Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:20 AM - Re: No RV7 spin (Bob Barrow)
2. 01:39 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Mickey Coggins)
3. 02:05 AM - Re: Spin Recovery ()
4. 02:15 AM - Re: Lead counter weights ()
5. 03:29 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
6. 03:58 AM - Re: Spin Recovery (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
7. 05:20 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Dana Overall)
8. 05:44 AM - Re: Lead counter weights (George Neal E Capt AU/PC)
9. 06:12 AM - Re: Lead counter weights (Patrick Kelley)
10. 06:21 AM - Lingo .... was Re: Spin Recovery (linn walters)
11. 06:41 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (SportAV8R@aol.com)
12. 07:02 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Jeff Dowling)
13. 07:04 AM - Re: Spin Recovery (Jeff Dowling)
14. 07:13 AM - Re: Spin Recovery (Jeff Dowling)
15. 07:45 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott Vanartsdalen)
16. 07:47 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott Vanartsdalen)
17. 08:05 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott Vanartsdalen)
18. 08:18 AM - Re: No RV7 spin (Dan Checkoway)
19. 08:37 AM - Canopy Protection (JTAnon@aol.com)
20. 09:09 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (LarryRobertHelming)
21. 09:12 AM - Re: Spin Recovery (rv6tc)
22. 09:16 AM - Re: Lead counter weights (steve zicree)
23. 09:29 AM - Spin impact this week, a Skybolt has a story to tell (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
24. 10:49 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 11/17/04 (PSPRV6A@aol.com)
25. 11:49 AM - Re: Spin Recovery (Marty)
26. 12:11 PM - Re: Forced Landing. (long) (RV_8 Pilot)
27. 12:17 PM - Re: spin again (RV_8 Pilot)
28. 12:29 PM - gluing canopy to frame (Wayne Pedersen)
29. 02:04 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Kathleen@rv7.us)
30. 02:15 PM - Re: No RV7 spin (Bob Barrow)
31. 02:31 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Bill VonDane)
32. 02:46 PM - Re: spin again (Scott.Fink@microchip.com)
33. 02:58 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (RV_8 Pilot)
34. 03:48 PM - Re: was Spin Recovery- not rv related (Jeff Dowling)
35. 03:49 PM - Re: Spin impact this week, a Skybolt has a story to tell (Jeff Dowling)
36. 03:56 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott VanArtsdalen)
37. 05:19 PM - Re: spin again (David Fenstermacher)
38. 05:19 PM - SPINS in an RV (Louis Willig)
39. 05:19 PM - Re: spin again (David Fenstermacher)
40. 05:33 PM - Re: SPINS in an RV (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
41. 05:55 PM - Re: spin again (linn walters)
42. 06:18 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (David Schaefer)
43. 06:22 PM - springs (Wheeler North)
44. 07:27 PM - (Wheeler North)
45. 08:32 PM - Re: spin again (rv6tc)
46. 08:35 PM - How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Dan DeNeal)
47. 08:51 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson)
48. 08:51 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Paul Besing)
49. 08:53 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Larry Pardue)
50. 08:59 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson)
51. 09:18 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not (Jim Oke)
52. 09:31 PM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Barrow" <bobbarrow@optusnet.com.au>
Thanks Dan, yes I had read the Vans Service Bulletin. But now that there are
probably quite a few RV7 and RV7A flying I thought it would be good to get
some real world feedback on spin recovery with the new rudder. Surely
some-one out there can enlighten us with their experience.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: No RV7 spin
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> Dan Checkoway has done some spin testing on his -7. I
>> believe he has the small rudder, but don't quote me on
>> that...
>
> Yeah, I spun my RV-7 during Phase I, and I have the older, smaller (RV-8
> style) rudder. I was perfectly happy with how responsive it was.
>
> I didn't reply to this thread originally because Bob wanted to know if any
> builders out there had spun their RV-7[A] with the *new* rudder. Since I
> have the old rudder I didn't respond. But...
>
> Bob wrote:
>> The question of whether the new rudder now
>> provides satisfactory authority to recover from
>> spins should be of concern to all RV7 builders /
>> owners.
>
> Bob, you seem to be seeking confirmation that the new rudder helps spin
> recovery. Van's themselves did find that the larger rudder provided more
> authority in spin recovery. I encourage you to review Van's service
> bulletin on the matter -- http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/sb02-6-1.pdf
>
> Quoting it:
>
> "We did find that the RV-7 spin recovery characteristics easily met FAA
> requirements* for normal category* aircraft, but not those of aerobatic
> category aircraft*. (The AEROBATIC category requires that the aircraft be
> able to recover from a 6-turn spin within 1 1/4 rotations. A NORMAL
> category
> aircraft is required to recover from a 1-turn spin within 1 additional
> rotation.)"
>
> "The RV-7 spin recovery characteristics were also found to be adequate for
> operations within the recommended limits specified in Section 15 of the
> RV-7
> Construction Manual. Service experience with the RV-6/6A fleet indicates
> that safe operation, including "Sport Aerobatics", is possible without
> meeting the exact spin recovery requirements of aerobatic category
> aircraft."
>
> ...here's what you're looking for, clear as day:
>
> "Testing the RV-7 (N137RV) reconfigured with an RV-9/9A rudder showed
> improved spin recovery qualities. With this larger rudder, RV-7 spin
> recovery qualities are equal to or better than those of the standard
> RV-6/6A, which have been service proven through fleet experience."
>
> "Flown within the recommended limitations of Section 15 of the
> Construction
> Manual, either the original or the enlarged RV-7 rudder will provide
> adequate authority for spin recovery."
>
> ...and then in the "CONCLUSION" paragraphs, what you're looking for is
> reiterated clearly:
>
> "The substitution of an RV-9 rudder on an RV-7 improved spin recovery.
> With
> the larger rudder, the RV-7 will have better spin recovery from whatever
> flight condition the pilot may encounter."
>
> From the horse's mouth!
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Scott,
Cool comparison. Pretty much matches my evaluation as well. One
thing you might add to the chart, if you are so inclined, is the
screen size, and perhaps the screen brightness in NITs - if you
can get the suppliers to give you this info.
Thanks,
Mickey
>I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
>and GRT Horizon here:
>http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
>
>I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
>Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
>bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
>really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
>other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
>leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Spin Recovery |
--> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
Could you guys in this thread use "do not archive" in your notes? I don't
mind the thread; but, I'm not sure Matt doesn't want to fill up the archives
with a conversation not related to RVs. If I were looking for spin recovery
info in the archives, I sure wouldn't want to read all of this, either.
It's been going on for a few days, now. Thanks!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Spin Recovery
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Keith,
>
> OK, I'll bite. What's a T-38 FAIP? I get the T-38 part, and the AIP must
> mean Awesome Instructor Pilot. But what's the "F" for? Don't leave it to
> our imaginations.
>
> Terry
>
> Class 66C, Williams.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> -> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> Hey.... At least we could land in a cross wind!!
>
> Keith Hughes
> Reese 88-02,
> T-38 FAIP to Vance (one time good deal!)
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lead counter weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
> and double nut a bolt (or two) into the open space. Pour the liquid lead
in
> and then use a drill to remove as much as need to balance. Every local
> plumbing shop has lead, heater, pot & laddle. May not have used them in a
> while but they will have one and someone with okum and the skill to melt &
> fill.
Actually, this is easy to do. I used a coffee can, and maybe a propane
torch to heat it, for my -6A's weights. A friend gave me the lead. Just be
sure you melt lead in a well vented area. I understand the fumes from the
lead aren't good for us. Before pouring the contents into the counter
balance arm, line the area for the weight with aluminum foil to make the
shape and contain the liquid lead. When you're ready to balance the control
surfaces, you can drill out the extra lead, as has already been stated. You
might be able to use used tire weights for the lead, if you're really trying
to do it on the cheap. Not sure about their melting point, though.
Jim Sears in KY
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a display
big enough to do split screens. For me it would be at the top of the list if
one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than you originally listed but those curious can go their website
and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they believe is
critical in system to system comparisons and that's the accuracy/stability of
their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands down winner in the under
$10K in my opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
> Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
> dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
> only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
> mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
> That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>
> Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
> my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
>
> David Schaefer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> >
> >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the
> >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
> >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
> >pictures just let me know.
> >
> >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
> >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >David Schaefer
> >N142DS
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
> >
> >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
> >and GRT Horizon here:
> >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
> >
> >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
> >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
> >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
> >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
> >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
> >leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
> >
> >Gerald Richardson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
> >>
> >>Greetings:
> >>
> >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
> >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
> >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
> >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
> >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
> >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
> >>few additional goodies, etc.
> >>
> >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
> >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
> >>
> >>Thank you for your comments.
> >>
> >>Gerald Richardson
> >>Medicine Hat, Alberta
> >>Canada
> >>
> >>RV6A 25366
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen
> Van Arts Consulting Services
> 3848 McHenry Ave
> Suite #155-184
> Modesto, CA 95356
> 209-986-4647
> Ps 34:4,6
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a display
big enough to do split screens.For meit would be at the top of the list if one
was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than youoriginally listed but those curious can go their website
and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they believe is
critical in system to system comparisons and that's the accuracy/stability of
their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands down winner inthe under $10K
inmy opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <SVANARTS@YAHOO.COM>
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-)
David Schaefer wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <DSCHAEFER1@KC.RR.COM>
I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger some
one, BUT the
GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
pictures just let me know.
The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
Regards,
David Schaefer
N142DS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <SVANARTS@YAHOO.COM>
I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS L
ite, Dynon D10A,
and GRT Horizon here:
http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
Gerald Richardson wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson <GERRIC@SHAW.CA>
Greetings:
I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both
of
them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a
few additional goodies, etc.
My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
Thank you for your comments.
Gerald Richardson
Medicine Hat, Alberta
Canada
RV6A 25366
--
Scott VanArtsdal
en
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
il Forum -
atronics.com/emaillists
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
IT does not snap around as the speed is low with very low momentum. But
it does a snappy roll to about 115 degrees to the horizon and makes you
feel like your going to go around, but you don't.\
Mike
Sorry for the delay post, been out of town.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn walters
Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
>
>See I knew an ole timer would jump in here:)
>
>So is it your position Doug that this was good training he gave me?
This
>'falling leaf' deal? Boy did the tail shake. I could easily master this
>in the Aeronca Chief, but it is a B!@#ch in the RV. Damn thing just
>wants to snap around and keeping the wings level is a bear with this
>technique as I described. I do think that what it taught me was how to
>get the right amount of opp. rudder in for the amount of snap induced.
>If you put too much in, around she'd go the other way... and so forth.
>Cool exercise though. Fun, scary at first, sometimes violent, always
>hard.
>
>Mike
>Do not archive.
>
Hi Mike! I'm going to equate an RV wing with the original Grumman
Yankee (AA-1) wing ..... built for speed. The Aeronca Chief on the
other hand is much like the Grumman Trainer (AA-1B .... which I have).
The results of this 'falling leaf' maneuver in each airplane is the
same! Being short-coupled, the AA-1 is a handful. And once the
airplane gets ahead of you, and you persist is trying to tame it, it'll
snap to the outside in a heartbeat. The -1B is a lot more benign. As
you practice this maneuver more and more, you will find that you can
sense the amount of rudder necessary to keep the wings level and prevent
the snap will decrease .... and you'll be a little more harmonious with
your airplane.
When you do this in your RV, and you get 'ham fisted' (ham feeted?) with
the rudder and it snaps, does it fly out of the snap or enter a spin?
Linn ..... loves the 'carnival ride'
do not archive
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Doug Rozendaal
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>
>Mike,
>
>I can't get any work done today....
>
>The maneuver you described is exactly a falling leaf. This is a GREAT
>training exercise and it is a great way to enter a spin. It was used
>extensively in WWII to teach using the rudder to raise the stalled
wing,
>not
>the aileron. Most pilots will raise the stalled wing with the aileron
>and
>in most spam can type airplanes, it works, but it is still a bad idea.
>
>The problem is if the left wing stalls, starts to fall and you put in
>right
>aileron, you have increased the angle of attack on the wing that is
>stalling
>and again, in some airplanes, i.e., T-6 or a DC-3, you will instantly
>fill
>the windshield with the earth. Suppose you are turning base to final.
>You
>overshoot and in an effort not to exceed 30 deg bank angle like your
>instructor taught, you push the nose around with the rudder. This is a
>skidding turn, and the way you know it is a skidding turn is the ball
is
>
>"up." In a slip, the ball will be down. In a skid the inside wing
will
>
>stall first because it is moving slower than the outside wing. If you
>try
>to raise it with aileron, increasing the angle of attack on the stalled
>wing, you may impact the ground upside down, if you raise it with the
>rudder, you just might crash right side up, a much more survivable
>scenario..... Or better yet, recover from the stall as the wings are
>passing through level and fly away.
>
>Tailwinds,
>Doug Rozendaal
>
>
>
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: <groves@epix.net>
The dynon would grey out if you rolled it in your hands to fast, where as
the BM lite was fine. > Kirk RV-8 wings
> >
The roll rate required to make it "greyout" is one serious roll:-)
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
Finish kit
13B Rotary. Hangar flying my Dynon.
http://rvflying.tripod.com
http://rvflying.tripod.com/blackrudder.jpg
do not archive
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: | Lead counter weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: George Neal E Capt AU/PC <Neal.George@MAXWELL.AF.MIL>
Wheel weights and lead shot are both great as a stock for casting your own
counterbalances. Wheel weights can be had for free in any parking lot, or
begged or bought for nearly nothing at your local tire shop. Lead shot from
the reloading store looks expensive, but you'll be surprised how many uses
you'll find for a half-empty bag of shot.
If memory serves, both contain arsenic as a hardening agent - keep your
hands out of your mouth.
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG (tanks)
RV-8 N998GM (Emp)
> You might be able to use used tire weights for the lead <
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: | Lead counter weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Patrick Kelley" <webmaster@flion.com>
I had already bought the Van's molded weights, so I used them for stock.
They may not have fit, but they were the right weight. All the local gun
and sporting shops were out of cauldrons when I was ready to do the weights,
so I went to Target and bought a milk steaming cup - it's what they use at
Starbucks to froth milk for your latte. Not only is it less likely to burn
through than a can, it also has a handle to make it easier to work with. I
only put foil in the corners and, as I poured, I heated the elevator. What
happens is that the lead will pour like mercury and won't fill all the
corners or bond to the elevator. Heating the lead and elevator together
lets it flow into the recesses around the bolt heads and corners and also
'stick' better to the aluminum surfaces. Think of it like heating the work
to let solder flow.
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A - baggage skins going in
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of sears@searnet.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Lead counter weights
--> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
> and double nut a bolt (or two) into the open space. Pour the liquid lead
in
> and then use a drill to remove as much as need to balance. Every local
> plumbing shop has lead, heater, pot & laddle. May not have used them in a
> while but they will have one and someone with okum and the skill to melt &
> fill.
Actually, this is easy to do. I used a coffee can, and maybe a propane
torch to heat it, for my -6A's weights. A friend gave me the lead. Just be
sure you melt lead in a well vented area. I understand the fumes from the
lead aren't good for us. Before pouring the contents into the counter
balance arm, line the area for the weight with aluminum foil to make the
shape and contain the liquid lead. When you're ready to balance the control
surfaces, you can drill out the extra lead, as has already been stated. You
might be able to use used tire weights for the lead, if you're really trying
to do it on the cheap. Not sure about their melting point, though.
Jim Sears in KY
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: Spin Recovery |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
We truly are a nation of immigrants .... we now have a 'foreign
language' section of the 'spins' thread!!! ;-) My hat's off to
those that flew and fought ...... and got paid to fly ...... because I'm
jealous. No, I'm not jealous of being shot at, or shot down etc. .....
I'm jealous because I'm a 'fly-for-fun' guy that never made a nickle off
my flying ..... sigh ...... and never got to fly a real hotrod ....
well, there were two short trips in an F-4 ...... so there's an empty
spot in my experience cabinet. Anyway, I'm glad y'all are still with us
and appreciate your sacrifices.
Linn
do not archive
David Fenstermacher wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>
>Below 240, gear clear...............
>Fuel from the perch.........ahhhhhhhh
>
>Dave
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: rv6tc <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Date: 11/17/2004 10:44:26 PM
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>>
>>Hey.... At least we could land in a cross wind!!
>>
>>Keith Hughes
>>Reese 88-02,
>>T-38 FAIP to Vance (one time good deal!)
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Columbus - the only true instrument rated AF pilots.... cuz the weather
>>>always sucked - on and off duty.
>>>Not like you Vance weenies..........
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
I hesitate to ask this, but -
Did you include a comparison column for "Developer's attitude"? After reading
up on the "Aircraft Wiring for Dummies" fiasco, I felt I had to wipe BM (sorry!)
off my candidate list (even if the product itself is very good). To me, GRT
looks like the best choice under 25k, if it's within one's price range. Little
doubt that's what I'll be installing when the funds come in.
My 2 cents only...
-BB
I suppose JPI makes okay stuff, too, but I have a LONG memory for people taking
cheap shots at Matt 'Lectric Bob, and homebuilders' intelligence in general.
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
If you go with the Dynon, expect a loooong delay. I've been waiting for a
couple of months now. I ordered through Vans and they charged my credit
card immediately. Not real happy about that.
Shemp
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <groves@epix.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> --> RV-List message posted by: <groves@epix.net>
>
> Hi Gerald,
> Not to sart a war or anything BUT, when I was at oshkosh this year I
> looked at both of these units and I must say I was much more impressed
> with the Blue Mountain lite. The dynon would grey out if you rolled it in
> your hands to fast, where as the BM lite was fine. Both are really nice
> units but my impressions of each unit was the BM lite was a superior unit.
> Kirk RV-8 wings
>>
>> From: Gerald Richardson <gerric@shaw.ca>
>> Date: 2004/11/17 Wed PM 07:20:47 EST
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson <gerric@shaw.ca>
>>
>> Greetings:
>>
>> I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
>> studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
>> them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
>> of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
>> installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
>> like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
>> few additional goodies, etc.
>>
>> My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
>> post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
>>
>> Thank you for your comments.
>>
>> Gerald Richardson
>> Medicine Hat, Alberta
>> Canada
>>
>> RV6A 25366
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Spin Recovery |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Hey wait a minute.
First, I was a Laughlin..... weenie
and second, there were 2 cloudy days that year :)
do not archive
Shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
> --> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher"
> <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>
> Ahhh crap.......
> I got used to the "HOOK"
>
> "U" = Unsat for everyone else
>
> Columbus - the only true instrument rated AF pilots.... cuz the weather
> always sucked - on and off duty.
> Not like you Vance weenies..........
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Jeff Dowling <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Date: 11/17/2004 1:16:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
>>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
>> <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>>
>> Lt Fenstermacher, you forgot :
>>
>> Maintain aircraft control
>> Analyze the situation
>> Take appropriate action
>>
>> You get the hook. Duty officer again :)
>>
>> Thats how I remember it anyway.
>>
>> What class were you in? Laughlin 91-09
>>
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> shemp
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
>>
>>
>> > --> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher"
>> > <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>> >
>> > Throttle(s) - Idle
>> > Rudder and Ailerons - neutral.
>> > Stick - abruptly full aft and hold
>> > Rudder - abruptly apply full rudder opposite spin direction, opposite
> turn
>> > neddle and hold
>> > Stick - abruptly forward one turn after applying rudder
>> > Controld neutral and recover from the dive.
>> >
>> > That's my best recollection of the bold face from the Air Force.
>> > Incidentally, why don't they teach bold face in the civilian world?
>> >
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >> [Original Message]
>> >> From: Doug Rozendaal <dougr@petroblend.com>
>> >> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>> >> Date: 11/15/2004 12:01:54 PM
>> >> Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
>> >>
>> >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Doug Rozendaal" <dougr@petroblend.com>
>> >>
>> >> I teach two methods. The first is the Muller-Beggs Emergency Spin
>> > Recover
>> >> Procedure
>> >>
>> >> 1. Cut the throttle.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Take your hand off the stick.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Kick full opposite rudder until the spin stops.
>> >>
>> >> 4. Neutralize rudder and pull out of dive.
>> >>
>> >> The second is the PARE Method
>> >>
>> >> 1. Power, idle
>> >>
>> >> 2. Ailerons, neutral
>> >>
>> >> 3. Rudder, full & opposite the rotation
>> >>
>> >> 4. Elevator, briskly, forward for an upright spin, aft for inverted.
>> >>
>> >> The Beggs method works in most airplanes, but not all. An AT-6
> requires
>> > the
>> >> PARE method if the spin develops, based on hear-say, the RV-6 might be
> in
>> >> that same group. Most instructors teach the Beggs method, because in
> the
>> >> airplanes that most people fly, it works, and has the highest likely
> hood
>> > of
>> >> success.
>> >>
>> >> This all sounds easy, but especially in inverted spins, if you look
> "up"
>> >> (from where you sit, actually down) at the ground, instead of directly
>> > down
>> >> the cowling, evidently it is easy to perceive rotation in the opposite
>> >> direction and several people have been killed because they continued
>> >> to
>> > push
>> >> on the wrong rudder. Some instructors teach "push on the hard rudder"
>> > that
>> >> would be the one that the air loads, due to rotation, are pushing back
> at
>> >> you.
>> >>
>> >> Some airplanes, P-51, do not immediately come out of a spin and may
>> > require
>> >> 1 or 2 additional turns with proper input to stop the rotation. This
>> > would
>> >> require lots of discipline and patience, as well as a tremendous
>> >> amount
>> > of
>> >> confidence in the knowledge that you have the correct rudder input
>> > selected
>> >> while you are waiting for the spinning to stop. FWIW, I have not spun
>> > the
>> >> Mustang, and I do not plan to. The book says if you have not
>> >> recovered
>> > by
>> >> 10,000 feet, get out.
>> >>
>> >> There have been some pretty casual discussions of spins here, one
>> >> thing
>> > not
>> >> even discussed is crossovers, again, I am no expert, but I have done
> this
>> > in
>> >> my T-crate. Upon recovery if you forget to neutralize the rudder and
>> > pull
>> >> the nose up a little hard in the recovery you will spin the opposite
>> >> direction from an accelerated stall and the world will start turning
>> > pretty
>> >> quickly. Also If you move the elevator too aggressively you can flip
>> > from
>> >> an upright stall to an inverted, or vice-versa, spin also. (never
>> >> done
>> >> that, thank you)
>> >>
>> >> None of this is stuff that I would recommend in an RV. I am just
> sharing
>> >> this for the purpose of awareness of the trouble you can get into in a
>> >> responsive little short wing airplane. Spins in a rag tube airplane
> with
>> > an
>> >> enormous wings can be a non-event. We should not transfer that
> cavalier
>> >> attitude about spins to very clean, very responsive airplanes.
>> >>
>> >> One point I failed to make in my last post was about the wing removal
>> > lever.
>> >> An RV-8 at 1550# and 230 mph has 18 Gs available, twice the ultimate
>> >> structural limit. I repeat, these are lousy aerobatic airplanes that
>> > happen
>> >> to do great aerobatics.
>> >>
>> >> Tailwinds,
>> >> Doug Rozendaal
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > --> RV-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>> >> >
>> >> > A lot of discussion here about spin philosophy. How about spin
>> >> > recovery?
>> >> > For us new RV'ers, do any of you old guys have favored techniques to
>> >> > get
>> >> > out of a spin (note that I am completely ignoring the issue of how
> you
>> >> > got there in the first place)? Although a low altitude spin would
> seem
>> >> > to be a fatal endeavor, there has to be a height above ground where
>> >> > a
>> >> > few seconds - or milliseconds - saved in the recovery sequence could
>> >> > make a difference.
>> >> >
>> >> > Paul Valovich
>> >> >
>> >> > Booger
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Spin Recovery |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
FAIP = First Assignment Instructor Pilot
You're teaching your second lieutenenant students while your also a second
lieutenant, at least for a month or so. As a student, most didnt want this
assignment because we all wanted to go out and fly the "real" stuff and to
get the hell out of Air Training Command. In reality, it's a nice
compliment to those chosen by there instructors.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Spin Recovery
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Keith,
>
> OK, I'll bite. What's a T-38 FAIP? I get the T-38 part, and the AIP must
> mean Awesome Instructor Pilot. But what's the "F" for? Don't leave it to
> our imaginations.
>
> Terry
>
> Class 66C, Williams.
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> -> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> Hey.... At least we could land in a cross wind!!
>
> Keith Hughes
> Reese 88-02,
> T-38 FAIP to Vance (one time good deal!)
>
>
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Great suggestion I'll see what I can do.
Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey
Coggins
Hi Scott,
Cool comparison. Pretty much matches my evaluation as well. One
thing you might add to the chart, if you are so inclined, is the
screen size, and perhaps the screen brightness in NITs - if you
can get the suppliers to give you this info.
Thanks,
Mickey
>I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
>and GRT Horizon here:
>http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
>
>I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
>Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
>bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
>really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
>other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
>leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
--
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 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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Those are good points. I pretty much got all I could find off of GRT's website.
I've had a couple of people telling me it will do much more but I can't seem
to find out what "more" is. If you know I'd be glad to put it in there.
My main reason in comparing these three particular EFIS's is small size. Something
that can fitin the panel of an RV-4 without dominating it.
lucky <luckymacy@comcast.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a display
big enough to do split screens. For me it would be at the top of the list if
one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than you originally listed but those curious can go their website
and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they believe is
critical in system to system comparisons and that's the accuracy/stability of
their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands down winner in the under
$10K in my opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
> Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
> dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
> only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
> mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
> That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>
> Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
> my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
>
> David Schaefer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> >
> >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the
> >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
> >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
> >pictures just let me know.
> >
> >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
> >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >David Schaefer
> >N142DS
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
> >
> >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
> >and GRT Horizon here:
> >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
> >
> >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
> >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
> >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
> >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
> >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
> >leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
> >
> >Gerald Richardson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
> >>
> >>Greetings:
> >>
> >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
> >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
> >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
> >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
> >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
> >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
> >>few additional goodies, etc.
> >>
> >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
> >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
> >>
> >>Thank you for your comments.
> >>
> >>Gerald Richardson
> >>Medicine Hat, Alberta
> >>Canada
> >>
> >>RV6A 25366
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen
> Van Arts Consulting Services
> 3848 McHenry Ave
> Suite #155-184
> Modesto, CA 95356
> 209-986-4647
> Ps 34:4,6
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a display
big enough to do split screens.For meit would be at the top of the list if one
was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than youoriginally listed but those curious can go their website
and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they believe is
critical in system to system comparisons and that's the accuracy/stability of
their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands down winner inthe under $10K
inmy opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-)
David Schaefer wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger some
one, BUT the
GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
pictures just let me know.
The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
Regards,
David Schaefer
N142DS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS L
ite, Dynon D10A,
and GRT Horizon here:
http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
Gerald Richardson wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
Greetings:
I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both
of
them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a
few additional goodies, etc.
My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
Thank you for your comments.
Gerald Richardson
Medicine Hat, Alberta
Canada
RV6A 25366
--
Scott VanArtsdal
en
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
il Forum -
atronics.com/emaillists
--
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 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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
:-) Sorry, I couldn't find that on any of the manufacturer's websites or trust
me it would be there. :-) :-)
I'm trying to be as objective as possible. But I do definately want people's experiences
with support of their chosen product when my time comes to purchase.
SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
I hesitate to ask this, but -
Did you include a comparison column for "Developer's attitude"? After reading up
on the "Aircraft Wiring for Dummies" fiasco, I felt I had to wipe BM (sorry!)
off my candidate list (even if the product itself is very good). To me, GRT
looks like the best choice under 25k, if it's within one's price range. Little
doubt that's what I'll be installing when the funds come in.
My 2 cents only...
-BB
I suppose JPI makes okay stuff, too, but I have a LONG memory for people taking
cheap shots at Matt 'Lectric Bob, and homebuilders' intelligence in general.
--
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 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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Thanks Dan, yes I had read the Vans Service Bulletin. But now that there
are
> probably quite a few RV7 and RV7A flying I thought it would be good to get
> some real world feedback on spin recovery with the new rudder. Surely
> some-one out there can enlighten us with their experience.
Are you going to spin yours? Almost everybody I've spoken to, at least
locally, has not spun their RV and has no plans to do so. You may be
hard-pressed to find the person you're looking for. And even if you do find
somebody who has spun it, can you really take their word for how it behaves?
Why not take Van's word for it?
do not archive
)_( Dan
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Canopy Protection |
--> RV-List message posted by: JTAnon@aol.com
Does anyone have a source/supplier for the protective plastic sheeting on the
canopy? I'm talking about the film on the canopy when you first get it.
I'm not interested in the spray or brush on type (I believe it's called
Spray-Lat).
John McDonnell (RV7A Slider - The $1,000 cut was successful)
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>
> If you go with the Dynon, expect a loooong delay. I've been waiting for a
> couple of months now. I ordered through Vans and they charged my credit
> card immediately. Not real happy about that.
(((((((((((( You should not be happy with that. I believe there is
a credit law that says your credit card cannot be charged too far in advance
of the shipment date. I used to know the specifics, but have forgotten over
the years.
Larry in Indiana))))))))))))))))
>
> Shemp
>
> do not archive
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spin Recovery |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Yup. Although I really like Terry's version better! Back in 66C they were
called "plowbacks". The worst part was that they held your "real"
assignment over your head for four and a half years. When it was time for
my assignment, we only had one guy get a fighter... and he waited 7 1/2
years, and was Stan-Eval. But the -38 was a fantastic machine. If I ever
hit Powerball, I'm buying one.
By the way, Shemp..... did you buy a boat?!?!?
Keith
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>
> FAIP = First Assignment Instructor Pilot
>
> You're teaching your second lieutenenant students while your also a second
> lieutenant, at least for a month or so. As a student, most didnt want
> this
> assignment because we all wanted to go out and fly the "real" stuff and to
> get the hell out of Air Training Command. In reality, it's a nice
> compliment to those chosen by there instructors.
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
> Shemp
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>>
>> Keith,
>>
>> OK, I'll bite. What's a T-38 FAIP? I get the T-38 part, and the AIP
>> must
>> mean Awesome Instructor Pilot. But what's the "F" for? Don't leave it to
>> our imaginations.
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> Class 66C, Williams.
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lead counter weights |
--> RV-List message posted by: "steve zicree" <szicree@adelphia.net>
Gun stores sell lead shot in a little tiny size that make measuring and
melting a snap. Very cheap too.
----- Original Message -----
From: <sears@searnet.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Lead counter weights
> --> RV-List message posted by: <sears@searnet.com>
>
>
> > and double nut a bolt (or two) into the open space. Pour the liquid lead
> in
> > and then use a drill to remove as much as need to balance. Every local
> > plumbing shop has lead, heater, pot & laddle. May not have used them in
a
> > while but they will have one and someone with okum and the skill to melt
&
> > fill.
>
> Actually, this is easy to do. I used a coffee can, and maybe a propane
> torch to heat it, for my -6A's weights. A friend gave me the lead. Just
be
> sure you melt lead in a well vented area. I understand the fumes from the
> lead aren't good for us. Before pouring the contents into the counter
> balance arm, line the area for the weight with aluminum foil to make the
> shape and contain the liquid lead. When you're ready to balance the
control
> surfaces, you can drill out the extra lead, as has already been stated.
You
> might be able to use used tire weights for the lead, if you're really
trying
> to do it on the cheap. Not sure about their melting point, though.
> Jim Sears in KY
>
>
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: | Spin impact this week, a Skybolt has a story to tell |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_1115_Y.txt
Read the text on this Skybolt accident this week.
Notice he failed to recover from a spin and impacted the trees, with
minor injuries.
WOW, minor injuries.
Probably indicative of the low decent rates of spins. Of course the
devil is in the details. But how many landings right into trees result
in minor injuries? Are you more likely to survive spinning into them?
Is this a way to handle an engine out land at night in the mountains?
Spin into the trees? Just a thought.
The ole stories of guys spinning to get under decks was very
interesting.
Mike
Suit is donned. Eyes peering out:-)
Do not archive
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 11/17/04 |
--> RV-List message posted by: PSPRV6A@aol.com
Anchor nut torque: Anchor nuts can be easily conditioned to have a bit less
torque. Get a socket type set screw of the same size. Grease it and run it
thru the anchor nut. This is easier AFTER it has been rivetted in place. Set
scews have a slightly larger effective diameter than standard screws. This
will usually reduce screw torque to a reasonable level.
Paul & Eric Petersen, RV6A 90% done
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Marty" <martorious@earthlink.net>
If you hit the powerball, I want a ride! The T-38 and corresponding F-5 are
the sexiest military jets out there, (ok, with the possible exception of the
F-16) IMHO.
Marty
Do not archive
>--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
(snip)
>But the -38 was a fantastic machine. If I ever
>hit Powerball, I'm buying one.
>
>
>Keith
>
>Do not archive
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Forced Landing. (long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Was your primer in and locked? Finctioning properly? Leaking? Manual,
electric?
Guess you would have figured this out by now, but you should keep it on the
troubleshooting radar or rule it out.
2 cents
Bryan Jones
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
> >
> > My guesses on cause are 1) carb ice (flying under an overcast at low
> > altitude is where I got my first carb ice incident - if OAT is 65 or
>less,
> > you are in "prime conditions" - you did pull on carb heat, didn't you,
>when
> > it started running rough? Seems like I heard you talking about playing
>with
> > the "mixture" a lot and I don't remember hearing about carb heat) and 2)
> > fuel line heating and vaporization prior to the carb - something not
> > shielded from exhaust heat. The other inputs of "debris" etc causing
> > flooding due to float/valve interference are probably closer to the
>truth.
> >
> > David Carter
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>If this is a guessing game, I rule out carb ice because...
>
>1. Lycomings seldom require carb heat due to their inherent design.
>2. If pulling the throttle back smoothed things out, it indicates that the
>fuel system could not deliver sufficient fuel for full throttle operation.
>
>My guess is restricted fuel flow....with no idea of the cause.
>
>
>Bob
>
>
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: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Another 2 cents from the cheap seats here in Houston...
Having done a little freelance instruction (civillian), it's my opinion that
pulling the power on a (single) propeller driven AC is the one big item to
be done first. It'll stop the rotation itself a lot fo the time.
If you're already at low power, the do as shown below.
Last - IMVHO, pilots need to see the picture of a spin 4-6 times before they
can grasp what's happening. Before this time, the senses and visula
overwhelm the brain. Get some spin training in something to the point you
develop situational awareness and can recover.
One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin recovery]),
I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have to
try it next time I'm out though.
Bryan
>Ive been gone for 5 days and didnt get to add my 2 cents.
>
>Actual practice of spins or not, your choice. However, I think at the very
>least you should "chair fly" the recovery over and over until its
>completely
>repeatable without hesitation. I admit I havent tried spinning my 6a yet,
>and like many others on this list who have been trained by the Air Force in
>spin recovery, Im not sure if I will due to the lack of consistent recovery
>techniques. Vans has stated that recovery occurs in 1 1/4 to 1 1/2
>rotations with opposite rudder and "toward neutral" elevator. I was always
>drilled to SLAM the stick to the forward stop but that was in a T-37. For
>those who have done multiple spin testing in the 6a, how does this sound.
>
>Start wit a fwd cg and empty airplane. As you approach stall, push full
>rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin:
>
>1. Power - idle
>2. Ail - neutral
>3. Stick - Full aft
>4. Confirm spin direction with needle
>5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction
>6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I
>would
>try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full forward
>stick to see if it will break the stall
>
>I'll wait to hear from those who have spun it before trying.
>
>In training, we sat in a cockpit makeup and did this procedure hundreds of
>times until it was second nature. If you ever end up in an inadvertent
>spin, you dont want to be in catch up mode. Just force yourself to repeat
>what you've already practiced. Idle, neutral, aft, spinning left (or
>right), needle left(or right), hard opposite rudder, wait, then stick
>forward (still wondering to what extent).
>
>So who wants to go with me for some spins?
>
>Shemp
>
>
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: | gluing canopy to frame |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne Pedersen" <wayne@pedersentransport.com>
I am just about ready to glue my canopy to the tip up frame on my RV7a. To
those of you who have ventured into this area I need to know if you glued
the sides of the canopy to the rails and then riveted the canopy skirts on
OR did you rivet the canopy skirts and then wedged the glue and canopy into
the slot ? I would prefer to glue the canopy and rivet after but have a fear
that the vibration from riveting may cause too much stress on the canopy. If
you have any other helpful tips I am all ears (or is that eyes?)
Thanks
Wayne
Southern AB
RV7a canopy
---
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: | Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us
So, why didn't you compare the Blue Mountain Sport? It is sized and priced
like the GRT, but a somewhat different product in that it focuses on
navigation rather than engine instruments as it's additional feature set and
it has terrain data? Just curious....
Kathleen Evans
www.rv7.us
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vanartsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Those are good points. I pretty much got all I could find off of GRT's
website. I've had a couple of people telling me it will do much more but I
can't seem to find out what "more" is. If you know I'd be glad to put it in
there.
My main reason in comparing these three particular EFIS's is small size.
Something that can fitin the panel of an RV-4 without dominating it.
lucky <luckymacy@comcast.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
display big enough to do split screens. For me it would be at the top of the
list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than you originally listed but those curious can go their
website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
down winner in the under $10K in my opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
> Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
> dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
> only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
> mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
> That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>
> Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
> my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
>
> David Schaefer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> >
> >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT
the
> >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
> >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
> >pictures just let me know.
> >
> >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a
24nm
> >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >David Schaefer
> >N142DS
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
VanArtsdalen
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
> >
> >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
> >and GRT Horizon here:
> >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
> >
> >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
> >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
> >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
> >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
> >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
> >leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
> >
> >Gerald Richardson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
> >>
> >>Greetings:
> >>
> >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
> >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
> >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
> >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
> >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
> >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
> >>few additional goodies, etc.
> >>
> >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
> >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
> >>
> >>Thank you for your comments.
> >>
> >>Gerald Richardson
> >>Medicine Hat, Alberta
> >>Canada
> >>
> >>RV6A 25366
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen
> Van Arts Consulting Services
> 3848 McHenry Ave
> Suite #155-184
> Modesto, CA 95356
> 209-986-4647
> Ps 34:4,6
>
>
>
>
>
>
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
display big enough to do split screens.For meit would be at the top of the
list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than youoriginally listed but those curious can go their
website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
down winner inthe under $10K inmy opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-)
David Schaefer wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger some
one, BUT the
GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
pictures just let me know.
The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
Regards,
David Schaefer
N142DS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS L
ite, Dynon D10A,
and GRT Horizon here:
http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
Gerald Richardson wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
Greetings:
I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both
of
them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a
few additional goodies, etc.
My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
Thank you for your comments.
Gerald Richardson
Medicine Hat, Alberta
Canada
RV6A 25366
--
Scott VanArtsdal
en
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
il Forum -
atronics.com/emaillists
--
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: "Bob Barrow" <bobbarrow@optusnet.com.au>
Dan, in all honesty I could not feel in any way comfortable doing any
aerobatic manouevres in any plane in which I had not practiced and perfected
at least a one rotation spin recovery.
I'm not proposing fully developed spins in an RV as an aerobatic maneouvre
per se.....just enough technique development to get out of trouble. It's
Catch 22 actually...it's a bit unsafe practicing spin recovery....and it's a
bit unsafe not to. But most people with an aerobatic endorsement will always
prefer the devil they know.
OK, so has anybody else out there practiced spin recovery in the RV7 with
the new rudder and lived to tell the tale.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: No RV7 spin
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>> Thanks Dan, yes I had read the Vans Service Bulletin. But now that there
> are
>> probably quite a few RV7 and RV7A flying I thought it would be good to
>> get
>> some real world feedback on spin recovery with the new rudder. Surely
>> some-one out there can enlighten us with their experience.
>
> Are you going to spin yours? Almost everybody I've spoken to, at least
> locally, has not spun their RV and has no plans to do so. You may be
> hard-pressed to find the person you're looking for. And even if you do
> find
> somebody who has spun it, can you really take their word for how it
> behaves?
> Why not take Van's word for it?
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
>
>
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill VonDane <bill@vondane.com>
it will do engine monitoring too I believe...
-Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <Kathleen@rv7.us>
Subject: RE: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
--> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us
So, why didn't you compare the Blue Mountain Sport? It is sized and priced
like the GRT, but a somewhat different product in that it focuses on
navigation rather than engine instruments as it's additional feature set and
it has terrain data? Just curious....
Kathleen Evans
www.rv7.us
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vanartsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Those are good points. I pretty much got all I could find off of GRT's
website. I've had a couple of people telling me it will do much more but I
can't seem to find out what "more" is. If you know I'd be glad to put it in
there.
My main reason in comparing these three particular EFIS's is small size.
Something that can fitin the panel of an RV-4 without dominating it.
lucky <luckymacy@comcast.net> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
display big enough to do split screens. For me it would be at the top of the
list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than you originally listed but those curious can go their
website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
down winner in the under $10K in my opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
> Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
> dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
> only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
> mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
> That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>
> Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
> my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
>
> David Schaefer wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> >
> >I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT
the
> >GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
> >behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
> >pictures just let me know.
> >
> >The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a
24nm
> >zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >David Schaefer
> >N142DS
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
VanArtsdalen
> >To: rv-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> >
> >--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
> >
> >I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
> >and GRT Horizon here:
> >http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
> >
> >I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
> >Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
> >bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
> >really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
> >other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
> >leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
> >
> >Gerald Richardson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
> >>
> >>Greetings:
> >>
> >>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
> >>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
> >>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
> >>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
> >>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
> >>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
> >>few additional goodies, etc.
> >>
> >>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
> >>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
> >>
> >>Thank you for your comments.
> >>
> >>Gerald Richardson
> >>Medicine Hat, Alberta
> >>Canada
> >>
> >>RV6A 25366
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Scott VanArtsdalen
> Van Arts Consulting Services
> 3848 McHenry Ave
> Suite #155-184
> Modesto, CA 95356
> 209-986-4647
> Ps 34:4,6
>
>
I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
display big enough to do split screens.For meit would be at the top of the
list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
GRT's does do more than youoriginally listed but those curious can go their
website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
down winner inthe under $10K inmy opinion.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-)
David Schaefer wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger some
one, BUT the
GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
pictures just let me know.
The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
Regards,
David Schaefer
N142DS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS L
ite, Dynon D10A,
and GRT Horizon here:
http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
Gerald Richardson wrote:
-- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
Greetings:
I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both
of
them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a
few additional goodies, etc.
My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
Thank you for your comments.
Gerald Richardson
Medicine Hat, Alberta
Canada
RV6A 25366
--
Scott VanArtsdal
en
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
il Forum -
atronics.com/emaillists
--
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 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 |
|
11/18/2004 03:46:26 PM,
Serialize complete at 11/18/2004 03:46:26 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
I'm not an instructor, but I have spun 3 different aircraft, and all of my
spins have been intentional (mostly). One concen I have with going stick
full aft in a light GA aircraft is that if you are wrong and you are
really in a spiral, going stick full aft will tighten the spiral and
probably remove the wings.
Once I had spin training, being able to tell that the G's were very high
and I was in a spiral was obvious, but early on I may not have been able
to tell in the excitment of the moment.
Scott
"RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
11/18/2004 01:16 PM
Please respond to rv-list
To: rv-list@matronics.com
cc:
Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin
recovery]),
I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have to
try it next time I'm out though.
Bryan
>rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin:
>
>1. Power - idle
>2. Ail - neutral
>3. Stick - Full aft
>4. Confirm spin direction with needle
>5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction
>6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I
>would
>try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full
forward
>stick to see if it will break the stall
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
<snip>
>The dynon would grey out if you rolled it in your hands to fast, where as
>the BM lite was fine.
<snip>
I'm repeating myself, but felt compelled to chime in. Been flying with a
Dynon in my -8 for 30-40 hrs. All is good - no drift, roll or other issues.
The (my) Dynon will "gray" out when spinning the plane - anyone want to talk
about spins?! ;) But mine has *never* lost its attitude orientation that
I've noticed.
If you cannot make the BM Lite indicate something similar in your hands,
then I'd say it has no similar feature of indicating an excessive attitude
change rate. But I'm guessing.
One day I might go with the other devices if they prove to be all they
advertise. They sound promising.
Bryan
do not archive
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:was Spin Recovery- not rv related |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
Not yet. Still looking though. Im building a house at an airpark South of
Chicago and am looking into the crystal ball to see how the bank will hold
up. Were also in negotiations now. Need to save a bit for that as well.
Shemp
How did you know about the boat?
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Spin Recovery
> --> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
>
> Yup. Although I really like Terry's version better! Back in 66C they
> were
> called "plowbacks". The worst part was that they held your "real"
> assignment over your head for four and a half years. When it was time for
> my assignment, we only had one guy get a fighter... and he waited 7 1/2
> years, and was Stan-Eval. But the -38 was a fantastic machine. If I ever
> hit Powerball, I'm buying one.
>
> By the way, Shemp..... did you buy a boat?!?!?
>
> Keith
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling"
>> <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
>>
>> FAIP = First Assignment Instructor Pilot
>>
>> You're teaching your second lieutenenant students while your also a
>> second
>> lieutenant, at least for a month or so. As a student, most didnt want
>> this
>> assignment because we all wanted to go out and fly the "real" stuff and
>> to
>> get the hell out of Air Training Command. In reality, it's a nice
>> compliment to those chosen by there instructors.
>>
>> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>>
>> Shemp
>>
>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>>>
>>> Keith,
>>>
>>> OK, I'll bite. What's a T-38 FAIP? I get the T-38 part, and the AIP
>>> must
>>> mean Awesome Instructor Pilot. But what's the "F" for? Don't leave it
>>> to
>>> our imaginations.
>>>
>>> Terry
>>>
>>> Class 66C, Williams.
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spin impact this week, a Skybolt has a story to tell |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jeff Dowling" <shempdowling@earthlink.net>
I'll bet his descent rate was a bunch lower than an RV in a spin.
do not archive
Shemp
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Subject: RV-List: Spin impact this week, a Skybolt has a story to tell
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
> <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/M_1115_Y.txt
>
>
> Read the text on this Skybolt accident this week.
>
> Notice he failed to recover from a spin and impacted the trees, with
> minor injuries.
>
> WOW, minor injuries.
>
> Probably indicative of the low decent rates of spins. Of course the
> devil is in the details. But how many landings right into trees result
> in minor injuries? Are you more likely to survive spinning into them?
>
> Is this a way to handle an engine out land at night in the mountains?
> Spin into the trees? Just a thought.
>
>
> The ole stories of guys spinning to get under decks was very
> interesting.
>
>
> Mike
>
> Suit is donned. Eyes peering out:-)
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
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: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Come sit in my RV-4 some time and you'll understand. My opinion is that
in an RV-4, less is more.
Kathleen@rv7.us wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us
>
>So, why didn't you compare the Blue Mountain Sport? It is sized and priced
>like the GRT, but a somewhat different product in that it focuses on
>navigation rather than engine instruments as it's additional feature set and
>it has terrain data? Just curious....
>
>Kathleen Evans
>www.rv7.us
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott Vanartsdalen
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Vanartsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
>
>Those are good points. I pretty much got all I could find off of GRT's
>website. I've had a couple of people telling me it will do much more but I
>can't seem to find out what "more" is. If you know I'd be glad to put it in
>there.
>
>My main reason in comparing these three particular EFIS's is small size.
>Something that can fitin the panel of an RV-4 without dominating it.
>
>lucky <luckymacy@comcast.net> wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
>display big enough to do split screens. For me it would be at the top of the
>list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
>
>http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
>
>GRT's does do more than you originally listed but those curious can go their
>website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
>believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
>accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
>down winner in the under $10K in my opinion.
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>>
>>Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
>>dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
>>only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
>>mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
>>That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>>
>>Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
>>my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
>>
>>David Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
>>>
>>>I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT
>>>
>>>
>the
>
>
>>>GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
>>>behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
>>>pictures just let me know.
>>>
>>>The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a
>>>
>>>
>24nm
>
>
>>>zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>David Schaefer
>>>N142DS
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott
>>>
>>>
>VanArtsdalen
>
>
>>>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
>>>
>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>>>
>>>I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
>>>and GRT Horizon here:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
>>>
>>>I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
>>>Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
>>>bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
>>>really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
>>>other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
>>>leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
>>>
>>>Gerald Richardson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
>>>>
>>>>Greetings:
>>>>
>>>>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
>>>>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
>>>>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
>>>>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
>>>>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
>>>>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
>>>>few additional goodies, etc.
>>>>
>>>>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
>>>>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you for your comments.
>>>>
>>>>Gerald Richardson
>>>>Medicine Hat, Alberta
>>>>Canada
>>>>
>>>>RV6A 25366
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>Scott VanArtsdalen
>>Van Arts Consulting Services
>>3848 McHenry Ave
>>Suite #155-184
>>Modesto, CA 95356
>>209-986-4647
>>Ps 34:4,6
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think what's missing most is the significance of being able to have a
>display big enough to do split screens.For meit would be at the top of the
>list if one was designing a single MFD panel. You can see examples at:
>
>http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/GRT_EFIS/lst
>
>GRT's does do more than youoriginally listed but those curious can go their
>website and read more. They also have a comparison chart for what they
>believe is critical in system to system comparisons and that's the
>accuracy/stability of their roll/pitch info. So far, theirs is the hands
>down winner inthe under $10K inmy opinion.
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
>-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
>Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
>dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
>only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
>mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
>That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
>
>Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
>my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? :-)
>
>David Schaefer wrote:
>
>-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
>
>I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger some
>one, BUT the
>GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
>behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
>pictures just let me know.
>
>The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
>zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
>
>Regards,
>
>David Schaefer
>N142DS
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
>
>-- RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen
>
>I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS L
>ite, Dynon D10A,
>and GRT Horizon here:
>http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
>
>I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
>Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
>bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
>really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
>other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
>leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
>
>Gerald Richardson wrote:
>
>
>-- RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson
>
>Greetings:
>
>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both
>of
>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
>like to have the capability of the attitude directional gyros, plus a
>few additional goodies, etc.
>
>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
>
>Thank you for your comments.
>
>Gerald Richardson
>Medicine Hat, Alberta
>Canada
>
>RV6A 25366
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
Pushing the stick forward:
The idea here is not to have down elevator, but to expose more of the
rudder for the recovery.
Dave
do not archive
> [Original Message]
> From: <Scott.Fink@microchip.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 11/18/2004 5:46:29 PM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
>
> I'm not an instructor, but I have spun 3 different aircraft, and all of
my
> spins have been intentional (mostly). One concen I have with going stick
> full aft in a light GA aircraft is that if you are wrong and you are
> really in a spiral, going stick full aft will tighten the spiral and
> probably remove the wings.
>
> Once I had spin training, being able to tell that the G's were very high
> and I was in a spiral was obvious, but early on I may not have been able
> to tell in the excitment of the moment.
>
> Scott
>
>
> "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
> Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> 11/18/2004 01:16 PM
> Please respond to rv-list
>
>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> cc:
> Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>
>
> One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin
> recovery]),
> I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have
to
>
> try it next time I'm out though.
>
> Bryan
>
>
> >rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin:
> >
> >1. Power - idle
> >2. Ail - neutral
> >3. Stick - Full aft
> >4. Confirm spin direction with needle
> >5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction
> >6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I
> >would
> >try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full
> forward
> >stick to see if it will break the stall
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <larywil@comcast.net>
Hi gang,
Most of us have been following this thread for the past week, and most of
us have learned a few things from these discussions. However, no one has
yet mentioned the name of Herman Dierks. I have never met Herman, but we
corresponded several years ago when I first decided to try spinning my -4.
Herman is a very serious and competent IAC aerobatic competitor. He owned
an RV-4 and actually did a study on the spin characteristics of his
aircraft. I think that everyone on this list who has an interest in spins
in an RV should read his posts of March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996. You
mmight want to read them twice. They are loaded with information. The two
things I took away from his post are (1) the RV-4 enters and recovers from
spins using standard techniques. Its spin rate is faster and it take a
little longer to recover, but it is pretty standard. And (2), keep the
stick back when giving anti-spin rudder. Popping the stick will increase
the spin rate appreciably, and probably put you into an inverted spin. A
recent post mentioned that pulling the stick back might pull the wings off
if you are in a spiral instead of a spin. My first thought about this
statement is that you had to have had the stick pretty far back to get into
the spin ( we're talking now about practice of standard spins and
recovery), therefore you are not pulling the stick back. You are simply
keeping it back. In a conversation with Herman several years ago, He said
that keeping the stick back keeps the nose up a little and keeps the spin
rate down.
By the way, Herman's test showed that the decent rate in a spinning RV-4 is
about 100 mph or about 9000 ft/ min.
Lastly, there is another expert on this list. Matt ( Big D) Dralle. Matt's
archives retain Herman Dierks' post. So I was able to bring them up. Here
they are:
From: <mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>dierks@austin.ibm.com
Subject:
<http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=11922402?KEYS=spins_&_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=79?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Some
accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
'15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
this was a spiral and not a spin.
I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
Lost altitude is 3,500 ft.
Turns 10 turns
Recovery 1.5 turns
Total turns then is 11.5
Time per turn 2.0 seconds
Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft.
This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick to
straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
The G-meter was reading 1 G.
My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
(you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
So, what can be concluded from all of this?
1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
would be a major problem.
3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a
minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
of recovering with some margin for error.
Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
would probably give vertigo.
4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
an instructor, you will probably panic.
I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall
off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
1 turn at a time.
I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information
at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
get a couple of samples to verify it.
6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
does to the spin rate and descent rate.
Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here
it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
Herman
From: <mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>dierks@austin.ibm.com
Subject:
<http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=12187866?KEYS=spins_&_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=76?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Update
to Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
As I noted in my last posting on the spin results,
I wanted to see what adding full power would do to the
spin rate and sink rate. In general, adding power will 'flatten'
the spin as it causes the nose to raise up.
I let the first 3 turns spin with power off and then brought up
full power on the third turn. I timed the next 3 turns at 6.8 seconds.
The nose comes up a little and the rate slows a little.
This compares to 6.2 seconds for 3 turns with power-off so it only
slows the turn down about .2 second per turn. I did not get a
good reading on the sink rate. After 4 turns with full power,
I cut the power back to idle. This causes the nose to to drop again
and the rotation rate increases for about 2 turns until the plane is
back in equilibrium again. The RV4 behaved very similar to the Pitts
as I have done similar spin tests with the Pitts.
In looking back over the original data, I see that it takes right at
30 seconds for the 10 turn spin plus 1.5 turns to recover and consumes
3,500 ft of altitude. This would work out to 7,000 ft/min descent rate.
That is probably a better statistic as it averages 11.5 turns.
In the cockpit, the rate appeared to be very close to 300 ft per
2 second turn which translates to 9,000 ft/second.
I expect one can not read the altimeter to +/- 50 ft in these
conditions so 50 ft in 2 seconds would be an error of 1,500 ft/min.
So, lets just say the rate is 7,000 ft/min minimum.
(I added these changes to the attached note below).
One other interesting think happened in the last set of spins this
week end. I did two spins at idle power just as I had done the previous
week. This time however, the engine quit both times after about 4 or 5
turns.
The only think I know that was different is that I was on the Left
fuel tank this time (and on the Right tank last time). Also the plane
was close to full fuel where before it had about 1/4 fuel.
The spins were to the left so the left wing is down. Thinking back
on this, I suspect it was not getting fuel as in the left wing down
for a left spin, the pickup tube may have been sucking air.
The one thing that conflicts with this however is that I was able
to do a full power spin when I bought up the power in the 3rd turn.
Maybe bringing up the power flattened the spin enough to cause it
to suck fuel. The tank was at least 3/4 full.
If I ever do this again, I will check the fuel pressure next time
it happens.
It also took about 2 turns to recover with the prop stopped. Then
a bump of the starter refired the engine (thankfully).
Herman
>
> A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
> One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
> 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
> 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
> Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
> '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
> this was a spiral and not a spin.
> I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
> I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
>
> My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
> so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
> The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
> My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
>
> I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
> went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
>
> Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
> Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
>
Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. in 30 seconds (this would be 7,500 ft/min)
> Turns 10 turnsk
> Recovery 1.5 turns
> Total turns then is 11.5
> Time per turn 2.0 seconds
Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. (as observed in the cockpit)
> This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder
kick to
> straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
> at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
> the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
>
> The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
> The G-meter was reading 1 G.
> My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
> I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
> That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
> The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
> That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
> per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
> the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
>
> So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
> would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
> Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
>
> So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
> The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
>
> One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
> the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
> The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
> (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
> hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
> the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
> a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
> This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
> At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
> forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
>
> Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
> You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
> confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
>
> So, what can be concluded from all of this?
> 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
> 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
> would be a major problem.
> 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
> is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
> a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
> caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
> the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a
> minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
> of recovering with some margin for error.
> Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
> full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
> would probably give vertigo.
> 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
> of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
> There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
> improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
> an instructor, you will probably panic.
> I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
> a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
> cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
> spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
> planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall
> off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
> angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
> Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
> will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
> so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
> If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
> spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
> 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
> over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
> Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
> that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
> If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
> 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
> 1 turn at a time.
> I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
> spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
> some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
> stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
> how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
> counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
> Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
> I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information
> at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
> turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
> get a couple of samples to verify it.
>
> 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
> does to the spin rate and descent rate.
>
>
> Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here
> it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
>
> Herman
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
I meant aft and up
> [Original Message]
> From: <Scott.Fink@microchip.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 11/18/2004 5:46:29 PM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
>
> I'm not an instructor, but I have spun 3 different aircraft, and all of
my
> spins have been intentional (mostly). One concen I have with going stick
> full aft in a light GA aircraft is that if you are wrong and you are
> really in a spiral, going stick full aft will tighten the spiral and
> probably remove the wings.
>
> Once I had spin training, being able to tell that the G's were very high
> and I was in a spiral was obvious, but early on I may not have been able
> to tell in the excitment of the moment.
>
> Scott
>
>
> "RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
> Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> 11/18/2004 01:16 PM
> Please respond to rv-list
>
>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> cc:
> Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>
>
> One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin
> recovery]),
> I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have
to
>
> try it next time I'm out though.
>
> Bryan
>
>
> >rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin:
> >
> >1. Power - idle
> >2. Ail - neutral
> >3. Stick - Full aft
> >4. Confirm spin direction with needle
> >5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction
> >6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I
> >would
> >try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full
> forward
> >stick to see if it will break the stall
> >
>
>
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: SPINS in an RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Herman, that's a name from the past. Herman, you still out there? Where's he been
hiding for the past few years? I remember him. In fact, I used to have a
link to in cockpit video of someone spinning the hell out of an RV-4 multiple
times and I think it was him. Really cool video. I can't find it though anymore.
Anyone else still have that link?
I wonder if he sold his RV is on to other stuff. Anyone know for sure?
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig
>
> Hi gang,
>
> Most of us have been following this thread for the past week, and most of
> us have learned a few things from these discussions. However, no one has
> yet mentioned the name of Herman Dierks. I have never met Herman, but we
> corresponded several years ago when I first decided to try spinning my -4.
> Herman is a very serious and competent IAC aerobatic competitor. He owned
> an RV-4 and actually did a study on the spin characteristics of his
> aircraft. I think that everyone on this list who has an interest in spins
> in an RV should read his posts of March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996. You
> mmight want to read them twice. They are loaded with information. The two
> things I took away from his post are (1) the RV-4 enters and recovers from
> spins using standard techniques. Its spin rate is faster and it take a
> little longer to recover, but it is pretty standard. And (2), keep the
> stick back when giving anti-spin rudder. Popping the stick will increase
> the spin rate appreciably, and probably put you into an inverted spin. A
> recent post mentioned that pulling the stick back might pull the wings off
> if you are in a spiral instead of a spin. My first thought about this
> statement is that you had to have had the stick pretty far back to get into
> the spin ( we're talking now about practice of standard spins and
> recovery), therefore you are not pulling the stick back. You are simply
> keeping it back. In a conversation with Herman several years ago, He said
> that keeping the stick back keeps the nose up a little and keeps the spin
> rate down.
>
> By the way, Herman's test showed that the decent rate in a spinning RV-4 is
> about 100 mph or about 9000 ft/ min.
>
> Lastly, there is another expert on this list. Matt ( Big D) Dralle. Matt's
> archives retain Herman Dierks' post. So I was able to bring them up. Here
> they are:
>
>
> From: dierks@austin.ibm.com
> Subject:
> > &_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=79?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Some
> accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
> Date: Mar 12, 1996
>
>
> A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
> One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
> 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
> 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
> Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
> '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
> this was a spiral and not a spin.
> I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
> I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
>
> My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
> so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
> The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
> My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
>
> I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
>
> went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
>
> Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
> Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
>
> Lost altitude is 3,500 ft.
> Turns 10 turns
> Recovery 1.5 turns
> Total turns then is 11.5
> Time per turn 2.0 seconds
> Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft.
> This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick to
> straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
> at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
> the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
>
> The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
> The G-meter was reading 1 G.
> My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
> I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
> That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
> The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
> That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
> per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
> the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
>
> So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
> would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
> Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
>
> So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
> The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
>
> One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
> the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
> The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
> (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
> hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
> the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
> a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
> This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
> At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
> forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
>
> Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
> You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
> confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
>
> So, what can be concluded from all of this?
> 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
> 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
> would be a major problem.
> 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
> is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
> a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
> caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
> the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a
> minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
> of recovering with some margin for error.
> Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
> full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
> would probably give vertigo.
> 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
> of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
> There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
> improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
> an instructor, you will probably panic.
> I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
> a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
> cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
> spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
> planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall
> off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
> angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
> Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
> will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
> so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
> If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
> spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
> 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
> over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
> Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
> that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
> If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
> 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
> 1 turn at a time.
> I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
> spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
> some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
> stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
> how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
> counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
> Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
> I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information
> at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
> turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
> get a couple of samples to verify it.
>
> 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
> does to the spin rate and descent rate.
>
>
> Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here
> it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
>
> Herman
>
>
> From: dierks@austin.ibm.com
> Subject:
> > &_rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=76?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NO>Update
> to Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
> Date: Mar 18, 1996
>
>
> As I noted in my last posting on the spin results,
> I wanted to see what adding full power would do to the
> spin rate and sink rate. In general, adding power will 'flatten'
> the spin as it causes the nose to raise up.
>
> I let the first 3 turns spin with power off and then brought up
> full power on the third turn. I timed the next 3 turns at 6.8 seconds.
> The nose comes up a little and the rate slows a little.
> This compares to 6.2 seconds for 3 turns with power-off so it only
> slows the turn down about .2 second per turn. I did not get a
> good reading on the sink rate. After 4 turns with full power,
> I cut the power back to idle. This causes the nose to to drop again
> and the rotation rate increases for about 2 turns until the plane is
> back in equilibrium again. The RV4 behaved very similar to the Pitts
> as I have done similar spin tests with the Pitts.
>
> In looking back over the original data, I see that it takes right at
> 30 seconds for the 10 turn spin plus 1.5 turns to recover and consumes
> 3,500 ft of altitude. This would work out to 7,000 ft/min descent rate.
> That is probably a better statistic as it averages 11.5 turns.
> In the cockpit, the rate appeared to be very close to 300 ft per
> 2 second turn which translates to 9,000 ft/second.
> I expect one can not read the altimeter to +/- 50 ft in these
> conditions so 50 ft in 2 seconds would be an error of 1,500 ft/min.
> So, lets just say the rate is 7,000 ft/min minimum.
> (I added these changes to the attached note below).
>
> One other interesting think happened in the last set of spins this
> week end. I did two spins at idle power just as I had done the previous
> week. This time however, the engine quit both times after about 4 or 5
> turns.
> The only think I know that was different is that I was on the Left
> fuel tank this time (and on the Right tank last time). Also the plane
> was close to full fuel where before it had about 1/4 fuel.
>
> The spins were to the left so the left wing is down. Thinking back
> on this, I suspect it was not getting fuel as in the left wing down
> for a left spin, the pickup tube may have been sucking air.
> The one thing that conflicts with this however is that I was able
> to do a full power spin when I bought up the power in the 3rd turn.
> Maybe bringing up the power flattened the spin enough to cause it
> to suck fuel. The tank was at least 3/4 full.
> If I ever do this again, I will check the fuel pressure next time
> it happens.
> It also took about 2 turns to recover with the prop stopped. Then
> a bump of the starter refired the engine (thankfully).
>
> Herman
>
> >
> > A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
> > One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
> > 15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
> > 1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
> > Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
> > '15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
> > this was a spiral and not a spin.
> > I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
> > I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
> >
> > My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
> > so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
> > The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
> > My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
> >
> > I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
>
> > went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
> >
> > Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
> > Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
> >
> Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. in 30 seconds (this would be 7,500 ft/min)
> > Turns 10 turnsk
> > Recovery 1.5 turns
> > Total turns then is 11.5
> > Time per turn 2.0 seconds
> Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. (as observed in the cockpit)
> > This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder
> kick to
> > straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
> > at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
> > the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
> >
> > The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
> > The G-meter was reading 1 G.
> > My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
> > I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
> > That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
> > The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
> > That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
> > per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
> > the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
> >
> > So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
> > would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
> > Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
> >
> > So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
> > The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
> >
> > One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
> > the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
> > The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
> > (you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
> > hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
> > the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
> > a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
> > This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
> > At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
> > forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
> >
> > Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
> > You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
> > confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
> >
> > So, what can be concluded from all of this?
> > 1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
> > 2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
> > would be a major problem.
> > 3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
> > is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
> > a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
> > caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
> > the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a
> > minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
> > of recovering with some margin for error.
> > Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
> > full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
> > would probably give vertigo.
> > 4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
> > of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
> > There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
> > improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
> > an instructor, you will probably panic.
> > I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
> > a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
> > cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
> > spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
> > planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall
> > off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
> > angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
> > Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
> > will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
> > so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
> > If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
> > spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
> > 5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
> > over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
> > Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
> > that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
> > If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
> > 7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
> > 1 turn at a time.
> > I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
> > spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
> > some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
> > stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
> > how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
> > counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
> > Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
> > I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information
> > at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
> > turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
> > get a couple of samples to verify it.
> >
> > 6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
> > does to the spin rate and descent rate.
> >
> >
> > Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here
> > it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
> >
> > Herman
>
>
>
>
>
>
Herman, that's a name from the past. Herman, you still out there? Where's he been
hiding for the past few years? I remember him. In fact, I used to have a link
to in cockpit video of someone spinning the hell out of an RV-4 multiple times
and I think it was him. Really cool video. I can't find it though anymore.
Anyone else still have that link?
I wonder if he sold his RV is on to other stuff. Anyone know for sure?
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: Louis Willig <LARYWIL@COMCAST.NET>
Hi gang,
Most of us have been following this thread for the past week, and most of
us have learned a few things from these discussions. However, no one has
yet mentioned the name of Herman Dierks. I have never met Herman, but we
corresponded several years ago when I first decided to try spinning my -4.
Herman is a very serious and competent IAC aerobatic competitor. He owned
an RV-4 and actually did a study on the spin characteristics of his
aircraft. I think that everyone on this list who has an interest in spins
in an RV should read his posts of March 12, 1996 and March 18, 1996. You
mmight want to read them twice. They are loaded with information. The two
things I took away from his post are (1) the RV-4 enters and recovers from
spins using standard techniques. Its spin rate is faster and it take a
little longer to recover, but it is pretty standard. And (2), keep the
stick back when giving anti-spin rudder. Popping the stick will increase
the spin rate appreciably, and probably put you into an inverted spin. A
recent post mentioned that pulling the stick back might pull the wings off
if you are in a spiral instead of a spin. My first thought about this
statement is that you had to have had the stick pretty far back to get into
the spin ( we're talking now about practice of standard spins and
recovery), therefore you are not pulling the stick back. You are simply
keeping it back. In a conversation with Herman several years ago, He said
that keeping the stick back keeps the nose up a little and keeps the spin
r
ate down.
By the way, Herman's test showed that the decent rate in a spinning RV-4 is
about 100 mph or about 9000 ft/ min.
Lastly, there is another expert on this list. Matt ( Big D) Dralle. Matt's
archives retain Herman Dierks' post. So I was able to bring them up. Here
they are:
From: <mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>dierks@austin.ibm.com
Subject:
<HTTP: <BR getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX="11922402?KEYS=spins_" searching www.matronics.com> _rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=79?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NOSome
accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
Date: Mar 12, 1996
A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
'15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
this was a spiral and not a spin.
I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
Lost altitude is 3,500 ft.
Turns 10 turns
Recovery 1.5 turns
&
gt; Total turns then is 11.5
Time per turn 2.0 seconds
Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft.
This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder kick to
straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
The G-meter was reading 1 G.
My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
per turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
the average loss p
er turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
(you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
This may be
a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
So, what can be concluded from all of this?
1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
would be a major problem.
3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
is fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
the spin is a stable c
onfiguration. However, you would need a
minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
of recovering with some margin for error.
Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
would probably give vertigo.
4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
an instructor, you will probably panic.
I recall back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
planes did not have 'wash out' in th
e wings and they would fall
off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
over one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
1 turn at
a time.
I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
I found I could really only collect one usefull piece of information
at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
get a couple of samples to verify it.
6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
does to the spin rate and descent rate.
Well, I was just going to
post a short note on the stats and here
it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
Herman
From: <mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>dierks@austin.ibm.com
Subject:
<HTTP: <BR getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX="12187866?KEYS=spins_" searching www.matronics.com> _rv-4?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=76?SERIAL=1651471345?SHOWBUTTONS=NOUpdate
to Some accurate statistics on Spins in RV-4
Date: Mar 18, 1996
As I noted in my last posting on the spin results,
I wanted to see what adding full power would do to the
spin rate and sink rate. In general, adding power will 'flatten'
the spin as it causes the nose to raise up.
I let the first 3 turns spin with power off and then brought up
full power on the third turn. I timed the next 3 turns at 6.8 seconds.
The nose comes up a little and the rate slows a little.
&
gt; This compares to 6.2 seconds for 3 turns with power-off so it only
slows the turn down about .2 second per turn. I did not get a
good reading on the sink rate. After 4 turns with full power,
I cut the power back to idle. This causes the nose to to drop again
and the rotation rate increases for about 2 turns until the plane is
back in equilibrium again. The RV4 behaved very similar to the Pitts
as I have done similar spin tests with the Pitts.
In looking back over the original data, I see that it takes right at
30 seconds for the 10 turn spin plus 1.5 turns to recover and consumes
3,500 ft of altitude. This would work out to 7,000 ft/min descent rate.
That is probably a better statistic as it averages 11.5 turns.
In the cockpit, the rate appeared to be very close to 300 ft per
2 second turn which translates to 9,000 ft/second.
I expect one can not
read the altimeter to +/- 50 ft in these
conditions so 50 ft in 2 seconds would be an error of 1,500 ft/min.
So, lets just say the rate is 7,000 ft/min minimum.
(I added these changes to the attached note below).
One other interesting think happened in the last set of spins this
week end. I did two spins at idle power just as I had done the previous
week. This time however, the engine quit both times after about 4 or 5
turns.
The only think I know that was different is that I was on the Left
fuel tank this time (and on the Right tank last time). Also the plane
was close to full fuel where before it had about 1/4 fuel.
The spins were to the left so the left wing is down. Thinking back
on this, I suspect it was not getting fuel as in the left wing down
for a left spin, the pickup tube may have been sucking air.
The one thing that confl
icts with this however is that I was able
to do a full power spin when I bought up the power in the 3rd turn.
Maybe bringing up the power flattened the spin enough to cause it
to suck fuel. The tank was at least 3/4 full.
If I ever do this again, I will check the fuel pressure next time
it happens.
It also took about 2 turns to recover with the prop stopped. Then
a bump of the starter refired the engine (thankfully).
Herman
A few weeks back, there was a discussion of spins in RV's.
One of the notes posted by Rolf Hankers indicated up to
15,000 ft/min descent rate based on 500 ft. loss per turn and
1.5 to 2 seconds per turn based on his RV-4 test solo.
Joe Larson posted a note a few days later questioning the
'15,000 feet/minute' as being too high a rate and wondering if
this w
as a spiral and not a spin.
I had posted some general info on some initial spin tests but
I had not collected any real quantifiable performance numbers.
My RV-4 is still in test flight mode and my Pitts is in maintance mode
so I decided to to collect some real numbers to determine who was correct.
The following numbers were collected in my RV-4 solo with 1/4 fuel.
My plane has the Sensenich fixed pitch metal prop and O-320-E2D (150 HP).
I did a total of six 10 turn spins to the left. I did 3 on Saturday and
went back and did 4 or 5 more on Sunday.
Starting altitude, 6,000 AGL.
Finish altitude, 2,500 AGL
Lost altitude is 3,500 ft. in 30 seconds (this would be 7,500 ft/min)
Turns 10 turnsk
Recovery 1.5 turns
Total turns then
is 11.5
Time per turn 2.0 seconds
Altitude loss per turn 300 Ft. (as observed in the cockpit)
This all happened in a little over 30 seconds from start of the rudder
kick to
straight and level. Spins were normal entry, power-off stall, full rudder
at stall. The stick was kept full back and with neutral aileron for
the duration of the spin (i.e. no aileron input).
The airspeed indicator was setting on 0 (zero), I.E, too low to read.
The G-meter was reading 1 G.
My ROC only goes to +/- 2,000 FPM and it was pegged at -2,000.
I timed the rotation rate on turns 4 thru 7 at 6.17 seconds.
That works out to just a hair over 2.0 seconds per rotation.
The altimeter showed about 300 ft. loss per rotation.
That also correlates quite well with the 3,500 ft/11.5 turns = 304 ft
pe
r turn. There is also some altitude loss during recovery so
the average loss per turn would be somewhat less than 300 ft./turn.
So, in 6 seconds, you loose 900 ft. Therefore in 60 seconds you
would loose 9,000 ft. It looks like the descent rate is 9,000 ft/min.
Its quite a wild ride, that is descending at over 100 MPH straight down.
So, the 2 seconds per turn that Rolph posted is quite close.
The 500 ft. per turn loss appears to be way too high per my measurements.
One thing I noticed is that at the end of the first half-turn,
the aircraft is 'tucked' inverted about 15 to 10 degrees.
The reason for this is that the plane still has some forward momentum
(you stall at 45 mph or so) so after one half turn, the air is
hitting the bottom side of the horizontal stabilizer and this pushes
the tail back and pitches the plane over in what would be called
a 'tucked' or negative down line in aerobatic terms.
This may be a little frightning to someone not use to doing spins.
At the end of the first turn, the nose is back up some as the
forward airspeed is then pushing on the top of the HS.
Also, it takes quite a while to get the spin stopped (1.5 turns or so).
You have to hold the opposite rudder and simply wait. If someone gets
confused, it could lead to problems if they put back in pro-spin rudder.
So, what can be concluded from all of this?
1) The aircraft spins and recovers fine.
2) The descent rate is quite high and any ground impact in a spin
would be a major problem.
3) The recovery time and consume quite a bit of altitude if the spin
is
fully developed. We have all heard of the theory of putting
a plane into a spin to get down through some clouds if we were
caught 'IFR on top' (but VFR rated). Yes, that could be done as
the spin is a stable configuration. However, you would need a
minimum of 1,000 feet celing in order to have much of a chance
of recovering with some margin for error.
Also, a spin can progress into a high speed spiral or dive if
full elevator is not maintained. The high turn rate in clouds
would probably give vertigo.
4) I think everyone should have spin training. This is even more
of a reqirement if you plan to do any aerobatics.
There are a lot of manuvers that can result in a spin of done
improperly. If you have not been thru some spin training with
an instructor, you will probably panic.
I reca
ll back in 1968 (yikes) when I was learning to fly in
a Luscombe 8A and a stall turned into a spin. It scared the
cr*p out of me. My instructor showed me the ropes on how to
spin. That Luscome was a nice spinning aircraft. These older
planes did not have 'wash out' in the wings and they would fall
off into a spin very easy. All the modern trainers have the
angle-of-attack washed out at the tips to keep the tips/ailerons flying.
Therefore many pilots don't really know what a plane without washout
will do. I think the RV wing is straignt (no twist or washout)
so it is not as forgiving as your C152, C172, etc.
If you have some training, then if you ever get into an unplanned
spin you should be able to recover (and not panic).
5) Lastly, doing spins should be done with caution, especially anything
ov
er one or two turns. There was a good article in IAC Sport
Aerobatics a few yrs back (I could not find the article last nite)
that discussed how seven turns in a spin is a magic number.
If the pilot is not conditioned, they will typically loose it above
7 turns. It recommended working up to any advanced spins 1/2 or
1 turn at a time.
I can say I felt like a one armed paper hanger trying to do the
spins, stay oriented, and count the number of turns and then collect
some meaningfull data at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your
stomach and patting your head at the same time. I wanted to know
how many turns I was doing and that means staying oriented and
counting the rotations with visual contact outside the plane.
Collecting the data from inside requires focusing on the instruments.
I found I co
uld really only collect one usefull piece of information
at a time, like time the rate or measure the altitude lost per
turn. So, it took a number of spins to collect the data and to
get a couple of samples to verify it.
6) I would still like to get some power-on spin info to see what that
does to the spin rate and descent rate.
Well, I was just going to post a short note on the stats and here
it a few pages already plugging up the internet.
Herman
>
_-
= Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
</mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com></mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
David Fenstermacher wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
>
>Pushing the stick forward:
>The idea here is not to have down elevator, but to expose more of the
>rudder for the recovery.
>
HUH? Sorry David .... you've been misled. At least IMHO. Spin
recovery (not the release controls and see what happens recovery) is a
two step process: 1. opposite rudder to stop the spin, and forward
stick to lower the nose and gain flying speed and control surface
effectiveness. Without pushing the stick forward, the airplane would
stay in a deep stall straight ahead and not recover. I'm not sure how
pushing the elevator down exposes more rudder so you'll have to
enlighten me.
As for the spiral mentioned below ..... in a spin the stick is full aft
(or at least far enough aft to keep the airplane stalled) already, and
the ailerons are not very responsive. In a spiral the aircraft is not
in a stalled condition and the flight controls are fully responsive so
recovery can be initiated with the ailerons and elevator as necessary
...... if enough altitude exists. The airspeed indicator is your only
safety device when trying to recover from high airspeed and steep down
line. If you've left the throttle open and the resulting recovery is
severely nose-down, you've increased the chance of removing the wings in
the recovery.
Linn
>
>Dave
>
>do not archive
>
>
>
>>[Original Message]
>>From: <Scott.Fink@microchip.com>
>>To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
>>Date: 11/18/2004 5:46:29 PM
>>Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
>>
>>I'm not an instructor, but I have spun 3 different aircraft, and all of
>>
>>
>my
>
>
>>spins have been intentional (mostly). One concen I have with going stick
>>full aft in a light GA aircraft is that if you are wrong and you are
>>really in a spiral, going stick full aft will tighten the spiral and
>>probably remove the wings.
>>
>>Once I had spin training, being able to tell that the G's were very high
>>and I was in a spiral was obvious, but early on I may not have been able
>>to tell in the excitment of the moment.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>>"RV_8 Pilot" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
>>Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>>11/18/2004 01:16 PM
>>Please respond to rv-list
>>
>>
>> To: rv-list@matronics.com
>> cc:
>> Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
>>
>>
>>One last comment - re. the item 3 below (stick back [before spin
>>recovery]),
>>I am inclined to question that action for light GA aircraft. I'll have
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>try it next time I'm out though.
>>
>>Bryan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>rudder and hold aft stick. Once she starts a spinnin:
>>>
>>>1. Power - idle
>>>2. Ail - neutral
>>>3. Stick - Full aft
>>>4. Confirm spin direction with needle
>>>5. Rudder - abruptly full opposite direction
>>>6. Wait a turn, then abrupt neutral elevator. If that doesnt work, I
>>>would
>>>try what I was taught and restabilize the spin and apply hard full
>>>
>>>
>>forward
>>
>>
>>>stick to see if it will break the stall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
Quick and dirty is good and no one around here takes much very seriously!
:-) You are correct you need GPS. Greg and company are working on an
internal GPS that will solve the problem. It's a ways off however.
Regards,
David Schaefer
N142DS RV-6A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparrison was quck and
dirty. :-) My understanding was that the groundspeed and track were
only available if you interfaced with an external GPS. Or am I
mistaken? If so maybe I should change it to show "built in" GPS.
That's really what I meant. Thanks for the correction, David.
Now, I wonder how many people *I* will anger by having the wrong info on
my web page? Aw, who the (expletive of your choice) cares? >:-)
David Schaefer wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
>
>I hate to disagree with the comparison and possibly anger someone, BUT the
>GRT unit does indeed have Ground Speed, Track and an HSI. Having flown
>behind one for a bunch of hours now I can guarantee it. If you'd like
>pictures just let me know.
>
>The only concern I found with the EFIS Lite is I believe it only had a 24nm
>zoom range which is only 8 min in an RV!
>
>Regards,
>
>David Schaefer
>N142DS
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Scott VanArtsdalen
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
>
>I posted a quick and dirty comparisson of the BM EFIS Lite, Dynon D10A,
>and GRT Horizon here:
>http://www.geocities.com/svanarts/efis.htm
>
>I'm starting to lean toward the BM Lite. You get a lot more than the
>Dynon for only a few bucks more. The GRT unit does more and has a
>bigger screen but it's kind of spendy for me. The Dynon unit is nice, I
>really like the built in AOA but getting GPS, moving map, and a few
>other nice features for only a couple of hundred bucks more has really
>leaned me toward Blue Mountain.
>
>Gerald Richardson wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> RV-List message posted by: Gerald Richardson <gerric@shaw.ca>
>>
>>Greetings:
>>
>>I am nearing the stage where I will require an EFIS system, I have
>>studied both of the above products and am quite impressed with both of
>>them. I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts or comments on either
>>of them such as brightness, operation, reliability, etc. My
>>installation will be in an RV6A and the flying will be VFR. I would
>>like to have the capability of the attitude & directional gyros, plus a
>>few additional goodies, etc.
>>
>>My desire is not to set up a challenge between these instruments in this
>>post, merely gather some data to help me decide.
>>
>>Thank you for your comments.
>>
>>Gerald Richardson
>>Medicine Hat, Alberta
>>Canada
>>
>>RV6A 25366
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
Message 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Garage door springs are
not designed for infinite life, for some unknown reason.
Grease them up and they will last forever, or just about. Everyone that has
hit my head, has failed at a corrosion pit.
do not archive
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
1.16 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Why are the airlines crashing less than G.A. ?
Because they are required to crash less so therefore spend the money it
takes to accomplish this.
You want an eye opener, start following air freighter accidents/incidents.
The Ground Loop is another method to minimize personal damage when landing
in an unsatisfactory place.
Plant it and slam in rudder.
I know of this being done in a canyon in a Cessna 180, and the pilot walked
away.
The gist is to hit at a normal approach angle, then eleminate velocity
quickly rather than suddenly.
But, as said earlier, one must must really wind up their huevos to pull this
off.
W
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Actually.......
At least one aircraft that we spun in AF pilot training would recover with
elevator only. It was an "IP Demo Only" maneuver. Not because it wouldn't
work, but because it required a familiarity with the aircraft that you
didn't really achieve in the short tenure of pilot training. The instructor
would establish the spin, then with elevator only, very slowly and
deliberately more the stick from full aft, forward. The nose of the
aircraft would follow the stick movement and the spin rate would increase
(another reason they didn't want us trying this solo). When you reached the
"cone" as they called it (if I remember correctly, it was roughly 60* nose
low) the plane would snap out of the spin into a steep dive and they would
recover. If you moved the stick forward at too fast a rate, you would end
up in a real pretty, inverted spin.
Not sure if an RV would do this, because my plane isn't flying and I don't
feel right trying with someone else's plane.
Keith
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "linn walters" <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>>
> HUH? Sorry David .... you've been misled. At least IMHO. Spin
> recovery (not the release controls and see what happens recovery) is a
> two step process: 1. opposite rudder to stop the spin, and forward
> stick to lower the nose and gain flying speed and control surface
> effectiveness.
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
b=u6VcmRDuzmfTMrcPr6vQOyPQdbsEysJtER198LJZGZQ3JrmDFw1sJcNhtOm8FBSOBGn8pkRHDwn75za9+2Jj4WJ1vZCtWa4lOvAV3o1uyU7+IEfr8BSkpWVEsF6af8PD3Ul0cuknzhVhTsWd5vCT8zcbmazuUScwFIRGIC8ftaw=
;
| Subject: | How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl heading
173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me of another airplane
at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then advised the other plane
where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl.
Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to set barimetric
pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just 5 minutes
earlier. I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric pressure and after
correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl !!!
My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C always know
what your correct altitude is?
If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
Dan DeNeal
rv6a N256GD
Message 47
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
I recall reading years ago that their is a software program that adjusts all
the Mode C returns to reflect local air pressure corrections at each centre.
perhaps a controller on the list would be more knowledgeable?
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan DeNeal" <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not
showing?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl
> heading 173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me
> of another airplane at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then
> advised the other plane where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl.
>
> Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to
> set barimetric pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just
> 5 minutes earlier. I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric
> pressure and after correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl
> !!!
>
> My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C
> always know what your correct altitude is?
>
> If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
>
> Dan DeNeal
>
> rv6a N256GD
>
>
>
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Paul Besing" <azpilot@extremezone.com>
Your transponder only reports pressure altitude. They apply a correction
for barometric pressure there in the tower or facility. This way everyone
reports the same, and don't have to worry about people's equipment reporting
different altitudes if the pressure changes.
Paul Besing
RV-6A Sold
RV-10 Soon
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan DeNeal" <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not
showing?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl
heading 173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me of
another airplane at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then advised
the other plane where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl.
>
> Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to
set barimetric pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just 5
minutes earlier. I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric pressure
and after correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl !!!
>
> My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C
always know what your correct altitude is?
>
> If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
>
> Dan DeNeal
>
> rv6a N256GD
>
>
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Pardue" <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
Your transponder reports pressure altitude and the ATC equipment changes
that to indicated altitude using the local altimeter setting.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan DeNeal" <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not
showing?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
>
> My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C
> always know what your correct altitude is?
>
Do not archive
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
On a slightly different tack, and for those of you who fly hard IFR, without
GPS that displays altitude( must be a rapidly-shrinking group), in England
to fly IFR in a little airplane two separate altimeters are required.
The gentlemen who sold me his T210 years ago had two altimeters in it,
after having the sole one he bought it with freeze on him one day during
descent for an IFR approach here in the Coast RAnge Mountains; something
that still gives him nightmares.
I noticed that a business in Calgary is using eBay to sell a matchbox-sized,
c-cell powered, digital altimeter; thin enough to stick onto a panel in the
vicinity of the stock altimeter, and we could take advantage of being
experimentals to back up our altimeters with it until we can afford a GPS
that will display altitude. It lists for about 100USD, IIRC.
No affiliation with them, etc.
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan DeNeal" <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not
showing?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl
> heading 173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me
> of another airplane at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then
> advised the other plane where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl.
>
> Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to
> set barimetric pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just
> 5 minutes earlier. I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric
> pressure and after correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl
> !!!
>
> My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C
> always know what your correct altitude is?
>
> If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
>
> Dan DeNeal
>
> rv6a N256GD
>
>
>
Message 51
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not |
showing?
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca> showing?
The principle of the altitude encoder in a Mode C installation is that it
reads (detects) the static pressure acting on the aircraft, uses this
pressure to compute an altitude as if it was an altimeter set to 29.92
inches and then transmits this altitude via the transponder to the ground
radar antenna. The ground radar system then takes this information, applies
the local altimeter setting and then comes up with an indicated altitude
that the aircraft is at to display on the controller's scope. If the pilot's
altimeter is working correctly AND the local altimeter setting is set then
the pilot's indicated altitude should be the same as that on the
controller's display. The transponder's altitude encoder need have no
connection (electrical or via static ports, etc.) to the altimeter for this
to happen.
So the ATC guy always knows your altitude unless your aircraft is suffering
from some sort of static problem which affects the pressure being detected
by the altitude encoder. That's why an annual static system & mode C check
is usually required.
There are occasions when it is desirable to set something besides the local
altimeter setting so that's why the system is designed to have the
altimeter's reading depend on the pilot setting the altimeter.
In theory once the ATC radar system knows the altitude of your aircraft,
this information could be transmitted back via some sort of uplink and
displayed in the aircraft but no one has bothered to come up with such a
system. For instance, if you flew out of radar coverage (due altitude or
location) you would have no altitude coming in and you would need a backup
altimeter in any case.
Jim Oke
RV-6A
Wpg., MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan DeNeal" <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: RV-List: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not
showing?
> --> RV-List message posted by: Dan DeNeal <rv6apilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> I was flying over the top of Champaign, Illinois airspace at 6,500 msl
> heading 173 degrees. I was in touch with Champaign when they advised me
> of another airplane at my altitude and at my 2:00 o'clock. They then
> advised the other plane where I was and that I was at 6,800 msl.
>
> Why am I off? My altimeter says 6,500. I then realized I had forgotten to
> set barimetric pressure when I had lifted off from Danville, Illinois just
> 5 minutes earlier. I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric
> pressure and after correcting my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl
> !!!
>
> My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude? Does Mode C
> always know what your correct altitude is?
>
> If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
>
> Dan DeNeal
>
> rv6a N256GD
>
>
>
Message 52
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
The transponder's altitude encoder need have no
> connection (electrical or via static ports, etc.) to the altimeter for
> this
> to happen.
>
Jim:
Not a connection to the altimeter, per se, but it should be connected to the
static system-usually through a "T"off the altimeter or VSI-to avoid
transmitting the error inherent in transmitting an altitude sensed inside
the cockpit.
Scott in Vancouver
>
>
>
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! --
|