, and not toe-in/out, ie. the front of the tire further in/out
than the rear?
> Ground loops are almost always the result over controlling to slowly (which
> often starts as not enough input to late and digresses to too much input for
> too long or too late). The lag and then sudden increase of input on top of
> the aircraft dynamically rebounding due to toe out usually only takes one
> oscillation to incur a full loop.
When your "heavy" wheel is pointing across the axis of your CG's
velocity vector, you're asking for a groundloop. If your wheels are
toed-in, you *start* your touchdown in this state. No amount of dynamic
vibration or oscillation will change the fact that you have a
destabilizing force acting against your landing stability. When your
wheels are toed-out, you start your touchdown in a quasi-stable state.
Your CG is still behind your wheels, which is unstable, but you're
making use of the physics of the situation to gain every little bit of
help that you can in order to keep the airplane straight on landing.
> Very slight toe out can also exacerbate this because of the lag caused by
> the wheel shifting its track from toe out to toe in as it is side loaded if
> the aircraft's gear geometery allow this, which the RVs do.
You say it, but it's not clear that this happens. At least, it's not
clear that it would happen on a toed-out gear, but wouldn't on a toed-in
gear. If it's toed-out to start with and oscillates between in and out,
then the same should be true if it was toed-in to start with. Toed in
is less stable.
> The easiest way to see this aspect is to use your arm and fist to emulate
> the RV gear and wheel. As weight is added that gear will flex backwards and
> outwards. As it does this it will move it towards toe-in.
This may be a good thing to measure on an RV, as I can't see this no
matter how hard I try to configure it in my head. When I simulate it
using a wire, the static loading case (aircraft not moving) doesn't show
any real change in toe-in or toe-out, but if anything it's a slight
toe-out. When you add the landing load, which is a drag force applied
to the wheel, it causes the gearleg to flex to the back, twisting the
axle to the outside, increasing the toe-out. So as near as I can tell,
the heavy wheel on an RV will *always* have toe-out, unless you set it
with *lots* of toe-in to start with.
Maybe this is exactly what's intended... With a slight "preload" of
toe-in, in the case of a crosswind, one-wheel landing the gear flexes to
give you toe-out, which stabilizes you. Once wheels are flat on the
ground, and the speed has dropped, you go back to neutral or slight
toe-in (but by that point it won't matter, as the danger of a groundloop
is lessened, unless a dastardly gust comes out of nowhere...).
> Hope I didn't get too crazy here, I can assure you I have tested and cured
> this more times than I care to admit, and it seems to hold true for most
> aircraft.
I can't argue with practical experience. Theory often falls down hard
when shown that "it just doesn't work that way." But even when that
happens, it's usually pretty simple to show that the reason the theory
doesn't hold is because it's faulty. If it were just me, i'd bow to the
practical experience of you and others who can explain quite eloquently
what you've seen in practise. But every design textbook I can find says
that toe-out (or neutral) is the "best" alignment for taildraggers. I
would have expected that 50 years later someone would have found new
theory to explain why the old theory is wrong.
-Rob
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: One Yoke for Squeezer? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
I have 3 yokes on my pneu squeezer - one with about a 2" reach, one with
maybe 4" (deeper) reach, and a "no hole yoke" for getting into tight spots.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <tx_jayhawk@excite.com>
Subject: RV-List: One Yoke for Squeezer?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "" <tx_jayhawk@excite.com>
>
>
> I know this has been done to death in the archives, but I am looking for
some updated opinions. If I were to only buy one yoke for a pneumatic
squeezer, which have people found to be most valuable? I am assuming the
longeron yoke would be the most versatile. It seems to be $135 at
Cleveland...anyone know of a cheaper spot? I am looking for yokes that fit
the 214c style squeezers. For reference, I am at the wing skeleton stage.
>
> Also, if anyone has a used squeezer they want to get rid of, I would love
to take it off your hands.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
> 7A Wings
> http://sky.prohosting.com/rv7a/
>
> Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
> The most personalized portal on the Web!
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Wheeler North wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
> Toe is the parallelness of the wheels to the longitudinal centerline (wheel
> fronts in or out)
> Camber is the perpendicularness of the wheel to the road (wheel tops in or
> out)
Ah, okay, disregard previous message's question as to whether you and I
were on the same page with respect to toe-in vs. camber. We are.
> Positive static stability is the desire to not drift, to stay straight
> ahead, to not roll, or pitch, and to return to balance when unstabilized.
Correct. But toe-in will destablilize this condition on a tailwheel.
Neutral toe-in/out will be neutrally stable. And toe-out will stabilize it.
> Positive dynamic stability is the desire to dampen the drift oscillation
> during each cycle and rebound.
Also correct. But whether you have a toed-out wheel that drifts out
until it has no more traction, then "pops" in again, or whether you have
a toed-in wheel that drifts in until it bounces the plane into the air,
then "pops" out again, is irrelevant.
> Excessive toe out creates straight ahead static stability, dynamic
> instability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
> Excessive toe in creates straight ahead static instability, dynamic
> stability and scrubs tires very rapidly.
I agree in both cases, except for the dynamic instability. There must
be reference material on this somewhere... Does anyone know where?
> Minor toe out still creates dynamic instability.
> Minor toe in still creates dynamic stability.
I only partly agree. I would say that the above is true on a nosewheel
aircraft, and that the opposite is true on a tailwheel aircraft.
> But if you want to believe that aircraft are so special that the laws of
> physics for them are different than for cars, go for it. Toe 'em out. We're
> always looking for a few good parts.
Sorry, but you've already claimed that your suggestion of toe-in works
despite the theoretical explanations to the contrary... So don't try
playing the "laws of physics" card now.
I'm all for saying that airplanes behave the laws of physics. What i'd
like to see are the laws that say that toe-in makes a tailwheel airplane
stable, when aircraft designers are being taught (with physics) that
toe-out is required.
Hopefully this will be resolved before I get to my fuselage kit... 8-)
-Rob
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Wheeler North wrote:
> But the basic rules of static force and dynamic force apply to all vehicles
> as they are all a chunk of mass hurtling down the road, with tires fore and
> aft. Just because it has wings or three wheels doesn't change the physics of
> it.
But whether it's steered from the front of the vehicle or rear, *does*
change the physics of it. Tailwheel aircraft have fixed forward wheels
and rear steering, but even three-wheeled cars (with two wheels in
front) have front steering. We need to stop using cars as an analogy,
the mission profile for their wheels doesn't apply here. Cars don't get
a "heavy wheel" due to a crosswind landing (unless you're Molt Taylor or
one of the Dukes of Hazzard with Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane on your
tail... but I digress). Airplanes do.
> The common starting point is the above relationship of static force and
> dynamic force as it applies to a mass in motion. So far I believe Newton has
> never been proven wrong, but who knows in this new day of "anything goes".
I agree completely. But so far, the textbooks (ie. the laws-of-physics
explanations) are favoring toe-out for a tailwheel aircraft. So far all
i've seen is anecdotal evidence that toe-in is more stable, and I can
find lots of anecdotal evidence to the contrary with a quick google
search. Can we find some laws-of-physics explanations that show that
we're more stable with toe-in? I gave one previously that says we're
more stable with toe-out, here it is again:
Reference: Stinton, Darrol "The Design of the Aeroplane", Chapter 10
"Choice of Landing Gear"
I admit that I don't *know* the correct answer here. But if toe-in is
better, i'd like to understand *why* it's better, not just hear "because
it just works." Plenty of people say toe-out "just works" too.
> Who knows, maybe Britney can rip off Michael Jacksons jock strap in the
> world series.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeuuuck. I think one "wardrobe malfunction" per millenium is
enough, thanks...
-Rob
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of paying
$150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A. I
have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and the
like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about 85"). Most
trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't loan
their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and live
in a
large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer resources. If
you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on a
69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
Kurt in OKC
Do Not Archive
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: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: JusCash@aol.com
I moved mine with a tilt bed car hauling truck. I think I paid about $125.00
to rent it.
Cash Copeland
RV6 Hayward, Ca
In a message dated 2/5/2004 12:46:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
RV6AOKC@aol.com writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of paying
$150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A. I
have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and the
like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about 85").
Most
trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't loan
their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
live in a
large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer resources.
If
you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on a
69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
Kurt in OKC
Do Not Archive
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I used a towing company. They showed up with a BIG tractor trailor with a
"low boy" type trailer, about 50 ft long!!! It could lower the trailer to
ground level and had a winch to pull the fuse on, it was so easy, but cost
$150 an hour. Luckly it only took and hour! I only had to go 15 miles, it
was painless and the towing company had insurance that would cover aircraft.
At 03:43 PM 2/5/04 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
>Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of paying
>$150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A. I
>have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and the
>like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about 85").
>Most
>trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't loan
>their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
>Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
>live in a
>large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer resources.
> If
>you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on a
>69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
>Kurt in OKC
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Kurt,
I have a tail wheel model.
I had my welder make a special trailer hitch which came out far and high
enough (so the tail surfaces cleared the back of the car during turns). I
could attach the tail wheel and just towed it like a trailer. Of course, I
didn't use the freeway during the fifteen mile trip. I checked with the
police and I didn't need any special permissions.
I had another car follow to act as a barrier.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV6AOKC@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
> Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of
paying
> $150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A.
I
> have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and
the
> like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about
85"). Most
> trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't
loan
> their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
> Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
live in a
> large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer
resources. If
> you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on
a
> 69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
> Kurt in OKC
>
> 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: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
How about getting Van to design folding wings?
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: Moving an RV... |
02/05/2004 03:13:27 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: glenn.williams@businessacft.bombardier.com
Have you thought about removing the main gear and resting the fuselage on
some foam pads while on the trailer? It will fit fine with the gear removed
and when you get to the hangar it is just a matter of using an engine hoist
or similar lifting device. We use a come along mounted to a hangar beam to
lift the fuselages and install the gear, here at the Orndorffs place. Just
my two cents worth.
do not archive
Glenn Williams
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: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
A flatbed tow truck works fine. Most have a $1,000,000 policy. Tell them
exactly what you are doing, and I'm sure they have done it before. I went
about 40 miles, all freeway. I chose to do it in the middle of the night,
as to avoid any potential traffic accidents.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
RV-10 Soon
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV6AOKC@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
> Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of
paying
> $150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A.
I
> have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and
the
> like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about
85"). Most
> trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't
loan
> their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
> Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
live in a
> large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer
resources. If
> you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on
a
> 69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
> Kurt in OKC
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bartrim, Todd" <sbartrim@mail.canfor.ca>
Hi Kurt;
I used a flat deck tow truck to move mine. It worked very well. The
deck moves down to ground level, then I wrapped a couple of slings around
the main gear and the truck's winch gently pulls it up onto the deck. It was
easy and very safe. It was hauled ~25km and the whole operation took less
than an hour and IIRC only cost $65CAD. The tow company carries insurance
and is responsible for overwidth permits. (the empennage span on an RV-9 is
10').
I have a flat deck trailer that would have worked fine but it simply
wasn't worth the hassle.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RX-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
-Albert Einstein
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RV6AOKC@aol.com [SMTP:RV6AOKC@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 12:44 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
> Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of
> paying
> $150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A.
> I
> have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and
> the
> like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about
> 85"). Most
> trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't
> loan
> their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
> Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
> live in a
> large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer
> resources. If
> you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on
> a
> 69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
> Kurt in OKC
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<META NAME"Generator" CONTENT"MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
RE: RV-List: Moving an RV...
Hi Kurt;
I used a flat deck tow truck to move mine. It worked very well. The deck moves
down to ground level, then I wrapped a couple of slings around the main gear
and the truck's winch gently pulls it up onto the deck. It was easy and very safe.
It was hauled ~25km and the whole operation took less than an hour and IIRC
only cost $65CAD. The tow company carries insurance and is responsible for
overwidth permits. (the empennage span on an RV-9 is 10').
I have a flat deck trailer that would have worked fine but it simply wasn't worth
the hassle.
S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RX-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
Imagination is more important than knowledge
-Albert Einstein
-----Original Message-----
From: RV6AOKC@aol.com [SMTP:RV6AOKC@aol.com]
Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
-- RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of paying
$150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A. I
have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and the
like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about 85). Most
trailers are around 69 I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't loan
their RV Transporter out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and live
in a
large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer resources. If
you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on a
69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
Kurt in OKC
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: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "vansrv4grvmj" <vansrv4grvmj@btinternet.com>
--> RV-List message posted by: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
>
> How about getting Van to design folding wings?
How about a deflatable Rv? pull the plug and store it in the doorpocket of
your car :-)
do not archive
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wheel alignment/Tire ware |
--> RV-List message posted by: "John D. Heath" <altoq@direcway.com>
Very long and Controversial, now is the time to delete
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Things I know about wheels:
1. A balanced wheel free rolling at speed straight up and down on a smooth level
surface, is in a high state of stability. Generally observed rolling away from
the crash site but, necessary to visualize in ones mind in order to understand
what is about to come.
2. Perfection without question, is difficult to attain.
3. Perfect rolling wheels are of no use, unless, as in our case, they are attached
to an airplane. This in its self making them imperfect.
Things I understand about wheels:
1. Wheels support the weight of the aircraft and transmit outside forces to the
aircraft through the tire's contact patch.
Contact Patch; That part of the tire in contact with the runway. That contact patch
can move laterally with any side force on the wheel and can increase in area
when carrying more weight or when air pressure is low.
2. The center of the Contact Patch ideally should be situated on any axis of gyration
incorporated in the device that attaches that wheel to the aircraft. Axis
of Gyration; that axis around which a structure will react in torsion if acted
upon by a design forces.
Things that are a matter of fact :
1. Things that are near perfection or ideal are stable in a very narrow range
if disrupted. They are subject to harmonic and sympathetic disruptions.
2. All the plan drawings I have are illustrated weight off.
3. I refer to drawings of RV-8/8a because those are the ones I've got and the ones
I like.
4. Even though straight up and down and right straight ahead are thought to be
ideal, geometry of the wheel, the overall design structure and known outside forces
will not allow it.
5. For purposes of what is to be said here, axis of gyration is closely parallel
to the longitudinal center line of the gear leg. We won't be getting into "
Polar Axis of Gyration " and the like. Its too late to change it so we'll ignore
it.
Now without trying to second guess the designer, lets put all that mess together.
Referring to DWG 50 for the RV-8 ( a front view of the landing gear ), you can
see that considerable camber has been used to bring the Contact Patch just inside
of the axis of gyration of the gear leg (not dead on, an intentional miss).
This intentional miss and the forces it would manufacture and the fact that
gear leans back (looking from the side) would cause the wheel to try and Toe
out.
Now, shift your gray matter into 3D mode. Looking at the gear leg from the side
or DWG 45, You can see that the Axel is mounted very slightly behind the axis
of gyration. The manufactured forces here tend to make the wheel toe in (weight
on).
Ah Ha!! One force counter acting the other and depending on how balanced they
are Stability, no tire ware, and all the harmonics are coming in on Satellite
XM/FM.
You ain't ever gona' see it !!!! But here's what you can do. Execute the design
as well as it can be done at initial construction. Just good enough, is not
good enough. Just the way the plan says will work. After construction it is
not imposable for events to off set the most exacting efforts of construction
and alter a formerly perfect effort.
Insure that the intended original dimensions of the gear have been maintained.
Are the main wheels the same distance apart as they used to be? Look for symmetrical
from side to side. Are the bolts all tight? Adjust the wheel bearings.
If you are satisfied that all is as it should be, Make and record adjustments.
Toe in wares the tires on the outside and leaves a little feather edge on the outside
tread bars.
Toe out does the opposite.
If toe is out to the extreme it will cause ware patterns diagonally across the
tread bars and vibrations in sympathy with some ground speed and directional instability.
Excessive camber is anything that can not be compensated for with Toe adjustment
and will cause cupping like ware on the edges of the tread, Vibrations from
Hell that change as tire ware progresses, and directional instability
Camber is arguably there (kind of if a tree fell in the forest thing) But you
can't adjust it and it ain't hurtin' anything.
These values of camber, caster, toe etc. are as they would be during conditions
of tire ware or when instability is experienced. Not what they measure Setting
on the ground tail up or down or completely up on jacks. Some vibrations don't
stem from wheel alignment.
Now all this might sound like Measure it with a Micrometer, Mark it with Chalk,
Cut it with an Axe, technology and in a way it is. But you must remember the
Measurement is most important, a Mark is just for reference, and some Axes are
sharper than others.
Now if you read all this and decide to implement some of it, I won't be responsible
for interpretation or execution. You know where I'm going here. This strictly
my opinion and what I have done and would do If I had some of the covered
problems.
John D.
PS: The Primer wars boys are runnin' for cover on this one
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
BOY !! There sure some long winded guys on here !
See Van's plans and construction manual. He has designed and sold all these
great planes we love to fly,so he MUST have something on the ball .
I just leveled my RV-4,clamped a long piece of 2" X 2" angle to both axles
and drilled the gear leg anchor holes. NO toe IN or OUT. It has worked fine for
our RV-4's - 700 hrs on one & 56 hrs. on another.
Bob Olds A&P , EAA Tech. Counselor
RV-4 , N1191X , Flying Now
Charleston, Arkansas
"Real Aviators Fly Taildraggers"
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Might check around for an open car trailer from an antique car owner.
Another trailer that can easily be used is a boat trailer. You can use a
2x6 that is long enough for your gear span. Then nail or deck screw on a
couple of 2x4s on the edge of the 2x6 in front and back of the wheels to
chauk them. Almost any flat trailer has enough capacity and with a 2x6 or
even a 2x8 to extent the width, you are out to the airport.
If you would like to talk about it, e-mail me your phone number direct. We
send a few planes down the road every once in a while when they can't be
repaired at the convention.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter soon to be Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV6AOKC@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
> Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of
paying
> $150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A.
I
> have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and
the
> like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about
85"). Most
> trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't
loan
> their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
> Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
live in a
> large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer
resources. If
> you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on
a
> 69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
> Kurt in OKC
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
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: | Web references on toe-in/toe-out |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Garrett" <bgarrett920@comcast.net>
The debate on toe-in vs. toe-out got me curious enough to do a Google search
to see what others are saying.
What I found were interesting and conflicting opinions that have led me to
the following hypotheses (some of which I'm more confident than others):
a) toe settings are likely much more important in tail-draggers than trikes,
b) toe requirements might not be the same for the two gear types,
c) I don't imagine I want much of either one, and
d) while there may be a correct answer in theory to this issue(if so, I
don't have it), toe settings are probably dependent on enough other things
(camber, COG, airplane attitude and alignment, ???) all of which are
influenced in construction and dynamically through airplane loading and
ground operations, as to preclude there being a single correct 'real-world'
answer.
Just my opinion, which may change before I'm flying but I think if I were
there now I'd try to set toe to complement whatever camber exists to balance
each other as a starting point and then adjust once flying if the plane
doesn't handle well on the ground. Of course with a trike I don't think
it's a big a concern for me either.
Below I've included links to the sites I found useful and quotes from those
that seemed concise enough.
Bill
http://www.mindspring.com/~cramskill/toe_in.htm
An article written by an R/C builder explaining why he believes toe-in works
for tail-dragger R/C planes.
http://www.cessna120-140.org/Library/serviceletter/SL_Cessna_56.htm
Cessna's specs for toe-in for Cessna tail-draggers (140, 170, 195)
http://www.warbuddies.homestead.com/files/Setting-Toe.htm
Website for WAR replica builders (Source of quote - The following was taken
from Frank J. O'Brien's book "HOMEBUILTS, A Handbook for the First-Time
Builder, TAB Books, Inc.):
"Something that is not talked about in either the plans or the construction
manual is the toe-in adjustment for the wheels. This is a fairly critical
procedure, because if any toe-out is present, the aircraft will be very
difficult to control while taxiing and during the takeoff and landing roll."
(Refers later in the article specifically to the WAR Corsair)
http://www.ndrcc.com/Newsletters/jan04.pdf
From an R/C airplane newsletter:
"I used to correspond with a high-level engineer at British Aerospace, and
his rule was Trike gear: Toe In, Taildragger,Toe Out. But I caught him on a
lot of stuff, so I always took what he said with about a pound of salt.
Empirically, I find that on a low-wing taildragger with wide stance, toe-in
helps. Conversely, on a high-wing with narrow stance (Cub), toe-out is the
only way to get it off the ground. There are three significant factors:
Height of the CG, width of the wheels, and distance the wheels are in front
of the CG."
http://www.ez.org/cp55-p10.htm
From the EZ website:
"When you built your EZ or your Defiant, you should have set the axles on
the main gear such that your main wheels were toed in about 1/4' on each
side . . . Once you have the correct toe-in set, you will notice an
improvement in tracking, shorter take-off and less tire wear"
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/testing/articles/Stage%201_%20Makin
g%20Preparations%20For%20Flight%20Testing.html
From a 1989 Tony Bingelis article in Sport Aviation on preparing for the
first flight:
"6. RECHECK THE WHEEL ALIGNMENT - Toe-in or a cocked wheel could lead to
dangerous runway control problems. Strive for a zero toe-in/toe-out, or a
neutral alignment. If you have to deviate slightly - opt for a bit of
toe-out rather than toe-in."
http://david.gall.com/files/Airplane/quickie1.txt
From a Quickie report:
"Granted, there's been much discussion over the years about wheel alignment
on Q-birds. For the most part it has centered on toe-in vs. toe-out, with
toe-out emerging as the apparent winner. However, there's more to wheel
alignment than just toe. Equally important is camber . . . In general, a
cambered rolling pneumatic-tired wheel produces a lateral force in the
direction of the tilt. . . . From this simple rule of thumb, it can be seen
that static negative camber will require toe-out to keep the wheels from
fighting each other." (A much more thorough discussion is given in the
article.)
http://www.sportflight.com/kfb/sampiss.htm
From a Kitfox Newsletter regarding a taildragger Kitfox:
"A call to Skystar verified they are designed to be parallel or slightly
equally toed-out. . . . I finally corrected the alignment to 0.8 degrees of
toe-out for both wheels. I have read several articles on aircraft wheel
alignment. There are two schools of thought on this issue: one says toe-in
is best and the other says toe-out is best. Both schools present a
reasonable rationale."
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Kurt,
Last summer things got very hot in this area. Due to forest fires in the
immediate area we were forced to find a means to move my partially built
6A.(wiring).
A call to a local towing company brought a 'Tilt bed' flat deck that suited
the job very well The 6A winched up the ramp with the wheel pants in place
without a problem. The horizontal stab was not installed.
We brought the bird back the same way a few weeks later.
These low bed tilt flat deck trucks are wider to accommodate bent wrecks.
Tied down as it was by a professional it traveled very well
Good luck,
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: <RV6AOKC@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: Moving an RV...
> --> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
> Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of
paying
> $150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A.
I
> have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and
the
> like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about
85"). Most
> trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't
loan
> their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
> Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and
live in a
> large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer
resources. If
> you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on
a
> 69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
> Kurt in OKC
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Web references on toe-in/toe-out |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
I'm there now and I guess I'm a little confused. How do I change toe? Van's
drills one hole for you which essentially defines toe and camber. All you
can do is enlarge the other hole to match the gearleg and the first hole. I
think it would get pretty messy putting washers or shims between the gear
weldments and the spar. I'm building an RV-7A. Is the arrangement different on
the
other Vans airplanes?
Dan N766DH almost finished
In a message dated 2/5/04 6:54:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
bgarrett920@comcast.net writes:
> Just my opinion, which may change before I'm flying but I think if I were
> there now I'd try to set toe to complement whatever camber exists to balance
> each other as a starting point and then adjust once flying if the plane
> doesn't handle well on the ground. Of course with a trike I don't think
> it's a big a concern for me either.
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Wiley Coyote revisited,
How about an 'Acme instant' RV, throw a pellet on the ground add water and
(( POW )) your ready to fly!.... Tap water will do!!! No filtered Coor's
thank you very much!. Use that for the Acme instant fuel for extra octane.
Jim in Kelowna
----- Original Message -----
From: "vansrv4grvmj" <vansrv4grvmj@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Moving an RV...
> --> RV-List message posted by: "vansrv4grvmj"
<vansrv4grvmj@btinternet.com>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: BELTEDAIR@aol.com
> >
> > How about getting Van to design folding wings?
>
> How about a deflatable Rv? pull the plug and store it in the doorpocket of
> your car :-)
>
> do not archive
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Should I cancel my wing kit? :-) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3075250452&category=4672
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Web references on toe-in/toe-out |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ron Walker" <ron@walker.net>
A primary advantage to building a match hole kit! These "issues" are a non
issue for us!
I think they are talking about an RV4 - they even have to make jigs and
other complicated stuff ;o)
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: <Hopperdhh@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Web references on toe-in/toe-out
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>
> I'm there now and I guess I'm a little confused. How do I change toe?
Van's
> drills one hole for you which essentially defines toe and camber. All you
> can do is enlarge the other hole to match the gearleg and the first hole.
I
> think it would get pretty messy putting washers or shims between the gear
> weldments and the spar. I'm building an RV-7A. Is the arrangement
different on the
> other Vans airplanes?
>
> Dan N766DH almost finished
>
> In a message dated 2/5/04 6:54:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> bgarrett920@comcast.net writes:
>
> > Just my opinion, which may change before I'm flying but I think if I
were
> > there now I'd try to set toe to complement whatever camber exists to
balance
> > each other as a starting point and then adjust once flying if the plane
> > doesn't handle well on the ground. Of course with a trike I don't think
> > it's a big a concern for me either.
> >
> >
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ordering Harbor Freight Tools |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread but while out in the shop tonight I
had need for a #27 drill bit. I view tools as having multiple levels - first
is the basic capability, second is when you start increasing relative quality
and/or precision. A year or so ago I purchased a zillion piece drill bit set
from Harbor Freight that has fractional sizes from 1/16 - 1/2 in 1/64 increments,
lettered sizes a-z, and numbered sizes 1-60. Although these are certainly
not the highest quality bits, and I don't use them for everyday building, it
is REALLY nice to have the RIGHT bit when you need the odd size. This is something
that I wouldn't have bought at a "high quality" tool store because of
the cost. But for the $25-30 that I spent for the set it has been well worth
it. Another good find was a small cutoff saw that I've used for longerons and
stiffners.
Would I buy a ratchet and sockets from them for everyday use? Probably not. Would
I buy a C-clamp or spare die grinder? You bet!
BTW, you also see those drill bit sets on Ebay frequently. Go to tools and do a search on "titanium" - they are titanium nitride coated bits. Here's one from tonight: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2376898115&category=11704
Bob RV-10 #105
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Moving an RV... |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
RV6AOKC@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: RV6AOKC@aol.com
>
>Well things are almost all done....tons of little stuff...but tired of paying
>$150 a month for a hanger with no plane in it. Im ready to move my 6A. I
>have called around to several rental places, trailer manufacturers, and the
>like and can't seem to find a trailer to fit my 6A gear span...(about 85"). Most
>trailers are around 69" I guess. I called my old chapter and they don't loan
>their "RV Transporter" out anymore (thanks to someone I am sure).
>Anyway...any other Ideas? I need to go about 23 miles, mostly freeway and live
in a
>large city (OKC), where I would think there would be some trailer resources.
If
>you have any advice on companies I could call or maybe how to get a 6A on a
>69in trailer....let me know. Thanks....
>
Well, two things come to mind: the first is to rejoin your old chapter
..... and use their trailer, or check out the local car club .......
there's bound to be a couple of car-haulers in the group. Again, you
may have to join the club.
I've often thought about transporting a plane on a trailer and still
meet the width requirements ....... so if you got the plane up on the
trailer, pivot it sideways and raise the tail so that you can place the
prop in a cradle and tie everything down. You may not want to go
freeway speeds (check the minimum speed) with your airplane in this
configuration!
Linn
>
>Kurt in OKC
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob@robsglass.com>
"Charles Becker" wrote
I got their 4.5HP 21 Gal compressor for 169 (including shipping). It came
in the box with the "this side up" pointing down.................
That's how my fuselage kit was delivered by AFS! I have a photo of the proud delivery
guy standing next to it on my driveway. Smiling - until I showed him
the big red arrows.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ordering Harbor Freight Tools |
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
Hi y'all
Like most, some stuff I bought from HF has been good, some not so good.
Tools are commonly made in other lands and sold here in the USA. Many of
these are the exact same thing you get from the USA company. I don't
believe that tools made in China and sold under famous USA names are made
in special factories while the ones that look just like them are made in
straw huts. I don't know where to get facts, tho.
On the other hand, some 'knock-offs' ARE probably made on the same line but
with poorer quality materials. In tools this is commonly the use of cheap
alloys of steel. Today I noticed that my HF pliers have gotten to where
the jaws don't meet as they are bent! Another source of cheap tools is as
old as manufacturing - they are the rejects of quality control.
Price does not guarantee quality. If we were real manufacturers we would
do 'incoming inspection' on things we buy. When we would buy we would
specify performance objectives and when purchased material was defective,
we'd send it back. The vendor would then sell it to Radio Shack etc.
When I buy a cheap tool, I try to make sure it will meet my needs. Maybe I
only need a right angle drill for a few dozen holes and $45 is a lot less
than $195. At the same time, fine tools are a joy in themselves. (Except
slippery chromed wrenches)
All this applies to most everything we buy. And some that is given to us.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
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! --
|