Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:39 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dana Overall)
2. 04:18 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Dana Overall)
3. 06:00 AM - Re: Fireshield (Charles Rowbotham)
4. 06:03 AM - Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge ()
5. 06:27 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Tedd McHenry)
6. 06:50 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dj Merrill)
7. 06:51 AM - Re: photos of front baffle seals (Richard Dudley)
8. 06:59 AM - ELT Antenna Placement (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
9. 06:59 AM - Re: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge (Dwpetrus@aol.com)
10. 07:00 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dj Merrill)
11. 07:27 AM - Re: Wing tip antennas (Alex Peterson)
12. 07:33 AM - Re: photos of front baffle seals (Larry Bowen)
13. 07:34 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Steve Eberhart)
14. 08:24 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have (Bill Dube)
15. 08:24 AM - Re: Antenna drag (SportAV8R@aol.com)
16. 08:29 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Charlie & Tupper England)
17. 08:30 AM - Re: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge (Jeff Point)
18. 09:10 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Tedd McHenry)
19. 09:14 AM - Re: ELT Required?? (Mike Robertson)
20. 09:18 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Ed Anderson)
21. 09:22 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dan Checkoway)
22. 09:24 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have (kempthornes)
23. 09:26 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (thomas a. sargent)
24. 09:31 AM - Electric aileron trim + autopilot (Mickey Coggins)
25. 09:39 AM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (Mike Robertson)
26. 09:48 AM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (SportAV8R@aol.com)
27. 10:09 AM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (C. Rabaut)
28. 10:10 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Kysh)
29. 10:14 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Cy Galley)
30. 10:27 AM - Re: ELT Required?? (Cy Galley)
31. 10:38 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (Larry Pardue)
32. 10:42 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dj Merrill)
33. 10:44 AM - Re: Electric aileron trim + autopilot (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
34. 10:48 AM - Re: Electric aileron trim + autopilot (Ralph E. Capen)
35. 11:17 AM - Re: Antenna drag (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
36. 11:26 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Charlie & Tupper England)
37. 11:26 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Condrey, Bob (US SSA))
38. 11:26 AM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Jeff Cours)
39. 11:38 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
40. 11:50 AM - Re: Wing tip antennas (Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG))
41. 12:02 PM - Re: Antenna drag (SportAV8R@aol.com)
42. 12:04 PM - Re: Wing tip antennas (SportAV8R@aol.com)
43. 12:07 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
44. 12:07 PM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Scott Bilinski)
45. 12:23 PM - Superior IO-360 FF Servo (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
46. 12:42 PM - Re: Antenna drag (Richard Tasker)
47. 12:59 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Dana Overall)
48. 01:12 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
49. 02:02 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Rob Prior)
50. 02:20 PM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (Mike Robertson)
51. 03:25 PM - Strobe lights (j1j2h3@juno.com)
52. 03:58 PM - Re: Fireshield (Richard Dudley)
53. 04:32 PM - Re: Strobe lights (Greg Young)
54. 04:57 PM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Jim Sears)
55. 05:21 PM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (Cy Galley)
56. 06:04 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Tedd McHenry)
57. 06:06 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Tedd McHenry)
58. 06:07 PM - Fuel flow - Lasar vs Mags (Alex Peterson)
59. 06:26 PM - Re: White Rust?? (Will & Lynda Allen)
60. 06:52 PM - >Re:ELT Antenna Placement (Oldsfolks@aol.com)
61. 07:24 PM - Re: Making the right kit choice (Dj Merrill)
62. 07:34 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Charlie & Tupper England)
63. 08:21 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Placement (GMC)
64. 08:23 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Tracy Crook)
65. 08:29 PM - Antenna drag (Wheeler North)
66. 08:35 PM - March 6 and Food (Tom Gummo)
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: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
Do they have the rudder starting kit for the 10?
I think they have it for the 7 and 9. That's a cheap
way to make sure I am up to the task.
-Dj
What Van's has for their starter kit is a chopped down section of a 4 flap.
Two end ribs, some stiffeners you have to cut and a cut down piece of spar.
It is nothing like the pre punched parts but allows you to drill, deburr,
dimple, squeeze rivets, buck rivets, back rivet and install nutplate.
Pretty much all you do in building the actual airplane. I will have two of
them at my flyin on the 28th, along with my tools at the hangar for newbies
to play with. Hop in that Glasair and fly on down to i39, mother nature
cooperating, the ramp should be full of RVs.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
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: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
the exhaust
>is inherently louder, and a relatively complex exhaust system is required
>to
>both produce decent power and keep the noise sane. That adds weight, cost,
>and
>heat inside the cowling.
acumen to the rotary.
>
>Tedd McHenry
Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
cruise setting than existing installs. As for the exhaust, yes, without
mufflers they are loud. However, there are two very good aftermarket
mufflers that make the engine sound very, very nice and work extremely well
with the RV. The exhaust is not really complex unless you want to make it
so, bend it to reach where you want the muffler and vent it out the bottom
of the cowl. There are a couple considerations but that is inherent with
any install.
Don't take this wrong, this is not arguementative at all, just my take on
the ease of install for me alone.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S.
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: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham@hotmail.com>
We utilized Fireshield for piece of mind
Chuck Rowbotham
RV-8A
>From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: "rv-list@matronics.com" <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Fireshield
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:12 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
>
>Listers,
>
>There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
>firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
>
>My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
>is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
>or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
>considered opinions and biases.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Dudley
>-6A final details
>
>
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
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: | Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
--> RV-List message posted by: <EricHe@FlexSolPackaging.com>
Is anyone currently flying with one of Vans Cheapo TAS gauges? I'm installing a
Dynon but really must have an AS gauge as well. Would love to not spend $500.00
on a stupid TAS gauge to go with the Dynon and the Whizbang 5000 GPS. Any comments
on the other flight gauges based on first hand flight experiences.
Thanks in advance
Eric
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> cruise setting than existing installs.
Dana:
I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
feature of the rotary, as I said.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
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: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Glenn Brasch wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
>
>>From my own experience (or lack thereof), before I started my project I
> attended a EAA SportAir RV Assembly workshop. I found it well worth the
> time and money.
> Glenn in Arizona -9A wings, fuselage ordered.
I was hoping they were going to have one at Sun-n-Fun, but
unfortunately not. I'm not sure yet if I will be able to
make it to Oshkosh this year.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
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: photos of front baffle seals |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Dan,
I think that you are referring to the semi-circular baffle that is
concentric with the crankshaft. In order to accommodate the circular
shape. (I'm assuming that the -6 and -7 are similar in that area. I have
used several segments of the rubberized material overlapping each other.
I did not see how to make a single piece of material conform over that
whole curved area.
I'll be glad to take photographs of that area If that is what you would
like.
I have had the cowl on and off many times since I installed the seal. It
seems to work.
Let me know if we're talking about the same area and if you want me to
send you pictures.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> I'm looking for photos of front baffle seals...that is, the baffle wall at
> the top front center of the engine and its transition to the cowl inlets.
>
> I've been trying to get a single piece of airseal to work along the whole
> "arch" there, and while it "works" it's not perfect. I'd like to see how
> people have done it with single or multiple strips if possible.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.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: | ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
Snip>
Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when mounted=20there,
there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For that=20reason
I am
seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it is
in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
End snip>
Incidentally, SWR (Standing Wave Ratio) is a measure of how well the antenna
is matched to the 50 ohm feedline, and is a good indicator of the antenna's
ability to take power from the transmitter and radiate it.
Actually, I question whether the turtle deck is the best place either, due to
the likelihood of the airplane ending up on its top. I am going to mount the
ELT in the baggage compartment where it can be easily removed to used as a
portable if necessary (it has a separate portable antenna). But, I would like
to have the antenna where it is most likely to help in case the ELT has to do
its own thing after a crash. I think that a short cable to the antenna would
be less vulnerable than a long run to the tail or tailcone. What about the
antenna in the baggage compartment? Would it be an eye poker?
Thanks,
Dan RV-7A N766DH (almost finished)
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: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dwpetrus@aol.com
Mine has worked fine.
Wayne Petrus
RV8A
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: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> What you need to do is find someone near you (or near enough to fly your
> Glasair to) that is building an RV7 or RV9 with the matched hole
> construction and look at their plane and talk to them (maybe buck a few
> rivets if they need the help). The RV10 is essentially the same, just
> larger. And, yes, Van's is shipping empennage kits for the RV10,
> although the empennage kit for the RV10 actually includes the rear
> section of the fuselage if I remember correctly.
I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the
building process without spending thousands of dollars on
the empennage kit. I thought it was just part of the rudder.
I can't seem to find it on the Van's site today, however,
so maybe I was imagining it.
> If you are actually at Dartmouth (based on your email address) there are
> several builders in NH that would be happy to talk to you I am sure. If
> you want to see a really nice completed RV9A, Gary Newsted is near
> Nashua (close by air to you).
I am at Dartmouth, and that is an excellent suggestion.
If nothing else it would make for a nice excuse to go flying,
and Nashua is about 30-35 mins away by Glasair.
I'll be at Sun-n-Fun, so will get a chance to see a *lot* of
examples there! :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
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: | Wing tip antennas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> Alex thanks for the response. Yes, it is a com. and its
> sounding like I wont
> be using it. I'm just looking for that sleek look got any ideas?
>
Lee, Bob Archer said the best com antenna he's ever tested is his
antenna that goes into the top of the vertical stabilizer. It does
require making a modified tip fairing for the vertical stab and rudder,
though. Look his number up in the RV Yeller pages and give him a call.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 441 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: photos of front baffle seals |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Doesn't using a single strip of airseal prevent you from removing
individual baffle sections in the future? For repair, or whatever? I
thought the point of using several smaller strips was to allow for easier
installation, better fit and maintenance. No? On the other hand I see
the appeal of a single longer strip where possible...
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 baffles too...
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
>
> Dan Checkoway wrote:
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>>
>> I'm looking for photos of front baffle seals...that is, the baffle wall
>> at
>> the top front center of the engine and its transition to the cowl
>> inlets.
>>
>> I've been trying to get a single piece of airseal to work along the
>> whole
>> "arch" there, and while it "works" it's not perfect. I'd like to see
>> how
>> people have done it with single or multiple strips if possible.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> )_( Dan
>> RV-7 N714D
>> http://www.rvproject.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Eberhart <steve@newtech.com>
You are completely right on this, but, doesn't the fuel charge in a
Lycoming perform an adjunct role in cooling? If this is true, doesn't
that increase the fuel burn for a given power output compared to a
liquid cooled engine that doesn't?
Steve Eberhart
RV-7A, still working on wings
Tedd McHenry wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
> will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov> choicesfor once?
At 06:27 AM 2/19/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn any more fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
>Dana:
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
The actual aircraft data shows otherwise. What you care about is
fuel consumption at a chosen airspeed, not necessarily specific fuel
consumption. Other factors need to be considered.
If you take a look at the numbers that Tracy Crook is getting from
his airplane, (with EFI) you will see that the fuel consumption versus
speed is no different than the same airplane running a Lycoming. Also, you
can run MoGas instead of 100LL.
I suspect that the lack of a valve train in a rotary may make up
for the combustion chamber shortcomings. Especially at altitude, the HP
robbed by a valve train can be a significant fraction of the total. You are
turning higher RPM but producing much less HP.
Tracy is using the stock RV cowling. Thus, it is likely that Tracy
has not fully optimized the cowling to take advantage of the water cooling.
With a better optimized cowling, it is quite possible that he could reduce
the cooling drag and decrease fuel consumption significantly, perhaps
exceeding the numbers of a Lycoming.
Oil consumption is similar to a two-stroke. If you retain the oil
injection pump, (or fashion a substitute) the oil consumption can be quite
modest.
Regardless, you can buy a LOT of oil (and gas) with the $20,000
that you will save over a Lycoming.
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: Antenna drag |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
I assume the drag effect would be even less for an antenna in a bent-whip configuration,
as it would present less frontal area and the bent portion would present
an eliptical rather than round cross-section to the slipstream, much like
the nose gear leg of the modern (non-tailwheel) RV. Keep in mind also that the
whip antennas we use are tapered at the tip. OTOH, they have a somewhat large,
draggy ceramic cone insulator at their base, which is a big negative, aerodynamically.
I've been really happy so far with my comm and 144MHz antennas relocated to the
wingtips using Nuckolls' blueprints in the 'Connection for rolling my own antennas.
Performance seems largely equal to the belly-mounted whips they relplaced,
and absolutely zero-drag. Slight weight penalty for the longer runs of RG-400.
-Bill B -6A
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>
>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>>
>>
>
>Dana:
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
>Tedd McHenry
>Surrey, BC
>
Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
(BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
between changes. No, that's not a joke.
Charlie
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: Vans Cheapo TAS Gauge |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Dynon is coming out with a temperature probe in order to compute TAS,
which should be for sale within a month or two. Get one of these, get
TAS from your Dynon, then buy a standard ASI for much less than $500. I
have a 2 1/2 inch ASI next to the Dynon for backup, which cost $145.
Jeff Point
RV-6 getting very close
Milwaukee WI
EricHe@FlexSolPackaging.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: <EricHe@FlexSolPackaging.com>
>
>Is anyone currently flying with one of Vans Cheapo TAS gauges? I'm installing
a Dynon but really must have an AS gauge as well. Would love to not spend $500.00
on a stupid TAS gauge to go with the Dynon and the Whizbang 5000 GPS. Any
comments on the other flight gauges based on first hand flight experiences.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Eric
>
>
>
>
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Fuel Burn
---------
Some here are conflating two unrelated things. A rotary indisputably uses more
fuel to produce the same power as a piston engine (when both are operating
optimally). However, there are many factors that affect how much fuel you will
burn at a given airspeed, most of them having nothing to do with the engine,
but having to do with how much power is required to fly at that speed.
If it's possible to have, for example, significantly lower cooling drag with a
rotary than with a Lycoming (and it probably is), that will offset the lower
efficiency of the rotary. You might even come out ahead. It's very worthwhile
to try to optimize the radiator and ducting of a liquid-cooled installation,
otherwise you're giving up one of the main advantages of a liquid-cooled
engine.
Nevertheless, it is a fact that a rotary engine has a higer BSFC than a piston
does, just as a spark-ignition engine has a higher BSFC than a diesel.
Fuel as Coolant
---------------
Yes, a Lycoming uses fuel as a coolant when it is run rich, such as during
climb. (Yes, I know fuel always acts as a coolant to some degree. Let's not
quibble.) Under those conditions, it probably has an even higher BSFC than a
rotary. All the liquid-cooled engines have the advantage that they don't need
fuel cooling at high power settings (or not as much as a Lycoming). So block
fuel consumption will be lower, other things being equal, with a liquid-cooled
engine. That's the main reason that a Subaru-engined airplane is so fuel
efficient, despite having small combustion chambers, which generally increases
BSFC.
My Opinion
----------
I'm not criticizing rotaries. I like 'em, and I've always liked 'em. I think
the Mazda-based rotaries are an excellent alternative to a Lycoming for an RV
builder -- in theory, probably the best alternative. I'm just trying to
clarify a point and ensure that an incorrect idea doesn't become "common
knowledge."
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
-6 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
The requirements for an ELT are listed in FAR 91.207. Paragraph (f) gives
the exemptions. There are 11 of them. Too many to list right here.
Mike Robertson
>From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:23:30 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> > FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
> >
> > An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
> >
> > Jim Ayers
>
>I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one, regardless
>of the number of seats.
>
>Alex Peterson
>Maple Grove, MN
>RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
>www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> >
> >
> >>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> >>cruise setting than existing installs.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Dana:
> >
> >I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> >"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
shape
> >with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
CONSUMPTION..."
> >(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> >recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
it
> >will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> >feature of the rotary, as I said.
> >
> >Tedd McHenry
> >Surrey, BC
> >
> Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
> them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
> powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
> anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
> dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>
> (BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
> it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
> between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>
> Charlie
Actually, if you do an oil premix in the fuel for a flying rotary to
lubricate the apex seals, you may well find that you have to *DRAIN* (which
is what I believe Charlie meant) oil between changes. The reason, we have
discovered is that any "surplus" oil in the fuel mixture gets scraped off
the combustion walls by the oil rings and deposited in the sump. I have
flown 220 hours with a rotary and never added oil between oil changes. Now
the automobile installation was designed to inject crankcase oil into the
engine, so if you were unaware that the auto rotary was designed to use oil
out of the crankcase that could clearly be consider "higher than normal
usage" (compared to most car engines). The difference in fuel efficiency
between the rotary and reciprocating engine is most pronounced at low to
medium rpms this is where the design of the combustion chamber and the large
wall surface area are most unfavorable to the combustion process in either
rotary or piston engines. However, at higher rpms the differences
diminishes so that at least for air cooled aircraft engines and water cooled
rotaries the fuel consumption is very close with perhaps an advantage to the
rotary as you can not damage the a naturally aspired rotary engine by over
leaning. The new Renesis engine was redesigned to reduce this deficiency
and has increased the low - mid rpm fuel efficiency by a reported 20% - but
that change (due to a exhaust port relocation) does not apparently translate
to much difference at the higher rpms.
My personal opinion based on my observation is that powerwise, fuel
consumption wise and weight wise, the twin rotary 13B and the 320/360 model
Lycomings are essentially a wash. However, in the cost and reliability area
the rotary has decided advantages - if you're willing to roll your own
installation.
Certainly a lot of work and not everyone's cup of tea. Also, if you want a
controllable pitch prop then with the rotary as with most auto engine
conversions you are essentially limited to electric controlled props.
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
> for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the
> building process without spending thousands of dollars on
> the empennage kit. I thought it was just part of the rudder.
> I can't seem to find it on the Van's site today, however,
> so maybe I was imagining it.
From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/parts.txt
RV TRAINING PROJECT CONTROL SURFACE PROJ $32.00
This is what you build at the SportAir RV Assembly workshop.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
--> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net> choicesfor
once?
At 06:27 AM 2/19/2004, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
Tedd, this is commonly accepted by logicians as an 'arguement from
authority', sorta like "because I said so".
>I believe it is possible to
>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which it
>will tolerate better than other designs.
"over-leaning"? Exactly what does this mean?
>But higher BSFC is an inherent
>feature of the rotary, as I said.
And of the Lycoming. Higher than what? Details, details.
One very sizeable attraction of the Mazda engine in an RV is the
cost. Lower initial, and very lower overhaul. I suspect also greater
reliability in that they don't quit in the air. These engines don't blow
up, they just get where they won't start.
K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
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: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
Dan:
I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
showed pretty good performance there.
--
Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
>the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
>
>Snip>
>Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
>the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
>measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when mounted=20there,
>there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
>operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For that=20reason
I am
>seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it is
>in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
>End snip>
>
>
>
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: | Electric aileron trim + autopilot |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
I've got the electric aileron trim option,
and I would like to install a Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot Autopilot.
Is the electric aileron trim needed or desired
with an autopilot?
Any conflicts to watch out for?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
OK. (!.207 is a lengthly paragraph so let me see if I can't pull out just
the important parts to this.
Firstly, this reg on ELT's applies to ALL U.S. registered aircraft but there
are exceptions. It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
type ELT or approved personal type ELT. In this case "approved" means that
it meets the newer TSO that took effect around 1995. If your aircraft was
built before June 21, 1995 you may have, and still use, that older TSO-C91
ELTs.
The exceptions to this rule are: Turbojet powered aircraft; Scheduled Air
Carrier aircraft; Aircraft conducting training within 50 NM radius of the
airport from which it took off; aircraft conducting test flights for design
proving; brand new aircraft incident to maufacturing, prep and delivery;
crop dusting; research and development aircraft; aircraft used to showing
compliance, crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
aircraft equipped to carry only one person; aircraft with an inoperative ELT
provided a placard is added to the instrument panel showing "ELT not
Installed", a logbook entry has been made showing the removal of the ELT,
and it amy be flown for not more than 90 days after the initial removal: and
after Jan 1, 2004 aircraft with a payload of more than 18,000 lbs.
So, that means there are only a few of these exceptions that could apply to
amateur-built aircraft.
If its new and being delivered, has only one seat, being used for training,
or if the ELT is broke.
Again, take a look at 91.297 for full details.
Mike Robertson
>From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:54:24 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
>
>Okay Mike, step up and let us know what's the case. Do all experimental
>have to have ELT's or can we use the new improve personal locators?
>
> Thanks Chuck
>
>----- Original Message ----- > > --> RV-List message posted by:
>PGLong@aol.com
> > >
> > > I know ELT's are required for Civil Aircraft. Does this also apply to
> > > Experimental?
> > >
> > > Pat Long
>
> >
> > All experimentals don't have to have them and also all standard category
> > planes don't either. There are some exceptions..
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, mrobert569@hotmail.com
writes:
> It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior technology if
they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
-Bill B
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: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
Thanks again Mike. I just Googled it & got it.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> OK. (!.207 is a lengthly paragraph so let me see if I can't pull out just
> the important parts to this.
>
> Firstly, this reg on ELT's applies to ALL U.S. registered aircraft but
there
> are exceptions. It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved
automatic
> type ELT or approved personal type ELT. In this case "approved" means
that
> it meets the newer TSO that took effect around 1995. If your aircraft was
> built before June 21, 1995 you may have, and still use, that older TSO-C91
> ELTs.
>
> The exceptions to this rule are: Turbojet powered aircraft; Scheduled Air
> Carrier aircraft; Aircraft conducting training within 50 NM radius of the
> airport from which it took off; aircraft conducting test flights for
design
> proving; brand new aircraft incident to maufacturing, prep and delivery;
> crop dusting; research and development aircraft; aircraft used to showing
> compliance, crew training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
> aircraft equipped to carry only one person; aircraft with an inoperative
ELT
> provided a placard is added to the instrument panel showing "ELT not
> Installed", a logbook entry has been made showing the removal of the ELT,
> and it amy be flown for not more than 90 days after the initial removal:
and
> after Jan 1, 2004 aircraft with a payload of more than 18,000 lbs.
>
> So, that means there are only a few of these exceptions that could apply
to
> amateur-built aircraft.
> If its new and being delivered, has only one seat, being used for
training,
> or if the ELT is broke.
>
> Again, take a look at 91.297 for full details.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
> >From: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:54:24 -0600
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "C. Rabaut" <crabaut@coalinga.com>
> >
> >Okay Mike, step up and let us know what's the case. Do all experimental
> >have to have ELT's or can we use the new improve personal locators?
> >
> > Thanks Chuck
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- > > --> RV-List message posted by:
> >PGLong@aol.com
> > > >
> > > > I know ELT's are required for Civil Aircraft. Does this also apply
to
> > > > Experimental?
> > > >
> > > > Pat Long
> >
> > >
> > > All experimentals don't have to have them and also all standard
category
> > > planes don't either. There are some exceptions..
> >
> >
>
>
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Kysh <vans-dragon@lapdragon.org>
As Tedd McHenry was saying:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
Sorry, but I 'really' hate the term 'accepted engineering fact'. Change that
to 'General theory some engineer pulled out of their rear' or 'Bob's notion'.
I mean, by whom is it accepted? Clearly it's accepted by you that rotaries burn
more fuel in all conditions than piston engines. It certainly doesn't make it a
fact.
Need I remind you that the Mazda rotary LeMans car drank so much less fuel than
its piston counterparts it was considered uncompetitive and banned from the
the class?
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added).
Yes, during IDLE the fuel consumption of a rotary tends to be necessarily
higher than that of a piston. Considering current rotaries.
-Kysh
--
| 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying |
| CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr |
| 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang |
| Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ |
| KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham |
| Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ |
Message 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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I'll be willing to bet that your quoted source is over 10 years old. They
have been working hard to bring the BSFC of the rotary down to the
reciprocating engine. Mazda would not have brought the rotary back into
their car line if it hadn't improved. Although they have always touted the
rotary as a 4 cycle engine, it is more a 2 cycle engine that needs oil for
lube in the fuel that is burned. You can get it into the fuel by injection
or mixing. Advantages to both.
I do know from experience that my wife drove our RX4 almost 200 miles
without any oil and would have continued if she was able to re-start it for
even a longer distance.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tedd McHenry" <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Subject: Re: RV-List: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have
choicesfor once?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
> > Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
> > cruise setting than existing installs.
>
> Dana:
>
> I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
> "Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
shape
> with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
CONSUMPTION..."
> (Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
> recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
it
> will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
> feature of the rotary, as I said.
>
> Tedd McHenry
> Surrey, BC
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Here is the list and I believe that #1 for turbojets has been rescinded.
e) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a person may --
(1) Ferry a newly acquired airplane from the place where possession of it
was taken to a place where the emergency locator transmitter is to be
installed; and
(2) Ferry an airplane with an inoperative emergency locator transmitter from
a place where repairs or replacements cannot be made to a place where they
can be made.
No person other than required crewmembers may be carried aboard an airplane
being ferried under paragraph (e) of this section.
(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -
(1) Turbojet-powered aircraft;
(2) Aircraft while engaged in scheduled flights by scheduled air carriers;
(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within
a 50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight
operations began;
(4) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to design and
testing;
(5) New aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to their
manufacture, preparation, and delivery;
(6) Aircraft while engaged in flight operations incident to the aerial
application of chemicals and other substances for agricultural purposes;
(7) Aircraft certificated by the Administrator for research and development
purposes;
(8) Aircraft while used for showing compliance with regulations, crew
training, exhibition, air racing, or market surveys;
(9) Aircraft equipped to carry not more than one person; and
(10) An aircraft during any period for which the transmitter has been
temporarily removed for inspection, repair, modification, or replacement,
subject to the following:
(i) No person may operate the aircraft unless the aircraft records contain
an entry which includes the date of initial removal, the make, model, serial
number, and reason for removing the transmitter, and a placard located in
view of the pilot to show "ELT not installed."
(ii) No person may operate the aircraft more than 90 days after the ELT is
initially removed from the aircraft.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> The requirements for an ELT are listed in FAR 91.207. Paragraph (f) gives
> the exemptions. There are 11 of them. Too many to list right here.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: RV-List: ELT Required??
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:23:30 -0600
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> >
> > > FAA requires ELT on all aircraft, except single place aircraft.
> > >
> > > An ELT is recommended for single place aircraft.
> > >
> > > Jim Ayers
> >
> >I believe it is only needed in planes carrying more than one, regardless
> >of the number of seats.
> >
> >Alex Peterson
> >Maple Grove, MN
> >RV6-A N66AP 438 hours
> >www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
> >
> >
>
> Find and compare great deals on Broadband access at the MSN High-Speed
>
>
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: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
on 2/19/04 10:26 AM, thomas a. sargent at sarg314@earthlink.net wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
>
> Dan:
> I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
> I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
> to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
> need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
> tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
> is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
>
It is easy to overgeneralize about antennas and feedlines; a complex
business. First, SWR does not tell us anything about how an antenna
performs. It is possible and common to have an excellent antenna with high
SWR. It is also possible and common to have very low SWR and a poorly
performing antenna. High SWR can cause line loss in coax, but it is not a
huge effect until the SWR gets very high.
A field strength meter might be a better choice than an SWR meter when
trying to evaluate an antenna. I have seen many ELT antenna installations
in RV's that, no doubt, had low feedline SWR but very directional patterns
with little radiation in some directions.
Having said all this, SWR meters have their uses, particularly with the
common 1/4 wave antenna. It can indicate gross problems and it can tell you
if your antenna is cut to about the right length for the simple mounting
solution of an antenna on a flat unobstructed ground plain.
Larry Pardue N5LP
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
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: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>>From http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/parts.txt
>
> RV TRAINING PROJECT CONTROL SURFACE PROJ $32.00
>
> This is what you build at the SportAir RV Assembly workshop.
>
Thanks!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill Thayer School of Engineering
ThUG Sr. Unix Systems Administrator 8000 Cummings Hall
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu - N1JOV Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux." -Anonymous
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: | Electric aileron trim + autopilot |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
They are independent issues.
No...elec trim is not necessary when the EZ is running. It is self
trimming.
But... its when it is not running that you will have to decide. You will
always be out of trim. Particularly on a side by side. IMHO of 1100 rv
hours, aileron trim is required, electric is optional. I have both
electric trim and the ez autopilot in my 6A.
Mike
Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins
Subject: RV-List: Electric aileron trim + autopilot
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
I've got the electric aileron trim option,
and I would like to install a Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot Autopilot.
Is the electric aileron trim needed or desired
with an autopilot?
Any conflicts to watch out for?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
==
==
==
==
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric aileron trim + autopilot |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
I'm planning on using both - I have an S-Tec 30 and elec ail trim. The trim will
help the AP work less. Not familiar with the AP that you're using.....
My AP is physically connected to one of the aileron bellcranks and is clutched...the
trim is spring attached to the other bellcrank.
I helped another builder with a trim system - which is almost identical to what
I'm going to use.
Want pictures? Contact me directly - I'll see if the other builder will consent
to my publishing photos of his install.
Ralph Capen
-----Original Message-----
From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Subject: RV-List: Electric aileron trim + autopilot
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
I've got the electric aileron trim option,
and I would like to install a Trio Avionics
EZ Pilot Autopilot.
Is the electric aileron trim needed or desired
with an autopilot?
Any conflicts to watch out for?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Antenna drag |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/04 11:26:14 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
SportAV8R@aol.com writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> I assume the drag effect would be even less for an antenna in a bent-whip
> configuration, as it would present less frontal area and the bent portion would
> present an eliptical rather than round cross-section to the slipstream, much
> like the nose gear leg of the modern (non-tailwheel) RV. Keep in mind also
> that the whip antennas we use are tapered at the tip. OTOH, they have a
> somewhat large, draggy ceramic cone insulator at their base, which is a big
> negative, aerodynamically.
>
> I've been really happy so far with my comm and 144MHz antennas relocated to
> the wingtips using Nuckolls' blueprints in the 'Connection for rolling my own
> antennas. Performance seems largely equal to the belly-mounted whips they
> relplaced, and absolutely zero-drag. Slight weight penalty for the longer
> runs of RG-400.
>
> -Bill B -6A
>
>
Bill,
That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls' blueprints?
Dan K9WEK
N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Duhh... I did indeed mean to say that oil must be *drained* between changes.
Charlie
Ed Anderson wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>>>>Tedd, from what I can gather, the rotary will not burn anymore fuel at
>>>>cruise setting than existing installs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Dana:
>>>
>>>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>>>"Disadvantages [of the rotary engine]: unfavourable combustion chamber
>>>
>>>
>shape
>
>
>>>with long flame paths; high HC emissions; HIGH FUEL AND OIL
>>>
>>>
>CONSUMPTION..."
>
>
>>>(Bosch Automotive handbook, emphasis added). I believe it is possible to
>>>recoup some of the lost fuel efficiency by over-leaning the engine, which
>>>
>>>
>it
>
>
>>>will tolerate better than other designs. But higher BSFC is an inherent
>>>feature of the rotary, as I said.
>>>
>>>Tedd McHenry
>>>Surrey, BC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
>>them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
>>powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
>>anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
>>dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>>
>>(BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
>>it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
>>between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>>
>>Charlie
>>
>>
>
>
>Actually, if you do an oil premix in the fuel for a flying rotary to
>lubricate the apex seals, you may well find that you have to *DRAIN* (which
>is what I believe Charlie meant) oil between changes. The reason, we have
>discovered is that any "surplus" oil in the fuel mixture gets scraped off
>the combustion walls by the oil rings and deposited in the sump. I have
>flown 220 hours with a rotary and never added oil between oil changes. Now
>the automobile installation was designed to inject crankcase oil into the
>engine, so if you were unaware that the auto rotary was designed to use oil
>out of the crankcase that could clearly be consider "higher than normal
>usage" (compared to most car engines). The difference in fuel efficiency
>between the rotary and reciprocating engine is most pronounced at low to
>medium rpms this is where the design of the combustion chamber and the large
>wall surface area are most unfavorable to the combustion process in either
>rotary or piston engines. However, at higher rpms the differences
>diminishes so that at least for air cooled aircraft engines and water cooled
>rotaries the fuel consumption is very close with perhaps an advantage to the
>rotary as you can not damage the a naturally aspired rotary engine by over
>leaning. The new Renesis engine was redesigned to reduce this deficiency
>and has increased the low - mid rpm fuel efficiency by a reported 20% - but
>that change (due to a exhaust port relocation) does not apparently translate
>to much difference at the higher rpms.
>
>My personal opinion based on my observation is that powerwise, fuel
>consumption wise and weight wise, the twin rotary 13B and the 320/360 model
>Lycomings are essentially a wash. However, in the cost and reliability area
>the rotary has decided advantages - if you're willing to roll your own
>installation.
>Certainly a lot of work and not everyone's cup of tea. Also, if you want a
>controllable pitch prop then with the rotary as with most auto engine
>conversions you are essentially limited to electric controlled props.
>
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>Matthews, NC
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Condrey, Bob (US SSA)" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
There is a kit that is a section of an airfoil for ~$30. It isn't
prepunched and therefore not representative of today's kits but it does
allow you get "get your hands dirty". In addition the instructions are
poor. If that doesn't intimidate you, you'll have the basic skills to
build the kit - construction is easier but a LOT more rivets.
Bob Rv10 #105
-----Original Message-----
From: Dj Merrill [mailto:deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu]
Subject: Re: RV-List: Making the right kit choice
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
> --> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> What you need to do is find someone near you (or near enough to fly
> your
> Glasair to) that is building an RV7 or RV9 with the matched hole
> construction and look at their plane and talk to them (maybe buck a
few
> rivets if they need the help). The RV10 is essentially the same, just
> larger. And, yes, Van's is shipping empennage kits for the RV10,
> although the empennage kit for the RV10 actually includes the rear
> section of the fuselage if I remember correctly.
I thought I remembered reading about an intro kit
for a few hundred bucks that would allow you to try out the building
process without spending thousands of dollars on the empennage kit. I
thought it was just part of the rudder. I can't seem to find it on the
Van's site today, however, so maybe I was imagining it.
> If you are actually at Dartmouth (based on your email address) there
> are
> several builders in NH that would be happy to talk to you I am sure.
If
> you want to see a really nice completed RV9A, Gary Newsted is near
> Nashua (close by air to you).
I am at Dartmouth, and that is an excellent suggestion. If
nothing else it would make for a nice excuse to go flying, and Nashua is
about 30-35 mins away by Glasair. I'll be at Sun-n-Fun, so will get a
chance to see a *lot* of examples there! :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Cours <rv-j@moriarti.org>
I recently went through the process of deciding between the Zodiac XL
and the RV, so it's been very interesting reading the responses to this
thread. Here's my two bits.
First off, if you think you're likely to spend a lot of time comparing
the plane you've built with the Glasair you no longer own, then it seems
to me you have a couple choices. One is to build a plane with
performance numbers in about the same range as the Glasair. The other is
to build something with a completely different mission profile, say a
STOL or biplane design. In either case, the XL would be close enough to
the Glasair's mission profile, but far enough away from its performance
numbers, that it's not likely to do well in that kind of comparison, and
it'd be a shame to spend that much time working on a project if you're
not going to be happy with the end product.
On the other hand, if you think you're more likely to say "I don't care
if it's not as fast as that old Glasair, I built it and got exactly what
I wanted and I think that's great!", then your range of options is a bit
wider.
Now, on to the XL versus the RV.
When you're talking about the control surface thing for a few hundred,
you might be thinking of the Zodiac's rudder kit, for about $300. Zenith
also offers a rudder class for the same price, where you go to their
factory and build the rudder with Nick and Sebastian looking over your
shoulder. They pre-prime the parts for you, using a product called
Cortec, so it's mostly drill, deburr, and assemble.
When it comes to ease of construction, I'd have to give the nod to the
XL over the RV, even the pre-punched RV-7A. The XL is not a pre-punched
kit, but I think the overall structure is simpler: flying rudder instead
of vertical stabilizer, flying horizontal stabilizer, etc. Also, the
XL's blind rivets mean you don't have to worry about dimpling,
countersinking, or bucking, and the order of assembly is a lot less
critical.
The XL also edges out the RV when it comes to cost, mostly for tools
(you don't really need a compressor and pneumatic equipment to build
one), engine (Rotax or Jabiru versus Lycoming/Sub/Rotary), and hourly
operating expenses (mostly due to lower fuel burn). The flip side is
that resale values for RVs appear to be higher than for XLs, at least
when I went browsing through Trade-a-Plane.
For performance, the RV is generally the winner, with its wider speed
range. (One exception may be in endurance, since the XL has optional
extended range tanks that will let it stay aloft for something crazy
like 10 hours. I don't know whether or not something equivalent exists
for the RV, but I don't plan on flying mine across the Pacific...)
The RV also seems to have a larger range of after-market mods available
for it. It seems like every time I turn around I see someone with an
engine package, lights, composite instrument panel, canopy change, or
whatever else that's designed to fit an RV. I didn't see that for the XL.
For me, the decision came down to a few things. One is that the RV
includes rollover protection in the cockpit, while I didn't see
something similar for the XL. I took that as a difference in design
philosophy. Another was purely aesthetic: I just prefer the look of the
7A over the XL. (I described it to someone by saying that I want a plane
that, every time I see it, is going to whisper to me, "Come on! Let's go
fly!". I, personally, didn't get that from the XL. YMMV of course.)
Also, there are quite a few RV builders around me, so there are many
places to get answers to my questions. And finally, to me the 7A just
felt like a more "solid" airplane.
Good luck with your choice, whatever you decide on!
- Jeff C., working on the vertical stabilizer
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/04 12:28:31 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
sarg314@earthlink.net writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
>
> Dan:
> I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
> I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
> to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
> need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
> tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
> is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
>
> My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
> great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
> back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
> spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
> tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
> wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
> showed pretty good performance there.
> --
> Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
>
>
Tom,
That's right its severely lacking. The SWR was off scale, essentially
infinite. They may hear you a quarter of a mile away, although as I stated earlier,
its hard to do this kind of testing on 121.5!
What I did was put the antenna on a small piece of aluminum (about 1 1/4 by 3
inches) so I could clamp it to different places and get a quick SWR reading.
I clamped it horizontally to the rear bulkhead without the horizontal or
vertical installed, but with the antenna pointing aft about 3 inches above the
deck there. That's probably a much better situation than with the tail
installed. The antenna showed very high SWR with no sign of a resonance (drop
in SWR)
within at least 30 MHz of 121.5. When I clamped to the deck going vertical, I
got a minimum right at 121.5 of about 1.5:1, which is pretty good. I would
assume that would be about the same on the turtle deck, but I didn't want to
make a hole there just yet!
Dan K9WEK
N766DH RV-7A (working on wheel fairings)
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wing tip antennas |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Frank van der Hulst (Staff WG)" <F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz>
> Yes, it is a com. and its sounding like I wont
> be using it. I'm just looking for that sleek look got any ideas?
I'm wondering about an antenna in the trailing edge of one of the gear
leg fairings. That would be about 3" away from the metal of the leg.
Has anyone tried that?
Frank
Learn real skills for the real world - Apply online
at http://www.ucol.ac.nz or call 0800 GO UCOL
(0800 46 8265) or txt free 3388 for more information
and make a good move to UCOL Universal College of
Learning.
Enrol with a public institute and be certain of your
future
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh writes:
> Bill,
> That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls'
> blueprints?
> Dan K9WEK
> N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
They are in the antenna chapter of the AeroElectric Connection, Bob's bible of airplane electrical design, for sale through his website, which I think is www.aeroelectricconnection.com
You should have this book before you design and wire your plane (I wish I had!)
in my opinion.
-Bill
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip antennas |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:50:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, F.vanderHulst@ucol.ac.nz
writes:
> I'm wondering about an antenna in the trailing edge of one of the gear
> leg fairings. That would be about 3" away from the metal of
> the leg.
>
> Has anyone tried that?
>
> Frank
Check archives. I think it couples huge amounts of power innto the gaer leg with
unpredictable results.
-BB
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 2/19/04 1:39:43 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
n5lp@warpdriveonline.com writes:
> It is easy to overgeneralize about antennas and feedlines; a complex
> business. First, SWR does not tell us anything about how an antenna
> performs. It is possible and common to have an excellent antenna with high
> SWR. It is also possible and common to have very low SWR and a poorly
> performing antenna. High SWR can cause line loss in coax, but it is not a
> huge effect until the SWR gets very high.
>
> A field strength meter might be a better choice than an SWR meter when
> trying to evaluate an antenna. I have seen many ELT antenna installations
> in RV's that, no doubt, had low feedline SWR but very directional patterns
> with little radiation in some directions.
>
> Having said all this, SWR meters have their uses, particularly with the
> common 1/4 wave antenna. It can indicate gross problems and it can tell you
> if your antenna is cut to about the right length for the simple mounting
> solution of an antenna on a flat unobstructed ground plain.
>
>
> Larry Pardue N5LP
> Carlsbad, NM
>
> RV-6 N441LP Flying
> http://n5lp.net
>
>
Hi Larry,
What we are dealing with here can turn into an argument like religion or
politics, and I don't want that!
I agree with you that SWR is not the final word on antenna performance. A
field strength reading would be better except for the attention it would get!
If you install a factory designed antenna clear of other objects, and measure a
reasonable SWR you can be pretty sure it will be effective.
The ELT antenna I am testing here is a simple 1/4 wave vertical that should
have a radiation resistance of about 37 ohms if cut to the right length and
installed perpendicular and in the clear. In fact, it does. Now, when you place
it out of the clear and within only a few inches of a large metal surface it
is no longer a simple 1/4 wave vertical with a radiation resistance of about
37 ohms, as verified by the SWR reading. The transmitter was designed to feed
its power into a 50 ohm load as evidenced by the RG-58 feedline that came with
it, which has been standard RF practice for the last 50 years, or so. When
you arbitrarily mismatch the load to the transmitter the chances are pretty
remote that it will radiate effectively.
Dan K9WEK
N766DH RV-7A ( working on wheel fairings)
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
I "never" plan to sell my RV...... but if I do, I know it will bring a good
market value and I can get back every penny I put into it and then sum..
Can a Zodiac XL do this?
At 11:26 AM 2/19/04 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Cours <rv-j@moriarti.org>
>
>I recently went through the process of deciding between the Zodiac XL
>and the RV, so it's been very interesting reading the responses to this
>thread. Here's my two bits.
>
>First off, if you think you're likely to spend a lot of time comparing
>the plane you've built with the Glasair you no longer own, then it seems
>to me you have a couple choices. One is to build a plane with
>performance numbers in about the same range as the Glasair. The other is
>to build something with a completely different mission profile, say a
>STOL or biplane design. In either case, the XL would be close enough to
>the Glasair's mission profile, but far enough away from its performance
>numbers, that it's not likely to do well in that kind of comparison, and
>it'd be a shame to spend that much time working on a project if you're
>not going to be happy with the end product.
>
>On the other hand, if you think you're more likely to say "I don't care
>if it's not as fast as that old Glasair, I built it and got exactly what
>I wanted and I think that's great!", then your range of options is a bit
>wider.
>
>Now, on to the XL versus the RV.
>
>When you're talking about the control surface thing for a few hundred,
>you might be thinking of the Zodiac's rudder kit, for about $300. Zenith
>also offers a rudder class for the same price, where you go to their
>factory and build the rudder with Nick and Sebastian looking over your
>shoulder. They pre-prime the parts for you, using a product called
>Cortec, so it's mostly drill, deburr, and assemble.
>
>When it comes to ease of construction, I'd have to give the nod to the
>XL over the RV, even the pre-punched RV-7A. The XL is not a pre-punched
>kit, but I think the overall structure is simpler: flying rudder instead
>of vertical stabilizer, flying horizontal stabilizer, etc. Also, the
>XL's blind rivets mean you don't have to worry about dimpling,
>countersinking, or bucking, and the order of assembly is a lot less
>critical.
>
>The XL also edges out the RV when it comes to cost, mostly for tools
>(you don't really need a compressor and pneumatic equipment to build
>one), engine (Rotax or Jabiru versus Lycoming/Sub/Rotary), and hourly
>operating expenses (mostly due to lower fuel burn). The flip side is
>that resale values for RVs appear to be higher than for XLs, at least
>when I went browsing through Trade-a-Plane.
>
>For performance, the RV is generally the winner, with its wider speed
>range. (One exception may be in endurance, since the XL has optional
>extended range tanks that will let it stay aloft for something crazy
>like 10 hours. I don't know whether or not something equivalent exists
>for the RV, but I don't plan on flying mine across the Pacific...)
>
>The RV also seems to have a larger range of after-market mods available
>for it. It seems like every time I turn around I see someone with an
>engine package, lights, composite instrument panel, canopy change, or
>whatever else that's designed to fit an RV. I didn't see that for the XL.
>
>For me, the decision came down to a few things. One is that the RV
>includes rollover protection in the cockpit, while I didn't see
>something similar for the XL. I took that as a difference in design
>philosophy. Another was purely aesthetic: I just prefer the look of the
>7A over the XL. (I described it to someone by saying that I want a plane
>that, every time I see it, is going to whisper to me, "Come on! Let's go
>fly!". I, personally, didn't get that from the XL. YMMV of course.)
>Also, there are quite a few RV builders around me, so there are many
>places to get answers to my questions. And finally, to me the 7A just
>felt like a more "solid" airplane.
>
>Good luck with your choice, whatever you decide on!
>
>- Jeff C., working on the vertical stabilizer
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
do not archive
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Superior IO-360 FF Servo |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Listers...
I have a Superior IO-360 I'm hooking up in my -6a, and I would like to
collaborate with someone who is doing same, this one has the forward facing sump
and
snorkel, etc.
If you will email your phone # and call you, so we might be able to compare
notes.
Thanks,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
jerry2dt@aol.com
503 925 1517
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna drag |
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
These plans are a relatively crude sketch of the antenna that Bob Archer
sells. If you do decide to roll your own, make sure that you check it
for proper tuning. The dimensions on the sketches are not detailed
enough to duplicate Bob Archers design exactly. I know this because I
was toying with the idea of building my own but then decided to buy
instead and compared dimensions. It is a pretty simple design, but you
must check the electrical performance after construction and trim as
necessary.
Dick Tasker
SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2004 2:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh writes:
>
>
>
>>Bill,
>>That's good information. Where can I get Nuckolls'
>>blueprints?
>>Dan K9WEK
>>N766DH (working on fiberglass wheel fairings)
>>
>>
>
>They are in the antenna chapter of the AeroElectric Connection, Bob's bible of airplane electrical design, for sale through his website, which I think is www.aeroelectricconnection.com
>
>You should have this book before you design and wire your plane (I wish I had!)
in my opinion.
>
>-Bill
>
>
>
>
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
I'm not criticizing rotaries. I like 'em, and I've always liked 'em. I
think
the Mazda-based rotaries are an excellent alternative to a Lycoming for an
RV
builder -- in theory, probably the best alternative. I'm just trying to
clarify a point and ensure that an incorrect idea doesn't become "common
knowledge."
Tedd McHenry
Tedd, no harm, no foul. Certainly everyone is entitiled to their opinion
based on the infomation deemed acceptable to them.
I am simply baseing my comments on real world information gleaned from aero
rotary use. At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples. I too, don't want to see an
incorrect statemetn become "common knowledge". I stand by my comment as
proven in aero use.
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero1.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/aero3.jpg
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Charley,
Did you mean *subtract* oil between changes? Most of us *add* oil between
changes!
Dan
In a message dated 2/19/04 11:31:16 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
cengland@netdoor.com writes:
> Hmmm... what airframe did Bosch use to do its testing? The guys flying
> them report virtually identical fuel burn when flying with similar Lyc
> powered airframes at the same speeds. Even in a car the BFSC isn't
> anywhere near as bad as the reputation would lead you to believe. My
> dogged out '86 got 22-23 mpg on the hiway on ul regular.
>
> (BTW, the guys that do an oil premix in their fuel (instead of injecting
> it into the manifold like the stock RX-7) report having to *add* oil
> between changes. No, that's not a joke.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
kempthornes choicesfor once? wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: kempthornes <kempthornes@earthlink.net> choicesfor
once?
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>>
>>I wasn't stating an opinion, I was stating an accepted engineering fact.
>
> Tedd, this is commonly accepted by logicians as an 'arguement from
> authority', sorta like "because I said so".
Oh, you mean an "Appeal to Authority." This is explained quite well at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
It looks similar, but an Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the
claimed authority is in itself questionable. The Bosch manual, being 10
years old and still in widespread use, has probably "stood the test of
time" as it were (yes, that's sort of an "Appeal to Tradition").
Still, Tedd provided a reference to a document on the subject that
supports his hypothesis. So far, to the contrary, we've had one-off
examples of Rotary-powered RV's and Lycoming powered RV's using the
"same" amount of fuel to go the "same" distance. This could be a case
of "Confusing Cause and Effect", which is explained quite well at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html
Tedd pointed out that decreased cooling drag was a significant
possibility in Rotary engines. If that was the case, then a rotary
powered RV flying alongside a similar RV with a Lycoming powerplant may
need to produce less power to maintain the same speed. This could in
turn explain some of the similarities in fuel flow rates that people are
seeing in practise. And it would still support Tedd's assertion that
BSFC for a rotary is higher than for a recip.
In other words? You're both right.
-Rob
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Do they have a TSO number on them. If so then they can probably qualify.
If not then they could only be use in conjunction with an ELT.
Mike Robertson
>From: SportAV8R@aol.com
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>mrobert569@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> > type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
>
>So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior
>technology if they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
>
>-Bill B
>
>
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
Years and years ago when I was taking my flight training, they told us
not to use strobe lights while on the ground, but to use the red rotating
beacon instead. They said the strobes were too distracting to other
pilots. Is this still the accepted practice?
The real question is, do I need a red rotating beacon in addition to my
strobes? If so, where are people mounting them?
Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in Franklin,
Tennessee)
Do not archive
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Charles and Cy,
Thanks for your responses.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
Do not archive
Charles Rowbotham wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Charles Rowbotham" <crowbotham@hotmail.com>
>
> We utilized Fireshield for piece of mind
>
> Chuck Rowbotham
> RV-8A
>
> >From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: "rv-list@matronics.com" <rv-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RV-List: Fireshield
> >Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:12 -0500
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
> >
> >Listers,
> >
> >There is no question in my mind that lines carrying fuel in front of the
> >firewall should be insulated with fireshield.
> >
> >My question is about using fireshield on oil lines. I am sure that there
> >is a variety of opinions and practices out there regarding the need for
> >or protection by fireshield on oil lines. I would appreciate your
> >considered opinions and biases.
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Richard Dudley
> >-6A final details
> >
> >
>
> Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
>
Message 53
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Short answer - no. You need an anti-collision light system that meets the
field of coverage and candlepower standards in the regs (the Aircraft Spruce
catalog has a nice summary.) See the archives for a lot of discussion on
whether the current or older standards apply and then make your own call,
keeping in mind the disposition of the DAR/Inspector who will ultimately
certify your plane. No one seems to argue the field of coverage which
typically requires either 2 fwd & aft facing tip stobes, 2 fwd facing tips
plus tail stobe or both top and bottom fuselage mounted strobes or rotating
beacons. I can't imagine choosing beacons over strobes on a new installation
but you could.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
> --> RV-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
> Years and years ago when I was taking my flight training,
> they told us not to use strobe lights while on the ground,
> but to use the red rotating beacon instead. They said the
> strobes were too distracting to other
> pilots. Is this still the accepted practice?
>
> The real question is, do I need a red rotating beacon in
> addition to my strobes? If so, where are people mounting them?
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7 just starting empennage (setting up shop in
> Franklin,
> Tennessee)
Message 54
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Sears <sears@searnet.com>
I liked Jeff Cours rendition of the Zodiac XL vs the RV. Pat Patterson is
building a Zodiac as a diversion from building RVs. Don't worry, his RV-10
crate is in his hangar. :-) Anyway, I'm watching him build the Zodiac.
After having looked at the prices, the construction, etc., I think I'll
stick with the RVs. However, let me say that the Zodiac does have its
mission. If I were to lose my medical today, I'd sell Scooter and start on
a Zodiac or Sonex to replace Scooter. I consider both better than flying an
ultralight, even though I know the ultralights have their mission, as well.
Thank goodness LSA is on the way!
Jim Sears in KY
N198JS RV-6A (Scooter)
EAA Tech Counselor
do not archive
Message 55
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The FAA just recently permitted their use in aircraft after 121.5 frequency was
added. Most are marine units and do NOT have the "G" switch. YOu can use them
in your airplane in addition to your present ELT but not to replace the ELT.
This will change in about 2008 when the satilites stop checking the 121.5 Several
advantages, fewer false triggerings by RF. The EPIRB sends a registered
signal so it is IDed on the first pass and help can be sent within aboiut 20-30
minutes. ELTs must wait for the 2nd pass and will take up to 4 hours. They
are much more expensive even when required on commercial vessels. The one below
even has a built in GPS and sends out the exact position rather than havwe to
search many squard miles. Also will transmitt much longer. Some even will transmitt
on demand from another transmitter. These are well though out devices,
not like the knee-jerk device mandated by Congress when Neal Boggs crashed in
Alaska.
Home > Safety Equipment > Distress Signaling > ACR GlobalFix
406 EPIRB w/ Internal GPS
ACR
GlobalFix 406 EPIRB
AKA GeoFix, Geo Fix
Model # 2742 Cat.1 (RLB-35 CAT I)
Model # 2744 Cat.2 (RLB-35 CAT II)
The ACR GlobalFix 406 MHz EPIRB w/ Internal GPS provides instant recognition
of who and where you are when activated. The GlobalFix is the state
of the art of EPIRBs, and in our opinion is the EPIRB to buy and venture offshore
with. With its built in GPS, it broadcasts your registered, unique distress
code as well as your latitude and longitude, allowing for much faster satellite
fixes. GEOSAR satellites instantly know who you are, and where you are within
a 100-foot radius. This unit also broadcasts on homing frequency 121.5 MHz.
The ballasted unit floats, antenna up, and has a strobe built in to the top
of the housing. Its five-year lithium battery will operate continuously in most
conditions for at least 48 hours.
a.. Built-in strobe for enhanced location in poor visibility conditions
a.. Single, three-position switch for easy test of battery, EPIRB and
GPS operation. Steady green LED indicates unit has passed full functional EPIRB
test. Flashing red LED indicates unit is "ON"
a.. GPS has Header Test Feature and Self Test feature built-in, or
can be fully tested at ACR Authorized Service Stations
a.. Can be manually activated; self-buoyant - no external float collar
to lose
a.. Lanyard coil retained with all around cover for non-tangling deployment
a.. High impact plastic case designed to withstand exposure to UV rays,
oil, sea water and raft packing
a.. Field programmable - built-in vessel code can be reprogrammed by
any Authorized Service Center worldwide (Maritime/Serialized/Radio Call Sign/MID
Protocols, Country Code, etc.)
a.. 5-year limited warranty / replacement life lithium battery
a.. Size (including antenna): 17.5 x 6.25 x 5.5 in. (44.5 x 15.4 x
14.0 cm)
a.. Weight: 4.5 lbs. (2.0 kg)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
>
> Do they have a TSO number on them. If so then they can probably qualify.
> If not then they could only be use in conjunction with an ELT.
>
> Mike Robertson
>
>
> >From: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
> >Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >
> >In a message dated 2/19/2004 12:39:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >mrobert569@hotmail.com writes:
> >
> > > It states that all aircraft MUST have an approved automatic
> > > type ELT or approved personal type ELT.
> >
> >So are the new EPIRB's okay instead? They look to be far superior
> >technology if they could be made to trigger automatically on impact.
> >
> >-Bill B
> >
> >
>
> Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide.
>
>
>
Message 56
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
Okay, I'll come clean. I do not know the theoretical reason that rotaries have
a higher BSFC. I expect Tracy Crook does, but I don't. I only know that it is
as indisputably true as the fact that higher compression leads to lower BSFC, a
phenomenon which I can explain.
I will do some research and attempt to come up with a proper explanation.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
Message 57
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
> burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer several
more.
Tedd
Message 58
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fuel flow - Lasar vs Mags |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
I took some data yesterday, and it can be found at my web link below,
then click Fuel Flow Data. The short story is that for low power cruise
settings (22", 2350rpm), the fuel savings using Lasar ignition is about
0.4 gph. Alternatively, it can be stated that for the same fuel burn,
about 4 knots increase in speed can be had using Lasar ignition. There
are many ways to slice this, so read the graphs and text carefully.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 441 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
Message 59
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Will & Lynda Allen" <linenwool@comcast.net>
Is this white rust sometimes accompanied by a moist salty looking or gritty
looking substance? I found something like this on a rib that had a minor bit
of this "white rust" corrosion as well and am assuming that I can just clean
it off and move on.
-Will Allen
North Bend, Wa
RV8 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Stein Bruch
Subject: Re: RV-List: White Rust??
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Pat,
The "White Rust" is what happens to Aluminum when it oxidizes, or is the
Aluminum version of rust.
You need to get rid of it before you paint!!
Scotchbrite pads seem to work well if it's light. If it's deep, you may
need to take some very fine sandpaper and remove it.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
http://www.steinair.com
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: PGLong@aol.com
>--> RV-List message posted by: PGLong@aol.com
>
>Getting ready to paint my RV4 with PPG Concept. This kit has been around
for
>almost 20 years and there is something I call white rust on some of the
skins.
>What do I need to do to get ready for paint? I'm thinking that using
>Alumiprep, then Alodine, and then some hi build primer (??) to cover up any
pitting
>may be in the aluminum. Any advise?
>
>
>Pat Long
>PGLong@aol.com
>N924PL (reserved)
>RV4 finishing
>Bay City, Michigan
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 60
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: >Re:ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: Oldsfolks@aol.com
On my RV-4 I put the ELT antenna on top of the fuselage just aft of the
canopy skirt. My thinking was; the antenna is in the best location when the plane
is upright and not rubbed off if the plane gets upside down ,the tail fin keeps
it off the ground. It is a compromise but I think the odds are best for the
ELT to be hollering " Come Get Me" !!
Bob Olds RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas
Message 61
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Making the right kit choice |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Jeff Cours wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Cours <rv-j@moriarti.org>
>
> I recently went through the process of deciding between the Zodiac XL
> and the RV, so it's been very interesting reading the responses to this
> thread. Here's my two bits.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for the excellent insight into comparing these
2 kits. My original intent in mentioning the XL was simply to
build a "simpler" kit than the RVs, then sell it and
use the experience to build the RV I really want.
However, based on yours and all the rest of the responses,
as well as my own doubts, it doesn't make much sense to do this.
It would make more sense to go for the RV and just take my time and
learn as I go.
So, the big question (which probably only I can answer),
is the -10 worth the ~$30k more than the -9A. I'd really like
a four place plane, but have to question my limited budget
over $60k for a basic -9A versus $90k for a basic -10.
The -9A will "probably" handle most of my needs, but I don't
want to be kicking myself a few years down the road by not
getting the -10. Well, I have time to think about it. :-)
Thanks,
-Dj
Message 62
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Tedd McHenry wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>
>On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
>
>
>
>>At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
>>burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
>>
>>
>
>I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
>different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
>explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer several
>more.
>
>Tedd
>
Tedd,
When you get a chance to see Tracy Crook's RV-4, you will know, without
any shadow of doubt, that lower drag (of any sort) cannot possibly
explain equal fuel burn at equal speed when he flies with a 180hp Lyc
powered -4. (Sorry Tracy...)
:-)
Charlie
Message 63
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | ELT Antenna Placement |
--> RV-List message posted by: "GMC" <gmcnutt@uniserve.com>
All this seems very simple. Check the ELT owners manual.
If the ELT is a legal requirement, then technically it will only meet that
FAA FAR 91.207 requirement when installed in accordance with the
manufacturers instructions. If the instructions are not followed performance
may not comply with TSO-C91a requirements. The manufacturer tells you what
the limitations are for the antennae and it's placement.
On my ACK E-01 ELT it would not meet the manufacturers requirements when
mounted in the baggage area or under the empennage fairing - period. And yes
I have also seen many ELT installations that are pretty but not legal.
A good ELT installation can be heard for 150 miles at jet altitudes, why
settle for a installation with unknown sub-standard performance because of
cosmetics. You can live with sub standard performance from your comm. radio
however you might not live with sub standard performance from your ELT.
As for drag from the ELT antennae. Aerial pictures of my aircraft show the
thin wire antennae bends back about 45 degrees in flight, and it takes about
five ounces of pressure to duplicate that bend on the ground.
George in Langley
----------------------------------
--> RV-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
Dan:
I've always claimed that most of the ELT antenna mounting locations
I've seen on RVs are very poor because they place the antenna very close
to large, grounded conductors. A ham with am SWR meter is just what we
need. If I understand you correctly, you tested the location under the
tail fairing between the VS and the HS and found it severly lacking. It
is good to have an actual SWR measurement of this commonly used location.
My guess is that the baggage compartment will be better, but not too
great either because the antenna will be up against the fuselage or the
back bukhead. I think that outside on the turtle deck would be a good
spot. As I have mentioned in a few postings (which I'm sure people are
tired of hearing) I put my ELT and it's antenna under the fiberglass
wingtip. The antenna is perpendicular to the end rib. An SWR meter
showed pretty good performance there.
--
Tom Sargent - RV-6A, canopy.
Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
>Is this subject taboo? I don't want to shoot any sacred cows, but I posted
>the following on 2/16 and would like to hear some opinions.
>
>Snip>
>Has anyone else ever tested the performance of an ELT antenna mounted under
>the fiberglass fairing between the rudder and horizontal? I made some
>measurements with my MFJ-259B antenna analyzer and found that, when
mounted=20there,
>there was an extremely high SWR and no resonance indicated. (I am a ham
>operator.)=A0 Therefore, the antenna will radiate very poorly. For
that=20reason I am
>seriously considering putting the ELT antenna on the turtle deck. When it
is
>in the clear, the SWR measures about 1.5:1 which is acceptable.
>End snip>
>
>
Message 64
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
> >
> >On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Dana Overall wrote:
> >
> >>At cruise, where we spend most of our time, the rotary does not
> >>burn more fuel than a Lyc. Apples to apples.
> >>
> >I want you to explain to me how two different engine installations in two
> >different airplanes is comparing apples to apples. I've provided an
> >explanation for why it's not (cooling drag), and I'm prepared to offer
several
> >more.
> >
> >Tedd
> >
>
> Tedd,
>
> When you get a chance to see Tracy Crook's RV-4, you will know, without
> any shadow of doubt, that lower drag (of any sort) cannot possibly
> explain equal fuel burn at equal speed when he flies with a 180hp Lyc
> powered -4. (Sorry Tracy...)
>
> :-)
>
> Charlie
No appology required Charlie : ) If Laura had not named my -4 RVotter, I
was tempted to name it Dirty Bird.
I spent today instaling a more streamlined muffler under the plane in an
attempt to get back the 4 mph that the Spintech muffler costs me. Gotta do
something to clean it up for the next Sun 100. The Lyc drivers (in Category
8) will be gunning for me after getting beat by raw HP last year. It
definitely was not superior aerodynamics.
But on the fuel burn issue, even with a less-than-clean airplane, I still
get 29 - 30 mpg at economy cruise (175 mph @ 6 gph at 14,500 ft). We won't
talk about fuel burn at 'war emergency power' at 500 ft!
Tracy
>
>
Message 65
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
<<<<<<<<<<<
The formula in AC43.13-2A appears to be designed for antennae with a
streamline shape, not a whip antenna. >>>>>>>>>>
Kevin, although I absolutely do not disagree with you on your method, and it
appears to be similar to that listed in AC43.13 2A I would point out a
couple of things.
I think both methods come up sorta close, but the one in 43.13 2A is way
more conservative. If you read the sub note they say it is reduced by 90%
for the streamline shape, so all one has to do is factor the 90% back into
the .000327 factor to .00327 for it to apply to a round antenna.
The other difference in this formula is it uses sq ft. rather than sq in,,,
so using your values I came up with 3.4 lbs of drag which makes this a far
more conservative number in terms of designing an installation location.
That said, the only reason I'm saying anything is that AC 43.13 2A is the
FAA official acceptable methods etc. for aircraft alterations, whereas Fluid
Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, although probably more accurate is not considered
to be acceptable by the FAA.
Altough this doesn't apply to an experimental directly in that major
alterations aren't really tracked by the FAA like they are in Standard
aircraft, it is important to know when and why we are deviating from the
industry standards.
The other important thing to note in both formulas is that speed is
exponential, and the frontal area factor also sky rockets as the rod
diameter goes up. No matter what whip antennas come out as far superior to
fiberglass units.
W
Message 66
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
"Rocket List" <rocket-list@matronics.com>, <dotty.ray1@verizon.net>,
"Jack Starn" <jhstarn@verizon.net>, "Paul Ray" <pray@attglobal.net>
| Subject: | March 6 and Food |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Come to APV for some Mexican food.
Lets us know if you are coming and we will make sure there is enough food available.
Anyway, EAA Chapter 768 is going to cook after the meeting.
I am guessing that food will be ready by 10:30 and maybe be gone by 11:30.
We will be by the picnic tables and B-B-Q pits near the terminal building.
Enjoy some hangar talk and food.
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
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! --
|