Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:50 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
2. 04:46 AM - Re:gluing canopy to frame (JEllis9847@aol.com)
3. 04:46 AM - Re: Canopy Protection (LarryRobertHelming)
4. 05:02 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
5. 05:16 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (N13eer@aol.com)
6. 05:55 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (David Figgins)
7. 06:25 AM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? (linn walters)
8. 06:46 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Sam Buchanan)
9. 06:50 AM - Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not (Jim Oke)
10. 06:55 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (linn walters)
11. 07:35 AM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Andrew Douglas)
12. 07:39 AM - RV-4 with -8 tail (GRENIER@aol.com)
13. 07:45 AM - List Police (Kosta Lewis)
14. 08:13 AM - Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (Donald Mei)
15. 08:33 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Dan Checkoway)
16. 08:38 AM - Re: spin again (Scott.Fink@microchip.com)
17. 08:41 AM - Blue Mountain/GRT/Dynon thread (Kevin Shannon)
18. 08:46 AM - Re: Redundancy (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
19. 08:49 AM - Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (Scott VanArtsdalen)
20. 08:56 AM - Re: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Scott VanArtsdalen)
21. 08:58 AM - Re: RV-4 with -8 tail (Scott VanArtsdalen)
22. 09:02 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Scott Bilinski)
23. 09:07 AM - Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS (rv6tc)
24. 09:37 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Dan Checkoway)
25. 09:37 AM - High Fuel Pressure (Kosta Lewis)
26. 11:14 AM - Re: Re: Redundancy (Kathleen@rv7.us)
27. 11:18 AM - Re: SPINS in an RV (Gene Gottschalk)
28. 12:07 PM - 24 volt batteries (George Steube)
29. 12:08 PM - Re: SPINS in an RV - homework assignment (long) (Scott VanArtsdalen)
30. 03:06 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (linn walters)
31. 03:15 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (Bill Dube)
32. 04:03 PM - Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A (Eustace Bowhay)
33. 04:08 PM - Re: 24 volt batteries (Bill Dube)
34. 06:51 PM - Re: GPS18 (Ed Holyoke)
35. 11:42 PM - torque (Wheeler North)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
$450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality
including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. Also, anywhere
in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of your Trio
and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some panel
space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence
or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case.
Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I
get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside
my Lawrence....
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
>
> 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
> 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
$450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality
including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also, anywherein
their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your Trio and
not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel space
by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence or
the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case. Further,
I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to some
place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my Lawrence....
-------------- Original message --------------
-- 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
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>
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr
ison 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 <BR
> 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 th
e 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
Please Support Your Lists This Month --
=============
</BLOCKQUOT
E>
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:gluing canopy to frame |
--> RV-List message posted by: JEllis9847@aol.com
I just completed gluing (and bolting) the canopy to the tip up frame on my 9A
and debated the same question. Here's what I did. I drilled #40 pilot holes
through the side frame only, not through the plexi or the side skirts. I
made eight clamps, four for each side, from 2" x 4" x 1/8" aluminum tubing by
cutting one of the 2" sides off the tubing and threading a 5/16 bolt into one of
the 4" side of the tubing. Each clamp was about three inches long and sits
under the frame with the open end of the "U" facing up.
After preparing the contact area of both the side frames and the Plexiglas
with Sika cleaner and Sika primer I applied a layer of Sikaflex 295UV to the
side frame. With the canopy in its final position I used the clamps to hold the
Plexiglas sides to the adhesive coated frame for 12 hours. I then back
drilled through the frame into the Plexiglas with a #40 plastic drill, countersunk
the outside of the Plexiglas for a #6 CS bolt, and then reamed through both the
side frame and the Plexiglas for bolt clearance.
I loosely bolted the canopy sides to the frame as shown in the plans (but not
through the side skirts). I then used the same adhesive to glue the side
skirts to the bolted frame and plastic held in place with clecos until it cured.
Finally I riveted the side skirts to the frame. I was able to squeeze all
but the aft three or four rivets with a longeron yoke. These had to be set with
gun and bar. If you clamp the canopy frame to the main longeron it reduces
the vibration stress on the Plexiglas when you rivet.
The addition of the bolts may, in fact, not be unnecessary. The bond that
the Sikaflex creates between the plastic and the aluminum is incredibly strong.
The plastic will break or the aluminum will bend before the bond will let go.
Hope this helps.
Jim Ellis
RV 9-A Tip Up
finishing canopy
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: Canopy Protection |
--> RV-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <JTAnon@aol.com>
Subject: RV-List: 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 might suggest an alternative protection
for use after the canopy is installed. I used 4 mil plastic sheet that I
purchased at Home Depot. The 10' by 25' size. Get some 1/4" or 3/16" fine
line tape from your local auto paint distributor and some good masking tape
also. Carefully apply the fine line tape all along the edge where the
plexiglass starts/meets the aluminum frame. Press that down good using a
roller or your finger nail. Then lay on the plastic and cut it to proper
shape. Finally tape the cut plastic to the fineline tape. (The fineline
tape is the only thing holding the plastic cover on, right? right..) I did
not remove the original plastic protection that came with the plexi from
Vans but just about an inch or so around the edges. So,,,, at a couple of
spots internally to the edges you can use some double sided carpet tape to
help hold the plastic to the plexi for added strength. Low cost and quick
and you are all masked ready for the primer paint. If you are wanting to
cover it before it is installed, you want another solution/method like the
one you think you don't want to use -- Spray-Lat or perhaps a vacuum bag
method. If you need to clean any tape residue off of plexi at a later time,
use kerosene.
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker" do not archive
The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty;
in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts;
in flying a virgin plane never flown before.
- Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming)))))))))))))
> 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 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: | Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Oops, meant to say my GPS wouldn't be stuck inside my EFIS when I need it about
town...
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
> $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any
> functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.
> Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think
of
> your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some
> panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the
> lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just
in
> case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I
> get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside
my
> Lawrence....
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> >
> > 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
> > 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
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
> $450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any
> functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also,
> anywherein their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your
> Trio and not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel
> space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence
> or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case.
> Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get to
> some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my
> Lawrence....
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
>
> 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
> 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
>
> Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr
> ison 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 th
> e 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
>
>
> Please Support Your Lists This Month --
> =============
>
>
> > E>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Oops, meant to say my GPS wouldn't be stuck inside my EFISwhen I need it about
town...
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
$450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any
functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.
Also, anywhere in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think
of
your Trio and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some
panel space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the
lawrence or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just
in
case. Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I
get to some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't st
uck inside my
Lawrence....
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
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
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
Geez, give me some cred
it. 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 j
ust 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
&
gt;
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 wonder
ing 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
<BR
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
$450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any
functionality including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS.Also,
anywherein their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you canthink of your
Trio and not worry about functionality loss.So I opted to sacrifice some panel
space by using a small Lawrence 500. I can set it up to either have the lawrence
or the GRT EFIS drive the autopilot. It gives me some redundany just in case.
<BR
> Further, I can use the handy sized Lawrence in my car or boat so once I get
to
some place in my plane I'm not familiar with my GPS isn't stuck inside my
Lawrence....
-------------- Original message --------------
-- 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
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
-- RV-List messag
e posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <SVANARTS@YAHOO.COM>
Geez, give me some credit. I DID say the comparr
ison 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 <BR <BR
> 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 th
e 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
Please Support Your Lists This Month --
=============
</BLOCKQUOT
E
about this
st.htm
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: | Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com
For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at the Garmin
GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not have a display.
It looks like an antenna but it contains all the electronics. The -18 is a smaller
WAAS version of the GPS-35 that has been around for years. You can find
them for around $150 so I see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS.
Hope this helps someone,
Alan Kritzman
Cedar Rapids, IA
Lucky wrote:
When I ordered my GRT, internal gps was available but optional (something like
$450) but I opted not to use it. Todd told me that I didn't lose any functionality
including driving my Trio autopilot by using an external GPS. Also, anywhere
in their literature where they specifiy TruTruck you can think of your Trio
and not worry about functionality loss. So I opted to sacrifice some panel
space by using a small Lawrence 500.
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: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net>
Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro
training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I
believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was
reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I
recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to
neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure
(or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted
(I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along
time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today.
Dave RV7 waiting for wings
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Louis Willig
Subject: RV-List: SPINS in an RV
--> 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=sp
ins_&_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=sp
ins_&_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 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: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not showing? |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
Dan DeNeal wrote:
>--> 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.
>
Ooops. What happened to your checklist? No flame from here, but that's
what they're for.
> I called Champaign and asked them for barimetric pressure and after correcting
my altimeter it showed I was at 6,800 msl !!!
>
Gives you a creepy feeling doesn't it??? Now where is that bogey now???
>My question is how did Champaign know my exact altitude?
>
From your transponder ....... which gets it's info from the blind
encoder or an encoding altimeter.
> Does Mode C always know what your correct altitude is?
>
Well, not exactly. Your blind encoder is a pressure transducer, doing
the same theing ..... measuring the pressure altitude ..... as your
altimeter. You change (or were supposed to) the altimeter setting
through the Kollsman window to correct for changes in pressure where you
took off from. The radar display is converted to actual altitude by
using the difference between sea level pressure altitude and a standard
day. I'm not sure, but I believe this is automaticiclly done by the
computer being fed the PA data.
>If so why can't they make an altimeter that is always correct???
>
Well, the altimeter is approved by the FAA, and anything coming down the
pike (certified) would probably be may more bucks. And there needs to
be some way to automatically get the information into the altimeter.
That doesn't exist. We now get the 'fudge factor' from some calibrated
measurement system: AWOS, sign on FBO, or eyeballs reading the pressure
altitude on a mercury filled device (real name escapes me) hanging on
the wall. So far an automatic system doesn't exist for our little birds
.... but maybe in the future. We now have automatic (atomic time)
clocks set by a radio signal ...... GPS that automatically takes care of
altitude error (Differential GPS or WAAS) ..... so maybe automatically
set altimeters will be in our future.
For me, my correct altimeter setting means that I'm at a 'legal'
altitude while in the system, and for those that are IFR, it keeps them
out of the granite clouds. Below 3000 on a clear day ..... not sure of
the value of an altimeter, other than help in spotting traffic relative
to my position ..... which is what started this discussion :-) . Maybe
we'll have some reall educational emails about altimeters, their systems
etc. ..... we've pretty much beaten spins to death.
Linn
do not archive
>
>Dan DeNeal
>
>rv6a N256GD
>
>
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
N13eer@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com
>
> For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at
> the Garmin GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not
> have a display. It looks like an antenna but it contains all the
> electronics. The -18 is a smaller WAAS version of the GPS-35 that
> has been around for years. You can find them for around $150 so I
> see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS.
If the GPS18 is as good as the GPS35, it will be a fine receiver. I have
been using the GPS35 for nearly three years and it has proved to be rock
solid.
Here is a link to the GPS18 for $84.95:
http://www.gpscity.com/gps/brados/3361.3.3617845596012577063/OEM18PC.html
Sam Buchanan
http://thervjournal.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How did my Mode C report what my Altimeter was not |
showing?
--> RV-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca> showing?
Hi Scott;
Yes, you are quite right that the same static pressure should be fed to both
the cockpit reading altimeter and the mode C altitude encoder and usually
with a tee off the static system. As I think we both know, "big" airplanes
have a number of static ports scattered about and calibrated (at
considerable effort and expense) to provide closely matched altitude
readings via an ADC or carefully selected location.
Jim
in the 'Peg
RV-3, RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: SPINS in an RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
David Figgins wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net>
>
>Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro
>training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I
>believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was
>reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I
>recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to
>neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure
>(or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted
>(I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along
>time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today.
>
>Dave RV7 waiting for wings
>Do not archive
>
Still valid. The Boggs method was 'designed' for pilots with low
experience levels in aerobatics .... and was a course designed to save
your bacon in an 'upset' situation .... inadvertent transitions from
normal flight. The "let go of the stick" method prevents the pilot who
is deep in panic mode from making the wrong control inputs .... and
thereby worsening the situation and the panic level .... and putting too
much forward stick for too long a time and ending up transitioning from
an upright spin into an inverted one or vice versa. The panic mode is
why I recommend some dual ..... of any kind. It's a real eye opener.
and that experienced akro pilot is as good insurance as that parachute
you should be wearing.
Linn
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: Andrew Douglas <adouglas@optonline.net>
With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I
think is very important is getting lost:
Redundancy.
I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I see
pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else, and
I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark.
That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two
of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other
display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments
and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack.
This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button
and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators
(and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with
moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your
instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to
you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.)
Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got
partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why
I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.)
Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much if
any management by the pilot in a crisis.
All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a
mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the
reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably more
reliable.
I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of
having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite avionic
toy meet its maker in bad weather.
The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a
really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if
you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway,
even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the equivalent
of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously in
a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary
and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static
instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't
live long.)
IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy,
isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot) would
sufficiently manage that risk.
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Douglas
RV wannabe
Bridgeport, CT
Do not archive
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: | RV-4 with -8 tail |
--> RV-List message posted by: GRENIER@aol.com
A few days ago someone sent me a message asking about my experience with
installing an RV-8 tail to my -4. I messed up and deleated the message. If you
still interested please re-send and this time I'll be more careful
Ray Grenier
N-20RG flying
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel@dimensional.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!
Well, at the risk of joining the list police, I would much rather read
posts about airplanes that are similar to ours (F-4, F-18, etc) than
have to wade through pages and pages of UNTRIMMED posts. Especially
those archived. And it's even worse if the note posted in the reply is
at the END of the untrimmed previous note(s). THAT is going to fill up
the archives and may make researching the archives more difficult to
wade through as you will see the same post again and again in the
replies. Yes, there is tons of room in the archives and it would take
years to fill it up, but............
If you are in Digest mode, the posts are in order and in their entirety.
Which means you have to wade through pages of previous posts to get to
the next message.
SO: as Matt tells us in his monthly Please Read post: TRIM YOUR POSTS.
OK; badge off, hat off, six-shooter on the bed post.
Michael
Garage door springs?
Do not archive
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: | Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
Just some thoughts. I own a Dynon and am very pleased with it.
However here are the reasons, I bought it, and would still buy it over the
BM unit if I were buying today. A bit of background info. I am a VFR
pilot, I purchased the dynon as a "bacon saver", since I love to fly at
night. Also, I am not building a new airplane. I was a retrofit customer.
1) Dynon comes with a built in battery backup. No need to rewire aircraft
in a "Nuckols" kind of way for redundancy.
2) Company Integrity - BMI released product that was clearly not ready for
production. They lost no opportunity when I spoke with them at Sun - n -
Fun to badmouth everyone but themself. Greg Richter is clearly brilliant.
But that doesn't change the bad taste my discussions left in my mouth. In
contrast, Dynon folks humbly plowed ahead with product development and
didn't release their product until they felt it was ready. When I asked
them about Grand Rapids and BMI products, they praised the products, but
pointed out that whiile their competitors were more capable, they were (at
the time) significantly more expensive and required a panel built around
their products.
3) Free support and updates - BMI requires you to pay for software updates,
Dynon does not.
I'm sure I'll think of other things.
Just to be fair, there are some nice advantages to the BMI:
1) seems to have a higher quality AHRS than the Dynon
2) Certainly more versatile with moving map etc.
3) great little knob for setting things like barometric pressure
In summary, if I was building an IFR airplane, I'd give consideration to a
couple of BMI devices or a single GRT device. I'd probably choose them over
the Dynon.
But that was not what I was trying to achieve. My '4 was a light and simple
airplane with no gyros, and no vacume system. I wanted to keep it that way.
The Dynon allowed me to install a complete
attitude/airspeed/altitude/heading system for the price of a single
electrically driven attitude indicator. I was also able to install it in
about 2 hours on a saturday after spending about another 2 hours making up
the harness at home.
Hope this helps.
Don
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: SPINS in an RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out.
I
> recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to
> neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure
Not exactly. The idea is that in the spin, the relative airflow over the
tail is coming from below -- which can "lock" the elevators full up unless
you physically move the stick to neutralize them. The airflow is what's
keeping the elevators up and preventing "on its own" recovery from the
stall. Simply letting go of the stick, you may find that the stick stays
full aft without your explicit involvement. Thus arises the need to take
action and move the stick forward and neutralize the elevators (in addition
to applying rudder opposite to the direction of the spin).
YMMV
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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 |
|
11/19/2004 09:38:13 AM,
Serialize complete at 11/19/2004 09:38:13 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott.Fink@Microchip.com
Yup, that is what I thought. There has been discussion that in a spin you
would already have the stick all the way back, and that would be right in
a correctly entered intentional spin. My concern was in an unintentional
spin or spiral, the stick may not be fully back and if you are actually in
a spiral you could break the plane.
I agree that spin training is very beneficial and a heck of a lot of fun.
When I someday finish my -6 I AM going to spin it (probably a lot).
Scott
"David Fenstermacher" <dfenstermacher@earthlink.net>
Sent by: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
11/18/2004 06:19 PM
Please respond to rv-list
To: rv-list@matronics.com
cc:
Subject: RE: RV-List: spin again
--> 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 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: | Blue Mountain/GRT/Dynon thread |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kevin Shannon" <kshannon@seanet.com>
?? The BM EFIS sport screen is slightly smaller than the GRT according
to their websites. 6.25 X 4.3 (BM) VS 7.25 X 4.75 (GRT). I am building
an -8 so size is also a consideration for me.
--> 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
>
Kevin Shannon
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: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I'm wrestling with the same question!
I'm thinking you get closer to the kind of redundancy you need with dual GRT
EFIS and a certified GPS/VOR . . . able to drive either of them . . . I
agree with the 3 steam gauges Alt/AS/TC as the final back-up along with a
TruTrak with it's independent gyro.
Better have dual elec too.
Regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Douglas" <adouglas@optonline.net>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> --> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas <adouglas@optonline.net>
>
> With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I
> think is very important is getting lost:
>
> Redundancy.
>
> I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I
see
> pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else,
and
> I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark.
>
> That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy
two
> of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other
> display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments
> and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack.
>
> This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button
> and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators
> (and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with
> moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your
> instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to
> you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.)
>
> Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got
> partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why
> I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.)
>
> Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much
if
> any management by the pilot in a crisis.
>
> All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a
> mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the
> reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably
more
> reliable.
>
> I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of
> having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite
avionic
> toy meet its maker in bad weather.
>
> The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a
> really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if
> you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway,
> even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the
equivalent
> of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously
in
> a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary
> and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static
> instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't
> live long.)
>
> IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy,
> isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot)
would
> sufficiently manage that risk.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Douglas
> RV wannabe
> Bridgeport, CT
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Very good reasons. That's why I've been leaning toward a Dynon unit
myself. Then when I did the comparisson the BMA Lite began to have more
appeal for me. Of course, if it isn't shipping to customers then none
of the features are very useful. :-)
My philosophy on my RV-4 is exacly the same as yours. Light, simple,
day/night VFR machine and panel space is a HUGE consideration for me as
well.
Donald Mei wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
>
>Just some thoughts. I own a Dynon and am very pleased with it.
>
>However here are the reasons, I bought it, and would still buy it over the
>BM unit if I were buying today. A bit of background info. I am a VFR
>pilot, I purchased the dynon as a "bacon saver", since I love to fly at
>night. Also, I am not building a new airplane. I was a retrofit customer.
>
>1) Dynon comes with a built in battery backup. No need to rewire aircraft
>in a "Nuckols" kind of way for redundancy.
>
>2) Company Integrity - BMI released product that was clearly not ready for
>production. They lost no opportunity when I spoke with them at Sun - n -
>Fun to badmouth everyone but themself. Greg Richter is clearly brilliant.
>But that doesn't change the bad taste my discussions left in my mouth. In
>contrast, Dynon folks humbly plowed ahead with product development and
>didn't release their product until they felt it was ready. When I asked
>them about Grand Rapids and BMI products, they praised the products, but
>pointed out that whiile their competitors were more capable, they were (at
>the time) significantly more expensive and required a panel built around
>their products.
>
>3) Free support and updates - BMI requires you to pay for software updates,
>Dynon does not.
>
>I'm sure I'll think of other things.
>
>Just to be fair, there are some nice advantages to the BMI:
>
>1) seems to have a higher quality AHRS than the Dynon
>2) Certainly more versatile with moving map etc.
>3) great little knob for setting things like barometric pressure
>
>In summary, if I was building an IFR airplane, I'd give consideration to a
>couple of BMI devices or a single GRT device. I'd probably choose them over
>the Dynon.
>
>But that was not what I was trying to achieve. My '4 was a light and simple
>airplane with no gyros, and no vacume system. I wanted to keep it that way.
> The Dynon allowed me to install a complete
>attitude/airspeed/altitude/heading system for the price of a single
>electrically driven attitude indicator. I was also able to install it in
>about 2 hours on a saturday after spending about another 2 hours making up
>the harness at home.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
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: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Andrew,
You really need to come sit in my RV-4 and tell me where all that stuff
is going to go! :-)
Andrew Douglas wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas <adouglas@optonline.net>
>
>That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy two
>of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other
>display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments
>and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack.
>
>
That's a great desing philosophy for a guy who's going to do IFR work
and has sufficient funds to afford all that stuff. I'm a VFR pilot in a
VFR airplane on a canned tuna budget. So, one is sufficient in my
case. I'll not start the whole "land without an airspeed indicator"
thread again. :-)
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: RV-4 with -8 tail |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Why not just post it? I have an RV-4 and I'd be interested in hearing
about that too. Or maybe post it to the RV4-List so we don't bore the
rest of the crowd.
GRENIER@aol.com wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: GRENIER@aol.com
>
>A few days ago someone sent me a message asking about my experience with
>installing an RV-8 tail to my -4. I messed up and deleated the message. If you
>still interested please re-send and this time I'll be more careful
>
>Ray Grenier
>N-20RG flying
>
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
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: SPINS in an RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see
what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual
but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes can
look it up.......Dan?
At 08:32 AM 11/19/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> > reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out.
>I
> > recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to
> > neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure
>
>Not exactly. The idea is that in the spin, the relative airflow over the
>tail is coming from below -- which can "lock" the elevators full up unless
>you physically move the stick to neutralize them. The airflow is what's
>keeping the elevators up and preventing "on its own" recovery from the
>stall. Simply letting go of the stick, you may find that the stick stays
>full aft without your explicit involvement. Thus arises the need to take
>action and move the stick forward and neutralize the elevators (in addition
>to applying rudder opposite to the direction of the spin).
>
>YMMV
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynon vs. Blue Mountain EFIS |
--> RV-List message posted by: "rv6tc" <rv6tc@myawai.com>
Actually... it does. Good post, thanks.
Keith
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Mei" <don_mei@hotmail.com>
.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Don
>
>
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: SPINS in an RV |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see
> what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual
> but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes
can
> look it up.......Dan?
We all have manuals...mine is at the hangar, where I'm not at the moment.
Call it homework for anybody who hasn't read it already and can't recite it
from memory. ;-)
do not archive
)_( Dan
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | High Fuel Pressure |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Kosta Lewis" <mikel@dimensional.com>
I have for years been running between 3-5 to 6 pounds of fuel pressure
depending on I don't know what. Lately I have noticed it keeps at the
high end, 5.5 to 6 at cruise, with a slight increase (needle width) with
adding the boost pump. At idle, it inches towards 7 to 8, which is
redline. No change with fuel tank selection, no change in climb power,
take off performance, fuel consumption. No fuel flow meter, so don't
know that. Fuel line to the carburetor is clear; screens are clear;
nothing in the gascolator screen or sump. I would assume if there was a
blockage before or in the fuel pump(s) the pressure would be low.
Nothing blocking the lines from the pumps to the carb. No leaky fuel
lines. Only recent change: fuel selector valve (nylon innards) that now
is very smooth, as opposed to the old one (brass) that had to be lubed
every 10 or so hours. Hmmmmm. Ideas?
Michael
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Kathleen@rv7.us
I have decided (always subject to change, of course) on 2 Blue Mountain
Sports. Since they will run from separate electrical systems and each be
switchable between electric sources, I feel confident that simultaneous
failure is very unlikely. I probably will not have steam gauges at all.
Engine info will come from an ACS and an SL-30 will drive the VOR and
glideslope features, but I may add a VOR/GS head. All that with a Tru-Trak
will leave a rather clean panel and still provide redundancy. You might say
I'm getting a little whacky about this, but I am also installing dual pitot
systems so that the EFIS units each have their own pitot static systems
including heated pitot tubes. OK, like my husband says, "That's over the
edge," but it's my airplane, so...
Kathleen Evans
www.rv7.us
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Maureen & Bob
Christensen
Subject: RV-List: Re: Redundancy
--> RV-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
<mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
I'm wrestling with the same question!
I'm thinking you get closer to the kind of redundancy you need with dual GRT
EFIS and a certified GPS/VOR . . . able to drive either of them . . . I
agree with the 3 steam gauges Alt/AS/TC as the final back-up along with a
TruTrak with it's independent gyro.
Better have dual elec too.
Regards,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Douglas" <adouglas@optonline.net>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
> --> RV-List message posted by: Andrew Douglas <adouglas@optonline.net>
>
> With the talk of being able to do it all with one screen, something that I
> think is very important is getting lost:
>
> Redundancy.
>
> I would get really nervous about putting all of my eggs in one basket. I
see
> pictures of panels with one great big screen on them and not much else,
and
> I have to ask myself what happens when (not if) the screen goes dark.
>
> That's why I like the EFIS/Lite G3. If I were equipping a panel, I'd buy
two
> of them and stack them...have one do the AI thing, and have the other
> display an HSI. In addition, install the regular pitot-static instruments
> and TC, for the old, reliable and well-proven six-pack.
>
> This way, if one of the EFISes goes toes-up, all you do is press a button
> and bingo...a duplicate AI. Plus you've got redundant heading indicators
> (and sources of heading information) and redundant GPSes complete with
> moving map. And you've got the ability to cross-check all of your
> instruments against one another, if you like. (Think your AI is lying to
> you? Compare it to your other AI. Cool.)
>
> Lose BOTH EFISes at the same time (how likely is that?) and you've got
> partial panel exactly like having vacuum failure. Survivable. (This is why
> I'd install a TC, even though the EFISes have that capability.)
>
> Redundancy is a Very Good Thing, especially when it does not require much
if
> any management by the pilot in a crisis.
>
> All for less than $6k, which is close to or less than the cost of a
> mechanical HSI plus AI plus vacuum system w/backup. And, given the
> reliability of dry vacuum pumps compared to alternators, it's arguably
more
> reliable.
>
> I'd gladly give up screen real estate and eye candy in the interest of
> having backups that can save my tender pink butt should my favorite
avionic
> toy meet its maker in bad weather.
>
> The Achilles' heel, of course, is that everything's electric, so with a
> really serious electrical meltdown (e.g., fire), you've got a problem if
> you're in IMC...but you've got one heck of a problem in that case anyway,
> even with an airplane that isn't all-electric. (This would be the
equivalent
> of losing both the vacuum system and the electrical system simultaneously
in
> a vacuum airplane, killing the AI, heading indicator and TC...both primary
> and supporting bank instruments gone...all you'd have left is pitot-static
> instruments, which means that unless you're in VMC, chances are you won't
> live long.)
>
> IMHO, a properly designed electrical system with adequate redundancy,
> isolation and backups (all of which must be transparent to the pilot)
would
> sufficiently manage that risk.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Andrew Douglas
> RV wannabe
> Bridgeport, CT
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: Gene Gottschalk <geneg@sled.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Careful, this doesn't work in all aircraft. Some AC require you fly the
thing out of a spin (ie: pilot input required).
Gene
At 08:53 AM 11/19/2004, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "David Figgins" <2004nospam@earthlink.net>
>
>Very interesting thread for a low time pilot building an RV7 (did do acro
>training), I do recall many years ago in either EAA or IAC what was called I
>believe the Beggs method for spin recovery which if I remember correctly was
>reduce power, let go of the stick, rudder to stop rotation, then fly out. I
>recall that the "let go of the stick" allowed the elevator to float to
>neutral and also prevented people from inadvertently holding back pressure
>(or forward pressure if inverted). This method worked upright and inverted
>(I can attest to the inverted claim by accident). I think this was along
>time ago but wondered if this approach is still considered valid today.
>
>Dave RV7 waiting for wings
>Do not archive
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Louis Willig
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: SPINS in an RV
>
>--> 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=sp
>ins_&_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: <mailto:dierks@austin.ibm.com>dierks@austin.ibm.com
>Subject:
><http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=12187866?KEYS=sp
>ins_&_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
>
>
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: | 24 volt batteries |
--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" <at6c@bellsouth.net>
I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. I am
looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also
plan to firewall mount the battery tray. Any suggestions. Thanks.
George
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SPINS in an RV - homework assignment (long) |
--> RV-List message posted by: Scott VanArtsdalen <svanarts@yahoo.com>
Good thing some of us played hookie today. :-)
This is from my RV-4 manual. It was scanned and OCR'd so forgive the
spelling and punctuation errors. Some of them are Van's. :-)
Anyway from the mouth of Van hisownself:
SPIN TESTING:
"A spin is a condition in which an airplane rotates
because one wing is deeper in stall than the other. A
spin is a highly complex dynamic maneuver that is
still not fully understood even by the experts."
Flight testing homebuilt Aircraft, by Vaughn Askew.
Accidental spins can result from a variety of
conditions in which asymmetric wing lift is induced.
Spins normally are caused by improper rudder usage
coupled with a stall (including accelerated stalls)
Out-of-coordination rudder produces a yaw which in
turn causes asymmetric wing lift which drives the
rotation. Avoid these conditions, and accidental spins
won't happen. Since this utopian condition cannot be
guaranteed, a degree of spin investigation training is
suggested.
Intentional spin entry should be initiated from a
power off stall with full rudder in one direction and
full elevator following the initial stall break.
Typical spin behavior for an RV is that if control
pressures are released immediately following spin
entry, recovery will be automatic and almost immediate
- no more than 1/2 spin revolution. lf spin rotation
is held for approximately one full revolution recovery
can be accomplished quickly through application of
anti-spin control (opposite rudder, stick centered) .
lf pro-spin controls are held until two full
revolutions have been completed, the spin will be
fully developed. Recovery techniques will vary.
For RV-3s, 4s, and 8s, the most effective recovery
technique is as follows:
1. Power off.
2. Elevator centered. (or stick free)
3. Full opposite rudder.
4. Recover from dive as soon as rotation stops.
Recovery time (time to stop rotation) will vary
depending on CG position and other factors. Step #2 is
best accomplished ''hands-on stick'' rather than
stick-free because while in spin rotation, the outside
aileron will sometimes float up, thus driving the
stick out of center.
(As an example, here is what we found when spin
testing the prototype RV-6. Remember this is one
individual airplane. Our results and yours may vary
significantly.
Testing was; performed up to the limit load ( 1375 lb.
aerobatic gross) and C. G. (25 % aft of leading edge)
with satisfactory recoveries being easily effected.
For prototype RV-6 and RV-6A aircraft spin
characteristics and recovery procedures were found to
be as follows: )
The prototype RV-6 & RV-6A aircraft exhibited good
spin resistance. Forceful pro-spin (full up elevator
and full rudder) control pressures were necessary to
induce a fully established spin. Good spin recovery
was evident during the first two rotations. Simply
releasing the controls during the 1st rotation stopped
the spin and opposite rudder and forward stick caused
a quick recovery during the second rotation. After
two turns, the rotation rate increased and stabilized
between 3 and 4 turns with a high rate of rotation of
about 180 degrees/second. Once past approximately 2
spin rotations, the spin had stabilized and if the
controls were freed, the RV-6 would continue spinning
until anti-rotation control inputs were applied. One
reason for this is that in a fully developed spin, the
elevators float up and remain there hands-off.
Recovery procedure consists of the following;
1. Power to idle.
2. Apply full opposite rudder, (opposite the direction
of rotation)
3. Center the ailerons and elevator. (Because of the
up elevator float forward stick pressure is needed to
center the elevators.
4. Hold the above control positions until rotation
stops then use elevator to recover to level flight.
1-1/4 to 1-3/4 rotations are usually required for
rotation to stop
Because of the high rotation rate and the positive
(rather than automatic) spin recovery technique
required, Van 's Aircraft Inc, recommends that pilots
of RV-6 and RV-6A aircraft limit their intentional
spins to two turns or less, and that recovery from
incipient accidental spins be initiated immediately
upon recognition. Learn the conditions which lead to
accidental spins how to recognize the onset of a spin,
and how to immediately and subconsciously stop an
incipient spin. Then fully developed spins, and the
need to recover from them will become less probable.
Span testing like other forms of limit testing, should
only be attempted while wearing a parachute and after
memorizing escape procedures. Memorize anticipated
recovery techniques and act deliberately and calmly
throughout the entry and recovery from the spin.
Perform intentional spins in progressive steps,
starting with immediate recovery after 1/2 turn,
recovery after one turn, etc. Also begin spin testing
with forward C G loadings and proceed to more aft
loadings as satisfactory recoveries are experienced.
All homebuilt RVs should be individually tested
because small variation in configuration can sometimes
greatly affect spin characteristics. This is
particularly true for any variations in vertical
surface areas forward of the aircraft center, and for
changes which may affect airflow over the forward
surfaces and/or the tail surf aces. For example, spin
testing of prototype RVs has shown that spin
characteristics differ noticeably with wheel and gear
leg fairings installed or removed. The vertical area
of these components located forward of the center of
rotation of the airplane causes a destabilizing effect
which degrades spin recovery. There are after-market
gear leg fairings being marketed which are wider than
those tested and supplied by Van's Aircraft. Because
spin testing has shown that a small changes such as
this can cause a noticeable change in spin recovery
builders are advised to use caution when making
changes such as this to their RVs.
One often cited example of how small alterations
affect spin characteristics is that of the Beechcraft
Musketeer. The early production airplanes had an
engine cowling with a rather abrupt transition
(squared off ) from its top to side surfaces. A later
version had a reshaped cowl which had a smoother
transition between the top and side cowl surfaces. The
result was that while in a spin mode, the cross flow
over the cowl now produced more lift and held the nose
up, inhibiting spin recovery. As with all other areas
of testing; don't make any assumptions! Rrecommended
spin test altitude is between 6 000' and 8,000 AGL to
allow plenty of altitude margin for recovery.
Inverted spins were not tested because the prototype
test aircraft were not equipped for inverted f light.
**Vans Aircraft Inc. Does not consider spins to be a
recreational acrobatic maneuver and recommends that
they not be casually undertaken. ***
Dan Checkoway wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>
>
>>All this talk about spin recovery, has anyone looked in the manual to see
>>what Van's has said about spin recovery? I know its there in my 8 manual
>>but dont remember what it says exactly. Maybe someone has a few minutes
>>
>>
>can
>
>
>>look it up.......Dan?
>>
>>
>
>We all have manuals...mine is at the hangar, where I'm not at the moment.
>Call it homework for anybody who hasn't read it already and can't recite it
>from memory. ;-)
>
>do not archive
>)_( Dan
>
>
>
--
Scott VanArtsdalen
Van Arts Consulting Services
3848 McHenry Ave
Suite #155-184
Modesto, CA 95356
209-986-4647
Ps 34:4,6
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 24 volt batteries |
--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
George Steube wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" <at6c@bellsouth.net>
>
>I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building.
>
Why??? The battery is heavier and things like light bulbs, equipment
(like a T&B) etc. are going to be more expensive. Please tell me what
benefit a 24V system is??
Linn
do not archive
> I am
>looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also
>plan to firewall mount the battery tray. Any suggestions. Thanks.
>George
>
>
>
>
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: 24 volt batteries |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 02:06 PM 11/19/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" <at6c@bellsouth.net>
>
>I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building. I am
>looking for a sealed battery that will fit in Van's batteries tray. I also
>plan to firewall mount the battery tray.
You will have a hard time finding a 24 volt battery. Two 12 volt
batteries will be much easier to find.
The Hawker Genisis is a pretty good choice. Here is a link:
http://www.dmstech.co.uk/hawker.htm
Also, the SVR brand are quite good:
http://www.svrbatteries.com/battery_page.php?bid=1&vid=-1
I doubt if you will find high-current lightweight batteries in the
correct size to fit the stock battery box. It's tough to find the
high-current batteries at all. You will likely end up building a custom
battery box.
> Any suggestions. Thanks.
>George
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Eustace Bowhay" <ebowhay@jetstream.net>
Jeff's post re Dynon order and charge to his CC is not the normal way that
Van operates and for me it needed an explanation. I called Van's today to
order some parts for a friend and in the process talked to Barbara a long
time employee in the office and the explanation is as follows.
Because of the long waiting time for the Dynon units Van has none in stock
and places the orders with Dynon to be shipped direct to the customer. Van's
may not be advised of the shipping date and units get shipped without
payment. That is the reason they need payment on receipt of the order.
Anything ordered from Van's and shipped from Van's final payment is
collected at time of shipment in the normal way.
Eustace Bowhay Blind Bay, B.C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> 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 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: 24 volt batteries |
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 06:05 PM 11/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> RV-List message posted by: linn walters <lwalters2@cfl.rr.com>
>
>George Steube wrote:
>
> >--> RV-List message posted by: "George Steube" <at6c@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >I would like to use a 24 volt system on the RV-8 I am building.
> >
>Why??? The battery is heavier
Actually, the battery will not be heavier. Your starter will
require a fixed amount of horsepower. A 24 volt starter takes twice the
volts but half the amps. The battery will have twice as many plates, but
each will have half the surface area. It all comes out in the wash.
> and things like light bulbs, equipment
>(like a T&B) etc. are going to be more expensive.
This is very true.
> Please tell me what
>benefit a 24V system is??
Thinner wire is lighter. Motors are lighter. Alternator "should"
be lighter. Relays are lighter. With used avionics, 24 volt is often less
expensive.
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Did you notice that it has an integrated magnetic base? I wonder if you
can find a place on the glareshield far enough away from the compass or
maybe one could dig out the magnet (probably voiding the warrantee).
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Buchanan
Subject: Re: RV-List: Blue mountain EFIS Lite G3 vs. Dynon EFIS-D10A
--> RV-List message posted by: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
N13eer@aol.com wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: N13eer@aol.com
>
> For anyone looking for an external GPS to drive a GRT, take a look at
> the Garmin GPS-18. It is designed to hook to a laptop so it does not
> have a display. It looks like an antenna but it contains all the
> electronics. The -18 is a smaller WAAS version of the GPS-35 that
> has been around for years. You can find them for around $150 so I
> see no reason to buy the GRT internal GPS.
If the GPS18 is as good as the GPS35, it will be a fine receiver. I have
been using the GPS35 for nearly three years and it has proved to be rock
solid.
Here is a link to the GPS18 for $84.95:
http://www.gpscity.com/gps/brados/3361.3.3617845596012577063/OEM18PC.htm
l
Sam Buchanan
http://thervjournal.com
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 |
|
"'owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com '"@matronics.com
--> RV-List message posted by: Wheeler North <wnorth@sdccd.cc.ca.us>
Bill, interesting that this is published so. I still don't agree though in
spite of that.
First the specs for the two always bear out my statement that coarse threads
need more rotational torque to get equivalent clamping force.
Second, a screw is an inclined plane wrapped around a rod. If one changes
the threads per inch one is changing the ratio of the vector forces on the
inclined plane by changing the length of the incline, where horizontal force
is measured in rotational torque, and vertical force is measured as clamping
force.
If one inch of vertical distance has 28 threads wrapped around a 1/4" rod
rather than 20 wraps then it will be a ratio of 1:1/4Pi x 28 vs 1:1/4Pi x
20.
Not sure how this book arrived at this but one can easily test it. Take two
equal bolts, one coarse and one fine and torque them on a stack of washers
to various equal settings and measure the stretch. I may test this for fun
and to set up a lab demo, but I can assure you that I have found fine
threads much easier to twist off and fail the bolt, more than I care to
admit.
The reason the engine manufacturer uses coarse thread studs is the fine
threads in aluminum are not physically strong enough at their bases. The
advantage of studs is that since they are force fit they load the aluminum
threads into compression, so for them to fail they need to be pulled hard
enough to over come that compression and then overcome the shear strength of
the thread.
Hence the rule, never replace a stud with a bolt. They are also one of the
more rare applications where studs of two thread sizes are commonly used.
The coarse portion goes into the aluminum case and the fine goes into the
steel nut.
W
Time: 03:07:30 PM PST US
From: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: RV-List: Torque
--> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
At 11:56 AM 11/17/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>The reason is with the exception of reciprocating engines most aircraft
>fasteners are fine thread, most auto fasteners are coarse thread. Since the
>torque values are much higher for NCT to get equal clamping force, one's
arm
>doesn't need to be that sensitive to get fairly close.
It turns out that the pitch of the thread drops out of the
equation. The clamping force is a function of the diameter, torque, and the
surface friction. Surprisingly, the thread pitch is not a factor.
T = K x Fi x d
where T = torque, K ~ 0.20, Fi = clamping force, d = bolt diameter
(Page #378, Mechanical Engineering Design, Shigley and Mitchell, 1983,
McGraw Hill)
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! --
|