Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:40 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Bob U.)
2. 04:37 AM - Garmin 430 install manual (Dana Overall)
3. 05:15 AM - Re: Troubles contacting S-TEC (Tommy Walker)
4. 05:56 AM - cht probe (G B)
5. 06:09 AM - WxWorx observations (Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu)
6. 06:39 AM - Re: [SPAM] Garmin 430 install manual (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
7. 07:10 AM - Re: Garmin 430 install manual (LarryRobertHelming)
8. 09:13 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Rob Prior)
9. 09:24 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Rob Prior)
10. 10:00 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Dale Mitchell)
11. 10:25 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Dj Merrill)
12. 10:26 AM - Prop 4 Sale (Brian Alley)
13. 10:30 AM - Re:nose gear shimmy (Dave Biddle)
14. 11:08 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
15. 11:34 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (richard dudley)
16. 11:37 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Skylor Piper)
17. 11:54 AM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Bob U.)
18. 11:54 AM - Info on Chilliwack (Jim and Bev Cone)
19. 12:08 PM - Re: anodizing instrument panel? (Wayne Cahoon @ Aircraft Engravers)
20. 01:14 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Bob)
21. 02:27 PM - Free shipping on Builder's Bookstore (Aircraft Technical Book Company)
22. 02:41 PM - Re: Internal Regulated Alternator converted to External? (Ross Schlotthauer)
23. 03:24 PM - Northern Airborne Tech. (Jim Needham)
24. 04:24 PM - Wing incidence spacer block (Richard Suffoletto)
25. 04:31 PM - SoCal hangar space? (Dave Hyde)
26. 04:39 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Ed Anderson)
27. 05:48 PM - Re: SoCal hangar space? (Dan Checkoway)
28. 05:50 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Kevin Horton)
29. 05:53 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Jim Sears)
30. 06:23 PM - Re: Socal hangar space (Dave Hyde)
31. 06:43 PM - Re: Undercarriage Stiffeners (Ed Anderson)
32. 06:47 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Jim Oke)
33. 06:54 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Bob U.)
34. 07:45 PM - anodizing instrument panel? (Bluecavu@aol.com)
35. 07:50 PM - blood & guts (Dave Ford)
36. 08:42 PM - Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... (Vanremog@aol.com)
37. 09:03 PM - Re: blood & guts (Michael McGee)
38. 09:44 PM - Re: blood & guts (LeastDrag93066@aol.com)
39. 10:13 PM - Re: blood & guts (JusCash@aol.com)
40. 10:40 PM - Re: blood & guts (Dan Checkoway)
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Hal / Carol Kempthorne wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
>
>I set mine at 1800 lbs - it is my airplane.
>
>Setting the GW too low can cause a problem if you load heavier than that
>setting and have an accident/incident wherein overloading is an issue.
>
>Technically, there are several things that limit gross weight for an airplane:
>
> 1. Ability to takeoff and climb
>
> 2. Loads on structure while on the ground
>
> 3. Loads on structure while in the air.
>
> 4. Center of gravity - balance (I have often flown alone with
>heavy baggage in the pax seat and on the pax floor.)
>
> 5. Mission of flights - my limit for aerobatics is still 1375 lbs.
>
>If you want to set your GW to eliminate legal problems in all possible
>situations, better set it to zero.
>
>K. H. (Hal) Kempthorne
>RV6-a N7HK - Three trips to OSH now.
>PRB (El Paso de Robles, CA)
>
Addressing #3....
Would you all believe MANUEVERING speed increases as gross weight increases?
So, flying your airplane at cruise in rough air is safer with a max
load. <g>
Bob
Bob
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: | Garmin 430 install manual |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
OK, I've checked the archives and apparently too many people are "do not
archiving". Can someone repost the site for the 430 install manual. As an
extra does someone know the Garmin 106A install manual site?
Thanks,
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
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: Troubles contacting S-TEC |
Seal-Send-Time: Wed, 5 May 2004 07:18:21 -0500
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tommy Walker" <twsurveyor@msn.com>
Try calling then @ 1-800-872-7832.
Tommy
6A, FWF
Ridgetop, TN
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: John.Morrissey@csiro.au
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 6:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Troubles contacting S-TEC
--> RV-List message posted by: <John.Morrissey@csiro.au>
Hi All,
About a month ago I returned a pitch computer to S-TEC for repair
(hopefully under warranty). Since then I have been unable to contact
them on any of the following email addresses
support@s-tec.com
info@s-tec.com
Does anyone out there know of any other email addresses I should try?
Has anyone else had any issues with getting things fixed by S-TEC?
Cheers
John Morrissey
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: G B <microsys@alltel.net>
Hello,
A fellow RV'er let me borrow some CHT probes that he had as spares for his
IO-360.
Question is: these seem to be thermistor type, measuring around 7k ohm
at room temperature.
What is this 14mm or 18mm size mean? The probe is quite small and seems
to have a thread diameter
of 3/8", and a probe length (below threaded area) of 0.85".
Also, I see other CHT probes that use rings under spark plugs, and these
seem to be the thermocouple
type.
What are some of you using?
Thanks,
Glen
RV9 emp almost done, wings on order
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: | WxWorx observations |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu
Sunday I completed my first long XC with WxWorx weather data link. The flight
was
from HEF (Manassas VA) to ISM (Kissimmee FL). I mounted the WxWorx receiver
under the panel. The WxWorx antenna and GPS antenna sit on the dash. I display
the weather on a Fujitsu ST 5011D daylight-readable Tablet PC mounted on the
panel (photos at http://www.tabletpcbuzz.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11230).
Observations: Wx Worx works great! Nexrad radar updates every 5-6 min, w/ 7-level
radar displayed in color. Lightning data is also displayed.
The route took us through several areas of thunderstorms and IFR conditions. I
used
Wx Worx to pick a route clear of precip, and well away from the lightning. At
our fuel
stop I found that the FBO's radar display was down, and FSS was reporting multiple
TRWs in the area. Without WxWork I would have been afraid to launch into this
wx.
With WxWorx, it was easy and safe. I turned WxWorx on a few minutes before
engine start to get a radar update, took off and picked up our IFR clearance airborne.
I used WxWorx to ID the storm cells and request deviations well ahead of time.
It
was nice to be able to pick up METARs and TAFs well ahead of time, too.
I think WxWorx is a great product. The $50/month subscription is pricey, but the
data
can be invaluable.
Tim Lewis
RV-6A N47TD, 650 hrs
Writing from Di$ney World
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: | Garmin 430 install manual |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Dana you can find the garmin 400-500 series, 420, 430, 530, on my web
page.
Under downloads.
http://www.mstewart.net/michael/rv/
Enjoy
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dana Overall
Subject: [SPAM] RV-List: Garmin 430 install manual
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
OK, I've checked the archives and apparently too many people are "do not
archiving". Can someone repost the site for the 430 install manual. As
an
extra does someone know the Garmin 106A install manual site?
Thanks,
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
==
==
==
==
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: Garmin 430 install manual |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
You can get manuals through this site:
http://www.garmin.com/contactUs/techSupport.jsp
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 21:42 04/05/2004 Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Setting the GW too low can cause a problem if you load heavier than that
> setting and have an accident/incident wherein overloading is an issue.
I would suggest that if your insurance company finds out that the only
reason you set the GW to 1800# was so you could operate the plane beyond
it's design GW, that you'll still be up the creek unless you can show some
engineering that supports your change to 1800#.
I've been watching this thread and telling myself I wouldn't get
involved... I've already been through the same arguement on the
Recreational Aircraft Association's national mailing list. But this one
statement really stuck out as ludicrous:
(factors that affect choice of gross weight)
> 5. Mission of flights - my limit for aerobatics is still 1375 lbs.
Why? You obviously think an extra 200# is safe for normal and utility
category operations. Why don't you think it's safe for acro? In either
case, you're eating into design margins that were put there to protect you
and the airframe from errors.
> If you want to set your GW to eliminate legal problems in all possible
> situations, better set it to zero.
Or set it to what Van's recommends in the first place.
-Rob
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Hal / Carol Kempthorne
> > <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
> >
> > 3. Loads on structure while in the air.
>
> Addressing #3....
> Would you all believe MANUEVERING speed increases as gross weight
> increases? So, flying your airplane at cruise in rough air is safer with
> a max load. <g>
Completely untrue. If you think about it for a minute, you'll see why. If
it were true, then it would be even safer if you had 4000# in it. One spot
of bumpy air, though, and you'll be looking for your parachute in your
4000# of baggage.
The maneuvering speed only increases with gross weight IF you assume that
the same design limits apply. ie. if 1600# at 4g is safe (Van's design)
then your Va only increases IF you assume that 1800# at 4g is also safe.
Or if you've put some of that increased gross weight into beefing up the
structure of the aircraft.
-Rob
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dale Mitchell <dfm4290@yahoo.com>
--- Rob Prior <rv7@b4.ca> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior"
> <rv7@b4.ca>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U."
> <rv3@comcast.net>
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: Hal / Carol
> Kempthorne
> > > <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
> > >
> > > 3. Loads on structure while in the
> air.
> >
> > Addressing #3....
> > Would you all believe MANUEVERING speed increases
> as gross weight
> > increases? So, flying your airplane at cruise in
> rough air is safer with
> > a max load. <g>
>
> Completely untrue. If you think about it for a
> minute, you'll see why. If
> it were true, then it would be even safer if you had
> 4000# in it. One spot
> of bumpy air, though, and you'll be looking for your
> parachute in your
> 4000# of baggage.
>
> The maneuvering speed only increases with gross
> weight IF you assume that
> the same design limits apply. ie. if 1600# at 4g is
> safe (Van's design)
> then your Va only increases IF you assume that 1800#
> at 4g is also safe.
> Or if you've put some of that increased gross weight
> into beefing up the
> structure of the aircraft.
>
> -Rob
The maneuvering speed will increase with more weight.
With more weight the airplane will not as easily
change the angle of attack.
Dale Mitchell
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Hal / Carol Kempthorne wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Hal / Carol Kempthorne <kempthornes@earthlink.net>
>
> I set mine at 1800 lbs - it is my airplane.
This is not flame bait, I am genuinely curious - how did
you determine that 1800 lbs is safe as compared to Van's
recommended gross weight ? Did you change anything in the
airplane structure or do additional testing?
-Dj
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Brian Alley <n320wt@yahoo.com>
I have a new in the box Felix Bi-Cambered prop for
sale. It is 68"D X 71"P with urethane leading edge
protection. The prop mounts on an 0320 with 3/8" prop
bolts and has a 4 1/8" hub thickness. I'm selling the
prop because it has too much pitch for my application.
I have over $950.00 invested and am asking $700.00.
Interested parties my contact me off the list at
n320wt@yahoo.com or call me at the numbers below.
=====
BRIAN ALLEY (N320WT)
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITES
304-872-7938 shop
304-562-6800 home
How are you going to win by a nose if you don't stick out your neck?
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:nose gear shimmy |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Biddle" <d_biddle@msn.com>
My RV-6A had the same problem and I tried everything - breakout tension,
tire balancing, close tolerance bolt, new tire, new wheel, more balancing,
various tire pressures, alignment.
Then I mounted a miniature camera to record the motion as I taxied and
dictated speed into the audio portion of the tape. It turned out to be fore
and aft motion of the nosewheel not a side to side shimmy. Starting around
22mph and getting worse up to around 40. The gearleg is flexing. The new
gearleg design actually tapers to 7/8" in the middle, the old design was 1"
the whole length.
I installed an oak stiffner shaped into the same profile as the fiberglass
fairing. That took care of 80 percent of the problem. Now it starts up a
around 27 mph taxi but not much trouble using back stick pressure on takeoff
and landing.
Dave Biddle
N432DG
RV-6A 200 hours
Phoenix, AZ
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: | RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I grossed my weight to 2000lbs, flew documented test procedures to
explore the flight characteristics. There are RV's with higher w/b's
than mine but that is not the issue. Floats and tip tanks put it over
this in a hurry.
My flight test procedures are available on my web site under downloads.
It was d/l'd 1200 times last month alone. I do hope it is getting used
because it is a very well designed flight test program, and not designed
by me. Review flight test cards 12, a-? for details on exploring weight
and balance flight characteristics.
On my 6A, my gear and the airframe can handle the weight. It flies like
crap. Additional care must be taken as the cg moves aft during fuel
loss. My airplane has been stressed to 3 g's at that gross weight. The
only thing that really matters is what you write as a weight, and what
you documented during the flight test phase. I do not have to be an
aerospace engineer to satisfy insurance companies. Last thing you want
to do is pencil whip a weight, and not have explored the planes ability
to carry it under the conditions you would expect to face doing so.
Mike
Do Not Archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: richard dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Mike,
Please send your website address. I am interested in your flight test cards.
Thanks,
Richard Dudley
-6A final details and paint prep
do not archive
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>I grossed my weight to 2000lbs, flew documented test procedures to
>explore the flight characteristics. There are RV's with higher w/b's
>than mine but that is not the issue. Floats and tip tanks put it over
>this in a hurry.
>
>My flight test procedures are available on my web site under downloads.
>It was d/l'd 1200 times last month alone. I do hope it is getting used
>because it is a very well designed flight test program, and not designed
>by me. Review flight test cards 12, a-? for details on exploring weight
>and balance flight characteristics.
>
>On my 6A, my gear and the airframe can handle the weight. It flies like
>crap. Additional care must be taken as the cg moves aft during fuel
>loss. My airplane has been stressed to 3 g's at that gross weight. The
>only thing that really matters is what you write as a weight, and what
>you documented during the flight test phase. I do not have to be an
>aerospace engineer to satisfy insurance companies. Last thing you want
>to do is pencil whip a weight, and not have explored the planes ability
>to carry it under the conditions you would expect to face doing so.
>
>
>Mike
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
--- Dale Mitchell <dfm4290@yahoo.com> wrote:
...snip
>
> The maneuvering speed will increase with more
> weight.
> With more weight the airplane will not as easily
> change the angle of attack.
>
> Dale Mitchell
>
NO! Maneuvering speed will DECREASE with DECREASED
weight below gross. Maneuvering speed WLL NOT
increase above gross weight. Stall speed will.
You see, two factors really come in two play when
determining maneuvering speed: Structural design load
limits AND certified "G" ratings.
You see, a utility cattegory plane cannot exceed 4.4g.
At [design] gross weight, 4.4g will be the point of
stall at the published maneuvering speed AND the
design structural limit. Reduce the weight from gross
and 4.4g will be exceeded at the gross weight
maneuvering speed, therefore the maneuvirng speed must
be decreased to keep 4.4g from being exceeded at full
control deflection. Stuctural loading of the wings
will be reduced, too, because at lower speed, the
wings will produce less lift at stall.
HOWEVER, if you increase the weight above gross, then
you will not achieve 4.4g with full elevator
deflection AT maneuvering speed, BUT the lift that the
wings produce at stall WILL be the same, hence the
same load on the spar. If you are naive enough to
think that your maneuvering speed increases if you
increase your gross weight above DESIGN limits, then
you are reducing the safety margin of your wing!
Skylor
RV-8 QB under construction
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Rob Prior wrote:
>>Addressing #3....
>>Would you all believe MANEUVERING speed increases as gross weight
>>increases?
>>
>Completely untrue. If you think about it for a minute, you'll see why. If
>it were true, then it would be even safer if you had 4000# in it. One spot
>of bumpy air, though, and you'll be looking for your parachute in your
>4000# of baggage.
>
Sorry Rob,
My statement is COMPLETELY TRUE.
>The maneuvering speed only increases with gross weight IF you assume that
>the same design limits apply. ie. if 1600# at 4g is safe (Van's design)
>then your Va only increases IF you assume that 1800# at 4g is also safe.
>Or if you've put some of that increased gross weight into beefing up the
>structure of the aircraft.
>
>-Rob
>
Maneuvering speed increases with an increase in gross load regardless of
design considerations.
Bob
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: | Info on Chilliwack |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim and Bev Cone" <jimnbev@olypen.com>
I am considering a trip to Harrison Hot Springs Resort and Spa in BC, Canada.
The nearest airport is Chilliwack, BC. Does anyone have any info on the spa or
the airport. How about getting a car at the airport? I can't seem to find
much info online. Thanks.
Jim Cone
3-Peat Offender
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 |
|
| From: | "Wayne Cahoon @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne@engravers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: anodizing instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Cahoon @ Aircraft Engravers" <wayne@engravers.net>
Don,
Here is my two cents worth. My company Aircraft Engravers has been engraving
placards, overlays and panels for 15 years so I have a little insight into
the process involved. What it comes down to is, what do you want for the
finished look? An anodized panel can look great or as a sloppy mess if you
don't plan ahead. You have to ask yourself some questions that you may not
know the answers to right away. I'll give you some questions and some brief
answers to think about.
Q) Is the panel ever (for a long time) going to have any changes made to it?
A) Whenever you add any holes, especially counter sinks the bare aluminum
will be visible again if you don't do some touch-up.
Q) Do I want the text and/or graphics silk screened on, engraved into or do
you want placards?
A) Silk screening looks great if the surface does not have a deep brushed
texture, it should be clear coated to protect the thin silk screened paint
layer, especially around areas that have your fingers touching any text.
Engraving into the panel to make the text aluminum in color can be done but
it also must be clear coated to protect the bare aluminum for oxidation.
Both of these procedures limit you to make changes without removing the
panel to have it updated. Having placards and overlays can give you a very
large choice of options such as; Colors, textures, material types, a lower
cost and the ability to easily change any aspect of the panel. In 3 years
when you add a new circuit breaker, a new overlay can easily be made and
installed with only removing any local switches and/or breakers.
Q) Are you open to another option such as a painted panel?
A) We have directions for you to paint your panel with 2 contrasting colored
paints. I will use black and white for this example but any two contracting
colors can be used. First prime the panel, then paint it a base color of the
text. Then paint the top finish color. Aircraft Engravers would then engrave
through the top color into the base color without going into the aluminum
panel below. This type of panel looks as if it came right out of the
factory. Of course there is more about this on my web site.
The painted panel info can be found at
http://engravers.net/aircraft/painted_panels.htm
While the custom overlays can be found at
http://engravers.net/aircraft/custom-placards.htm
It's a tuff job to get clear detailed images of the jobs that we have done
in a small file size
I do have one problem that I don't know how to solve. When placing images on
my site what is the best sizes to make them verses how fast they down load
verses the detail needed to see the text clearly. Any help from anyone would
be greatly appreciated. I can send you or anyone reading this message an
email with the images at any resolution they need so that they can be seen
up close.
If I can help you in any way you can contact me.
Wayne Cahoon
Aircraft Engravers
(860) 653-2780
(860) 653-7324 Fax
http://engravers.net/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
Subject: RV-List: anodizing instrument panel?
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
>
> I'm curious what others opinion would be about anodizing an instrument
panel
> grey or black. It might stand up to all the poking and touching that
> occurs when you throw switches, set altimeter, etc.
>
> Don
>
>
> "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 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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared3@brier.net>
>......I have an old email from
>vans listing up to 1800 but limiting to 4.5 G's (1750/4.7G, 1700/4.8G)....
Are you sure this is from Van's Aircraft?????
My FSDO inspector asked Van's to put this in writing and Van refused. You
can put anything you want in your POH, but if you think it is from Van's I
would get it in writing signed by Van himself. If you do get it, I would
like a copy!
Been there, done that, and was returned to Go without collecting $200!
Bob
RV6 NightFighter
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: | Free shipping on Builder's Bookstore |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Aircraft Technical Book Company" <winterland@rkymtnhi.com>
We are now offering free UPS shipping with all orders over $50 on:
www.buildersbooks.com (for the custom airplane builder)
www.PilotsBooks.com (for pilots and aircraft owners)
www.ACtechbooks.com (for professional and student A&Ps)
If you haven't yet, come take a look at our huge selection of RV relevant
material from Vans, EAA, Jeppesen, Bob Nuckolls, Sam James, and 38 other
publishers, including our own unique Aircraft Builder's Logbook.
Shipments which can't go by UPS Ground will be given a credit to shipping of
up to 10% of the value of your order. Orders under $50 are charged just the
actual shipping cost - never "packing or handling"
Thank you everyone for your business and continued support over the years.
Andy Gold
Builder's Bookstore
800 780-4115
RV-6A N-5060 - flying
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: | Internal Regulated Alternator converted to External? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ross Schlotthauer" <rv7maker@hotmail.com>
Bobby,
I think it makes sense if you want to have overvoltage protection. I
however am not sure how to modify the regulator so I am following lectric
bobs plans to add the OV protection to an internal unit which should be
equivelent. You can see Bob's approach at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z24-25h.dwg
-Ross Schlotthauer
RV-7 Finishing
www.experimentalair.com
>From: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
>Reply-To: rv-list@matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com, RV7and7A <RV7and7A@yahoogroups.com>,
>RV-List <rv-list-digest@matronics.com>
>Subject: RV-List: Internal Regulated Alternator converted to External?
>Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 23:01:20 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
>
>Has anyone had there Van's internal regulated 60amp alternator converted
>to external and used B&C's LR3C-14 regulator?
>Does this make since to do?
>
>--
>Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
>Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
>RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium!
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: | Northern Airborne Tech. |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Needham <stickshker_99@yahoo.com>
I have a switching relay made by NAT (p/n RS08-001) does anyone know
how to set this up to switch a KNI-520 indicator between a Garmin
GNC420 input and a UPS SL30 LOC/GS input. If this is not practical
what would be a good alternative? Thanks in advance.
Jim Needham
RV-7
=====
Jim Needham
Port Townsend, WA
__________________________________
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
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: | Wing incidence spacer block |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
I have not found a recent post on this subject in the archives... My question is
on the size of the spacer used with a level to measure wing incidence. On RV-7
drawing # 38 it shows the spacer as three inches. I also have instructions
that say make a 2.78 " spacer. ( don't you love these measurements / tolerances
? ) Which is correct? with the three inch spacer my level(electronic) indicates
zero and with a 2.8" spacer I am at 1 degree... The documents I am using are
2001 vintage.
Thanks
Richard
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: | SoCal hangar space? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Hyde" <nauga@brick.net>
Does anyone know of any hangar space
available *anywhere* in Southern California?
I'll be moving my RV-4 out there sometime
around July. Prefer on or near SNA,
but I don't think I can be too picky.
Dave Hyde
RV-4 in flight test
nauga@brick.net
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Skylor Piper <skylor4@yahoo.com>
>
>
> --- Dale Mitchell <dfm4290@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...snip
> >
> > The maneuvering speed will increase with more
> > weight.
> > With more weight the airplane will not as easily
> > change the angle of attack.
> >
> > Dale Mitchell
> >
It all boils down to Mr. Newton and F=MA. (Force = Mass*Acceleration). Since
we are interested in the effect of changing aircraft weight(mass) on
maneuvering speed, we can rearrange the equation to where Acceleration Force/Mass.
If the acceleration A (G loading the aircraft is capable of a
maneuvering speed) remains constant (in otherwords we do not exceed - say a
6 G load limit) then if A is to remain constant, the ratio to which it is
equal (F/M )must remain constant. So lets say we reduce the weight of the
aircraft (or reduce the mass), if A = F/M is to remain constant and we
reduce M then F must also reduce to maintain the ratio of F/M which of
course is our acceleration limit. We have reduced M and therefore must
reduce F so that the ratio remains at or 6 G limit. The way we reduce F
(force) is to reduce the airspeed producing the loading on the wing and
therefore reducing the loading.
So contrary to what intuition might have you believe - i.e. lighter weight
means higher maneuvering speed, in reality just the opposite is correct.
Lighter mass/weight requires a lower maneuvering airspeed. The structural
strength and stall speed of the wing (at that weight) also are factors. The
maneuvering speed is calculated so that the Force produced by the 6 G
maneuver (in this example) will stall the wing (reducing the force) before
exceeding the structural limits.
Ed Anderson
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: SoCal hangar space? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Does anyone know of any hangar space
> available *anywhere* in Southern California?
> I'll be moving my RV-4 out there sometime
> around July. Prefer on or near SNA,
> but I don't think I can be too picky.
You can hop on the hangar waiting list at SNA, and then in 2027 I'll buy you
a beer when your name comes to the top. I didn't say you get a
hangar...just said your name comes to the top. ;-)
I think Corona usually has hangar openings.
Chino has a relatively short waiting list (I believe) for county hangars.
Chino is one of the best spots around for RVs (in my opinion). Three long
runways, accommodating controllers, rural surroundings (for now), instrument
approaches, and those lovely flies from the dairy farms. Not to mention the
expertise of all the RVers on the field, including Jerry Scott, Tom Emery
(who we're losing to the other coast soon), etc.
You could also join and send email to the SoCal-RVlist Yahoo group...you'll
probably get a much better response asking the local yocals.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoCAL-RVlist/
Best of luck getting a hangar. Drop me a line if you plan to be in the
Chino area.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
>
>Rob Prior wrote:
>
>>>Addressing #3....
>>>Would you all believe MANEUVERING speed increases as gross weight
>>>increases?
>>>
>>Completely untrue. If you think about it for a minute, you'll see why. If
>>it were true, then it would be even safer if you had 4000# in it. One spot
>>of bumpy air, though, and you'll be looking for your parachute in your
>>4000# of baggage.
>>
>
>Sorry Rob,
>My statement is COMPLETELY TRUE.
>
>>The maneuvering speed only increases with gross weight IF you assume that
>>the same design limits apply. ie. if 1600# at 4g is safe (Van's design)
>>then your Va only increases IF you assume that 1800# at 4g is also safe.
>>Or if you've put some of that increased gross weight into beefing up the
>>structure of the aircraft.
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>
>Maneuvering speed increases with an increase in gross load regardless of
>design considerations.
>
>Bob
>
You are both right, depending on the details of the design. It
depends on what part of the structure is limiting. I.e. which part
will be the first to fail if you put too much load on it.
Case 1 - the limiting structure sees the same loads no matter what
the gross weight is, like an engine mount. If the strength of the
engine mount is what caused the designer to recommend a certain g
limit, then the loads on the mount will not change will gross weight
(assuming the weight of the engine and prop is constant). In this
case the manoeuvring speed will go up with gross weight.
Case 2 - the limiting structure sees loads that vary with gross
weight, like a wing spar. In this case the structure has been
designed to see a certain load, e.g. 6 g at 1375 lb gross weight -
the wing is designed to support a load of 8,250 lb. The manoeuvring
speed is the speed at which the wing can produce 8,250 lb of lift at
the stall (actually, the wing has to do a bit more than that, as it
also has to counter the downwards lift of the tail, but we'll ignore
that for simplicity). If you put some more sandbags in the baggage
compartment to get up to 1800 lb gross weight, the wing is no
stronger than it was before, and it can still only handle 8,250 lb of
lift. Now the g-limit has to be 8,250/1,800 = 4.58 g. The
manoeurving speed is still the speed at which the wing can develop
8,250 lb of lift at the stall - in other words it is the same speed
as it was at 1,375 lb gross weight.
Usually we don't know whether we are dealing with Case 1 or Case 2,
so we have to assume that they both may be valid. So, we should keep
the manoeuvring speed the same if we increase gross weight (to cover
Case 2), and we need to reduce manouvring speed if we reduce gross
weight (to cover Case 1, by ensuring the available load factor does
not increase above the allowable limit).
From a structural point of the view it is actually a bit more
complicated than I have described, as it does matter where on the
airframe you put the extra weight. Extra weight in the fuselage is
much worse than extra weight in the wings, as the wing bending moment
is much more affected by fuselage weight increases than wing weight
increases. Picture a long span modern glider. If you put a bunch of
extra weight in the fuselage, you put a lot of extra load on the wing
spar. But if you distribute the same amount of additional weight
evenly along the wing span, then the loads on the wing spar increase
only a little, or maybe not at all.
Clear as mud?
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Sears <sears@searnet.com>
Now that this thread has heard both sides of things, with many of us out
here in RV land flying quite well at over the 1600 pounds gross weight that
was suggested by Van's, let me throw in a little klinker. Does anyone
remember what gross weight Van approved for Jon Johanson's long flights?
Remember, he was going to be flying his RV-4 way over the suggested gross
weights in air that could be smooth or very rough. Does anyone remember
that gross weight increase percentage that was? I assure you it was way
above what we're discussing.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS
EAA Tech Counselor
do not archive
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: Socal hangar space |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Hyde" <nauga@brick.net>
Dan Checkoway wrote:
> Best of luck getting a hangar.
Just so it's clear, I'm looking for shared space
in a hangar, not a hangar to myself.
I'll try the SoCal yahoo group too, thanks.
Dave Hyde
nauga@brick.net
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: Undercarriage Stiffeners |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> It sounds like the stiffeners helped to save Ed's day; but, I just wonder
> how much damage was done at the points where the gear legs enter the
mounts.
> Granted, I'm sure Ed wasn't too worried about that at the time. :-)
Still,
> it had to put a lot of stress on those points.
>
> Alas, I must admit that I did not build my airplane to withstand crashes,
> etc.. I built it hoping I'd never crash it. With that, I've built it
with
> the day to day operation in mind with much hoping that I'll never need to
> test out the Van's design. If that happens, I'm hoping the insurance
> company will work with me to replace the bent gear and any other damage
that
> may be caused by the bent gear. From what I've seen from some bent ones,
I
> can manage the repairs. I'll not be using the stiffeners on the -7A,
> either.
>
> Jim Sears in KY
> EAA Tech Counselor
>
You are correct, Jim, at the time, I was not the least bit concerned - you
can well understand. However, I later got thinking about the same thing and
took off the fairing to inspect as best I could. I did a dye test on the
upper legs where they go into the sockets and down 4 inches and found no
signs of cracks. Does not mean the gear was not stressed but apparently the
stress stayed with design limits.
You'll note I did not recommend stiffeners, just related one experience (and
hopefully the only one {:>)) that I believe stiffeners may have helped. I
have heard of no failure of the main gear of the 6 series due to stiffener
induced failures which was the Van recommended way (at that time) to reduce
potential gear shimmy. Van clearly changed his view about the value of
stiffeners later.
Ed Anderson
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Here is what my RV-6/6A builders manual says in Section 14 "Weight and
Balance" on page 14-1 (dated 14/4/97) under a list of definitions:
Quote:
Gross Weight: Sum of empty weight plus crew, passengers, fuel and baggage.
It is important because of the effect it has on both the structure and
performance of the airplane. Obviously, higher gross weights will diminish
all aspects of performance, particularly takeoff and climb performance.
Increased weight also increases stall speed. Higher gross weights will tend
to overstress the airplane's structure in flight and on the ground. In the
Experimental Amateur Built Category - the category in which the RV-6/6A
would typically be licensed - the aircraft builder is allowed to specify
this weight. Van's recommends a 1600-1650 pound limit.
End quote.
The bottom of page 14-3 (same date) has a table entitled "RV-6/6A Weights
and Limits - Easy Reference" with the words "Recommended Gross Weight
1600/1650 lbs" in it and the worked W&B samples use 1600 lbs for an RV-6 and
say nothing about max gross for a RV-6A.
So that's Van's sort of final word. The builder sets the Gross weight and
1600 lbs is recommended for a -6 and 1650 lbs for a -6A.
However, interestingly, the manual that came with my preview plans (and
which leaves page 14-1 undated although it looks newer) uses the same first
five sentences of the Gross Weight definition but leaves out the final two
sentences after ".... on the ground." The table entitled "RV-6/6A Weights
and Limits - Easy Reference" in the earlier manual is simply missing. The
sample W&B calculations do use 1600 lbs for a -6 and 1650 lbs for a -6A.
One suspects that Vans and his employees have been nagged incessantly over
the years to provide detailed analyses for this weight or that and, having
learned their lesson, now simply refuse to discuss max weight issues leaving
these to each and every builder's personal discretion. The later editions of
the builders manual seem intentionally silent on this issue.
Personally I use 1750 lbs on a more restrictive aft CofG limit above 1650
lbs for my -6A. In practical terms, it is quite hard to get a gross weight
above 1700 in my aircraft and remain forward of this aft limit unless I pile
lead bars, etc. up by the rudder pedals which I expect I will never do. (As
fuel burns below 1650, the aft limit go further aft so no problem for
landing).
Of possible interest, I have read airworthiness authorities will (or used
to) routinely issue one-off flight permits for over gross operations of up
to 15% over normal gross weight but with restrictions such as no passengers,
etc. This helps out those lucky guys who ferry light singles across the
oceans and so on.
Jim Oke
RV-6A
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" <panamared3@brier.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV6/A Gross Weight....
> --> RV-List message posted by: Bob <panamared3@brier.net>
>
>
> >......I have an old email from
> >vans listing up to 1800 but limiting to 4.5 G's (1750/4.7G,
1700/4.8G)....
>
>
> Are you sure this is from Van's Aircraft?????
>
> My FSDO inspector asked Van's to put this in writing and Van refused. You
> can put anything you want in your POH, but if you think it is from Van's I
> would get it in writing signed by Van himself. If you do get it, I would
> like a copy!
>
> Been there, done that, and was returned to Go without collecting $200!
>
> Bob
> RV6 NightFighter
>
>
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob U." <rv3@comcast.net>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>Maneuvering speed increases with an increase in gross load regardless of
>>design considerations.
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are both right, depending on the details of the design. It
>depends on what part of the structure is limiting. I.e. which part
>will be the first to fail if you put too much load on it.
>
>
> From a structural point of the view it is actually a bit more
>complicated than I have described, as it does matter where on the
>airframe you put the extra weight. Extra weight in the fuselage is
>much worse than extra weight in the wings, as the wing bending moment
>is much more affected by fuselage weight increases than wing weight
>increases. Picture a long span modern glider. If you put a bunch of
>extra weight in the fuselage, you put a lot of extra load on the wing
>spar. But if you distribute the same amount of additional weight
>evenly along the wing span, then the loads on the wing spar increase
>only a little, or maybe not at all.
>
>Clear as mud?
>
Plenty clear here, Kevin.
Of course, it was very clear to me before stirring the INTUITION POT a
tad. :-)
P.S.
Anybody ever notice that the fire bombers that lost their wings lost
them when they UNLOADED?
Bob - devil's advocate and retired pilot of extremely overloaded crop
dusters.
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: | anodizing instrument panel? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bluecavu@aol.com
>>I'm curious what others opinion would be about anodizing an instrument
panel
grey or black.=A0 It might stand up to all the poking and touching=A0 that
occurs when you throw switches, set altimeter, etc.<<
Although I'm really not a proponent of doing something like the skins and
some other thin and stressed structural parts for many reasons -see my earlier
post - *I am* in favor of anodizing or powder-coating the instrument panel,
various interior parts, bafffeling and a host of other things. I've seen one
anodized RV instrument panel and it was pretty cool. A friend had all the
baffeling for his project powder-coated and it's holding up great. There are lots
of
planes flying around with anodized baffeling. Anodizing is a very cool and
tough surface finish... and so is powder- coating -just not the sort of thing you
want on the outside of your plane as a primary finish.
Another thing regarding powder-coating... just like paint, there are many
different varieties of power-coat. Some are hard as rock, some more flexible,
etc. Some designed for different temperature ranges, and on and on. So you can't
just lump all powder-coat jobs in one category.
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: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
Surely there must be a simple solution for cleaning bug blood & guts from the propellor--anybody
have a good recipe?
Dave Ford
RV6
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: RV6/A Gross Weight.... |
--> RV-List message posted by: Vanremog@aol.com
In a message dated 5/5/2004 11:38:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
skylor4@yahoo.com writes:
If you are naive enough to
think that your maneuvering speed increases if you
increase your gross weight above DESIGN limits, then
you are reducing the safety margin of your wing!
===========================================
I believe that the 6 wing was determined to suffer permanent deformation at
11g when rated at 1600 gross, that's 9.26g at 1900 lbs gross. I can live with
that. You just have to ask yourself whether you really believe that your wing
is built as strong as a 6. The gear needs to be guarded by good landings at
this weight though.
GV (RV-6A N1GV flying 690 hrs at 1900 lb gross wt)
Not all questions or values which human beings find worth pursuing and
committing themselves to can be approached scientifically. There can be no doubt
that scientific theories fulfill a vital human need. But so do non-scientific
theories, whether they be in the field of cosmology or religion, art, morality,
knowledge or even science. ---Robert Todd Carroll
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: | Re: blood & guts |
--> RV-List message posted by: Michael McGee <jmpcrftr@teleport.com>
At 21:01 2004-05-05, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
>
>Surely there must be a simple solution for cleaning bug blood & guts from
>the propellor--anybody have a good recipe?
>
>Dave Ford
>RV6
Nice segue Dave, I was getting tired of that gross weight thread. P-)
If it's a metal prop try Goof-Off. It's at Home Depot in the paint
department. Not sure about a wood prop, caution on the finish.
Mike
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
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: blood & guts |
--> RV-List message posted by: LeastDrag93066@aol.com
At SNF, MT Propeller introduced a new product called MT-Propeller Care Kit X9
I got some when I was there, but haven't tried it yet.
(Why clean the propeller when I still need to fill some holes and repaint the
nose bowl.)
Available from MT-Propeller USA, Inc. Florida
(386) 736-7762
Email: mtprop@bellsouth.net
Jim Ayers
Less Drag Products, Inc.
RV-3 N47RV LOM M332A with oil cooler installed.
Strange how those Northern Europeans don't seem to need oil coolers? :-)
In a message dated 05/05/2004 9:04:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jmpcrftr@teleport.com writes:
If it's a metal prop try Goof-Off. It's at Home Depot in the paint
department. Not sure about a wood prop, caution on the finish.
Mike
Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2
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: blood & guts |
--> RV-List message posted by: JusCash@aol.com
Cold water, while they are fresh.
Cash
In a message dated 5/5/2004 7:51:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dford@michweb.net writes:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
Surely there must be a simple solution for cleaning bug blood & guts from the
propellor--anybody have a good recipe?
Dave Ford
RV6
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: | Re: blood & guts |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I've been using a spray product called "Bug Melt" that I bought from Spruce:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/nsearch.php?s=bug+melt
It works very well on the prop, but not so hot on much else.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
Subject: RV-List: blood & guts
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
>
> Surely there must be a simple solution for cleaning bug blood & guts from
the propellor--anybody have a good recipe?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
>
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! --
|