Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:17 AM - Fw: flying to Oshkosh (cgalley)
2. 05:10 AM - Re: Fw: plans (Jamie Painter)
3. 05:35 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Jim Anglin)
4. 05:47 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Gordon and Marge)
5. 07:30 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (cgalley)
6. 07:45 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Henry Hochberg)
7. 08:08 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh and thanks to Galley and crew (Scott Vanartsdalen)
8. 08:15 AM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (czechsix@juno.com)
9. 08:31 AM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (Greg Young)
10. 08:40 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (lm4@juno.com)
11. 08:44 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Shemp)
12. 08:45 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Shemp)
13. 08:55 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (James E. Clark)
14. 09:22 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
15. 09:28 AM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (Gert)
16. 10:45 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Charlie England)
17. 10:52 AM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Charlie England)
18. 12:23 PM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Bruce Gray)
19. 01:13 PM - Re: Fw: plans (Jim Sears)
20. 01:13 PM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (cgalley)
21. 03:41 PM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (lucky macy)
22. 03:42 PM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (lucky macy)
23. 03:48 PM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Greg Young)
24. 04:28 PM - RV-4 Brakes (Jerry Isler)
25. 04:46 PM - Re: flying to Oshkosh (Jim Anglin)
26. 05:13 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Richard Bibb)
27. 05:15 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (N223RV@aol.com)
28. 06:21 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Scott Vanartsdalen)
29. 06:22 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Scott Vanartsdalen)
30. 07:55 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Pat Hatch)
31. 08:23 PM - Re: flying to OSH (Kosta Lewis)
32. 08:24 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Dave Bristol)
33. 08:30 PM - Re: RV-4 Brakes (Jerry Isler)
34. 10:20 PM - Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? (HCRV6@aol.com)
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: | flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
"Any RV that flys the
higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on the
ground."
WHY would anyone get laughed at by making a safe approach? Some Oshkosh
approaches have turned deadly when the pilot could not slow as the plane in
front. We had 3 stall spin accidents in one year. Another year, a jet pilot
used the slow approach, had a forced landing on the streets of Oshkosh and
his wife was burned to death in the resulting fire.
ALL of the these people would be alive today, if they had used the "high"
pattern.
Laughed at? I think not but even a lot of laughter is better than the best
funeral.
The idea is to fly safe! To arrive in one piece.
Anyone that laughs at those practicing safe flight need to take another look
at their safety practices.
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> YES it is WRONG.
>
> The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your test
> flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in all expected
> environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one hour with the
engine
> running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does not
> cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
>
> I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and headed
> back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not following the
> ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
>
> WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing 90. The ride gets
> interesting.
>
> The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If unable, maintain 135
> knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any RV that flys the
> higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on the
> ground.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if able,"
and
> an
> RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird
> arrival
> instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> performance
> turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of which
> describes
> your typical RV.
>
>
> I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from the 2
> altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable of
> flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility factor a
> little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
highlight
> the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can fly faster they
> are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be flying
the
> lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
string
> trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
considering
> safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more comfortable
> at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jamie Painter" <jdpainter@jpainter.org>
> Having built some
> of the new prepunched stuff, I can also guarnatee that I could easily build
> a VERY wavy and twisted rudder, even though the "wedge" is punched, etc..
Don't believe me?? - go down the line at OSH and I'll bet there are some
rudders that aren't perfectly straight. If the table you are building your
> rudder, ailerons, elevators, etc.. happens to be out of whack, guess what,
your surfaces will probably be too.
I understand what you're saying and I think it's pointless for me, a
first-timer to argue a point with someone who has built two. :-)
However, I think it's important to note that EVEN IN A JIG improper riveting
technique will cause riveted trailing edges to be wavy. The jig will NOT keep
it straight. The jig will just give you a quick method of verifying the
trailing edge is wavy.
--
Jamie D. Painter
RV-7A wings N622JP (reserved)
http://rv.jpainter.org
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
You are all scaring me who are promoting that 90 in an RV is slow. I have
over 500 hours in a -6 with a CS prop and over 400 in a -4 with a wood prop.
I always fly the pattern at 80 mph and have never had a stall spin accident
yet, and I have been in some high density patterns (Merced, Arlington). All
you have to do is watch what you are doing. Don't they teach airspeed
control any more? As for Glasair and Lancair pilots, go fly the higher
pattern, No one will laugh at you.........<G>
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Fw: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> "Any RV that flys the
> higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on the
> ground."
>
> WHY would anyone get laughed at by making a safe approach? Some Oshkosh
> approaches have turned deadly when the pilot could not slow as the plane
in
> front. We had 3 stall spin accidents in one year. Another year, a jet
pilot
> used the slow approach, had a forced landing on the streets of Oshkosh and
> his wife was burned to death in the resulting fire.
>
> ALL of the these people would be alive today, if they had used the "high"
> pattern.
>
> Laughed at? I think not but even a lot of laughter is better than the best
> funeral.
>
> The idea is to fly safe! To arrive in one piece.
>
> Anyone that laughs at those practicing safe flight need to take another
look
> at their safety practices.
>
> Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
> Safety Programs Editor - TC
> EAA Sport Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> >
> > YES it is WRONG.
> >
> > The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> > overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your
test
> > flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in all expected
> > environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one hour with the
> engine
> > running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does not
> > cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
> >
> > I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and headed
> > back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not following the
> > ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
> >
> > WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing 90. The ride
gets
> > interesting.
> >
> > The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If unable, maintain
135
> > knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any RV that flys
the
> > higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on
the
> > ground.
> >
> > Gary A. Sobek
> > "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> > 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> > http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
> >
> >
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> >
> > --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >
> > >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> > the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if able,"
> and
> > an
> > RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird
> > arrival
> > instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> > performance
> > turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of
which
> > describes
> > your typical RV.
> >
> >
> > I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from the
2
> > altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable of
> > flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility factor
a
> > little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
> highlight
> > the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can fly faster
they
> > are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be flying
> the
> > lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
> string
> > trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
> considering
> > safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more
comfortable
> > at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
> >
> > Dave Ford
> > RV6
> >
> > Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
>
>
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: | flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Gordon and Marge" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV6 Flyer
Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
An RV is not a Glasair III. IT (the RV) can outperform the Glasair III
at
SLOW speeds. ANY RV pilot that cannot fly the approach to OSH at 90
should
not be flying to AirVenture.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
Exactly.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I have no doubt that you can fly an RV at 90 knots but there are incoming
planes that use the low pattern that cannot maintain that speed. A J-3 comes
to mind. They are more like 70 knots.
Now you are going to say that they should be using the no radio approach.
Maybe so but two things come to mind. By NOTAM this year to come in No
Radio, you have to phone ahead for permission. Why? because most low and
slow pilots now carry a hand held. Many will not stop for the phone call
instead using the radio approach out of Fisk. They will be heavy and slower
than 90 knots.
I had to pull a T-18 out of a bean field that ran over a Cessna 172. The
T-18 bent his aileron and landed at about 150 to maintain control. The
Cessna looked like a 4 slot toaster. Fortunately all the slots missed spars
and struts so he landed safely at Oshkosh.
My point is that you don't know the mix that you might have to fly behind at
Oshkosh. Your RV fortunately can fly 130 knots. So this is an option that
not all planes enjoy. Fly the approach that you feel most comfortable. You
are supposed to enjoy the convention, to be able to laugh after landing so
do what is safe for you.
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
>
> You are all scaring me who are promoting that 90 in an RV is slow. I have
> over 500 hours in a -6 with a CS prop and over 400 in a -4 with a wood
prop.
> I always fly the pattern at 80 mph and have never had a stall spin
accident
> yet, and I have been in some high density patterns (Merced, Arlington).
All
> you have to do is watch what you are doing. Don't they teach airspeed
> control any more? As for Glasair and Lancair pilots, go fly the higher
> pattern, No one will laugh at you.........<G>
>
> Jim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Fw: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > "Any RV that flys the
> > higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on
the
> > ground."
> >
> > WHY would anyone get laughed at by making a safe approach? Some Oshkosh
> > approaches have turned deadly when the pilot could not slow as the plane
> in
> > front. We had 3 stall spin accidents in one year. Another year, a jet
> pilot
> > used the slow approach, had a forced landing on the streets of Oshkosh
and
> > his wife was burned to death in the resulting fire.
> >
> > ALL of the these people would be alive today, if they had used the
"high"
> > pattern.
> >
> > Laughed at? I think not but even a lot of laughter is better than the
best
> > funeral.
> >
> > The idea is to fly safe! To arrive in one piece.
> >
> > Anyone that laughs at those practicing safe flight need to take another
> look
> > at their safety practices.
> >
> > Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
> > Safety Programs Editor - TC
> > EAA Sport Pilot
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> >
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> > >
> > > YES it is WRONG.
> > >
> > > The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> > > overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your
> test
> > > flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in all expected
> > > environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one hour with the
> > engine
> > > running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does
not
> > > cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
> > >
> > > I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and
headed
> > > back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not following the
> > > ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
> > >
> > > WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing 90. The ride
> gets
> > > interesting.
> > >
> > > The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If unable, maintain
> 135
> > > knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any RV that flys
> the
> > > higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on
> the
> > > ground.
> > >
> > > Gary A. Sobek
> > > "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> > > 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> > > http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
> > >
> > >
> > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> > > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> > > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
> > >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> > >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> > >
> > > >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> > > the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if
able,"
> > and
> > > an
> > > RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird
> > > arrival
> > > instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> > > performance
> > > turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of
> which
> > > describes
> > > your typical RV.
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from
the
> 2
> > > altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable
of
> > > flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility
factor
> a
> > > little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
> > highlight
> > > the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can fly faster
> they
> > > are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be
flying
> > the
> > > lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
> > string
> > > trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
> > considering
> > > safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more
> comfortable
> > > at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
> > >
> > > Dave Ford
> > > RV6
> > >
> > > Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: Henry Hochberg <aeroncadoc@comcast.net>
I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if this has been
covered before. How about organizing an RV caravan like the Mooney and
Bonanza guys and gals do. The biggest benefit...you get your own landing
slot where no other planes are allowed to use the runway at the time.
You stage somewhere (like Madison) and fly in trail like the Mooneys or
in formation like the Bonanzas. Of course the RVers already all park and
camp together so that wouldn't be an added bennie as it is for those
other groups, but it makes the arrival easier.
Only other downside....it's a huge logistical undertaking needing lots
of volunteer time. But it's a great way to go.
Henry H
N252MK (Mooney) and N72224 (RV-6)
>
>
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: flying to Oshkosh and thanks to Galley and crew |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
That would make a heck of a lot more sense than the mass Bonanza arrival. Don't
get me wrong but I thought Bonanzas and Mooneys were production airplanes and
I thought EAA was about EXPERIMENTAL aircraft. A mass RV, Whitman, Lancair,
or even Hummelbird arrival would make a lot more sense to me.
By the way, be sure to stop by and tell Cy Galley what a great job he and his people
are doing. Last year at OSH, I lost a brake on landing. Turned out my
cheap plastic brake line was just barely touching the wheel pant bracket which
was just barely touching my brake disc. The line melted and then blew under
the pressure. Cy's patch to my brake line is still holding! It took some begging,
pleading, and big sad puppy dog eyes to make them drop everything and fix
MY problem. But Cy did drop everything to drive me into town and get the needed
parts at Napa for less than a dollar. Then HE installed it for me and rebled
my brake lines. All right there in the grass in homebuilt camping. They
are a great bunch.
Henry Hochberg <aeroncadoc@comcast.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Henry Hochberg
I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if this has been
covered before. How about organizing an RV caravan like the Mooney and
Bonanza guys and gals do. The biggest benefit...you get your own landing
slot where no other planes are allowed to use the runway at the time.
You stage somewhere (like Madison) and fly in trail like the Mooneys or
in formation like the Bonanzas. Of course the RVers already all park and
camp together so that wouldn't be an added bennie as it is for those
other groups, but it makes the arrival easier.
Only other downside....it's a huge logistical undertaking needing lots
of volunteer time. But it's a great way to go.
Henry H
N252MK (Mooney) and N72224 (RV-6)
>
>
tion
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
When a man does all he can
though it succeeds not well,
blame not him that did it."
-- George Washington
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: Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Just out of curiosity, does anyone share my concern about putting too
much stress on the rollbar by pulling on it (with or without handles)?
Perhaps the -6/7/9 series is more rigid due to the brace that goes up to
the center of the roll bar, but on my -8A I noticed before glassing in my
windshield that the roll bar would flex quite a bit by pushing/pulling on
it. I remember thinking at the time that this would imply quite a bit of
stress being transferred to the plexiglass via the screws that hold it to
the roll bar. Sounds to me like a crack waiting to happen. But maybe
extensive experience has proven that this is not a valid concern????
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D painting fuselage...
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: | Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
The center brace on the -6/7/9 makes it immobile and a non-issue.
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>
> Just out of curiosity, does anyone share my concern about
> putting too much stress on the rollbar by pulling on it (with
> or without handles)?
> Perhaps the -6/7/9 series is more rigid due to the brace that
> goes up to the center of the roll bar, but on my -8A I
> noticed before glassing in my windshield that the roll bar
> would flex quite a bit by pushing/pulling on it. I remember
> thinking at the time that this would imply quite a bit of
> stress being transferred to the plexiglass via the screws
> that hold it to the roll bar. Sounds to me like a crack
> waiting to happen. But maybe extensive experience has proven
> that this is not a valid concern????
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A N2D painting fuselage...
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: lm4@juno.com
Bill,
Notice that the rules state--90 Kts (IF ABLE) and
130 Kts (OR BETTER). Now imagine a guy cutting into
the line, not quite sure where to go, driving a luscomb.
He's OK for a little bit and he runs up to a EAA Bi-Plane.
He has to slow down. No problem here because has to
maintain 90 or better, which is to say 90 or less. The
luscomb has to slow down and now you have to
slow down. The Bi-Plane may come down to 60 and you
are behind all of this and your flaps are'nt the best
in the world. On the other hand if you are in the fast lane
you can easily keep up, if you have to. One of the things,
dangers, that you have to manage in this excersize is to
stay in the line. They will tell you over and over again--
NO side by side. They mean it. Other planes are so close
and there are so many blind places you can't see that you
could have an accident if your not watchful and stay in line.
In my opionion ,in a fast plane, it's much safer in the fast lane.HTH
Larry Mac Donald
Rochester N.Y.
do not archive
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 12:45:46 -0400 SportAV8R@aol.com writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> Not trying to be argumentative, here, and I'll be first to admit
> I've never flown into OSH, but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand
> seems specific about flying the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at
> 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if able," and an RV is certainly capable of
> comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird arrival instructions are
> more explicit, stating they are restricted to high performance
> turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of
> which describes your typical RV. As a result, I was planning to fly
> my approach at 1800 and 90 kts. If that's just plain dumb, somebody
> speak up and explain the exemption to me, please.
>
> -Bill B / RV-6A
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Im guessing doing 135kts all the way in will also cause some shock cooling
problems.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> YES it is WRONG.
>
> The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your test
> flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in all expected
> environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one hour with the
engine
> running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does not
> cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
>
> I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and headed
> back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not following the
> ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
>
> WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing 90. The ride gets
> interesting.
>
> The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If unable, maintain 135
> knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any RV that flys the
> higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on the
> ground.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if able,"
and
> an
> RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird
> arrival
> instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> performance
> turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of which
> describes
> your typical RV.
>
>
> I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from the 2
> altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable of
> flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility factor a
> little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
highlight
> the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can fly faster they
> are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be flying
the
> lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
string
> trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
considering
> safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more comfortable
> at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Shemp" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Drop some flaps.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> Tell that to Ben Moyle who dug a deep hole in the ground with a
> stall/spin on final in the 'slow' lane a couple of year ago in his
> Glasair III. The GIII can fly at 90 Kts and not overheat but it's not
> safe.
>
> Next time you don't have much to do, establish yourself at 5,000 agl and
> 90 Kts. Trim things up so everything is stable, Pull the power to idle
> and wait for 3 seconds (the average time the FAA gives the pilot to
> react to an emergency). Now regain control of the airplane and assume
> normal glide attitude. Note your altitude loss. If you have a CS prop
> the number will shock you. Low and slow is a killer.
>
> Look for me at 2,300 msl and 135 Kts.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV6 Flyer
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
>
> YES it is WRONG.
>
> The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your
> test
> flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in all expected
> environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one hour with the
> engine
> running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does not
>
> cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
>
> I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and headed
>
> back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not following the
> ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
>
> WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing 90. The ride
> gets
> interesting.
>
> The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If unable, maintain
> 135
> knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any RV that flys
> the
> higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on
> the
> ground.
>
> Gary A. Sobek
> "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if able,"
> and
> an
> RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts. The warbird
> arrival
> instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> performance
> turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of
> which
> describes
> your typical RV.
>
>
> I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from the
> 2
> altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable of
> flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility factor
> a
> little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
> highlight
> the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can fly faster
> they
> are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be flying
> the
> lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
> string
> trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
> considering
> safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more
> comfortable
> at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
>
> Dave Ford
> RV6
>
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
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: | flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Cy,
Thanks for your viewpoint here.
Last year, I flew as "lead" for a "Flight of Four" RVs into OSH. We were
**VERY** happy that after the hold, they left us at the higher altitude (we
had pre-chosen that before having to hold for many laps). "Exceprt for RV
Flight of Four, I want everybody at 1800 feet and 90 kts" was what we heard.
With the mix of planes ***and pilots*** that were out there, I was glad not
to be in the slower mix and felt that all was much safer for all involved. I
saw an "EZ" that **SHOULD** have been up higher. He was wallering around it
seems trying to stay in the air. All it takes in such circumstance is for
someone to show up out of sequence, blasting through with seemingly no
regard for the NOTAMs and *seemingly* not listening to the radio. This
**DID** happen as we were holding. A Bonanza (no offense to anyone) cam
screaming along, not entering the hold, not at speed, and awfully close ...
too close for my comfort. Fortunately, our flight (which was in trail) was
with enough speed that maneuvering out of the way was not a problem.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of cgalley
> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:29 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> I have no doubt that you can fly an RV at 90 knots but there are incoming
> planes that use the low pattern that cannot maintain that speed.
> A J-3 comes
> to mind. They are more like 70 knots.
>
> Now you are going to say that they should be using the no radio approach.
> Maybe so but two things come to mind. By NOTAM this year to come in No
> Radio, you have to phone ahead for permission. Why? because most low and
> slow pilots now carry a hand held. Many will not stop for the phone call
> instead using the radio approach out of Fisk. They will be heavy
> and slower
> than 90 knots.
>
> I had to pull a T-18 out of a bean field that ran over a Cessna 172. The
> T-18 bent his aileron and landed at about 150 to maintain control. The
> Cessna looked like a 4 slot toaster. Fortunately all the slots
> missed spars
> and struts so he landed safely at Oshkosh.
>
> My point is that you don't know the mix that you might have to
> fly behind at
> Oshkosh. Your RV fortunately can fly 130 knots. So this is an option that
> not all planes enjoy. Fly the approach that you feel most
> comfortable. You
> are supposed to enjoy the convention, to be able to laugh after landing so
> do what is safe for you.
>
> Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
> Safety Programs Editor - TC
> EAA Sport Pilot
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
> >
> > You are all scaring me who are promoting that 90 in an RV is
> slow. I have
> > over 500 hours in a -6 with a CS prop and over 400 in a -4 with a wood
> prop.
> > I always fly the pattern at 80 mph and have never had a stall spin
> accident
> > yet, and I have been in some high density patterns (Merced, Arlington).
> All
> > you have to do is watch what you are doing. Don't they teach airspeed
> > control any more? As for Glasair and Lancair pilots, go fly the higher
> > pattern, No one will laugh at you.........<G>
> >
> > Jim
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Fw: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> >
> >
> > > --> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> > >
> > > "Any RV that flys the
> > > higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when he gets on
> the
> > > ground."
> > >
> > > WHY would anyone get laughed at by making a safe approach?
> Some Oshkosh
> > > approaches have turned deadly when the pilot could not slow
> as the plane
> > in
> > > front. We had 3 stall spin accidents in one year. Another year, a jet
> > pilot
> > > used the slow approach, had a forced landing on the streets of Oshkosh
> and
> > > his wife was burned to death in the resulting fire.
> > >
> > > ALL of the these people would be alive today, if they had used the
> "high"
> > > pattern.
> > >
> > > Laughed at? I think not but even a lot of laughter is better than the
> best
> > > funeral.
> > >
> > > The idea is to fly safe! To arrive in one piece.
> > >
> > > Anyone that laughs at those practicing safe flight need to
> take another
> > look
> > > at their safety practices.
> > >
> > > Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
> > > Safety Programs Editor - TC
> > > EAA Sport Pilot
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> > > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> > >
> > >
> > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "RV6 Flyer" <rv6_flyer@hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > YES it is WRONG.
> > > >
> > > > The notam is clear to me. Fly the 90 Kt 1,800 in an RV. If your RV
> > > > overheats, you should stay at home and finish your test flying. Your
> > test
> > > > flying is not finished till your airplane can operate in
> all expected
> > > > environments. I sat on the taxi way at Oshkosh for one
> hour with the
> > > engine
> > > > running in line waiting to depart in 2000. If it your airplane does
> not
> > > > cool at 90 in fight, you will over heat when you taxi for departure.
> > > >
> > > > I got behind an ULTRALIGHT one year. I broke out to the West and
> headed
> > > > back to RIPON while ATC was chewing the guy out for not
> following the
> > > > ULTRALIGHT arrival procedures. Flew behind a CUB another year.
> > > >
> > > > WATCH out for the WAKE turbulance from a C172 when doing
> 90. The ride
> > gets
> > > > interesting.
> > > >
> > > > The notam says: Maintain 90 knots and 1,800' MSL. If
> unable, maintain
> > 135
> > > > knots and 2,300' MSL. ALL RVs can maintain 90 knots. Any
> RV that flys
> > the
> > > > higher pattern gets laughed at by all the other RV'ers when
> he gets on
> > the
> > > > ground.
> > > >
> > > > Gary A. Sobek
> > > > "My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
> > > > 1,524 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
> > > > http://SoCAL_WVAF.rvproject.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----Original Message Follows----
> > > > From: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> > > > To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > > Subject: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> > > > Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:24:15 -0500
> > > >
> > > > --> RV-List message posted by: "Dave Ford" <dford@michweb.net>
> > > >
> > > > --> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> > > >
> > > > >but the NOTAM I'm holding in my hand seems specific about flying
> > > > the VFR approach from Ripon to Fisk at 1800 MSL and 90 knots "if
> able,"
> > > and
> > > > an
> > > > RV is certainly capable of comfortable cruise at 90 kts.
> The warbird
> > > > arrival
> > > > instructions are more explicit, stating they are restricted to high
> > > > performance
> > > > turbojets, twin turboprops and warbirds capable of 130 kts, none of
> > which
> > > > describes
> > > > your typical RV.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I believe the warbird arrival is a separate arrival instruction from
> the
> > 2
> > > > altitude choices given to experimentals. I know the RVs are capable
> of
> > > > flying slower than the 90 knots but it does change the visibility
> factor
> > a
> > > > little and cooling issues can be a concern(?). The Notam seems to
> > > highlight
> > > > the "speed restrictions" noting that although aircraft can
> fly faster
> > they
> > > > are looking for understandable cooperation. My concern would be
> flying
> > > the
> > > > lower slower altitude and picturing myself behind a "broomstick with
> > > string
> > > > trimmer engine" flying at his max. speed of 50 to 60 knots. So
> > > considering
> > > > safety, cooling, visibility, is it wrong to fly at and be more
> > comfortable
> > > > at a faster, higher altitude for arrival?
> > > >
> > > > Dave Ford
> > > > RV6
> > > >
> > > > Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > > > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
So while we're on the subject-
In the event one DOES get too close in trail, is the recommended procedure to
leave the conga line to the right, return to Ripon and start over, or do a
360 and try to fit back into a gap in the line?
Mark 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: Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Gert <gert@execpc.com>
Huh, flexing to much???
I needed it to bend a little and I could do pull-up's on it and hardly
get it to move at 240 lbs.
Now that it is permanently bolted in place it's even stiffer.
Gert
Greg Young wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> The center brace on the -6/7/9 makes it immobile and a non-issue.
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, does anyone share my concern about
>>putting too much stress on the rollbar by pulling on it (with
>>or without handles)?
>>Perhaps the -6/7/9 series is more rigid due to the brace that
>>goes up to the center of the roll bar, but on my -8A I
>>noticed before glassing in my windshield that the roll bar
>>would flex quite a bit by pushing/pulling on it. I remember
>>thinking at the time that this would imply quite a bit of
>>stress being transferred to the plexiglass via the screws
>>that hold it to the roll bar. Sounds to me like a crack
>>waiting to happen. But maybe extensive experience has proven
>>that this is not a valid concern????
>>
>>--Mark Navratil
>>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>RV-8A N2D painting fuselage...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
cgalley wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>I have no doubt that you can fly an RV at 90 knots but there are incoming
>planes that use the low pattern that cannot maintain that speed. A J-3 comes
>to mind. They are more like 70 knots.
>
>Now you are going to say that they should be using the no radio approach.
>Maybe so but two things come to mind. By NOTAM this year to come in No
>Radio, you have to phone ahead for permission. Why? because most low and
>slow pilots now carry a hand held. Many will not stop for the phone call
>instead using the radio approach out of Fisk. They will be heavy and slower
>than 90 knots.
>
>I had to pull a T-18 out of a bean field that ran over a Cessna 172. The
>T-18 bent his aileron and landed at about 150 to maintain control. The
>Cessna looked like a 4 slot toaster. Fortunately all the slots missed spars
>and struts so he landed safely at Oshkosh.
>
>My point is that you don't know the mix that you might have to fly behind at
>Oshkosh. Your RV fortunately can fly 130 knots. So this is an option that
>not all planes enjoy. Fly the approach that you feel most comfortable. You
>are supposed to enjoy the convention, to be able to laugh after landing so
>do what is safe for you.
>
>Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
>Safety Programs Editor - TC
>EAA Sport Pilot
>
But:
It *is* a NOTAM, & it *does* say 90 kts *if able*. An RV is obviously
'able'. Are you suggesting that an RV pilot that isn't 'able' to fly one
safely at 90 kts should mix it up with King Airs & Citations?
An RV can't land (at least not very gracefully) at 85-100 knots. Most
religions have some variation of the 'Golden Rule', saying to treat
others as you would like to be treated. I've followed C-140's & Aeroncas
into OSH & been frustrated when they weren't flying the 'pattern' at
full throttle to stay at 90 kts. If we fly the 'fast' procedure,
consider what those King Airs & Citations are thinking about us for
touching down at 50 kts & forcing them to go around to avoid running
over us. Do you really think it would be safe to mix RV's & jets on the
same runway at OSH? Do the EAA & FAA really condone this?
As Safety Programs Editor, perhaps you should be pointing out to the
officials that it isn't really safe to force a mix of antique/classic
style planes that won't go 90 kts full throttle with quicker aircraft.
It would also be good if they would put a lot more emphasis on reminding
the C-172, etc. drivers that the 90 kts mentioned in the NOTAM isn't
optional for them. It would be a pretty safe bet that the T-18 wouldn't
have eaten the C-172 if the 172 had been flying the required 90 kts.
Charlie
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>So while we're on the subject-
>
>In the event one DOES get too close in trail, is the recommended procedure to
>leave the conga line to the right, return to Ripon and start over, or do a
>360 and try to fit back into a gap in the line?
>
>Mark do not archive
>
Moderate S-turning works very well unless you are already about to pass.
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: | flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
That's what killed Ben Moyle, low and slow and the good old S turn.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
--> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>So while we're on the subject-
>
>In the event one DOES get too close in trail, is the recommended
procedure to
>leave the conga line to the right, return to Ripon and start over, or
do a
>360 and try to fit back into a gap in the line?
>
>Mark do not archive
>
Moderate S-turning works very well unless you are already about to pass.
==
==
==
==
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Sears <sears@searnet.com>
Gosh, guys. I'm glad I put my two cents in about my twisted rudder. It's
raised some good discussion. Anyway, I used a simple jig and got almost all
of the twist out. I did leave in a couple of rivets that may have allowed
me to pull it all out; but, I can live with the 1/16" twist on this one.
It' s a lot better than the bow in the trailing edge of the rudder being
replaced. Besides, I know my -6A isn't nearly that true in places, even
though it was totally jig built. It goes pretty well with all of its flaws.
:-) Now, I need to rivet the trailing edge. Hopefully, it'll be more
simple than getting that twist out!
There is one little concern that I have. If a somewhat seasoned building,
like this is my third RV, can build in twist that easily, I wonder how many
are taking the suggestion of not jigging seriously, building without one,
and never checking to see if the control surface, or whatever, is really
straight. Hmmm. When I did mine, I had clecoes on the spar, the trialing
edge, and the ribs. With the twist, there was no oil canning because there
was just enough give in the holes that none showed. Had I not checked, I
could have built a crooked rudder that would have looked just fine.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317
EAA Technical Counselor
EAA Flight Advisor
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
The T-18 cut in at a much higher speed than the line of traffic from what I
was told. The Cessna was in trail with several other planes.
You aren't landing at 130 nor even 90 knots. That is the approach speed.
The real problem is that most pilots never ever come close to another plane
in the pattern most of the rest of the year. At Oshkosh, the spacing is
tight. No side by side nor overtaking. It would be nice if everyone could
fly 90 knots but realistically, that is impossible. I have seen controllers
send a commercial flight around when North Central was still flying into
Oshkosh! They will do the same with anyone that tries to bust in.
In the 33 years I have been going to Oshkosh, I have flown in about 5 times.
I would not do it solo if I had my choice. I have flown out on the Vintage
Fly-out in my own plane and a couple of times with a friend. I can tell you
that there are always pilots that don't follow the rules. It is
disconcerting to see the business end of a P51 climbing right at you when
you are in the pattern, knowing that he can't see where he is going.
So be vigilant, keep your eyeballs on a swivel both coming and going. Come
and leave the convention; safely!
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> cgalley wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> >I have no doubt that you can fly an RV at 90 knots but there are incoming
> >planes that use the low pattern that cannot maintain that speed. A J-3
comes
> >to mind. They are more like 70 knots.
> >
> >Now you are going to say that they should be using the no radio approach.
> >Maybe so but two things come to mind. By NOTAM this year to come in No
> >Radio, you have to phone ahead for permission. Why? because most low and
> >slow pilots now carry a hand held. Many will not stop for the phone call
> >instead using the radio approach out of Fisk. They will be heavy and
slower
> >than 90 knots.
> >
> >I had to pull a T-18 out of a bean field that ran over a Cessna 172. The
> >T-18 bent his aileron and landed at about 150 to maintain control. The
> >Cessna looked like a 4 slot toaster. Fortunately all the slots missed
spars
> >and struts so he landed safely at Oshkosh.
> >
> >My point is that you don't know the mix that you might have to fly behind
at
> >Oshkosh. Your RV fortunately can fly 130 knots. So this is an option that
> >not all planes enjoy. Fly the approach that you feel most comfortable.
You
> >are supposed to enjoy the convention, to be able to laugh after landing
so
> >do what is safe for you.
> >
> >Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
> >Safety Programs Editor - TC
> >EAA Sport Pilot
> >
>
> But:
>
> It *is* a NOTAM, & it *does* say 90 kts *if able*. An RV is obviously
> 'able'. Are you suggesting that an RV pilot that isn't 'able' to fly one
> safely at 90 kts should mix it up with King Airs & Citations?
>
> An RV can't land (at least not very gracefully) at 85-100 knots. Most
> religions have some variation of the 'Golden Rule', saying to treat
> others as you would like to be treated. I've followed C-140's & Aeroncas
> into OSH & been frustrated when they weren't flying the 'pattern' at
> full throttle to stay at 90 kts. If we fly the 'fast' procedure,
> consider what those King Airs & Citations are thinking about us for
> touching down at 50 kts & forcing them to go around to avoid running
> over us. Do you really think it would be safe to mix RV's & jets on the
> same runway at OSH? Do the EAA & FAA really condone this?
>
> As Safety Programs Editor, perhaps you should be pointing out to the
> officials that it isn't really safe to force a mix of antique/classic
> style planes that won't go 90 kts full throttle with quicker aircraft.
> It would also be good if they would put a lot more emphasis on reminding
> the C-172, etc. drivers that the 90 kts mentioned in the NOTAM isn't
> optional for them. It would be a pretty safe bet that the T-18 wouldn't
> have eaten the C-172 if the 172 had been flying the required 90 kts.
>
> Charlie
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
copy that!
----Original Message Follows----
From: Gert <gert@execpc.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Bolt on roll bar handles?
--> RV-List message posted by: Gert <gert@execpc.com>
Huh, flexing to much???
I needed it to bend a little and I could do pull-up's on it and hardly
get it to move at 240 lbs.
Now that it is permanently bolted in place it's even stiffer.
Gert
Greg Young wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> The center brace on the -6/7/9 makes it immobile and a non-issue.
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, does anyone share my concern about
>>putting too much stress on the rollbar by pulling on it (with
>>or without handles)?
>>Perhaps the -6/7/9 series is more rigid due to the brace that
>>goes up to the center of the roll bar, but on my -8A I
>>noticed before glassing in my windshield that the roll bar
>>would flex quite a bit by pushing/pulling on it. I remember
>>thinking at the time that this would imply quite a bit of
>>stress being transferred to the plexiglass via the screws
>>that hold it to the roll bar. Sounds to me like a crack
>>waiting to happen. But maybe extensive experience has proven
>>that this is not a valid concern????
>>
>>--Mark Navratil
>>Cedar Rapids, Iowa
>>RV-8A N2D painting fuselage...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
Discover the best of the best at MSN Luxury Living. http://lexus.msn.com/
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "lucky macy" <luckymacy@hotmail.com>
no. i have seen them installed in 8s and the folks swear by them.
----Original Message Follows----
From: czechsix@juno.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Bolt on roll bar handles?
--> RV-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Just out of curiosity, does anyone share my concern about putting too
much stress on the rollbar by pulling on it (with or without handles)?
Perhaps the -6/7/9 series is more rigid due to the brace that goes up to
the center of the roll bar, but on my -8A I noticed before glassing in my
windshield that the roll bar would flex quite a bit by pushing/pulling on
it. I remember thinking at the time that this would imply quite a bit of
stress being transferred to the plexiglass via the screws that hold it to
the roll bar. Sounds to me like a crack waiting to happen. But maybe
extensive experience has proven that this is not a valid concern????
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D painting fuselage...
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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: | flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Flying the higher pattern is no guarantee that you won't still have to mix
it up with a wide performance mix - everyone comes down on the same 3
runways. One year I got sequenced ahead of a P-51 in my Citabria. I'm sure
it was unnerving for both of us. If you're uncomfortable flying at 90 kts
with the slow traffic, my suggestion is to time your arrival to the slow(er)
days and/or time of day. If there's a hold, go land at Appleton or Fond du
Lac and wait it out. Holds unleash an unbelievable furball with all the
impatient types trying to cut in on the guys following the procedure. There
are planned holds for the Bonanza, Mooney and T-34 mass arrivals plus the
Quantas 747, military fly-bys and who knows what else. I've arrived on the
Sunday before for the past two years (to get a good camping spot) and
traffic has been very light. Monday afternoon is certainly bad as is any day
just before or after the airshow. Do what you have to stay comfortable and
safe but don't miss the show.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
Do the brakes actually work as designed per the plans for an RV-4?
Everything I have built has been exactly per the plans and is installed
correctly. I tried to bleed them today and wasted lots of brake fluid. I got
good air free flow but I did not have a solid pedal. Both sides rudder
pedals moved full travel, stop to stop, when the brakes were applied, but
the master cylinders never pumped up. I took the master cylinders loose from
the rudder pedals and operated them by hand and found that they were
actually pumping up correctly. The problem is that the rudder pedals do not
allow enough travel for the master cylinders to actually pump. How much
travel are you suppose to have? I've got maybe an inch or inch and a half of
travel. Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
that's had this problem?
Thanks
Jerry Isler
RV4 N455J
Donalsonville, GA
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: flying to Oshkosh |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Anglin" <jlanglin44@earthlink.net>
Why do you keep bringing up Ben Moyle? Was he flying an RV? I don't speak
ill of the deceased, and I'm not now, but to do a stall spin you have to get
too low in the airspeed regime and there is an instrument normally installed
in the panel that tells an attentive pilot where he is in this regime. This
has been taught since forever - live by your airspeed.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Subject: RE: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> That's what killed Ben Moyle, low and slow and the good old S turn.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: flying to Oshkosh
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
> >
> >So while we're on the subject-
> >
> >In the event one DOES get too close in trail, is the recommended
> procedure to
> >leave the conga line to the right, return to Ripon and start over, or
> do a
> >360 and try to fit back into a gap in the line?
> >
> >Mark do not archive
> >
>
> Moderate S-turning works very well unless you are already about to pass.
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard Bibb" <rebibb@comcast.net>
I installed mine per the plans and they worked fine.
In order to bleed the breaks I had to undo the cylinders and hold the lower
end "up" above the normal top end of the cylinder and pump flius from the
botom. Other wise all you are doing is pushing air.
RB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 Brakes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
>
> Do the brakes actually work as designed per the plans for an RV-4?
> Everything I have built has been exactly per the plans and is installed
> correctly. I tried to bleed them today and wasted lots of brake fluid. I
got
> good air free flow but I did not have a solid pedal. Both sides rudder
> pedals moved full travel, stop to stop, when the brakes were applied, but
> the master cylinders never pumped up. I took the master cylinders loose
from
> the rudder pedals and operated them by hand and found that they were
> actually pumping up correctly. The problem is that the rudder pedals do
not
> allow enough travel for the master cylinders to actually pump. How much
> travel are you suppose to have? I've got maybe an inch or inch and a half
of
> travel. Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
> extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
> they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
> brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
> that's had this problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jerry Isler
> RV4 N455J
> Donalsonville, GA
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: N223RV@aol.com
Hi Jerry -
Did you bleed the brakes from the top, or did you use a pressurized system
and pump them from the bottom up to the reservoir? You will have better luck
pressurizing them from the calipers to the reservoir.
Either way you need to be pumping the master cylinders while bleeding to help
get the air out of the cylinders. When operating properly, the brake pedals
will move about 1/8" (give or take as I did not measure it). They do not move
much at all. If you are getting alot of movement or a mushy feel, you do not
have all the air out.
]
I hope this helps.
-Mike Kraus
N223RV RV-4 Flying
N213RV RV-10 Empennage complete, working on tailcone
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
I built mine per plans and they function just fine. I'm I can't be of help figuring
out what your brake problem may be.
Jerry Isler <jlisler@alltel.net> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler"
Do the brakes actually work as designed per the plans for an RV-4?
Everything I have built has been exactly per the plans and is installed
correctly. I tried to bleed them today and wasted lots of brake fluid. I got
good air free flow but I did not have a solid pedal. Both sides rudder
pedals moved full travel, stop to stop, when the brakes were applied, but
the master cylinders never pumped up. I took the master cylinders loose from
the rudder pedals and operated them by hand and found that they were
actually pumping up correctly. The problem is that the rudder pedals do not
allow enough travel for the master cylinders to actually pump. How much
travel are you suppose to have? I've got maybe an inch or inch and a half of
travel. Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
that's had this problem?
Thanks
Jerry Isler
RV4 N455J
Donalsonville, GA
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
When a man does all he can
though it succeeds not well,
blame not him that did it."
-- George Washington
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Now I remember. We used a hudson weed sprayer with a fitting on the end that fit
the nipple on the bottom of the brake caliper. Loosen the zert a bit and pump
up the Hudson. When the red gets to the brake fluid resevoir, tighten the
zert. Repeat on the other side. Worked well. Some use adapted oil squirters
too.
Richard Bibb <rebibb@comcast.net> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by: "Richard
Bibb"
I installed mine per the plans and they worked fine.
In order to bleed the breaks I had to undo the cylinders and hold the lower
end "up" above the normal top end of the cylinder and pump flius from the
botom. Other wise all you are doing is pushing air.
RB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Isler"
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 Brakes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler"
>
> Do the brakes actually work as designed per the plans for an RV-4?
> Everything I have built has been exactly per the plans and is installed
> correctly. I tried to bleed them today and wasted lots of brake fluid. I
got
> good air free flow but I did not have a solid pedal. Both sides rudder
> pedals moved full travel, stop to stop, when the brakes were applied, but
> the master cylinders never pumped up. I took the master cylinders loose
from
> the rudder pedals and operated them by hand and found that they were
> actually pumping up correctly. The problem is that the rudder pedals do
not
> allow enough travel for the master cylinders to actually pump. How much
> travel are you suppose to have? I've got maybe an inch or inch and a half
of
> travel. Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
> extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
> they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
> brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
> that's had this problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jerry Isler
> RV4 N455J
> Donalsonville, GA
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
RV-4 N311SV, FLYING!!
When a man does all he can
though it succeeds not well,
blame not him that did it."
-- George Washington
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Jerry,
As others have noted, it is really necessary to remove the brake master
cylinders from the pedals, turn them right side up, bleed, then invert and
re-install. They will not bleed properly while they are in the position as
indicated in the early RV-4 plans (springs pointed down). This is also
common on some Pipers that were designed with the masters installed upside
down. I had an experienced A&P mechanic tell me once that the only way to
bleed the Piper brakes was to remove the cylinders and turn them 180 degrees
(unless you have pressure bleeding equipment).
Or, you can modify your brake pedals slightly and install the master
cylinders right side up. In the later RV-4's, the plans were changed to
right-side-up cylinders. I ended up modifying mine about 6 years ago and I
have had no problems since then plus bleeding is now a piece of cake.
Contact me off line if you have any interest and I'll send pictures plus I
have a some sketches and a written description of the mod that I can e-mail
you.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 All Flying
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
Subject: RV-List: RV-4 Brakes
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
>
> Do the brakes actually work as designed per the plans for an RV-4?
> Everything I have built has been exactly per the plans and is installed
> correctly. I tried to bleed them today and wasted lots of brake fluid. I
got
> good air free flow but I did not have a solid pedal. Both sides rudder
> pedals moved full travel, stop to stop, when the brakes were applied, but
> the master cylinders never pumped up. I took the master cylinders loose
from
> the rudder pedals and operated them by hand and found that they were
> actually pumping up correctly. The problem is that the rudder pedals do
not
> allow enough travel for the master cylinders to actually pump. How much
> travel are you suppose to have? I've got maybe an inch or inch and a half
of
> travel. Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
> extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
> they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
> brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
> that's had this problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jerry Isler
> RV4 N455J
> Donalsonville, GA
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
>An RV is not a Glasair III. IT (the RV) can outperform the Glasair III
at
>SLOW speeds. ANY RV pilot that cannot fly the approach to OSH at 90
should
>not be flying to AirVenture.
Agreed. Or maybe anywhere else, for that matter. Didn't you do this on
your flight testing? Do you do other things with your airplane than
blast around from place to place? Like practice? How well do you know
the edges of your performance envelope, especially slow flight? How
slow, what bank before it lets loose? Hmmmm
One of the many reasons I built an RV was for the wide performance
envelope. These airplanes fly GREAT at slow speeds. That wing just HANGS
on. The only reason they wouldn't fly well is the pilot has not been out
practicing slow flight. The approach to OSH is NO DIFFERENT in speeds
than you should be using in your pattern at your home field. Do you
blast into the home pattern at 135 knots? Probably not. At least you
shouldn't be; you will take forever to slow down and you are traveling
too fast for most other traffic in the pattern. 90 knots is not slow for
an RV but you need to have practiced slow flight, and sometime before
you leave for the trip, as well as other realms of flight, to be good at
it and feel comfortable with it. And you should. Engine failure at slow
speed? My best rate of glide is 5 knots slower than this "slow" 90 knots
so I would have to slow down further, not speed up. With full flaps? How
else are you going to land in an emergency? Have you practiced putting
on and taking off flaps while on your emergency glide (you DO practice
emergency procedures including slow and dirty, don't you?)? Me oh my. I
was out several months ago flying formation right wing with an 85hp J-3
Cub, for crying out loud. Including inside and outside turns. Was I
hyperaware? You bet. But never felt like I was on the edge. It was 20
knots faster than my stall speed. Practice, practice, practice. I almost
built a Glasair taildragger. Thanks, Jim, for talking me out of that.
NOT that there is anything wrong with that, although there must be
reasons you don't see many of them around. I just like my RV better.
Flies fast, flies slow. One of the many reasons I fly an RV; I LOVE this
airplane.
SO: I'll be in the lower not so slow altitude, flying right along with
most other people, not worried someone is roaring up behind me at 145
knots. If someone is ahead going slower, I'll make adjustments. I have
NEVER felt uncomfortable with that procedure at OSH. You have to look
around; shouldn't you always be looking around?
You can never know too much about your airplane and your ability to fly
it. Suzie Q and I have learned quite a bit in 6+ years of flitting
about. She loves to go to OSH and show herself off. See you there.
Michael
RV-4 N232 Suzie Q
Practice, practice, practice................getting to know you; getting
to know all about you..............
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Dave Bristol <bj034@lafn.org>
Jerry,
The piston MUST fully extend or the brake will drag.
Dave Bristol
EAA Technical Counselor
Jerry Isler wrote:
> Do I need to alter the system where they cylinders do not fully
>extend out, there by taking up some of the "slack" in the system so that
>they will start pumping with less movement? Will this create a dragging
>brake, especially when rudder is applied at full travel? Am I the only one
>that's had this problem?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jerry Isler
>RV4 N455J
>Donalsonville, GA
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
To further expand on what I have now that I'm back from the Outback
(Steakhouse that is).
The master cylinders are installed springs up and all of the components
are built and installed according to the plans . There is about an inch of
travel on the shaft of the master cylinder before it starts to engage or
build up pressure. This amount of travel allows the brake pedal to move full
stroke, i.e.. from the neutral, at rest position, to the fully depressed
position before the master cylinder starts to build up pressure. Should the
master cylinder start to build pressure before it strokes this far? If so,
that would solve my problem. If the master cylinder would start to develop
pressure as soon as the shaft is depressed it would work. Is that the way it
should be?
Jerry Isler
RV-4 N455J
Donalsonville, GA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Vanartsdalen" <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: RV-4 Brakes
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
>
> Now I remember. We used a hudson weed sprayer with a fitting on the end
that fit the nipple on the bottom of the brake caliper. Loosen the zert a
bit and pump up the Hudson. When the red gets to the brake fluid resevoir,
tighten the zert. Repeat on the other side. Worked well. Some use adapted
oil squirters too.
>
> Richard Bibb <rebibb@comcast.net> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by:
"Richard Bibb"
>
> I installed mine per the plans and they worked fine.
>
> In order to bleed the breaks I had to undo the cylinders and hold the
lower
> end "up" above the normal top end of the cylinder and pump flius from the
> botom. Other wise all you are doing is pushing air.
>
> RB
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: Bolt on roll bar handles? |
--> RV-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
Mark: Maybe I'm just a little guy but I've been using my roll bar like a
monkey bar to haul my carcass in and out for the last three years under
construction and that thing is rock solid.
Do not archive
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, final assembly
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! --
|