Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:41 AM - dimpled backwards (greg)
2. 03:03 AM - Re: Antenna drag (Kevin Horton)
3. 03:58 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Dana Overall)
4. 04:22 AM - Re: dimpled backwards (Patrick Kelley)
5. 04:46 AM - Re: dimpled backwards (wgill10@comcast.net)
6. 05:04 AM - Re: dimpled backwards (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
7. 05:54 AM - "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04) (Esten Spears)
8. 06:05 AM - Rotaries and airplanes (Donald Mei)
9. 06:44 AM - Re: Rotaries and airplanes (Ed Anderson)
10. 07:52 AM - Carson City,NV Fly-in (BRUCE GRAY)
11. 07:57 AM - Fw: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04) (Esten Spears)
12. 07:58 AM - Re: Carson City,NV Fly-in (Bruce Gray)
13. 08:26 AM - Myrtle Beach (Keith T Uhls)
14. 09:57 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Bob U.)
15. 10:34 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? ()
16. 10:43 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor once? (Kysh)
17. 10:45 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesforonce? (Tracy Crook)
18. 11:09 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - (Bill Dube)
19. 11:12 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have (Bill Dube)
20. 11:13 AM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor (Rob Prior)
21. 11:28 AM - Re: Carson City,NV Fly-in (BRUCE GRAY)
22. 12:07 PM - Re: Strobe lights (jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net)
23. 01:12 PM - Re: dimpled backwards (greg)
24. 02:44 PM - Re: ELT Required?? not always (Michael Stephan)
25. 03:51 PM - Re: dimpled backwards (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
26. 04:10 PM - Re: dimpled backwards (Rob Prior)
27. 04:24 PM - engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing (WALTER KERR)
28. 04:33 PM - RV: ELT Required?? (Emrath)
29. 05:34 PM - Re: RV: ELT Required?? (Cy Galley)
30. 06:24 PM - Re: RV: ELT Required?? (Jerry Springer)
31. 06:24 PM - testing capacitive sending units (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
32. 07:08 PM - Re: testing capacitive sending units (Richard E. Tasker)
33. 07:35 PM - Re: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04) (Richard Sipp)
34. 08:05 PM - Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesforonce? (David Taylor)
35. 08:27 PM - APV (Wheeler North)
36. 08:43 PM - Re: RV: ELT Required?? (Mike Robertson)
37. 11:12 PM - SNF Hotel Question (Mickey Coggins)
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: | dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
Hi all
Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the HS814
& HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then reverse
or should I be ordering new parts already?
Thanks
Greg RV8 - one day
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: Antenna drag |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> 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
Wheeler,
You are correct in that the AC43.13-2A method is designed to be
conservative when used to design antenna mounts. So it will by
design come up with a drag value that is higher than the real value.
That is exactly the right thing to do if you are designing an antenna
mount. Far better to err on the too strong side, than not strong
enough.
But I interpreted the original question as wanting to know how the
drag really is, to help understand the performance penalty of putting
an antenna on the outside. In this case you need an approach that
comes closer to the truth. The approach I outlined is only
approximate, and it could easily be off by 25% or so, but it is more
accurate than the AC43.13-2A method. The Cd value will change with
Reynolds number, and I didn't take the time to calculate that. The
0.5 value I used for Cd appeared to be a good average value as long
as the Reynolds number is high enough so the flow around the antenna
goes from laminar to turbulent, which it certainly would.
Take care,
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: Tedd McHenry <tedd@vansairforce.org>
>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, the thread appears to have taken a turn for the worse so "I'm outta
here". Kinda like arguing with the school bully in front the prize girl,
lots of loud talk............just not a lot of substance from either
person:-) (take that lightly)
For anyone still following this, take the real world fuel burn figures for
RVs (which we are all either building or flying) posted by a couple
respected rotary flyers or take generally accepted engineering figures and
accept whichever one holds water for you. I seriously doubt many are still
following this issue though:-)
Tedd, I didn't intend for this thread to take the stance it appears to have
taken. You will notice, I'll say this since I started it, I never did
berate your use of engineering figures as nonsense. I just based by
position on real world numbers rather to attack you personnally. Thus, no
harm....no foul.
Have a great one.
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 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: | dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster@flion.com>
You might want to order parts, because you'll know the mistake was made.
However, you should be ok if you reverse the dimples - providing that you
use some scrap sheet and sandwich the spars between the HS810/814 and the
scrap sheet. Of course, that sheet will now somewhat defeat the purpose of
using flush rivets there, but I don't think a small variance (the width of
your backing sheet) would affect attachment of the HS too much. Might be
easier in the long run to get the new parts...
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - not getting much done :-(
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of greg
Subject: RV-List: dimpled backwards
--> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
Hi all
Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
HS814 & HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
Thanks
Greg RV8 - one day
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: | dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: wgill10@comcast.net
Been there, done that. I did this on a few holes for the vertical stab. I then
tried to "reverse the dimple," but that left a small circular crack in the alclad
and this was not an area to accept compromise. I ordered a replacement part
and have not lost any sleep.
Bill Gill
RV-7 wings
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster@flion.com>
>
> You might want to order parts, because you'll know the mistake was made.
> However, you should be ok if you reverse the dimples - providing that you
> use some scrap sheet and sandwich the spars between the HS810/814 and the
> scrap sheet. Of course, that sheet will now somewhat defeat the purpose of
> using flush rivets there, but I don't think a small variance (the width of
> your backing sheet) would affect attachment of the HS too much. Might be
> easier in the long run to get the new parts...
>
> Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - not getting much done :-(
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of greg
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: dimpled backwards
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> Hi all
> Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
> HS814 & HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8 - one day
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Greg,
Bet you won't make that mistake again! I would call Van's and ask them.
Many times there are workarounds which are perfectly acceptable. I would not
reverse the dimples and reuse the same holes. You may be able to make new holes
nearby. Of course, a new part is the perfect solution. Everyone makes these
mistakes, and many times you can still use the same parts, but in the case of
a critical structure, ask Van's.
Dan RV-7A almost done
In a message dated 2/20/04 5:43:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
greg@itmack.com writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> Hi all
> Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where the
> HS814 &HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8 - one day
>
>
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: | "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Esten Spears" <ewspears@comcast.net>
We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather permitting" If
you think you can make it, Please email ewspears@comcast.net We will send you
an invitation with arrival instructions.
Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala, FL
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: | Rotaries and airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
I've been reading for a while and want to throw some more (premix) fuel on
the fire.
I've always been a big fan of rotaries. My first one was an early RX-7 that
I abused mercilessly. It had the 12A engine. I used to autocross it a lot.
Often when I didn't have time to shift, I just stayed on the gas.
Frequently taking it 1000, 2000, even 3000 rpm over redline. That little
motor never protested.
My next RX7 was still a first generation car, but it was one of the GSL-SE
cars with the 13b engine from the forthcoming gen 2 car. What great fun.
That car too was flogged mercilessly and never protested.
Like others have stated, when a rotary "blows up" it continues to run and
make power, it just won't restart after its shut off.
I blew the apex seals on one rotor towards the end of the cars life. The
car would start on 1 rotor then after a few seconds (then minutes) it would
fire on the 2nd rotor. Huge clouds of smoke and I was off to the races,
literally. Despite the fact that, the only failure prone part in the engine
had failed, it continued to run fine once it fired on both rotors.
Eventually the 2nd rotor wouldn't start at all and I sold the car. Either
way, that engine is a honey. I cant imagine a case where a rotary would
quit in flight. (ok thats unreasonable but I'm trying to make a point.)
Another "engineering fact" Because the rotors are iron (or steel) and the
rotor housing is aluminum, when the engine overheats, the tolerances between
the rotor and the housing actually INCREASE. This is key, because a rotary
essentially can not sieze if it overheats. It will continue to take its
ocupants to their destination. Then when a restart is attempted after the
engine is cooled, it won't start. There is much annecdotal evidence of
(stupid) people running their RX-7s out of coolant and continuing to drive.
Only to be surprised some hours later when it won't restart.
With that said, would I put a rotary in an RV? Probably not for 2 reasons:
1) I don't have the skill/will to engineer a complete installation. Most
instances where rotaries fail in flight have nothing to do with the core
powerplant. Its because some supporting system was poorly engineered or
executed. It will be a great day when a turnkey (a la Jan Eggenfelner) 20B
firewall forward kit is developed for the RVs.
2) I'm 36 yrs old and this will not be the last airplane I own. RVs have
fantastic resale value. Anything other than a Lyc significantly hurts
resale. (at least thats the way it is now)
If someone came out with a FWF and resale was solid it would be a great
choice for me.
By the way, I'm also a HUGE fan of Subarus. Great cars, great engines.
(let me tell you about my new 300 hp turbocharged Sub. Woo hoo ) But I
think the normally aspirated 4 cyl subs are at the smaller end for use in an
RV.
Hope this helps stirr it up.
Best regards,
Don Mei
"All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create
the states; the states created the federal government!"---Ronald Reagan
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: Rotaries and airplanes |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: Rotaries and airplanes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
>
> I've been reading for a while and want to throw some more (premix) fuel on
> the fire.
>
> I've always been a big fan of rotaries. My first one was an early RX-7
that
> I abused mercilessly. It had the 12A engine. I used to autocross it a
lot.
> Often when I didn't have time to shift, I just stayed on the gas.
> Frequently taking it 1000, 2000, even 3000 rpm over redline. That
little
> motor never protested.
>
> My next RX7 was still a first generation car, but it was one of the GSL-SE
> cars with the 13b engine from the forthcoming gen 2 car. What great fun.
> That car too was flogged mercilessly and never protested.
>
> Like others have stated, when a rotary "blows up" it continues to run and
> make power, it just won't restart after its shut off.
>
> I blew the apex seals on one rotor towards the end of the cars life. The
> car would start on 1 rotor then after a few seconds (then minutes) it
would
> fire on the 2nd rotor. Huge clouds of smoke and I was off to the races,
> literally. Despite the fact that, the only failure prone part in the
engine
> had failed, it continued to run fine once it fired on both rotors.
>
> Eventually the 2nd rotor wouldn't start at all and I sold the car. Either
> way, that engine is a honey. I cant imagine a case where a rotary would
> quit in flight. (ok thats unreasonable but I'm trying to make a point.)
>
> Another "engineering fact" Because the rotors are iron (or steel) and the
> rotor housing is aluminum, when the engine overheats, the tolerances
between
> the rotor and the housing actually INCREASE. This is key, because a
rotary
> essentially can not sieze if it overheats. It will continue to take its
> ocupants to their destination. Then when a restart is attempted after the
> engine is cooled, it won't start. There is much annecdotal evidence of
> (stupid) people running their RX-7s out of coolant and continuing to
drive.
> Only to be surprised some hours later when it won't restart.
>
> With that said, would I put a rotary in an RV? Probably not for 2
reasons:
>
> 1) I don't have the skill/will to engineer a complete installation. Most
> instances where rotaries fail in flight have nothing to do with the core
> powerplant. Its because some supporting system was poorly engineered or
> executed. It will be a great day when a turnkey (a la Jan Eggenfelner)
20B
> firewall forward kit is developed for the RVs.
>
> 2) I'm 36 yrs old and this will not be the last airplane I own. RVs have
> fantastic resale value. Anything other than a Lyc significantly hurts
> resale. (at least thats the way it is now)
>
> If someone came out with a FWF and resale was solid it would be a great
> choice for me.
>
> By the way, I'm also a HUGE fan of Subarus. Great cars, great engines.
> (let me tell you about my new 300 hp turbocharged Sub. Woo hoo ) But I
> think the normally aspirated 4 cyl subs are at the smaller end for use in
an
> RV.
>
> Hope this helps stirr it up.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don Mei
As I flier of a rotary powered RV-6A, I agree with your assessment. One of
the principal benefits (in my opinion) is the inherent reliability of the
rotary engine, fewer parts (no camshaft, valves, valve springs/keepers,
connecting rods, cylinder heads, rocker arms, etc) = fewer failures.
Following reliability is the robust nature of the engine. The engine is
essentially bullet proof, once running ruined seals, cooked engines,
ingested foreign objects, whatever - if fuel and spark is maintained the
engine will normally continue to run (even if with reduced power) sufficient
to keep an RV airborne. I also agree that you may not be able to restart it
without a rebuilt, but it got you to a safe landing and that is what counts.
The engine will not seize due to over heating for the reasons you stated and
has been "demonstrated" by two pilots who encounter severe overheating due
to loss of coolant. The engines were cooked but continued to produce power
and got both pilots safely to an airport landing.
I also agree that a "do it yourself" conversion of any auto engine is a
major project and is not for everyone. However, as our body of knowledge
continues to be developed of the "best practices to use" and as more vendors
offer components, such a rotary project is not as daunting as it once was.
While the basic engine is simple and needs little (if anything) done to it
for aircraft use, you still must design and fabricate a suitable set of
subsystems such as fuel, induction, ignition, gear reduction, etc. that is
well designed and reliable. Probably for 95% of homebuilders, a new(if you
can afford it) or rebuilt Lycoming (or clone) is the smart way to go. But,
if you enjoy a challenge and have the time and patience then doing your own
conversion will keep you challenged. I love just flying, but must admit
that I love "tinkering and tweaking" equally well. Each to his own.
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
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: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on the
13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to check
that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th through
May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans they
may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun and
enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This is
our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for your
intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
Bruce
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: | Fw: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch |
(fd04)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Esten Spears" <ewspears@comcast.net>
Sorry I forgot to include the date, It's March 6th
----- Original Message -----
From: Esten Spears
Subject: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch (fd04)
We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather permitting" If
you think you can make it, Please email ewspears@comcast.net We will send you
an invitation with arrival instructions.
Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala, FL
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: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Another one! And here I thought I was unique.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BRUCE GRAY
Subject: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on
the
13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to
check
that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th
through
May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans
they
may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun
and
enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This
is
our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for
your
intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
Bruce
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Keith T Uhls <keithuhls@juno.com>
Listers,
I will be in Myrtle Beach on March 7th. Do we have anyone on the list who
is building, would like to come out and check it out.
Keith Uhls
RV-7- Finish Kit
N7KU
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: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>
> 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
>
=============================================
FWIW...
FAR 91.211
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Bob
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor |
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
Bob,
What is the connection here in regards to the "Engines" topic of the tread? I
think I got lost here.
Konrad
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob U.
To: rv-list@matronics.com.once?
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesfor
once?
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>
> 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
>
FWIW...
FAR 91.211
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Bob
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: Kysh <vans-dragon@lapdragon.org>
As Bob U. was saying:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> =============================================
>
> FWIW...
>
>
> FAR 91.211
>
> (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
>
> (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
> including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
> provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
> at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
>
> (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
> required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
> oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Am I missing something?
-Kysh
do not archive
--
| 'Life begins at 120kias' - http://www.lapdragon.org/flying |
| CBR-F4 streetbike - http://www.lapdragon.org/cbr |
| 1968 Mustang fastback - http://www.lapdragon.org/mustang |
| Got 'nix? - http://www.infrastructure.org/ |
| KG6FOB - http://www.lapdragon.org/ham |
| Give blood: Play Hockey! http://www.unixdragon.com/ |
Message 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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesforonce? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
> 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
>
FWIW...
FAR 91.211
(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Bob
Interesting, I thought the 30 minute limit was 14500. But do you want to know
how much better the numbers are at 17,500?
My RV-8 is being optimized for cruise at altitudes in the FL 18 and up range.
Yes, will have the requisite O2 & instrumentation per FAR whatever, big engine
(cubic inches rather than turbo), and longer wings (I can hear Van cringing now).
Just got back from flight test with the new muffler. Only slightly louder than
the Spintech (forgot to take db meter) but found out the Spintech was costing
more than the 4 mph I thought. Can't wait for the next Sun 100. Hope the guts
don't blow out of this muffler before then. The Spintech internals were
in perfect condition after 200+ hours.
I love cross country cruising with the iPOD playing but I think my biggest kicks
come from changing stuff and seeing how it works.
do not archive
Tracy
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 - |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 06:06 PM 2/19/2004 -0800, you 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.
Most folks run the stock RV cowl when they install a rotary. These
installations are where the rotary fuel consumption data have come from.
Because they are running the stock cowl, there is likely not much reduction
in cooling drag on these particular aircraft. If there is, because of some
possible reduced airflow through the cowl, it is likely to be a minor
improvement.
As I suggested earlier, it is likely that the lack of valve train,
the high continuos RPM (no low RPM operation like a car,) and the above sea
level environment, makes the rotary fuel consumption more competitive with
the Lycoming piston engine.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have |
choicesfor once?
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov> choicesfor once?
>
>(a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
>
>(1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
>including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
>provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
>at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
>
>(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
>required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
>oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
Are you suggesting that the folks posting to this thread are
showing the symptoms of anoxia? :-)
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: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
Kysh wrote:
> As Bob U. was saying:
>>FWIW...
>>FAR 91.211
>>
>>(2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
>>required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
>>oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
>
> Am I missing something?
It sounded to me like the point was that if you needed to be at 14,500
and breathing supplemental oxygen to get the performance out of the
rotary, that you weren't comparing apples to apples anymore. But maybe not.
One last kick at the can...
That the rotary offers equivalent or "close enough" performance to a
Lycoming isn't in question, btw. How it achieves it is what was being
debated. The rotary, with it's inherently higher BSFC (this can be
proved on a dyno for any rotary and recip of equivalent horsepower),
must offer other advantages that nobody has documented here adequately.
But if it's burning the same amount of gas as the Lycoming, it's putting
out less power, plain and simple. More of that power may be usable due
to reductions in cooling drag or for some other reason, which yields the
same performance (in terms of airspeed). The added benefit is that you
should be running at a lower power setting, and hence have more
"emergency power" available when/if you want/need it.
-Rob
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: | Carson City,NV Fly-in |
--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
Hey, Its a good name. And isn't 2 better than 1?. It is ironic that the
first and last are the same. Are you my long lost brother? Just Jok'in. From
your e-mail address do you have a glassair aircraft or are you a RV driver?
Where you located and if close enough come to our fly-in that I've posted
everywhere possible. Bruce
>From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:58:03 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>Another one! And here I thought I was unique.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BRUCE GRAY
>To: RV-List@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: Carson City,NV Fly-in
>
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "BRUCE GRAY" <brucerv84us@hotmail.com>
>
>A couple people have e-mailed me and told me to keep them posted on the
>RV-List sight so here I go. I posted a message to vansairforce.net on
>the
>13th and 17th of Feb. to let people know that way if you would like to
>check
>that sight. Anyway our chapter has selected the dates of April 30th
>through
>May 2nd. We are organizing some static displays and tring to get Van's
>newest aircraft down as well if it doesn't interfere with prior plans
>they
>may have already. Our chapter is working hard to make this turn out fun
>and
>enjoyable as possible. If the planes show, RV's are always a hit. This
>is
>our first one and will probably gauge any future one's. Thank you for
>your
>intrest and hope you all can make it if you have no prior engagements.
>
>Bruce
>
>
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
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: Strobe lights |
--> RV-List message posted by: jamesbaldwin@attglobal.net
Jim -
I'm not aware of an answer to your question regarding the use of strobes on
the ground, but generally, it is an unwanted distraction to other pilots and I
too was taught not to use them unless on an active runway or in a position
where I wanted to make sure everyone else to saw me.
The red beacon generally signifies a rotating engine or an airplane ready to
start engines. This is fairly universal in general aviation and airline use.
With regard to strobes, I leave mine on until I clear ALL active runways
regardless of what I'm in. I enjoy having both types of lights on my
airplane. JBB
j1j2h3@juno.com wrote:
> --> 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 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: dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
Thanks all,
You wouldn't believe it but I actually checked twice before doing it the
wrong way. I guess 3rd time lucky. I checked with Van's and they said it
should be ok to reverse them, but I like your idea of making new holes
nearby.
I would go ahead and just order new ones but I live in Australia and after
waiting for a couple of weeks I'd probably find the new spars damaged by the
freight company.
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
>
> Greg,
> Bet you won't make that mistake again! I would call Van's and ask them.
> Many times there are workarounds which are perfectly acceptable. I would
not
> reverse the dimples and reuse the same holes. You may be able to make new
holes
> nearby. Of course, a new part is the perfect solution. Everyone makes
these
> mistakes, and many times you can still use the same parts, but in the case
of
> a critical structure, ask Van's.
> Dan RV-7A almost done
>
> In a message dated 2/20/04 5:43:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> greg@itmack.com writes:
>
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
> >
> > Hi all
> > Day 2 of my RV8 build and I dimpled the HS702 front spar backwards where
the
> > HS814 &HS810 are flush riveted. Can I just flatten the dimples out then
> > reverse or should I be ordering new parts already?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Greg RV8 - one day
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Re: ELT Required?? not always |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael Stephan <mstephan@shr.net>
I believe that epirbs are for maritime use only. Upon activation the coast
guard is notified as the search and rescue resource. the PLB (person
locator beacon) does the same thing and the SAR resource is the Air Force
Rescue Coordination Center. Also, I think the PLB is less expensive.
--
Michael Stephan
> From: SportAV8R@aol.com
> Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:48:24 -0500
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: ELT Required?? not always
>
>
> 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 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: dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 2/20/04 4:15:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
greg@itmack.com writes:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> Thanks all,
>
> You wouldn't believe it but I actually checked twice before doing it the
> wrong way. I guess 3rd time lucky. I checked with Van's and they said it
> should be ok to reverse them, but I like your idea of making new holes
> nearby.
>
> I would go ahead and just order new ones but I live in Australia and after
> waiting for a couple of weeks I'd probably find the new spars damaged by the
> freight company.
>
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> >
> >Greg,
>
Greg,
How many holes are involved? Is it just the center area where the vertical
spar will attach? If so, I don't think I would worry about it. The bolts will
carry the load there anyway.
Dan
RV-7A in Indiana, USofA
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: dimpled backwards |
--> RV-List message posted by: Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca>
greg wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "greg" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> I would go ahead and just order new ones but I live in Australia and after
> waiting for a couple of weeks I'd probably find the new spars damaged by the
> freight company.
You know, considering you're south of the equator, maybe those holes are
dimpled correctly after all, and all of the *other* holes are backwards.
8-)
-Rob
do not archive
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing |
Seal-Send-Time: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:25:25 -0500
--> RV-List message posted by: "WALTER KERR" <kerrjb@msn.com>
Subject: engine fuel burn experience --rotary vs lycomiing
I agree with Tedd that the dyno BSFC of a lycoming will beat a rotary unless it
is one of the newer RX8 engines.
Tracy in "dirty bird" and I have flown at various altitudes from 4500 to 10500
and at varying cruise speeds. My 6A with a 160 lycoming, Sam James cowl and plenum,
Sensenich 80 inch metal prop, etc , etc was one of the cleaner 6A's IMHO.
Having flown 666nm from FL37 to Memphis on numerous occasions, you could do
it in 4:10 and have about 45 minutes fuel reserve it there was only light crosswinds.
Tracy and I did not do block to block testing but instead relied on our Grand Rapids
EIS for rate. At my normal cruise at about 190 mph TAS, the lycoming would
burn about 7% less fuel than the rotary. When we would thottle back to 170
mph, the fuel burns were the same. Was it more drag on the 4? The fact that
the fuel came together at lower speed might indicate that. Was it the fact that
the rotary will run smoothly at leaner fuel to air ratios at the lower power
and therefore make better bsfc. Take your pick cause we don't have enough info
to decide!! The rotary was burning auto fuel which is normally more difference
in cost than the bsfc between the two engines. Do not believe that the fuel
burn is a major deciding issue as much as are you willing to roll your own until
Tracy or ?? someone offers a fwf package at a reasonable price. As stated
earlier, there is no question that you can roll your own cheaper than you can
do a rebuilt lycoming.
Bernie Kerr, 6A sold, 9A rotary close ( I should be in the hangar working instead
of writing this note, but can't keep quiet in a good discussion)
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: | RV: ELT Required?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT would
not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
flight testing? Just a thought.
Marty in Brentwood, TN
Time: 10:27:00 AM PST US
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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??
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: RV: ELT Required?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
You are correct! You are limited to a single seat and a limited test area.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>
> Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
would
> not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
> flight testing? Just a thought.
>
> Marty in Brentwood, TN
>
>
> Time: 10:27:00 AM PST US
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: 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??
>
>
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: RV: ELT Required?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@earthlink.net>
Just guessing but I would bet that it would be hard to get the paperwork
done to even do
phase 1 without one???
Jerry
Cy Galley wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>You are correct! You are limited to a single seat and a limited test area.
>
>Cy Galley
>Editor, EAA Safety Programs
>cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>>
>>Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT
>>
>>
>would
>
>
>>not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
>>flight testing? Just a thought.
>>
>>Marty in Brentwood, TN
>>
>>
>>Time: 10:27:00 AM PST US
>>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: 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??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: | testing capacitive sending units |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Is there a method of testing the capacitive sending units with the tanks
on the plane?
I was getting erratic readings on the right tank. The bnc was leaking.
I repaired the leak by removing the tank, opening the access plate, and
putting some more proseal on her.
I also replaced the coax between the tank and the gage just in case I
had a bad crimp on the bnc.
The tank now reads full with only a few gallons in her. But it does not
read "open" on the EI gage like it did before when the gage would act
up.
I am wondering if there is a problem with a wire in the tank. Or perhaps
with new coax, which is a different higher grade than the cheap crap I
had in there, it is giving the gage a different reading now and I might
need to recalibrate all over again. Would be nice to be able to test the
tank with different levels of fuel and rule out a tank problem.
Thanks
Mike
Do not archive yet
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: testing capacitive sending units |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
The difference in capacitance between full and empty is not very much so
the change to a different coax might have changed the "zero fuel"
capacitance value enough that it is now reading significantly high.
Can't really say for sure unless you know the capacitance of the two
coaxes and if there was any difference in length between the two. For
best performance the length should be as short as possible.
Dick Tasker
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>Is there a method of testing the capacitive sending units with the tanks
>on the plane?
>
>I was getting erratic readings on the right tank. The bnc was leaking.
>
>I repaired the leak by removing the tank, opening the access plate, and
>putting some more proseal on her.
>
>I also replaced the coax between the tank and the gage just in case I
>had a bad crimp on the bnc.
>
>The tank now reads full with only a few gallons in her. But it does not
>read "open" on the EI gage like it did before when the gage would act
>up.
>
>I am wondering if there is a problem with a wire in the tank. Or perhaps
>with new coax, which is a different higher grade than the cheap crap I
>had in there, it is giving the gage a different reading now and I might
>need to recalibrate all over again. Would be nice to be able to test the
>tank with different levels of fuel and rule out a tank problem.
>
>Thanks
>
>Mike
>
>Do not archive yet
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch |
(fd04)
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp@earthlink.net>
Easton:
With regrets, please scratch Dick Sipp from your list.
Just learned our airpark's workday is that date.
Thanks
Dick Sipp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Esten Spears" <ewspears@comcast.net>
Subject: RV-List: "We Love RV's" Invitational Luncheon at Leeward Air Ranch
(fd04)
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Esten Spears" <ewspears@comcast.net>
>
> We are currently at about 70 RV's that "will make it, weather
permitting" If you think you can make it, Please email ewspears@comcast.net
We will send you an invitation with arrival instructions.
> Esten Spears, RV8A, 80922, N922ES (reserved), Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala,
FL
>
>
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: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have choicesforonce? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Taylor" <rv7@cox.net>
This thread has really intrigued me. First off I'd like to recognize how
civil you guys are being. It's good to see people disagree tactfully. I've
been on several lists that get really ugly so it makes me proud to be a part
of this family.
I've done quite a bit of web surfing based on this discussion just to see
what comes up (self education). The following information is based on what
I've seen on the web and is definitely not fact. Please keep this in mind.
It appears, from my research, that the rotary engine is better as an
aviation engine than a car engine. I have a friend at work that is really
into cars and we got into this discusstion. He asked how many RX-7s I see
driving around. Honestly I haven't seen many at all. Also he showed me an
auto trader search of RX-7s 93 and greater near our area (31088). I was
amazed that many of the cars on the first 2 pages had new engines
installed.(Go to http://www.autotrader.com and search for used Mazda RX-7s
200 miles from the 31088 area code).
On the flip side, every single article I've read on aviation has praised
the rotary engine. Tracy's RV-4 and Ed Anderson's RV-6 are both proof of how
well it can work. I'm confident Dana will have the same results. I guess the
question is: Is there anything that makes it more reliable as an aircraft
engine as opposed to a car engine? I've read that the tube that lubricated
that apex seal isn't needed due to the oil added to the fuel. Surely this
isn't all there is to it.
Also from what I've read it seems that turbocharging this engine seems to
be a bad idea. Please keep in mind this is not my personal opinion. I've
gathered this information from surfing the web and we all know that this
information may or may not be accurate.
Personally I am going with a Lycoming. It has nothing to do with the
engine necessarily being any better but I know if I go to my local A&P or IA
he will be able to help/advise me on this engine. I intend on being the one
to maintain my aircraft and I have access to an IA who is very knowledgable
of the Lycoming that I can learn from (yes I am still learning). That being
said I would not discount putting a rotary in a future aircraft should I
decide to build another. I think it's great that people who have the talent
and the knowledge are experimenting with aviation. Remember that there was a
first to break the sound barrier. Now it's an everyday occurrence (I know I
live within 5miles of an Air Force Base :) ).
-David Taylor
Warner Robins, GA
RV-6A Wings (prosealing
the tanks yuch) N207DT reserved
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: engines, engines, engines - wonderful to have
choicesforonce?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>
> FWIW...
>
> FAR 91.211
>
> (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry --
>
> (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and
> including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is
> provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight
> at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration;
>
> (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the
> required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental
> oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and
>
>
> Bob
> Interesting, I thought the 30 minute limit was 14500. But do you want to
know how much better the numbers are at 17,500?
> My RV-8 is being optimized for cruise at altitudes in the FL 18 and up
range. Yes, will have the requisite O2 & instrumentation per FAR whatever,
big engine (cubic inches rather than turbo), and longer wings (I can hear
Van cringing now).
> Just got back from flight test with the new muffler. Only slightly louder
than the Spintech (forgot to take db meter) but found out the Spintech was
costing more than the 4 mph I thought. Can't wait for the next Sun 100.
Hope the guts don't blow out of this muffler before then. The Spintech
internals were in perfect condition after 200+ hours.
> I love cross country cruising with the iPOD playing but I think my biggest
kicks come from changing stuff and seeing how it works.
> do not archive
> Tracy
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Subject: RV-List: March 6 and Food
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
Come to APV for some Mexican food.
Now this is an idea I can sink my teeth into.
thx Tom, hope to see ya then, God willing and the creek don't rise
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: | RV: ELT Required?? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Mike Robertson" <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
You probably could make a case that way but........
Mike R.
>From: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: RV: ELT Required??
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:33:21 -0600
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>
>Item #4 below is very interesting. Mike, does this mean that the ELT would
>not have to be installed in a two place aircraft while in Phase 1 of it's
>flight testing? Just a thought.
>
>Marty in Brentwood, TN
>
>
>Time: 10:27:00 AM PST US
>From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@QCBC.ORG>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 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??
>
>
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
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: | SNF Hotel Question |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
For those of you that have been to Sun 'n Fun, and
know the area, I've got two hotel choices - one
in Lakeland for about 150 USD/night, and one in
Tampa for about 70 USD/night. Is it worth the
extra money to stay in Lakeland, or is driving
to Tampa daily not too big of a deal? I'll
be there for about 7 days.
Thanks for any advice!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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! --
|